Advertisement

Using Trust Telling and Amicable Inquiry for Open Educational Resources to Strengthen a University Network in Thailand

  • Jaitip Nasongkhla
  • J. Ana Donaldson
Chapter

Abstract

This project explores using trust telling and amicable (nonconfrontational) inquiry to strengthen a university network in Thailand as a source of social transformation and the creation of culturally relevant open educational resources (OERs). Trust telling in this context included the sharing of oneself through widespread options of media via the Internet, two-way communication, and amicable kinds of questions along with storytelling. The study results describe how university network members from different regional cultural backgrounds in Thailand used narrative storytelling about their authentic local cuisines. Through this experience, regional academic members accessed and gained a cultural understanding from the community while expressing their personal points of views, and these views were captured into a digital archive. The archives are composed into an open learning object (LO) under a framework of the 4Rs (Wiley, 2009. Impediments to learning object reuse and openness as a potential solution. [Online].Available from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2231&context=facpub (accessed 22 Nov 2015)): reuse, revise, remix open content, and eventually redistribute via an “Open Learning University Network System—OLUN.” The learning system allows authors to pose amicable questions for a culturally relevant learning interaction with the public and fellow scholars.

Keywords

Social transformation OER Trust telling Storytelling Culturally relevant 

References

  1. Balland, P. A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46(6), 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Çetin, E. (2016). Analysis on the relationship between trust culture and prejudices in primary schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 16(63), 153–168.  10.14689/ejer.2016.63.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan-o-cha, P. (2015). The Thai Government’s Vision in the Years 2015–2020. [Online].Available from http://thailand.prd.go.th/ewt_news.php?nid=1790&filename=index (accessed 11 Jan 2016).
  4. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353–383.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, M., & Starosta, J. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  6. Creative Commons Corporation, (2016). Creative Commons. Retrieved from https://edshelf.com/tool/creativecommons/
  7. Ess, C., & Sudweeks, F. (2001). Culture, technology, communication: Towards an intercultural global village. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Freel, M. S. (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking, and proximity. Research Policy, 32(5), 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardin, R. (Ed.). (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Thousand Oaks, CA, Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2010). Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(5), 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jandt, F. E. (2013). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community. Thousand Oaks, CA. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Molefi, K. A., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1989). Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Ng’ambi D., & Luo A. (2013). Towards a sustainable inter-institutional collaborative framework for open educational resources (OER). Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice. Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  14. Norrick, N. R., (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Volume 203 of Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Oates, L. (2009). Coming up short in the OER movement: African Language OERs. Access to Knowledge: A Course Journal, [S.l.], 1(2), July 2009. Available at: <http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/a2k/article/view/449>
  16. Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2015). Available at: <http://inter.mua.go.th/about-us-ohec/>
  17. Pstross, M. (2014). A story about storytelling: Enhancement of community participation through catalytic storytelling. Rural Wealth Creation as a Sustainable Economic Development Strategy, 45(5), 525–538.Google Scholar
  18. Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Theodori, G. (August 2005). Community and community development in resource-based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 18(7), 661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wiley, D. (2009). Impediments to learning object reuse and openness as a potential solution. [Online].Available from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2231&context=facpub (accessed 22 Nov 2015).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education Communication TechnologyInnovative Education Technology Research Center, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.University of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA
  3. 3.Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)BloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations