This works very well.

What's the purpose of this image? What does it relate to? It has no obvious illustrative function.

How would the participants in your workshop know how to leverage this web resource via the "keywords" they have generated? There's no causal or relational link between their "keywords" and this resource. What do you expect them to do?

This doesn't work. These materials need to be provided when they are required (e.g. in Step 3). There's a bigger issue, however, which is that the reference materials will need quite some time to read and digest. They would have to be read and understood by the peers long before the workshop started. There's also the additional (major) issue that only 3 of the 7 weblinks you give are open sources, so only 3 are admissiable as part of this OER.

It doesn't, at least not here. It's not clear what the learner is supposed to do as there are no resources to work with here,

You need to embed this as an active hyperlink URL

You need to embed this as an active hyperlink URL

You need to embed this as an active hyperlink URL like so https://creativecareers.artstogetherleeds.co.uk/networks/

This is not open access - you need to remove it from the OER as it's not an OER.

This is not an open resource - it's actually an advert for this company (EAP). Please remove it.

This is not open access - you need to remove it from the OER as it's not an OER.

This is not open access - you need to remove it from the OER as it's not an OER.

???? This doesn't make any sense. There are no websites listed above Step 4

Such as? Again, your OER toolkit needs to begin this process, it can't be left entirely to the learner.

What sort of solutions? This OER toolkit would need to at least begin to provide answers here.

Which peers? You do not specify if the workshop is peer led. Who would be a "peer" for such a workshop? You need to be clear about this.

Major issue here is that this open toolkit does not provide access to multiple websites and resources. It doesn't provide any links whatsover. So not at all clear how it allows learners to link their keywords with resources. What do you mean to say and do here?

What's the purpose of this image? What does it relate to? It has no obvious illustrative function.

What's the purpose of this image? What does it relate to? It has no obvious illustrative function.

This open toolkit provides access to multiple websites and resources concerning arts careers. By tracking keywords, it aims to reshape your understanding of career opportunities within the arts sector and identify effective solutions to address your specific “keyword” challenges.

This isn't a step, it's a statement of intent - it's what the toolkit aims to do. Step 3 needs to explain how to track the keywords, why they are being "tracked" and to what ends they are being tracked...

"Sticky notes" need to be listed on an inventory of materials (= "ingredients" when we did the "Make Gold" workshop). The materials inventory needs to be at the top of the toolkit.

The keywords need to be capture while you are talking - that means either you a) make your own notes as you speak OR b) someone else is the 'scribe' and they make notes of the keywords on sticky notes.

Neither you/the scribe will be able to do this unless you first have a full inventory of materials required for the workshop that includes pens, stickynotes, paper, etc.

Formatting: Consider a space so that a) is on a different line to or and b) on another line

introduce to whom? is this a group workshop? Who is being introduced?

It might be worth having some open source follow up research and reading for learners to engage with? e.g. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/improving-university-students-mental-health-using-multi-component/

Tactile - transferal of ruminations to the object.

This is good - you could recommend using OSM (Open Street Maps)

Might be better here to say find a manhole cover that is not in the middle of a road? The neighborhood doesn't HAVE to be familiar does it? That's a constraint we do not really need here.

Why does this have to be shared? To what end? The images are not connected (different covers, different places, entirely different systems of infrastructure, etc.) so offer no learning insights.

How is it shared in a way that makes it findable online? The user could post the image anywhere and it would never be found by another user... Again, here you have a node (image) being posted with no ties (hyperlinks, shared space for depositing images).

Again, looking at a single node does not allow anyone to understand the presence of a network. The node must be tied to another (manhole).

Again, crucially, the learning steps do not engage with the concept of "urban life". (Moreover, manholes are found in rural settings, so they are not exclusively "urban").

The manhole is not "urban" in the way you assume. The manhole covers are nodes in a network, with connections (ties) to other manhole covers. We can identify what they connect to by searching, sleuthing for others that look the same.... If we search for them, we start to map the network (the ties between nodes).

This could be a toolkit that helps users detect clusters of infrastructure density and understand hidden connectivity, etc. As it is, it offers no learning in this sense.

