Assumptions and Challenges

I've finished reading an article by George Veletsianos and Royce Kimmons about the Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship written in 2012. With five years of change since this piece was written, I looked for shifts in understanding from this article.

They describe the current and emerging stances around open scholarship. This includes

• publication in open access journals
• providing and using open educational resources while leading and engaging in open courses and open teaching practices
• managing and maintaining a digital presence in networked participatory spaces

These forms of open scholarship are founded on ideologies and assumptions. These include:

• open scholarship has an ideology rooted in democracy, human rights, and justice
• open scholarship emphasizes digital participation focused on improved scholarly outcomes
• open scholarship is co-evolved with technological advancements
• open scholarship is a practical & effective way to achieve socially valuable scholarly aims

The authors continue to critically examine the unintended consequences.

Open scholarship requires a paradigm shift in "the ways we think about education, knowledge, learning, teaching and research" (p. 181). Future research needs to continue to explore the assumptions using "both theoretical and empirical approaches" while sharing the challenges that individuals face while engaging in open scholarship.

Opening Up

I've just re-read an article by Catherine Cronin - Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. I've reflected on Cronin's work on open educational practice before [Cronin Comes into Focus]. This is a piece that I will come back to from time to time since it feeds my research and SoTL directions - "critical approaches to openness are required".

I returned to this piece after a 'trigger' conversation from a hangout held recently. In this general discussion about educational technology in our teaching practice, there appears to be pushback from students who find it challenging to engage in multiple digital spaces within a course of study. The issue brought forward, that created a feeling of discomfort for me, was that of multiple sites for locating information about course content. Since this is exactly what I require and model in each of my courses, I paid particular attention to these comments. The issue appears to be the navigation from closed LMS spaces to open web spaces where similar but not identical information is presented. Conflicting information from one location (LMS) to another (web site) was challenging the students to make sense of what, where, when, and how to complete the course requirements. Mirroring the LMS into open web spaces with consistency and attention to detail is challenging at best, and a web designer or course creator's major concern. Ensuring that the due dates, assignment descriptions, and the specific requirements for each element of the course need to be consistently communicated in each location. With responsive and agile course design, this can be particularly challenging.

As I struggle with this issue - since I firmly believe that course content should live outside the LMS space. I struggle with the LMS requirements from the organizational standpoint. How can I continue to support student success with open course design when the students themselves are pushing back on the open nature of course design? Where can the shift for simplification be reversed to one where complexity and messiness, and an attitude of 'not-yetness' are accepted (Ross & Collier). I'm struggling with this negotiation of open learning while balancing student needs, learning success, and well being. My messy learning opportunities with open and emerging web technologies may not be what students want, need or welcome. How do I find out what students 'really' need? How do I balance that with what I really 'want' to see happen in my teaching practice? Tough questions for self reflection.... more opening up to come.

References:

Cronin, C. (2017, October 17). Open education, open questions. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/10/open-education-open-questions 

Cronin, C. (2017, August). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), 18(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3096/4301

Ross, J. & Collier, A. (2016). Complexity, mess, and not-yetness. In G. Veletsianos (2012) Emergence and innovation in digital learning. AU Press. DOI: doi:10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 Retrieved from http://www.veletsianos.com/2016/06/14/complexity-mess-not-yetness/

The Functional Art - continued

I've finished reading the book The Functional Art by Alberto Cairo. Now I'm reflecting and recreating the content as visualizations - sketch note graphics.

Here is the image done for Chapter 3 The Beauty Paradox: Art and Communication.

Here is the image done for Chapter 4 The Complexity Challenge: Presentation and Exploration.

Tensions

Since the previous article I've read made reference to tensions in the spaces between complexity and simplexity in online learning spaces, it's time I took some time to watch Caroline Kuhn's webinar
Tensions concerning personal open designs and institutional closed artefacts in a HE Institution. 

There will be some continuity in thinking between Ross & Collier's article and this work, I think.

I'll capture my notes from this video on a 'vialogue' for further collaborations and discussion. [with the inherent issues of accounts, access, privileges, permissions, etc - the price of annotations in the open]. The Vialogue notes can be found HERE. 

