Hello my name is…at #OER17

I’m travelling to #OER17 today for the first time, and I’ve got a lot to be excited about.  Aside from occasional stopovers in Heathrow, it’ll be my first time back in the UK in about thirty (!) years, the conference organizers have put together an all female keynote lineup (!!), and the sessions around the theme of the Politics of Open look amazing and are right up my alley (!!!).

As a pretty regular attendee of open events here in Canada and beyond, I look forward to seeing many familiar faces and people I consider colleagues.  But there are so many more that I see on Twitter but have never met, or see on Twitter and never get a chance to connect with at other events. And I suspect that there are so many I’ve never seen but should meet.  I’d like to take a step towards changing that at OER17.

I’m pretty introverted (as a I suspect many ed tech people tend to be) and I’ve been told that I don’t always give off a come chat with me vibe.  But here’s the thing…if we haven’t met, I’d really like to meet you. If you are interested in critical conversations about open, I’d like to meet you. If you are working with open in an non-English language context, I’d like to meet you.  If your non English open activities have been adapted or translated into English contexts, I’d like to meet you.

See you soon!



  • francesbell

    Hello Tannis. I am reading this after OER17 that I also attended and I am sorry that, as far as I know, I didn’t have a conversation with you there although your name seemed familiar. When I checked your abstracts, I realised that I had read something about Open Ed Tech Cooperativism and that’s why I recognised your name. Then I read your other abstract https://oer17.oerconf.org/sessions/evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-an-open-pedagogy-approach-to-faculty-development-1470/ and I was really sorry we didn’t have time together. In acknowledging earlier work on Open Learning, you were echoing some of my own recent reflections, expressed in this comment http://bavatuesdays.com/i-dont-need-permission-to-be-open/#comment-240849 . Reflecting further , I realised that an important element of my pedagogy/ educational philosophy/ call it what you will was the activity of the student. In designing (rather than prescribing) activity by providing prompts and encouraging engagement with resources and people. And that’s why I take issue with Tony Bates’ assumption (in the post you cite in your abstract common in ed tech circles) that educators are all wedded to transmission approaches and jealously guard their materials.
    So thank you for citing earlier work.
    BTW, I clicked on this post because I thought you were referring to the wonderful campaign launched by the late, great Kate Granger http://hellomynameis.org.uk/ I was mistaken but I am very glad I came 🙂

  • T Morgan

    Yikes, I’m a bit embarrassed I didn’t know about that campaign and basically co-opted the image in my blog post for something a lot less meaningful. I feel like it’s wrong to use in a different context and will change that. And the irony of using it while advocating for looking back at history is not lost on me!

    In my reply to your other comment I point to the blog post on open pedagogy history, and there are some great comments that add to that post. Paquette was entirely focussed on the student and student emancipation in his framing of open pedagogy, and what I find so interesting is that there were so many other ‘radical pedagogies’ of the late sixties and early seventies that were trying to do that as well. I’m curious as to how we seem to have lost some of that, and how bland current day disruption seems to be in comparison in some respects.

Leave a Reply