"Re-understsand" - understand? The learning steps do not engage with the urban infrastructure. The manhole covers are portals into a vast underground network of cables, pipes and tunnels. You don't mention this vital fact or that each manhole cover connects to another. Making a rubbing of a single manhole cover fails to make any connection to a) what lies beneath b) the network that the manhole is part of. The manhole is, essentially, a node among many ties. You need to get this across in the steps.

or a different form of education perhaps ("informal education")

I don't think this is a good way of reflecting on life. It is not a "goal" really - happiness is an "industry". See "The Happiness Myth: Why What We Think Will Make Us Happy Never Does by Jennifer Michael Hecht.

I don't think the "choices" are varied enough to represent much of "life". The path is very very limited. For e.g. university is dominant as a stage in the game. Globally, only 12-15% of the population go to university. 85% of the world do not necessarily choose NOT to go (although it might be a conscious choice for some), most do not have the opportunity to go to university at all. The life path you set out, thus, excludes 85% of the world. The OER you are creating here is for global use, not for an elite 12-15% of the population.

It's also a fallacy that going to university results in employment ("stable job") vs. not going to university. The "choice" of going to university (if we are lucky enough to have such a choice) does not automatically open a door to "venture success". Clearly, 85% of the world who didn't go into higher education are doing something with their life - including being leaders in their fields.

Not sure about the assumption that we make "choices" in life. We don't choose to be born, get sick or die (just three of many examples...) So, there has to be a randomness in the game as well as decisiveness (free-will vs. determinism)...

Things that seem like choices ("have children") might not be (women have children against their will/not out of choice).

There are lots of ways in which the life paths are not diverse enough. e.g. jobs - assumption is that a job is a thing you "get", rather than being something you might create (e.g. being self employed is commonplace for artists).

The relationship/marriage component assumes that a) relationships transform into marriage b) being single is not an option

The space after the marriage decision gateway on both sides is "buy a house". 33% of the world's population do not own their own home. Why are they not represented in this game? Some countries have no culture of buying homes - e.g in Germany long-term renting is the norm. In the UK, only 20% of people under 35 can afford to get a mortgage, nearly all rent. etc....

It might be better to remove the points - they are arbitary (who says what will make who happy?) It gamifies this in ways that are unhelpful to the educational goal of reflecting on life choices/pathways we have no choice over....

Not WeChat - it is not open software (needs to be CC software) There are hundreds of open source e-dice - find one and add the link to it here (delete the WeChat suggestion).

To make this accessible to all readers, left-justify the text (do not 'centre' texts).

To make this accessible to all readers, left-justify the text (do not 'centre' texts).

To make this accessible to machine readers (for the blind), move the emoji to the end...

Is it a group actvity? Seems like it is solo. Maybe better to keep it like that?

Perhaps you could add the links to the R&D you did here so that learners can follow up on the same sources you used to create this workshop?

This is a good disclaimer

This image is GenAI. You cannot use GenAI to create any of your OER. Remove this and use either your own image (created without GenAI) or a CC openly licenced image (providing the full citation for the image).

This is missing a sense of how the participants can manage risk assessment. This is why art therapist train for many years to identify and manage potential risks, such as conflicts, emotional distress, or disclosures of sensitive information. You can't ignore this if you seek to hand such responsibilities to a self-directed group of learner-therapists.

This is the first time group therapy is mentioned. It's not clear at all that this is a group therapy session. It would require special safeguarding measures be in place. Firstly, you'd need to establish (and sign off on) informed consent: provide explicit consent to participate in the group therapy session, understanding the boundaries and expectations. The toolkit wouild have to support creating confidentiality agreements. You woudl also need a qualified therapist to assess each participant's suitability for group therapy, ensuring they are aware of the potential risks and benefits. Then the group would need establish clear guidelines and expectations (akin to the calibrator we worked on). It's difficult to imagine how any of this would work without a qualified therapist to lead the session. If the session were led by a qualified therapist a) it would not be self-directed b) they would not need your open toolkit to help them run the group...

Who does this address? The learner or the facilitator (the is no facilitator) or the therapist (there is not therapist)... This is inconsistent and illogical.

You also mention "The facilitator" here - which suggests another teacher is present in addition to a trained therapist. Again, open toolkits have no teacher or facilitator, so this does not make sense.

You also advocate the use of GenAI here. This is not compatible with the OER so it must be removed on these grounds alone. Moreover, it doesn't equate with art therapy - using your own body to make art is pivotal to art therapy in the psychodynamic sense that you evoke here.