Complexity, messiness and 'not-yetness'

This title refers to a book chapter from Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning (Veletsianos, G. 2016) that I've just read. It's Complexity, Mess, and Not-Yetness from Jen Ross and Amy Collier. In this chapter they tackle the utopian vs dystopian narratives currently found in digital technology - from tech determinism to tech imperatives. They suggest a shift away from simplistic narratives and binary reductionism to build on three dimensions of emerging technologies in education - design, embodiment and socio-political contexts of accountability. They argue for messiness in thinking and practice, for working within complexity and being productive within 'not-yetness' (p 20).

First - designing online learning with emerging tech should be 'born digital' not application of face to face experiences transferred to online spaces. Instructors and designers should examine how to thrive in the tensions between complexity and rigidity e.g. "How might instructors design for complexity in learning in spite of these rigidities?" (p. 20). This includes the use of asynchronous, multimodal, collaborative, using speed, brevity, serendipity as pedagogical possibilities. Designing with a 'born digital' perspective means "embracing the open web as a vehicle for complexity and emerging practice (p. 21). Examples such as DoOO and Rhizo14 are shared, where 'emerging' is not fully understood or set in stone.

This connects for me in terms of the CDL course design that was 'born digital' and continues to live digital - in all it's messiness and complexity. Some of the students are enjoying the experience, thriving on the loose, less rigid, multiple means of expression. Others are challenged in this type of environment - requiring more guidance, structure and frequent 'announcements, emails, and notices' to keep themselves organized in the 'flow' of the course. Since I've been there, done that, know the experiences as a student (with the MET program) it's easier for me to live in this complex, messiness than other instructors could/would be.

Second - Ross and Collier examine the messiness that is the 'embodiment' of the instructor within emerging tech spaces. Face to face embodiment involves issues relevant to power, gender, race, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc - all of which disappears in digital teaching spaces, where it's believed that the 'body is left behind'. [This specifically links to the COI model of instructor presence, which isn't mentioned here.] Emerging tech and immersive environments further the need to examine the embodiment of 'instructor' through the use of avatars and digital representations. Relating to this is Audrey Watters' writing about the importance of 'bodies' when we learn in communities. Ross and Collier conclude this section by stating that "theories of online embodiment should acknowledge the complex interplay between physical bodies, the digital objects that are constructed or perceived as the instructor's online body, and the online learners and their physical and digital bodies" (p. 24).

This connects to my current work as both a face to face instructor AND an online instructor - how I use my 'presence' in each space is dramatically different. In the online course, I reach out and 'meet' each of the students in a google hangout just so they have a sense of ME as the instructor. In the physical classroom, I sit down at the table or wander around the room as conversations and technologies are being used so this 'embodiment' is still challenging but differently. The 'negotiation' required in the online, digital sessions requires agreement between student and instructor to determine the time, space, location. In-class 'embodiment' requires little negotiation or navigation.

Third - Ross and Collier address the idealogical framework and current cultural context in which emerging tech is bound - where there exists "narrow views of how products and services can demonstrate value to consumers" (p. 24). This tackles the messy issues of value propositions, return on investment (ROI) and accountability (what counts, counting clicks and time). Mechanisms of data collection, learning analytics and data trails aim to simplify the learning equations, where 'what counts as learning' is not always what is counted or revealed in the data. Within teaching and research with emerging technologies, the messiness should be exploited and complexity embraced. Narrow outcomes don't capture the lived experiences or holistic learning, often closing off areas worth investigating or exploring, privileging some while failing to acknowledge others. This heightens the need for qualitative approaches to contribute richer pictures of learning in emerging tech spaces that 'accountability-based analytics' can provide.

For me, this echoes the feelings I have in managing the 'click' tracking that can be done within an LMS juxtaposed with the fluid data trails found in the open, exploratory spaces such as Twitter, Slack, and web productions. This 'collecting evidence' is time consuming but I do it as a model for 'reflective practice' in digital spaces. Keeping a record of what I said, when I did it, what I was thinking, while I was doing it, are all pieces that are default mode for me. This is not true for my students. Curating and managing their own data trail through a course is not something they've ever done - most courses they consume information and producing disposable assignments. Keeping a record, journal, copy/paste of digital contributions is an add-on for them, where it's a next step for me. This is a messy practice, many switch-backs, rechecks, revisions as I collect, curate and manage the digital trails for the students. The technology supports this, but the technology cannot do the analysis and reflection for me - or the students. It is their 'lived experience' in the confined and open spaces of the course - a reverse map of their digital journey through the course. 

