3 The Open Pedagogy Incubator
David Tully
Open pedagogy, which emphasizes the use of OER, encourages educators to create collaborative learning environments where students actively participate in their own education. In this model, the educator acts as a facilitator, guiding students to contribute to knowledge creation, encouraging critical thinking and ownership of their learning.
A key aspect of open pedagogy as described by Wiley (2016) is “renewable assignments,” which differ from traditional “closed assignments” that are graded and discarded. Renewable assignments, such as editing Wikipedia or annotating public articles, have lasting value and contribute to the global knowledge commons. Research such as Clinton-Lisell and Gwodz (2023) showed that students find renewable assignments more motivating and meaningful, particularly as these assignments offer opportunities for students to share their personal stories and experiences based on their identities.
Introducing the Open Pedagogy Incubator
The Open Pedagogy Incubator brings together an interdisciplinary community where educators share their experiences and pedagogical approaches (Cross et al., 2020). The program aims to equip educators with competencies in open pedagogy through hands-on workshops, curated readings, and cohort discussions. Participants collaborate to design custom interventions—including the integration of renewable assignments—that enhance student engagement and support learning outcomes. Through these exchanges, faculty explore alternative instructional approaches, reflect on inclusive pedagogies, and connect with open pedagogy discipline experts for guidance on copyrights and licensing.
Program Design and Planning
Program goals and learning outcomes
The program is specifically designed to encourage and support faculty in advancing beyond the initial step of adopting open course materials. It helps them move towards integrating open-enabled practices into their own teaching. Faculty members interested in the Incubator can apply, and if accepted, they will receive training and support in three key areas:
- Understanding the potential of Open Pedagogy
- Exploring current and emerging models of Open Pedagogical practices
- Gaining a set of concrete processes for implementing Open Pedagogy in a specific course they lead
In our process, a faculty member applies, specifying the course they’ll be teaching next semester and their desire to integrate open interventions. Once accepted into the Incubator, they’ll be equipped and prepared to implement those changes in their course.
Program timeline
The Incubator is a flexible model, offering both multi-semester and shorter, more intensive formats. We’ve also adapted the Incubator to vary in scope—one version takes a deeper dive into open pedagogy’s practices and tools, while another focuses more narrowly on a specific tool or approach.
Short Incubator: 6-week intensive
Standard Incubator: 12-week program
Long-Form Incubator: Bi-weekly meetings and workshops spanning two semesters
Key phases of our Incubator model
Recruitment – Identifying and inviting potential participants.
Orientation – Introducing participants to the program structure, goals, and community.
Meetings & Workshops – Delivering core content through a blend of meetings that are activity-based, focusing on open practices and tools.
Reflection – Creating space for participants to critically examine their teaching values and explore how open pedagogy aligns with their goals and contexts.
Implementation – Participants apply open practices in their own courses.
Refinement – Post-program liaisons for ongoing support to strengthen and sustain their work.
Recruitment Strategies
Our recruitment approach remains consistent across the different Incubator models we offer. We use a range of strategies, including direct invitations—typically extended to past Alt-Textbook grant recipients, instructors who have expressed informal interest, or those referred by colleagues. We also promote the program through the Office for Faculty Excellence newsletter for NC State-specific offerings, and through the University of North Carolina System’s newsletter for broader, system-wide Incubators.
NC State hosts dedicated webpages for the Incubator program, where prospective participants can learn more and apply directly. These pages include an FAQ, an overview of the program curriculum, testimonials, contact information for the organizers, and an application form. For UNC System-wide programs, similar information is provided, often through view-only Google Documents when appropriate.
Additionally, NC State University Libraries publishes news items on its website and republishes past stories highlighting the Incubator or projects developed through it. We also leverage social media to promote the program and direct interested faculty to the appropriate resources.
Eligibility and selection criteria
We welcome applications from faculty across disciplines. For NC State-only versions of the program, participation is limited to NC State faculty. However, when we offer a UNC System-level Incubator, we invite instructors from all 17 institutions within the University of North Carolina System to apply.
The program follows a cohort model, with an ideal group size of 6 to 10 participants. One of our core goals is to cultivate a strong sense of community within the cohort, and we’ve found that groups smaller or larger than this range can make it more challenging to implement the depth of connection and collaboration we aim for.
In every version of the Incubator, faculty are invited to apply to join the program. Our model is grounded in the value of interdisciplinary exchange—we intentionally build cohorts that bring together educators from diverse fields to explore open pedagogy in conversation with one another. This cross-disciplinary dialogue helps participants reflect on how open practices can be meaningfully adapted to their own teaching contexts, informed by perspectives from other disciplines.