Suggesting how to make something contradicts the earlier emphasis on self-directed making - following this tip would prohibit "authentic" expression.

Why? What's the rationale here?

This is not appropriate. It could trigger the user and put them in danger (e.g. psychological distress, self-harm, etc.) It unpacks too much in a way that cannot be supported by the toolkit (duty of care).

This would require a trained professional (e.g. therapist) to run the workshop. You are not a trained professional and it's not possible to have anyone run an open toolkit (they are self-directed). So it's not appropriate.

This is not what art therapy does. You need to research art therapy first, then consider what aspects of it you might be able to, appropriately, bring to your open toolkit.

This is the 'expressive fallacy' - how do you know when expression is authentic vs. good acting?

Where are these examples? They are not in the toolkit.

This is the 'expressive fallacy' - colours and lines do not simply express anything as such. This is also not what art therapy would argue.

No, there's no "therapist" and no facilitator at all for your open toolkit.

This would require a trained professional (e.g. therapist) to run the workshop. You are not a trained professional and it's not possible to have anyone run an open toolkit (they are self-directed). So it's not appropriate.

In what way is 'being impressed' an example of emotion? Can you frame this in emotive terms - e.g. a positive emotional response to something perceived as remarkable or admirable?

It's not at all clear what 'visual symbols' are here, or why we are preparing them.

This question isn't related to emotion or to mental health. It's inadvisable to mix social issues with emotion as this all too often leads to emotionally manipulative forms of populist politics.

Your links are down. E.g. Handmade creation tutorial here https://media.ed.ac.uk/media/190_1731613563/1_0tgb1mmv does not work. Without a working link Step 1 (2 minutes) has no context and can't be followed.

Which emotions? Concerning what? How do we paste them? What is representing emotion, how?

Why these shapes? What will be happening with them?

Dead link https://588ku.com/sucai/jiandantuxing-47-1/

Without a working link Step 1 (2 minutes) has no context and can't be followed.

You cannot include this since a) it is not in the language of instruction and assessment (English) b) YouTube is not open, thus this invalidates your OER

Why? If the collage is a means of expressing emotion, why does the learner also have to write about this?

Your links are down.

You have not engaged with this concept.

You need to remove the upload link to Miro.

Firstly, Miro is not open source, so the Miro component is not open and can't be part of the OER. Secondly, uploading the collage serves no stated purpose (why upload, to whom?) b) It creates the following ethical issues. Firstly, to collect data in this way you first must ask for and receive Informed Consent https://github.com/mrtayto/antart/wiki/Informed-Consent

You don't explain why you might be collecting the data, nor do you ask for consent. There's then the danger that the uploaded data might include Sensitive Data https://github.com/mrtayto/antart/wiki/Sensitive-Data

If you create or use such digital data, you need to manage that data according to the University's Research Data Management Policy (link). This means you have to inform the learner why you are collecting the data, how it will be securely stored, how it will be anonymised, how you will use it, when and how you will destroy the data. Since you haven't done any of these things, the link has to be removed.

It would be helpful to show that such grottos and local art is global - seen wherever the Catholic church is prominent...

Can be considered to branch off from Christianity, but more accurately is an Abrahamic religion (alongside Christianity and Judaism).

Premodern is pre-Renaissnace. 1800 is too late (decidedly post-Renaissance).

Augmenting knowledge about sources of frustration

Starting a course with explicit acknowledgement of sources of frustration could be helpful. A workshop that enables students to identify and anticipate sources of frustration - plus find ways of mitigating them. Requires going meta immediately!

lack of common learning goals among the student

imbalance in the level of commitment

The implication for instructors is that it is important to to know when intervention is needed in online CSCL and to what degree.

Question of hosting - how much/little facilitation is vital here. The paper recommends regular monitoring of online activities and intervening when clearly required. I wonder if the use of sync Stand-ups to address issues IRT would also help given the issues with attempting to collaborate async?

The instructor should play an active role in the collaborative process. He or she should be proactive in monitoring and intervening in collaborative activities (Chapman & van Auken, 2001; Hansen, 2006) and should ensure that the group works effectively (Tideswell, 2004; Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009) through mechanisms for assistance, feedback, and evaluation.

be aware of sources of frustration and will take corrective actions.