Finally, Ross and Collier share their purpose - to "persuade you that what we need in the practice, conceptualization, and investigation of digital education is MORE rather than LESS complexity and mess. For me, their call to find 'fruitful learning' that can come from "thinking of the body as a relevant site of exploration of the online instructor's role" (p. 27) is a challenge - to think about how emerging and digital technologies opens or closes the image, expression, emotion and connection that individuals have with/from/toward each other in digital spaces. This has direct impact on how we, as instructors, learners, supporters of open educational practices 'dial it up' into the OPEN.

Reference:
Ross, J. & Collier, A. (2016). Complexity, mess, and not-yetness. In G. Veletsianos (2012) Emergence and innovation in digital learning. AU Press. DOI: doi:10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 Retrieved from http://www.veletsianos.com/2016/06/14/complexity-mess-not-yetness/

Open dialogue in the classroom

This is a bit of a reflection on things done in class, how they were done and why these teaching decisions were made.

• creative story telling activities done over a few weeks - one of the students just wrote a blog post about these activities and the impact of these activities to her learning

• making rubrics in class - applied to digital storytelling - conversations while they were doing this - I had four working groups gathered around large chart paper; I wandered from group to group to respond to points, challenges and discussions. This created conversations about having time to practice something before they were evaluated on it - as they had a rubric due for another instructor without having any time or opportunity to explore & experiment in guided practice.

These items, from the eyes and voices of my students are NOT items I would take into the open. These are personal, reflective and focused on my relationship with these students. Not open for open publication. But important for the feeling of openness within the classroom in terms of topics of conversation. 

Practice in opening things

I'm marking assignments today - it's often an effort to open documents that are locked, privacies and permissions not opened to allow others to engage. This time it's in Mindomo concept maps that students have created to 'map out' their inquiry projects before the finalize their information into a logically sequenced presentation. Mindomo's default setting is to keep it locked and private. In order to share a map the settings need to be changed and then passwords can be added to allow others to access with the appropriate code.

Despite the fact that I have sent a 'how to guide' out to the students in order to allow access, many have not completed those steps prior to submitting their URL in D2L or Slack. There are multiple requests over time to multiple users (students) to open their access. As my students begin to realize the code-breaking and the navigational elements of opening stuff - their google docs, slides, Mindomo maps - they'll become more aware of how to USE permissions and privacy settings to their advantage. For now, it's a practice in patience as I teach and learn about 'opening things'!

IMAGE of the 'how to guide' [created in Canva] to open permissions and sharing in Mindomo.

This Messy Web

I've just finished reading an article by Postill and Pink titled Social Media Ethnography: The Digital Researcher in a Messy Web. It's appropriate that this happened immediately following the OEOFellows retreat in Toronto this past weekend since it brings new insights into "making connections between online and locality-based realities". With social media and real-life events intertwining in what I do in open contexts, not only my course work at the university, but also in a variety of digital communities, it's important for me to step back and look at the messy interconnections and weavings of these virtual and physical interactions. This environment, for my action research project, will need to consider the dispersed and changing localities (Postill & Pink, 2012) of the study. There will be a "constant sense of becoming through practice and practical knowledge" (Postill & Pink, p 127).

The everyday routines outlined by Postill & Pink are described as catching up, sharing, exploring, interacting and archiving. This is how I, as researcher in action, will produce knowledge and create elements of this ethnographic place (Postill & Pink p. 128). Media making is part of how I will create and maintain relationships. This is evident in the blog post I wrote the morning after the retreat where I capture the essence of the event, created a remixed video in Animoto of all the tweets I had captured from the day of the retreat, and shared the Twitter connections for those who are OERFellows as well as those with eCampus Ontario who will support the group.

Postill & Pink make reference to hashtag sociality to identify and group the conversation into an organized timeline where people can 'convey, relay and discover information' (p 131). This became apparent in our quest, as OER Fellows, to have a unique hashtag with which to identify ourselves. Since OER does not fully describe what we hope to accomplish in our roles as fellows, I selected and proposed (through the blog post and video production) that #OEOFellows (an extension of the OEORangers from last spring) and #GlisteningLearningFish (from our mad lib activity) be adopted to tag and collect our Twitter conversations. This becomes an example of the hybrid sociality Postill & Pink describe, where the participants in the group gain a mediated sense of contextual fellowship (p 132) through the hashtags that share their story.

