# OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (MSD)
## Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues as participative organizational development

It is no coincidence that the OERlabs project focused on exchange and participation formats. When we applied for funding from the BMBF, our funding line included OERinfo. We assumed that universities tend not to lack knowledge about media, but that they lack ideas and application-oriented perspectives on how media (education) can be integrated into teacher training. Thus the OERlabs are not 'only' a sensitisation project for OER, but also a didactic project - but different from what is commonly called, for example, (university) didactics as an improvement of teaching and learning:
In very loose reference to Flechsig (1975), who named five (or three in compressed form) design levels of higher education teaching about 50 years ago, the importance of the interplay of concrete teaching offers with aspects of curriculum planning, study programmes and orientations of entire universities can be emphasised. What is more, the various design levels are only addressed jointly through the transformation of the higher education institution(s) by seeing concrete courses, study programmes and conditions for studying in context. Even before the application was submitted, it was clear that subjects, disciplines, study programmes or even areas of education could only benefit from each other in terms of media, OER and digitisation if they discussed media-related challenges and problems together and mastered them according to their own ideas and views. This is particularly challenging in the area of teacher education. That is why we at OERlabs also talk about educating teacher students together for OER in our slogan. Especially for the university committee, where actors are typically only loosely coupled (Weick, 1976), the cooperation of its members would thus already be a (project) success, among other things in favour of the design of courses of study in the teaching profession.
This is one of the reasons why the OERlabs characterised different aspects of networking right from the start, be it within courses or study programmes, within universities or through the involvement of actors outside the university such as network schools or state institutes for schools: in all cases, it is essential that the OERlabs together become what they have become through participation in school and university development processes. Because concrete contents are hardly predetermined, they become mirror images of such demands and requirements for qualification and sensitisation to OER, as formulated by the various actors as participants in the so-called multi-stakeholder dialogue. If actors are involved, this means assuming responsibility for design issues themselves.
Multi-stakeholder dialogue is a concrete measure from participatory organisational development (Seufert, 2013). The multi-stakeholder dialogue represents the initiation of a systematic reflection process within the organisation. The contents of the dialogue formats reflect, for example, public expectations of the use of media in studies and teaching, teaching and schools, various reservations about media and, last but not least, euphoric hopes that (experimental) involvement with media in the laboratory format could solve most problems in teaching at once. Such expectations are deconstructed and revealed in the multi-stakeholder dialogues - through a dialogical form - so that they can be turned around productively, ideally in a solution-oriented way. For example, multi-stakeholder dialogues can be regarded as a form of participatory university development.
Aspects of cooperation in a very large university such as the University of Cologne certainly play a strong, if not overriding role in a comparatively small practical and development project such as OERlabs, which is funded for a short period of 1.5 years. For example, students and colleagues do not simply meet on campus; even a coffee for informal arrangements requires dedicated planning if one does not want to leave it entirely to chance and informal space - quite different from the TU Kaiserslautern.
Accordingly, the measures that have initiated cooperation and knowledge sharing between different actors at the University of Cologne must also be evaluated: The measures, be they multi-stakeholder dialogues or open labs, all contribute to determining opportunities for participation based on a (media) phenomenon such as OER and to approaching these in terms of content or beyond one's own positions and functions. It is therefore no coincidence that, especially in Cologne, cooperation and knowledge sharing were more important than the topic of OER.
In Kaiserslautern, the multi-stakeholder dialogue addressed the entire process of teacher education (Schiefner-Rohs, 2015), i.e. also the second and third phases. Accordingly, the focus was not only on the exchange with the university, but also with other institutions such as schools and/or state institutes, but also with central state media institutions, ministries and local representatives. Participation in teacher education and thus the joint discussion helped to better understand the respective perspectives on OER in teacher education.
It is important that both the Cologne and Kaiserslautern procedures can be understood as participatory university development: Participation within the limits of an educational organisation aims to involve various actors in a project and as representatives*in a discourse on current phenomena. In such a perspective on higher education development, actors become stakeholders. This means that they become persons who, because of their institutional roots in the participating universities (and beyond), pursue their own or common interests, i.e. have a "stake".