Institutions may supply learning environments that facilitate social interaction and collaboration and assure effective support to students with technological difficulties. Technological difficulties can cause student frustration as well as communication problems, which hamper collaborative processes such as explanations, sharing answers, and negotiation (Ragoonaden & Bordeleau, 2000).

assessment inequities are important sources of frustration; the implication for institutions is that they must conduct a coherent assessment.

CSCL activities should be designed with the aim of guaranteeing a certain level of positive interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1998) and individual accountability (Slavin, 1989) to the students.

students may struggle with the development of a sense of interdependence and intersubjectivity (Lushyn & Kennedy, 2000) and must abandon subjective, individualistic conceptions of learning (Dirkx & Smith, 2004)

students is the need to have realistic expectations and exercise responsibility in course enrollment by ascertaining beforehand the time, effort, prior knowledge, volume, and quality of work required

Preparing the learner for collaboration through instruction and development of the social and group skills necessary to work effectively in a group will have a positive effect upon the collaborative experience (Chapman & van Auken, 2001; Tideswell, 2004).

students’ main source of self-declared frustration is the teammates’ commitment imbalance

explain the interest and objectives of online CSCL activities to the incoming students and provide an introduction to online CSCL and teamwork competencies.

First, there is a need at the institutional level to offer the students information about the learning models in general, and the online CSCL activities specifically, in order to allow them to adjust their expectations, preferences, and decision

Participants expected the instructors to be actively engaged with learners, providing them with clear guidance, expectations, and requirements. This finding confirms that students expected consistent and timely feedback from the instructor (Vonderwell, 2003)

Assigning group grades without attempting to distinguish between individual members of the group is both unfair and deleterious to learning and may in some circumstances even be illegal (Kagan, 1997; Millis & Cottell, 1998).

Most group projects require extra time (Goold, Craig, & Coldwell, 2008), and groups must take responsibility for organizing their collaboration and individual inputs (Lizzio & Wilson, 2005).

participants in the study reported feeling frustrated by the presence of an expert and dominant member who impeded the development of shared understanding and effort.

imbalance in quality of individual contributions leads to frustration. There is no situation of pure knowledge or skills or development symmetry: There are no two individuals in the world with the same knowledge (Dillenbourg, 1999).

Skill in learning collaboratively means knowing when and how to question, inform, and motivate one’s teammates, knowing how to mediate and facilitate conversation, and knowing how to deal with conflicting opinions (McManus & Aiken, 1995).

problems with negotiation skills. Responses mentioned a lack of member attributes that foster relationship building, such as amiability, openness, and respect for others.

connection, contact and sense of reality, and immediate social presence are strong influences as well as the sense of community (Melrose & Bergeron, 2006; Rettie, 2003, Sallnäs, 2004).

conversations are often characterized by multiple and somewhat schizophrenic patterns of interaction.

difficulties with regard to communication as another source of frustration. Communication was reported to be essential in keeping group members focused on their responsibilities in relation to the common goal

Having unshared goals among the teammates of the group is the second most important factor

Social loafing behavior creates an imbalance of effort and participation (Goold, Craig, & Coldwell, 2008), such that free riders (Kerr & Bruun, 1983) are able to take advantage of the contributions of others

A common frustrating experience was associated with a poor work ethic and with some members who did not fulfill their obligations. Creating more work for the other members in the group is the direct consequence.

Some students coming to online collaborative learning for the first time do not care for the idea of group work and can be apathetic or even on occasion actively hostile to the whole idea (Roberts & McInnerney, 2007). Students struggle with the development of a sense of interdependence and intersubjectivity with their online groups (Lushyn & Kennedy, 2000) but end up holding fast to subjective, individualistic conceptions of learning.

The consequences of student frustration (Borges, 2005) can generate a load that has to be borne by all the agents involved in the learning experiences: students, teachers, and institutions.

They may also experience stress and frustration in collaborating with people they do not know well (Curtis & Lawson, 2001).