This same struggle that I describe here within the OEOFellows group is similar to that in my digital teaching spaces, other physical and virtual communities in which I engage (AKGTCanada, Voiced Radio, Virtually Connecting, CLMOOC, Creative Commons and Lakehead Faculty of Education). It's important to find ways to build the connections into meaningful storylines in social media spaces. For my courses, I use a Twitter account with @ to share tweets but also use a hashtag to collect conversational threads.

It's the messiness of the interrelatedness, interconnectedness and inter-weavings that often leave me wondering about place and space, relationships and participation. It's not just a community of practice as described by Wenger & Lave when they state that "the idea that learning ‘is a process of participation in communities of practice, participation that is at first legitimately peripheral but that increases gradually in engagement and complexity’." Nor is this hybrid sociality similar to the engagement in community within affinity spaces as described by James Paul Gee.

It's more complicated and complex - in this messy web.

References

Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context (Vol. 9780521836432, pp. 214-232). Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

Postill, J. & Pink, S. (2012). Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web. Retrieved from http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/files/2013/04/Postill-Pink-socialmedia-ethnography.pdf

Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009) ‘Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice’, the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.

PLE or PLN - what's the difference

This is it in one graphic - PLE is the environment while PLN is the people in the network.

Personal learning environment and Personal learning network

Back to research

So... what is my research question? I'm revisiting this before meeting with the other OER Fellows in Toronto on Saturday.

How does the application of critical digital literacies inform my open knowledge construction at a Faculty of Education, as I negotiate the complex, personal and contextual teaching and learning landscapes of open educational spaces?

Key elements:

Critical DL

1. code breaking
2. meaning making
3. using & problem solving
4. analyzing
5. persona

Open knowledge construction in open educational spaces

• building understanding - using social media & LMS spaces
• negotiations between personal and professional - Cronin's macro, micro, meso, nano layers
• dial-it-up graphic

Complexity; networking; decisions made and reflective actions

• use of D2L - why I don't step into this space unless I have to (part of code breaking issues - figuring out how to use it on my own)
• use of Slack - why, how, use
• use of Twitter - 
• use of blogging
• use of inquiry projects 
• use of digital storytelling
• external influences and impacts on course design and delivery

NOW: 

• data collection has started but is it the right data? 
• What am I not considering? 
• where will this be 'published'? or will there be more than one possible publication result?

Webinars... oh my!

So Jenni sent a reminder out today for our upcoming OER Fellows day long 'retreat' to meet. It'll be the first time we get together and learn together. She also reminded us that we should be prepared to share our research plan and a webinar idea we have.

So, after reading Tony Bate's blog post That Was 2017 in Online Learning, I'm re-framing my thinking. Tony writes that "There’s a long way to go with open educational resources". He identifies five key points about why OER is not as prevalent as it should be. The point that caught my attention speaks to my work as an OER Fellow:
"stop thinking of OER as something different from everything else on the Internet; all open content has value, whether it is specifically designed for educational purposes or not; this means coming up with course design models that exploit open content for the purpose of developing 21st century skills such as knowledge management, analysis of source reliability, etc."
The next point he makes is that "Instructor training in teaching remains a huge problem" with the following statement providing a HUGE aha moment for me:

"less than half the instructors based their innovation on a theory of learning or a change of teaching method to produce different outcomes, such as skills development. Without a grounding in pedagogy and a knowledge of the research into how people learn, it is impossible for most instructors to see the real potential of digital technology for improving their teaching"

I forget that what comes naturally to me, after a lifetime in the field of education, is the underlying, implicit and tacit knowledge I bring to my course design, delivery and teaching strategies. My mediation and decision making with digital teaching and learning is based on years of experience with educators of all ages and stages. This is my gift to give.

Further to this, I'm thinking there may be some ways to focus my particular skill set into the  webinars. Since eCampus Ontario managers are already doing a Bento Box series where new e-tech tools are shared, there really isn't a need for a WHAT style webinar. It's time to shift my thinking to the WHY webinar.