This is also the reason for the selection of the actors involved in the OERlabs: With their different positions, the participants bring their own interests with them, some of which can be abstracted from personal opinions or attitudes towards OER (institutionally). But the OERlabs are not free of personal ties either: For example, it has long been known in the social and economic development of organisations that individuals can also systematically pursue their interests (cf. Gairing, 2017). Not least for this reason, we have made our respective prorectors for teaching and studies patrons of the project. In a way, they shine as personalities and are interested (not only) in teaching and teaching development at their own university.
Accordingly, participatory university development - despite all participation - is characterised by an imbalance in educational organisations: There are always people who are involved in the project like everyone else, but who have so much "internal" power in their day-to-day work that they are perceived as more important than others, or that their participation in turn determines the (non-)participation of others. It would be too high to want to solve this inherent contradiction with the OERlabs. However, the internal structure of the individual dates, especially the multi-stakeholder dialogues, has succeeded in accepting this power-political challenge, in fact in fading it out for a few hours and in favour of the content and objective employment: Greetings from important university representatives* were, for example, more subordinate than superior to the project. During all dialogue appointments, care was also taken to ensure that the people could get to know each other and that time was reserved for this - regardless of their functions and extensive time bottlenecks and involvement. This methodical approach proved to be effective and not least effective in the course of the OERlabs:
While in the OERlabs it was initially obvious to learn from the respective experiences with OER, in the course of the project it was above all the ability to reflect on "the other's" points of view that was promoted and highlighted as positive. Especially the way of exchanging experiences lives on in the University of Cologne and the TU Kaiserslautern in different (project) contexts: from jointly responsible (teaching) events beyond the project to the discussion of common concepts for the design of teacher training courses and the writing of this Open Book.
Can learning from the experiences of others therefore be seen as the success of a project? Probably yes, because experiential learning in connection with the OERlabs was not left to chance coffee on campus, but followed a certain systematic approach (with regard to the targeted processes). In addition, we were able to show that the exchange of experience can be implemented with few resources. Such a point must not be underestimated, since experiential learning in connection with media will gain even more value, as marked in the speech of the project management in Cologne:
* We should learn from each other's experiences with media in different contexts. It goes without saying that we should do this all the time. Not only in those moments when digital education is a topic in the (mass) media and is brought to educational institutions as an external expectation.
* (Schiefner-Rohs & Hofhues, 2018).
According to Moldaschl (2017) it can even be assumed that constant reflection will become the "normal case". Schön (1984) knows early on how exactly this reflection can be shaped. Accordingly, three modalities trigger reflection on practice: First, it could be repeatedly thought about the meaning of individual media offers (or not). Secondly, reflection on situations and personal experiences in study and teaching can be shaped, for example in the format of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Reflection at the meta-level as "reflection on reflection" is implemented in the OERlabs through this OpenBook. Thirdly, other methods and formats could also be found to directly address the meta-reflection of higher education development processes.
Participatory university development is relevant not least because standard media solutions reveal an idea about media from the past and can no longer be generated. With a view to Stalder (2017) Explanations on the culture of digitality, it is important, among other things, to sound out how and under what conditions central or decentralized media offerings can (still) be made and how a science and science-based organization like the university shapes the process of constant reflection (cf. Hofhues, 2018). In the context of OER, it seems essential not to be deterred by (missing) legal framework conditions or (supposedly) lacking knowledge of media production: If participatory university development is understood above all as 'doing reflection' and a joint process, then the ideas of the members of the (higher) schools in particular encourage them to take action with regard to the media and to reflect on trials together with various actors from science and institutions/Third Space.
What it means to be constantly talking about the changing university and to name ideas for its further development is shown by the 23 ideas concerning OER that emerged in Cologne: Seven of them could even be implemented with little effort at the University of Cologne, for example. Whether or not this will be successful will be up to the actors themselves once this project has been completed. This is where the understanding of participatory university development differs from that of an entrepreneurial university: it would probably accompany the existing ideas during their implementation and measure their success in quantitative terms (cf. Hofhues, Pensel & Möller, 2018).