Frustration is a concept related to goal attainment (Lazar, Jones, Bessiere, Ceaparu, & Shneiderman, 2004). People may feel frustrated when they are deprived of their expectations or are not able to complete their plans (Handa, 2003; Mandler, 1975).

they clearly find consensus decision making and production of a product much less satisfying

difficulties in communication

imbalance between the individual and collective grades

imbalance in the level of commitment

quality of the individual contributions

lack of shared goals

difficulties related to group organization

perception of an asymmetric collaboration among the teammates was identified by the students as the most important source of frustration

identify the sources to which the learners attribute their frustration

Despite the pedagogical advantages of collaborative learning, online learners can perceive collaborative learning activities as frustrating experiences.

If the right environment is created, both high performing and low performing students are able to reflect on and articulate their opinions about their experience and the outcomes of their learning

the dissatisfaction and reluctance that students express over mandatory participation in group projects often result from a sense of not having full control over the quality of the project and the subsequent grade assigned, particularly when someone in the group has less than satisfactory performance.

indications that the asynchronous format hinders the negotiation of difficult issues and conversations that require quick, direct turn-around

the technology can be the source of either frustration or motivation

Students who are assigned a group project without an adequate level of readiness and/or guidance may be set up for failure. An interesting factor discussed by Sanders (2008) is that students are often ill-equipped through their previous educational experiences to collaborate (in general) or peer-review and often see colleagues as rivals.

Group projects require that learners be present on a particular schedule, reducing the flexibility and convenience factor in online study and possibly causing anxiety and/or resentment, particularly if the purpose of the group work is not clear and the group experience is not positive.

instructional strategies can be an effective motivational tool to encourage participation and to enhance collaborative learning in small groups; thus, they can be a positive alternative to using grading as an incentive. As well, instructional strategies such as the ones described herein provide students with a positive experience of group work and contribute to learner autonomy and self-direction

Grading the study group project would not only undermine the values and motivational aspects of the course design but based on the data gathered in MDE 601 would not have a positive impact in terms of participation by learners or the quality of the work presented by the groups.

The strategies employed in the course to both communicate the value of collaborative learning and to increase motivation to participate in the study groups in MDE 608 were identified as follows:

Transparency of expectations Details of the requirements to participate in a study group are posted in the course syllabus. The purpose (learning objectives) of collaboration and expectations of the learners are made very clear in the main conference. If students communicate reluctance about study group participation, instructors encourage participation and are open about discussing the purpose and process. Clear instructions The group task, timelines, and usability of the desired product are described in detail, giving students the best opportunity to focus on collaborating to share ideas and the workload rather than leaving them to spend a great deal of time trying to clarify the task and develop a common understanding of it. Appropriateness of task for group work Each study group works as a team of consultants to carry out an environmental scan and needs analysis of a particular educational or training provider (develop a case study) in preparation for a second task (done individually). This type of task is easier and a much more rich experience when performed by a group as opposed to an individual. Meaning-making/relevance The group assignment is an opportunity to apply principles and knowledge gained in the course to the analysis of a real life situation, often from a student’s work context. Further, in the last week of the course, the group projects are exchanged and peer reviewed (by the groups), making full use of the learning potential of the project. Motivation for participation embedded in course design Individual success is dependent upon group success. The group product (comprehensive case study) is needed by individual learners in order to complete their final assignment, that is, to design a learner support system for their group’s case study. Readiness of learners for group work The group project takes place during the final third of the course after students demonstrate that they have sufficient mastery of the subject matter to reflect on how to apply their knowledge in particular contexts, including their own work settings (as demonstrated in the conference discussions), and they have had the opportunity to develop a sense of community and hone their collaborative learning skills. Timing of group formation Although the group project is not undertaken until the third section of the course, the study groups are formed during the second unit. This allows time for a sense of collaboration and interdependence to develop among the members before the task is assigned. During the period before the task, group members discuss their shared interests and possible scenarios for the case study. Respect for the autonomy of learners Study group participation is mandatory but learners have the freedom to form their own groups based on shared interests. Instructors provide guidelines for group formation and open a space in the virtual classroom for this purpose. The choice of educational or training context for the case study is the decision of each group, and groups often have lively discussions and do significant research before consensus is reached, resulting in high ownership of the project. Monitoring and feedback The study group conferences and chats are monitored closely by instructors who provide respectful and timely feedback on process and direction when necessary to prevent groups from getting stalled or going off course. Instructors also provide feedback on draft versions of the case studies, and they provide time for revisions before presentation of the final project. Sufficient time for the task

Most of the third and last unit of the course (approximately four weeks) is devoted to the study group project to provide sufficient time for the process and to accommodate varying work schedules and time zone differences of these adult learners.

strategies employed in the course to both communicate the value of collaborative learning and to increase motivation to participate in the study groups

it was revealed that in general students participated more in study groups than in the larger main conferences. So-called “witness learners” (Beaudoin, 2003), those who never appear in module conference discussions, almost always actively participate in study group activities even when the group work is not graded.