• Why would you integrate media into your course syllabus - the visual syllabus shared in the Catch is a model and one example.
• Why would you stop marking and grading in open learning? links to Jesse Stommel, Laura Gibbs and Dave Cormier's work comes to mind.
• Why would you post your course openly on a blog or web site? thinking beyond powerpoint presentations comes to mind; iterations of course content over time to suit learner needs
• Why should UDL matter in course design? linking in new frameworks for UDL from CAST
• Why SECTIONS should guide your decisions of tech integrations into course delivery.
• Why digital literacies should be integrated into EVERY course.

More info about the SECTIONS model is found in Tony's book Teaching in a Digital Age Chapter 8.

Wayfinding in Digital Spaces?
Media Making Matters?
PLN's and PLE's: Critical decision making in building your digital teaching persona?

So.... I'm OPEN

Today, Jenni Hayman sent out a message in the ECHO group with a link to the WikiEducator Research/Open Educators Factory site. This describes a project about open education and lead me onto a web tool to self assess & rate your individual openness.

The graphic results are provided immediately, along with some recommendations for readings and viewing to extend your learning. So, I guess I'm not really surprised, but it turns out... I'm an open designer, OER user, open teacher AND and open evaluator.

Open Educator is defined as:

An Open Educator choses to use open approaches, when possible and appropriate, with the aim to remove all unnecessary barriers to learning. She works through an open online identity and relies on online social networking to enrich and implement her work, understanding that collaboration bears a responsibility towards the work of others.

An Open Educator implements openness along four main activities. She:

1. Implements Open Learning Design, by openly sharing ideas and plans about her teaching activities with experts and with past and potential students, incorporating inputs and transparently leaving a trace of the development process.

2. Uses open educational content, by releasing her teaching resources through open licenses, by facilitating sharing of her resources through OER repositories and other means, and by adapting, assembling and using OERs produced by others in her teaching.

3. Adopts Open Pedagogies, fostering co-creation of knowledge by students through online and offline collaboration, allowing learners to contribute to public knowledge resources such as Wikipedia.

4. Implements open assessment practices such as peer and collaborative evaluation, open badges and e-portfolios, engaging students as well as external stakeholders in learning assessment.

Despite that result based on a handful of questions, I'm still not sure about my 'status' as an open educator. As I've been exploring the 'dial it up' model, there are steps and mechanisms to shift my teaching and learning further into the open, but those will need to considered carefully and negotiated. My open means that my students, colleagues and institution are also 'dialing it up' with me. Where do ethics and privacy come into this equation and how can open be balanced with safer internet practices?

Why didn't I think of that!

I'm working on adding articles to Zotero this morning and came across a research piece done in the UK about open media classes at Conventry University in the UK. It caught my attention because of one of the names involved in this photography course - Jonathan Worth. I'd gotten to know about his work in open photography through a Virtually Connecting hangout.

As I'm peeking into the site where the course is described and results are outlined, I'm thinking of the connections to my own work in the MDL4000 course. That's when one statement hit me and I'm thinking - why didn't I think of that!

• move from broadcast model to collaborative and connected interactions
• inclusion of open students, working professionals and enthusiastic amateurs in conversations and feedback

When I meet teachers at conferences or talk to them about my course work, the often ask how they could take my course. I never made a connection to offering their participation in the course during the timeframe my own students are doing the course. It would be so easy to build external (outside of Lakehead University spaces) participation if I were to 'offer' this course to others as I teach it internally to the teacher candidates.

The #netNarr course that Alan Levine and Mia Zamora are currently teaching is done just like that! Why didn't I think of that! It may be too late for the MDL4000 course since it's on it's way out and wouldn't be sustainable in it's full year framework. But the 3239CDL course could certainly be opened to working professionals - not as an AQ formatted course since that requires university approval - as an open offering to engage with others in open digital spaces for self directed, self driven learning. I will need to think about this and talk to Mia and Alan to see how they've framed their course to engage others in openly connecting with their students.