## Media education in teacher training

Teacher education is a vocational biographical development project with three different phases (Terhart, 1992). Participating in the entire process of teacher*internal education are not only universities but also study seminars and advanced training institutions, as well as ministries and state institutes. Thus, teacher*internal education often becomes a "major construction site" (Kunter, 2011, p. 107) and place of numerous reforms (cf. Pasternak et al., 2017), of which currently the integration of digital media is only one of many (cf. BMBF 2018). With the OERlabs project, we have dedicated ourselves precisely to this "major construction site" and attempted to address both the topic of OER and the underlying perspectives of cooperative media action in teacher training and schools, as well as to point out opportunities to do justice to this diversity of actors and to perspectives within teacher training. One of OERlabs' aims is to identify opportunities for media education in teacher training and to stimulate dialogue between all stakeholders. The "OERlabs are thus moving between external requirements and normative objectives of media education at the university and along the chain of training and further education of teachers". (Schiefner-Rohs & Hofhues, 2017, p. 73).

### Incorporate structural peculiarities: addressing networking through various phases

A central feature of teacher*internal education is its special design: on the one hand, it takes place in different phases: Study, legal clerkship and professional practice with further education and training follow one another. On the other hand, the design within the course of study is also special: within the university, there is often the challenge of interlinking the subject sciences, didactics and educational sciences, as is implemented in many current measures (including the quality offensive for teacher*internal training): For example, many projects in the latter funding initiative are devoted to the lack of interlinking of subject sciences, subject didactics and educational sciences (Pasternak et al, 2017, p. 97). These are particularly frequent with each other through "the establishment of interdisciplinary networks or cooperations" (ibid., p. 135) associated. We have followed a similar path with the multi-stakeholder dialogues, which were intended to bring the actors into dialogue with one another via open educational resources and cooperative (media) practice. For example, explicit invitations were extended to stakeholders from the specialist sciences, didactics and educational sciences, as well as to representatives of the Center for Teacher Education and (teacher) students. Cross-phase networking beyond the university then took place at the roundtable by inviting representatives of the study seminars, the state pedagogical institutes, schools and the responsible ministries. The aim was to reflect the career biographical development perspective within the Round Table and to jointly discuss the design of open educational practices. An interlocking, understood as "organisational, curricular and personnel cooperation of the institutions involved in teacher training with the aim of using the respective strengths for training in the other phases" (Hericks 2004, p. 301) also took place in the OERlabs seminars, in which lecturers from the university worked in team teaching with a teacher*on the subject of OER (see OERlabs Seminars).

### Addressing new content and formats: enable media education processes for (student) teachers

In addition to networking, there is also the question of how media educational spaces, understood as "media-influenced, institutionalized and informal spaces [...] in which educational processes are initiated by the media" (Spanhel 2010, p. 29f.), can be created or shaped at all levels of the educational institution. In terms of dealing with the demands of digital media, students of teaching professions are a special target group in all areas of their future careers: they know that their own media-related school experience influences their media-related attitudes (van Braak, 2001; Blömeke, 2007). In addition, however, teacher training students can be described as 'little digital-affine' (Schmid et al., 2017, p. 43) and score worse in terms of competences and attitudes - at least in Germany - with regard to digital media in comparison with other students (Blömeke, 2003; Herzig & Grafe, 2006; Schmid et al., 2017). Nor can it be assumed that digital media are anchored within teacher training at all universities (cf. Monitor Lehrerbildung, 2017). This makes it necessary to look at alternative forms of addressing media education within higher education institutions.
The real challenge in dealing with OER lies not (only) in the use of educational materials from the Internet and thus in the production of media, but (also) in the development of a reflexive habitus with regard to openess and the associated practices of cooperation and sharing. It is known from previous (school) pedagogical and psychological studies that cooperation among teachers is rather difficult to achieve and implement (Trumpa et al., 2016, Kullmann, 2016) and teaching and learning materials (Ihme et al., 2009). In addition, cooperation is primarily investigated in the context of organisational development (e.g. Bauer 2002; Dalin & Rolff 1990) and is rarely (more rarely) related to professionalisation issues. As a result, questions of cooperative media action along the teacher training chain remain largely unanswered from a media pedagogical point of view. The OERlabs' participative-cooperative approach (both within the multi-stakeholder dialogues and the jointly responsible courses, but also the facilities of rooms in cooperation with administrative staff) leads to the fact that teacher training is understood as a joint responsibility of many within the university - and through the inclusion of stakeholders from the second and third phases, the view is also extended beyond the university.
The focus in the OERlabs was to make a change from the lecturer to the student side under the concept of subject orientation. Thus, students in different formats (OERlabs seminars, open labs, multi-stakeholder dialogues) with their experiences, ideas and together with teachers should ask about the causes of certain practices, question previous assumptions about the role of digital media (not only) in teaching. In particular, this stimulates a discussion of the theory behind the OER debate. With the problem of (lack of) cooperation as a theoretical eye-catcher, the focus of the discussion is on social phenomena, not on technologies. At the same time, however, openness is explicitly allowed in the debate: within the multi-stakeholder dialogues, the focus was particularly on joint discussion with all those involved in teacher*education and beyond, while within the seminars, based on the production of material, thought was stimulated for reflection, but in the openness of the design, own focal points also became necessary. Accordingly, the basis for professional action in teacher*internal education is precisely the endurance of uncertainty and openness of interpretation (Floden & Clark, 1991; Paseka, & Hinzke, 2014; Paseka, Schneider-Keller & Combe, 2018), which is why in particular the development of a reflexive habitus is defined as the goal of teacher*internal education (especially the first phase) (cf. Neuweg, 2018). In order to develop such a habitus, open, not predefined (media education) spaces are needed. The aim of all measures was therefore to ensure that students also "deal with indeterminacy as such" (Jörissen & Marotzki, 2009, p. 19). These are used to stimulate educational processes, because "education lives from playing with indeterminacy. It opens up access to heterodoxies, ambiguities and polymorphisms" (ibid. p. 21). Through this tentativity (ibid.), i.e. the development of new approaches to a phenomenon through different project perspectives (e.g. labs and dialogues), it becomes possible to think together about subjective practices of action, whether related to digital media or professional action in the teaching profession in general. In particular, it was a question of working together with students and actors in teacher education to "search for new rules and schemes for new, unknown phenomena" (Jörissen & Marotzki, 2009, p. 21).
Thus, different formats within the OERlabs project make socialisation and habitualisation processes more central: it is not primarily a matter of integrating digital media into teacher training through a special anchoring, but rather of changing perspectives: Instead of seeing media education in teacher education merely as the creation of offers, the perspective of appropriation is addressed with the question of how students deal with digital media, which perspective of meaning is created. From this perspective of appropriation, processes of reflection regarding media and one's own biography are stimulated or set in relation to one's own biography and (future) professionalism. Students are thus sensitized to see familiar challenges again and again, even within supposedly new phenomena.