He notes that while it is not realistic to expect community in many online courses, it should be possible in graduate level programs with high learner-learner contact.

Siemens (2002) notes that learner-learner interactions in an e-learning course can be viewed as a four stage continuum:

Communication People ‘talking,’ discussing Collaboration People sharing ideas and working together (occasionally sharing resources) in a loose environment Cooperation People doing things together, but each with his or her own purpose Community People striving for a common purpose

Based on experience from this course and a model from another course in the same program where group work has never been graded, the authors propose alternative methods to encourage learners to experience the value of collaborative learning by creating study group experiences that are motivating and rewarding.

One proposed method of ensuring learner participation in online collaboration is to demonstrate the value of group learning by assessing (defined here as assignment of a grade) both the product and process of group work (Swan, Shen, & Hiltz, 2006).

Engagement, defined as “student-faculty interaction, peer-to-peer collaboration and active learning...” (Chen, Gonyea, & Kuh, 2008, para. 2), has been positively related to the quality of the learning experience.

Good to have an alternative to the "assessment generates engagement" perspective. Will this be an ungrading argument?

Can be discursive yes, but what other ways can collaborative learning manifest?

The three key areas of work need to be incorporated into OERs via OEPs. OEPs, then, are pursued by staff and students alike (akin to a negotiated or co-created curriculum). A negotiated or co-created curriculum will work well at certain levels (senior undergraduate, postgraduate, faculty), perhaps less well at entry level? Nevertheless, a focus on learning-to-learn for staff and students at all levels would allow all to move towards a negotiated or co-created curriculum. The major caveat is that professionally accredited degrees will have to carefully scaffold negotiated or co-created curriculae so that they comply with the professionally accreditation requirements.

"It's a lot of work for one tweet." - great wee summary of the cognitive load involved here!

We can use this to map out our levels of OEP?

Yes, but it's also always - simultaneously - social. If it were not social, it would not be open.

This assumes that the 'platform' is digital; it does not have to be. The 'platform' is a site, which can be physical, digital or bleed, etc. A platform doesn't have to = network either. A lot of 'platforms' are univocal or non-discursive.

True, but I'm not sure that the pressure is there in formal higher education to take on OEPs or create OERs (the opposite is true - LMS are closed on the whole). The disadvantages can arise when students and faculty do not teach/comprehend open licensing in ways that are advantageous.

We could say 'metacongnitive' or 'reflective (practitioner)' instead of 'critical' here (given the need for metacongnition in open practice more generally.

i.e. the 5 Rs

This would make it a para-academic practice. See: http://hammeronpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PHA_Final.pdf

I'm not sure that OEPs are 'keepers of [...] hope, equality, and justice.' This feels overdetermined. OEPs cannot shoulder this level of responsibility for political transformation alone - it has to be part of an organised political platform that is committed to 'hope, equality, and justice' that seeks office (Government). For example, my OEP is subsidised by the Scottish Rate of Income Tax (which I also pay). Without that, it would not be possible for me to pursue an OEP the way I do currently. So the office of the Scottish Government is vital to 'hope, equality, and justice' in my case at least.

Open artefacts - as OERs and as outcomes of OEPs.

"open" is variously used to describe resources (the artefacts themselves as well as access to and usage of them)

e.g. Open artefacts - as OERs and as outcomes of OEPs.

framework of open sharing

• resources
• tools
• practices

to improve educational access worldwide

Q. What could constitute a:

• sharable open resource
• sharable open tool
• sharable open practice

Q. Does the sharable open framework have to improve educational access worldwide? (e.g. Is the global imperative limiting in terms of open localised autonomy (TAZ)?)

Yes, this is true. However, open practices are not = higher education. Open practices can exist in formal and informal learning contexts. Open practices are also not = OEPs. You can, for example, have an open art practice, or an open medical practice, etc.

Unpack the motivations here and list them - we can then see which (if any) are motivating factors for us and add other?

How can we minimize the cost of textbooks? = e.g. Motivation

Open practices are, indeed, continually negotiated. This is another way of looking at openness - that doing things in the open leave them in a contingent state. i.e. openness as the opposite of 'closure'. Perhaps then what we need is to create structures for teaching and learning that enable this kind of contingency - the ability to review and re-negotiate what we are doing and how we are doing it? This is a form of metacognitive learning on a personal and organisational level. Each teacher/learner needs to be able to observe the system they are in and negotiate how to change it as they proceed. In my own OEP, I do this, this way:

"Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s practical adaptation of ‘Nishida philosophy’ – their SECI model of organisational knowledge creation – proposes everything is implaced within a “ba” (field). Such Ba can be physical or conceptual. We can think of the basho as a shifting context (such as being a student in a University) or set of moving constraints (like the rules of a game). Either way, what we do / what we are is something implaced within a larger field.

When it comes to learning, a key thing here is to think less not only about how and where we implace ourselves, but equally about what sort of field we are generating. Ba/sho is akin to a habitat; habits develop in relation to specific habitats. If we want to change our habits, we need to also change our habitat. In ‘Nishida philosophy’ subject and object are one, people and environment correlate." Source: Neil Mulholland Build-A-Basho | Thursday 23rd September 2021

Perhaps 'platform' is more apt than network here? Platforms include meatspaces and digital spaces.

Not really. Teaching can/does take place in unbounded physical spaces (commons, fieldwork, etc.) It can also bleed online and meatspace (augmentation).

Yes, good. It's important to invite 'proposals' since this leaves things open. It means that contributors don't have to have their contribution completed in order to say they are interested (that will mean you get no takers). Rather you need to invite ideas and proposals and see if you are able to host/support them properly. This way you can be realistic about what you are able to actually support and you can start to work with the proposers to help them realise their proposal.

cut this

Partnered with

Please keep your proposal brief (300 word max) and include images if relevant. If you have a website, please provide the URL.

cut

proposal

proposals

The platform will be launched in the latter half of April and will remain online thereafter.

The call is now open. Proposals for R-Lab should be submitted by 28th March 2021 (23:00 CET).

caring for and respecting your contribution.

Our online platform will be a safe space,

change to

partner

website?

supported by The University of Edinburgh

^ hosted

change to:

Artists, curators, and art organisations based in China or Europe....

• change to

The R-Lab Open Call is an invitation to artists based in China and Europe to openly share their experiences of how they have pivoted their working practices – in one way or another –during the pandemic (March 2020-March 2021).

We are open to supporting as wide a range of media as possible. We want to hear your ideas and proposals!

change to

your contribution can take the form of a written narrative, a video, an audio recording...

We will curate and present the most vibrant responses as part of our online platform, launching in the latter half of April 2021.

(What does R-Lab stand for - what's the 'R'? and why is it a 'laboratory')?

For clarity, change this to

R-Lab is a contemporary art organisation led by postgraduate students in Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh.

Not 'the R-Lab' just

R-Lab

We hope that exchanging Chinese and European visions of post-pandemic possibilities can have a long-lasting impact.

Reflecting the membership of our R-Lab, we seek to reflect upon Chinese and European cultural experiences during the pandemic.

Change to:

We seek to explore how different artworlds have adapted and survived during the pandemic.

Change to:

We aim to collect and present a multitude of ‘pivots’ that might enact societal and artistic change post-pandemic.

This needs to be removed completely since we no longer require a portfolio

This section needs to be removed entirely

Should be reworded as so:

If you do not meet the academic entry requirements, we may still consider your application on the basis of your relevant professional experience.

Your application should demonstrate:

good evidence of practical and theoretical knowledge of, and experimentation with, a variety of formal, aesthetic and conceptual approaches to the production and distribution of contemporary art

good evidence of practical or theoretical work that addresses key thematic areas in contemporary art and theoretical discourse

some evidence of collaborative working practices, either in a capacity as an artist or working curatorially

some evidence of independent working practices, as an artist, writer, scholar or curator

post-offer interview via Skype, Zoom or MS Teams.

key question here so far