Reference

Digital Alchemy and Networked Narratives http://netnarr.arganee.world/ 

McGill, L., & Gray, T. (2015). Open media classes at Coventry University. Jisc Final Evaluation Report 2015. Retrieved from http://comc.loumcgill.co.uk  

Striving towards openness

Today I read an article written by Viv Rolfe - someone I've been following on Twitter and listening to in Virtually Connecting hangouts. This research paper shares five elements of openness as gained from faculty interviews. These interviews were analyzed through an "interpretive lens" (something I'll need to investigate to learn more about). This work is linked to work done by Farrow (2016) where openness is described "not as a binary quality or value attributed to one activity or feature, such as cost or licensing terms, but as a 'constellation of elements'" (p. 76). These five elements are:

1. personal practice - open having a personal benefit in enhancing the practice of teaching; part of a community of practice
2. learner benefits - open serving to address accessibility issues; open providing access to education; supporting the digital learner and developing open literacies; open to promote science at open-days
3. content - OER creation by teaching staff; OER creation by students; OER reuse/dismantling; OER sharing; knowledge of open licenses; open licenses for more control over your resources
4. institution - institutional OER agenda and policy; tension with institutional priorities
5. value and culture - openness as a personal value; openness as a trait within the community "the spirit of open"; culture of open within the university

The interesting inclusion in this article are the key messages that can be used to communicate - which could be applied to the work of eCampus Ontario in their work with promotion of openness in higher education.

1. "Open education is a means of enhancing your teaching practice, and allows you to participate in communities beyond your institution."
2. "Open educational resource in their truest sense provide accessible materials for students; these practices widen access in education and support diversity. Engaging in co-creation of open educational resources will support digital literacy development for your learners."
3. "By creating content you will understand (technical) and legal aspects of applying open licenses; open licenses will help you keep control over your resources and specify how you'd like them to be used."
4. "(Research suggests that policy alone is less motivating for staff, but culture and support is.)"
5. "Engaging in open education will catalyze change within your teams and institution; you will connect with global open communities united by "the spirit of open"".

If there is an opportunity to share these elements with the OER Fellows, the eCampus team and/or the #OEORangers, I will do so.

Reference

Farrow, R. (2016). Constellations of openness. In M. Deimann & M. Peters, (Eds.), The philosophy and theory of open education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 

 
Rolfe, V. (2017, November). Striving toward openness: But what do we really mean? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning  (18), 7. 

Purposeful Play

The application of OPEN learning in my work returned to some purposeful play in the physical classroom this past week. The students are digging into the beginning pre-production phase of their digital storytelling project. This stage includes concept mapping their ideas into a 'story map' using Mindomo. As part of this work we had a period of time of purposeful play in class. The purpose was to create a concept map of their understanding of digital storytelling after reading and discussing this topic. First step - signing up as a 'teacher' so their use of this digital tool can continue into their next placement and beyond. Then code-breaking within the space while completing the task. They immediately shared their findings and how to accomplish elements in the creation of their maps. Some went further to partner in the digital space with another person in the class. Others used the presentation option to extend their learning. Some returned to their readings and discussion notes to make sense of the topic.

The second OPENLY shared purposeful play came from creating radio bumpers for VoiceEd Radio. This was to support the first anniversary radio-thon planned for the following Saturday. The script for the bumpers were pre-written so knowing what to say was eliminated as a barrier. The 10 second message was randomly distributed to pairs of students so they didn't have to 'go it alone'. They could record the message together, take turns, or one individual could be the 'voice' while the other managed the technology. The intention was to add a music intro, as a hook, and multitrack audio production using either Audacity, GarageBand or other audio recording tools. Since this activity was device agnostic and non-tool specific, students could select and apply the tech they had available to them. Knowing that their audience would reach beyond our classroom spaces added an additional purpose to this learning task.

The third purposeful play event was the collection of images to create a video to accompany a song. The song was played in class without seeing the accompanying music video. This was done in order to assist in the visualization of images to support the voice/music. The song lyrics had been collected and imported into a Google spreadsheet, shared openly to the students. They selected a portion of the song to collect and curate images. Then the students went to any of the open, creative commons licensed locations for images (Pixabay, Unsplash, Morguefiles, Flickr CC) to find images for their section of the song. The purpose of this task was to get students into these image warehouses to code break the site mechanisms for image curation. These may or may not become locations for them to apply image collections for their digital story production. The play had purpose - experiences with image selection, script development, directions for film production and sequencing of image URLs.

Purposeful play has a space in any classroom as a way to dip into a topic, learning experience or assignment skill development. It removes barriers and supports students as they learn, build skills and demonstrate their learning in culminating tasks.