## References

* ↑ https://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/bekanntmachung-1132.html (23.08.2018)
* ↑ Flechsig, K.-H. (1975). Handlungsebenen der Hochschuldidaktik. ZIFF-Papiere 3. Hagen: Fernuniversität. Available online at: https://ub-deposit.fernuni-hagen.de/receive/mir_mods_00000204 (23.08.2018)
* ↑ Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21 (1), 1-19.
* ↑ Seufert, S. (2013). Bildungsmanagement. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
* ↑ Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2015). Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung und digitale Medien – Herausforderungen entlang der Lehrerbildungskette. In M. Schiefner-Rohs, C. Goméz Tutor & C. Menzer (Ed.), Lehrer.Bildung.Medien – Herausforderungen für die Entwicklung von Schule(n) (S. 119-128). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
* ↑ Gairing, F. (2017). Organisationsentwicklung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
* ↑ https://oerlabs.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/10-Punkte-Plan_Abschluss_OERlabs_oeffentlich_Hofhues.pdf (23.08.2018)
* ↑ Schiefner-Rohs, M. & Hofhues, S. (2018). Prägende Kräfte. Medien und Technologie(n) an Hochschulen. In J. Othmer, A. Weich & K. Zickwolf (Ed.), Medien, Bildung und Wissen in der Hochschule (p. 239-254). Springer: VS.
* ↑ Moldaschl, M. (2017). Reflexivität und Kreativität. Konträre Quellen kompetenter Improvisation. In W. Stark. D. Vossebrecher, C. Dell & H. Schmidhuber (Ed.), Improvisation und Organisation. Muster zur Innovation sozialer Systeme (p. 47-72). Bielefeld: transcript.
* ↑ Stalder, F. (2016). Kultur der Digitalität. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
* ↑ Hofhues, S., Pensel, S. & Möller, F. (2018/in print). Begrenzte Hochschulentwicklung: das Beispiel digitaler Lerninfrastrukturen. In M. Kerres et al. (Ed.), Digitalisierung und Hochschulentwicklung. Reihe Medien in der Wissenschaft. Münster: Waxmann (further data available after publication).
* ↑ Terhart, E. (1992). Lehrerberuf und Professionalität. In B. Dewe, W. Ferchhoff & F.-O. Radtke (Ed.). Erziehen als Profession - Zur Logik professionellen Handelns in pedagogischen Feldern (pp. 103 - 131). Wiesbaden: Springer.
* ↑ Kunter, M. (2011). Theorie meets Praxis in der Lehrerbildung – Kommentar. Erziehungswissenschaft 22(43), 107 - 112. Available at: https://uhh.de/uexlv [30.09.2018].
* ↑ Pasternak, P., Baumgarth, B.; Burkhardt, A.; Paschke, S. & Thielemann, N. (2017). Die Debatte zur Qualitätsentwicklung in der Lehrer_innenbildung. GEW-Materialien aus Hochschule und Forschung. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
* ↑ Schiefner-Rohs & Hofhues, 2017
* ↑ Pasternak, P., Baumgarth, B.; Burkhardt, A.; Paschke, S. & Thielemann, N. (2017). Die Debatte zur Qualitätsentwicklung in der Lehrer_innenbildung. GEW-Materialien aus Hochschule und Forschung. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
* ↑ Pasternak, P., Baumgarth, B.; Burkhardt, A.; Paschke, S. & Thielemann, N. (2017). Die Debatte zur Qualitätsentwicklung in der Lehrer_innenbildung. GEW-Materialien aus Hochschule und Forschung. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
