Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Lecturers as curators of crossmedia resources: a literature review
Leighton, Rose; Griffioen, D.M.E.; Oostdam, Ron
Publication date 2019
Document Version Final published version
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Leighton, R., Griffioen, D. M. E., & Oostdam, R. (2019). Lecturers as curators of crossmedia resources: a literature review. Paper presented at International Conference on Textbooks and Educational Media , Odense, Denmark.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please contact the library:
https://www.amsterdamuas.com/library/contact/questions, or send a letter to: University Library (Library of the University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date:26 Nov 2021
CREATING TOMORROW
LECTURERS AS CURATORS OF CROSSMEDIA RESOURCES:
A LITERATURE REVIEW
Rose Leighton
Lecturer of Media & Publising PhD Researcher
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
r.h.leighton@hva.nl
Rose Leighton, Didi Griffioen & Ron Oostdam
Introduction
► Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2015): ‘it is important that lecturers know how to utilize and reuse a
wide range of online educational resources.’
► Challenge: select materials in such a way that they match course topic, prior knowledge, and proficiency level, and structure them in order to support students’ learning.
(e.g. Bijsterveld, 2013; Lowyck & Terwel, 2009; Littlejohn, 2011)
► Selecting and structuring: curation.
Curation
► In museums a curator selects artefacts, structures them into an
exhibition and puts up the signs that explain and contextualize what the museum visitor sees (Balzer, 2015).
► Curation is more than just selection. Bhaskar (2016, p. 6):
Curation is ‘the ensemble of activities that goes beyond
selecting and arranging to blend with refining and displaying,
explaining and simplifying, categorizing and organising.’
Curation
► The notion of lecturers as curators has been introduced by Siemens (2007), and others since have agreed that the task of providing resources is remarkably similar to the task of curators in museums (e.g. Anderson, 2015).
► In this study, curation is defined as selecting and structuring
resources for educational purposes, as well as providing students
with context and coherence.
Behavior
► Curation can be seen as behavior that is demonstrated by lecturers.
► Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior: an individual’s behavioral intentions and behaviors are shaped by:
►
attitude toward behavior
►
subjective norms
►
perceived behavioral control
Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (figure from Maio et al. 2007)
Methods
Research question:
► What curational behavior do lecturers in higher education
demonstrate when using educational resources, and how is this behavior shaped?
Method: literature review
Sample selection: using a step by step approach (Moher et al
(2009), articles were identified, screened, and assessed for
eligibility.
Methods: sample selection
Records identified:
n=506 Database
search 2:
n=421 Database
search 1:
n=124
Excluded duplicates:
n=39
+ = n=545
Screened n=506
based on title & abstract Records left:
n=118 Records
excluded:
n=388
Assessed n=118
based on abstract & full article Records included
in review: n=30 Records
excluded:
n=88
IdentificationScreeningEligibility
Methods: analysis of articles
1.
First inventory of articles (year of publication, location, research method).
2.
Determined the main conclusion of each article.
3.
Linked each article’s conclusion to one of the areas of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior:
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM
BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings: publications per year
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2006 2008 2009 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(n=30)
Initial findings: location of study
3 1
6 4
3 9
4
(n=30)
Multiple countries
Initial findings: research methods
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Survey Case study Conceptual Review Network analysis
(n=30)
Initial findings: curational behavior
0 9
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM
BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
3
5
7
Describing the curation process conceptually
6
Initial findings: attitude
► Three case studies.
► Describe the outcome of the behavior of curating as positive:
► Flintoff et al (2014): curation facilitates cooperation, curators can be thought leaders
► Montgomery et al (2015): it is important to use multiple forms of resources to activate engagement, scaffolding is needed for
deeper understanding
► Nielsen (2014): notions of curation help teachers when scaffolding activities
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings: subjective norm
► Two surveys and three case studies.
► Describe how the norms of three different groups are of influence:
► Students
(Barbera et al (2017); Sohrabi & Iraj (2016))
► Experts
(McGuire (2014); Algers & Fletcher (2015))
► Societal/state norms
(Algers & Fletcher (2015); Nikova (2016))
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings:
perceived behavioral control
►
Five surveys and two case studies.
►
Give insights into the extent to which lecturers are able to/report being able to perform curational behavior.
►
Lecturers are the ones who can best assess pedagogical quality of resources (Gros & Lopez (2016); King (2017)).
►
Reported barriers in performing the behavior are:
►
Limited knowledge of copyright issues (San (2015); Tobias (2009))
►
Limited knowledge of (technological) tools and resources (Tobias (2009); Miller (2009))
►
Lack of time/too much effort (Tobias (2009); Miller (2009); Mtebe &
Raisamo (2014))
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings: intentions
► No articles were identified that focused on lecturers’ intentions in curating resources.
► One article (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014) names intentions in title, but looks at underlying constructs, identifying mainly effort
expectancy as an influencer of intentions, therefore effectively focusing on perceived behavioral control.
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings: behavior (1/2)
► Six surveys, three studies using other methods
► Focus on the selection of resources
► Criteria when selecting (Feldman-Maggor et al., 2015; Hanley et al., 2016; Santos Hermosa, 2014)
► Reliability, also based on peer review
► Current
► Pedagogical quality
► Visual contribution (design)
► Fit with course objectives
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Initial findings: behavior (2/2)
► Type of resources selected
► Bonk et al: video, forums, lectures, readings, quizzes
► Hu et al: resources that have lower cognitive demands
► Lecturers prefer working with their own materials
(Ni She, 2017; Kolling da Rocha, 2018; Santos Hermosa, 2014)
ATTITUDE
SUBJECTIVE NORM PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
Preliminary conclusion & discussion
►
There is little research into curation of educational resources in higher education.
►
Curation entails more than just selection, yet most studies of behavior focus on selection and don’t say much about structuring and
providing context and coherence.
►
The focus in exististing research seems to be on reported behavior and behavioral control; there seems to be a gap when it comes to studying behavior as a whole.
►
The existing research mainly consists of surveys and case studies;
a qualitative approach seems to be lacking.
►
Conceptual articles still need to be considered: how do they link?
Next steps
Contribute to filling the gap in research: look into lecturers’ curational behavior as a whole: behavior, intentions and beliefs.
►
Study 1: interview lecturers about their intentions and behavior
►
Study 2: short term longitudinal study, following lecturers in curational process
►
Study 3: design and test model that reflects lecturers’ curational behavior
►
Study 4: design and pilot intervention that supports lecturers’ curation
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3 Study 4
CREATING TOMORROW
ROSE LEIGHTON
Questions? Get in touch?
❑
r.h.leighton@hva.nl
❑
@RoseLeighton
❑
Linkedin.com/in/roseleighton
Selection of references
► Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
► Anderson, S. W. (2015). Content Curation. How to Avoid Information Overload. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
► Balzer, D. (2015). Curationism. How curating took over the art world and everything else. London:
Pluto Press.
► Bhaskar, M. (2016). Curation. The Power of Selection in a World of Excess. London: Piatkus.
► Maio, G., Verplanken, B., Manstead, A., Stroebe, W., Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Conner, M.
(2007). Social Psychological Factors in Lifestyle Change and Their Relevance to Policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 99–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00005.x
► Ministerie van OC&W. (2015, July 1). The value of knowledge. Strategic Agenda for Higher Education and Research 2015-2025. Retrieved 26 October 2017, from
https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2015/07/01/the-value-of-knowledge
► Siemens, G. (2007). Networks, Ecologies, and Curational Teaching. Retrieved 27 August 2017, from Connectivism website: Http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=93