* ↑ Hericks, U. (2004). Verzahnung der Phasen der Lehrerbildung. In S. Blömeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki & J. Wildt (ed.), Handbuch Lehrerbildung (p. 301-311). Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.
* ↑ van Braak, J. (2001)). Individual Characteristics Influencing Teachers class use of Computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 141-157.
* ↑ Blömeke, S. (2007). Empirische Forschung zu neuen Medien in Schule und Lehrerausbildung. In W. Sesink, M. Kerres & H. Moser (Ed.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 6 - Medienpädagogik - Standortbestimmung einer erziehungswissenschaftlichen Disziplin (pp. 247-259). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
* ↑ Schmid, U.; Goertz, L.; Radomski, S., Thom, S. & Behrens, S. (2017). Monitor Digitale Bildung. Die Hochschulen im digitalen Zeitalter.
* ↑ Blömeke, S. (2003). Zukünftige Lehrpersonen und das Medienhandeln von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Eine empirische Studie zu Kenntnissen und Annahmen von Lehramtsstudierenden. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6(2), 276-289. doi: 10.1007/s11618-003-0027-0
* ↑ Herzig, B., & Grafe, p. (2006). Digitale Medien in der Schule. Standortbestimmung und Handlungsempfehlungen für die Zukunft. Studie zur Nutzung digitaler Medien in allgemein bildenden Schulen in Deutschland. Telekom-Stiftung.
* ↑ Schmid, U.; Goertz, L.; Radomski, S., Thom, S. & Behrens, S. (2017). Monitor Digitale Bildung. Die Hochschulen im digitalen Zeitalter.
* ↑ Trumpa, S., Franz, E.-K., & Greiten, S. (2016). Forschungsbefunde zur Kooperation von Lehrkräften. Ein narratives Review. Die Deutsche Schule, 108(1), 80-92.
* ↑ Kullmann, H. (2016). Kollegiale Kooperation im Lehrerberuf. In R. Martin (Ed.), Beruf Lehrer/Lehrerin. Ein Studienbuch. (pp. 333-349). Münster u.a.: Waxmann.
* ↑ Ihme, T. A., Müller, J., & Pohlmann, B. (2009). Effekte von Kooperation auf die Qualität von Lehrmaterial. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(3-4), 259-263.
* ↑ Floden, R.E & Clark, C. M. (1991). Lehrerausbildung als Vorbereitung auf Unsicherheit. In: E. Terhart, (Ed.), Unterrichten als Beruf. Neuere amerikanische und englische Arbeiten zur Berufskultur und Berufsbiographie von Lehrern und Lehrerinnen (pp. 191 – 210). Köln, Wien: Böhlau.
* ↑ Paseka, A., & Hinzke, J.-H. (2014). Der Umgang mit Dilemmasituationen. Ein Beitrag zu Fragen der Professionalität von Lehrpersonen und Lehramtstudierenden. Zeitschrift für interpretative Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung - ZISU, 3, 14-28.
* ↑ Paseka, A.; Schneider-Keller, M. & Combe, A. (2018). Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für pädagogisches Handeln. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
* ↑ Neuweg, G.H. (2018). Distanz und Einlassung: Gesammelte Schriften zur Lehrerbildung. Münster: Waxmann.
* ↑ Jörissen, B. & Marotzki, W. (2009), Medienbildung – eine Einführung. Theorie – Methoden – Analysen. Stuttgart: UTB.
* ↑ Jörissen, B. & Marotzki, W. (2009), Medienbildung – eine Einführung. Theorie – Methoden – Analysen. Stuttgart: UTB.