At the UNC System level, we also prioritize cross-institutional representation. As part of the application process, we ask applicants to share their interest in open pedagogy, what they hope to gain from the experience, and their current level of familiarity with open practices.
Structure and Components
Meeting cadence and format
While the Incubator model is flexible and can be delivered in-person, virtually, asynchronously, or in a hybrid format, both cohort feedback and facilitator reflection consistently suggest that a hybrid approach—combining in-person and virtual elements—is the most effective.
Session lengths have typically ranged from 60 to 90 minutes, though never less than an hour. Feedback indicates that 60-minute sessions are generally preferred. However, many participants appreciate having time to connect with facilitators after the formal session, so scheduling 75 minutes allows for both the main session and informal follow-up conversations.
Readings and resources
Each version of the Incubator has included required or optional readings designed to support discussion and deepen understanding. Participants are generally asked to complete the readings in advance of the next meeting, either to prepare for group discussion or to lay the groundwork for that week’s activity.
We also invite participants to join a cohort-specific Hypothesis group, enabling collaborative, social annotation of the readings. This not only fosters richer conversation but also introduces faculty to Hypothesis—a free tool often used by instructors when designing renewable assignments.
Workshop descriptions
Workshop content varies depending on whether we’re facilitating a broad Incubator or a version with a more focused theme. However, several core topics remain consistent across all models. These include an introduction to open pedagogy, designing renewable assignments, understanding copyright and fair use, accessibility in open, and exploring case studies that showcase the development and impact of renewable assignments.
Mentorship and Guidance
The Incubator is intentionally designed to provide mentorship and guidance from both internal and external sources. While program facilitators guide the cohort through the structure and content of the program, mentorship also naturally emerges within the cohort itself. Participants often learn from one another through the exchange of ideas, shared challenges, and common goals—particularly around course design and assignment development.
We also regularly invite guest speakers to enrich the experience. These may include tool specialists who lead focused discussions or instructors who share their process for developing renewable assignments.
To ensure sustained support beyond the program, each faculty member is paired with a facilitator who serves as a post-program liaison. This ongoing connection helps participants continue refining their work and integrating open practices into their teaching.
Participant Commitments and Deliverables
Participation in the Open Pedagogy Incubator is a collaborative and immersive experience. To ensure a meaningful journey for all, participants are asked to commit to the following:
1. Attend All Meetings
Our attendees regular presence is essential. Each session builds on the last, and missed meetings can quickly lead to gaps in understanding and momentum. While we understand that exceptional circumstances may arise, we ask participants to make every effort to attend all sessions.
2. Engage Actively
The Incubator is not a passive learning experience. It thrives on conversation, collaboration, and peer learning. We ask that participants should be prepared to contribute to discussions, share their evolving ideas, and respectfully engage with diverse perspectives.
3. Contribute Towards a Program Deliverable
Each participant will work toward a tangible outcome. Most often, this is a renewable assignment aligned with open pedagogy principles. In some cases, participants may choose to focus on course or syllabus design. In past cohorts, participants have also committed to disseminating their work through professional presentations, publications, or other venues.
4. Complete Weekly Reflection Journals
To encourage thoughtful progress and self-reflection, participants are asked to complete brief weekly journals. These reflections are for their own development and to help facilitators support their journey.
5. Stay Current with Readings
Participants are expected to read assigned materials before each session. Optional readings are also provided for those who wish to explore further and deepen their engagement.
6. Contribute Towards a Respectful Learning Environment
We are building a community of educators from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. Participants must be willing to listen generously, speak thoughtfully, and respect differing viewpoints.
7. Commitment to Iteration and Feedback
Participants should be open to sharing work-in-progress and engaging in constructive feedback with peers and facilitators. The development process is collaborative and iterative, and feedback is a key part of deepening ideas and strengthening deliverables.
8. Willingness to Try New Tools or Approaches
Participants are encouraged to experiment with new tools and pedagogical approaches—even those outside their comfort zone—to explore what best supports their teaching goals.
Cohort Assessment
The Open Pedagogy Incubator does not use traditional assessment methods. Instead, participants are supported and encouraged to engage actively in the learning community and make steady progress toward a meaningful deliverable—typically a renewable assignment or other openly-licensed teaching artifact.
Throughout the program, participants are expected to:
- Share regular updates on their project’s development
- Offer and receive feedback during peer discussions and facilitated sessions
- Iterate and refine their work based on feedback and reflection
In the final cohort meeting, each participant delivers a brief presentation showcasing their project, sharing lessons learned, outlining next steps, and welcoming questions and suggestions from the group. This culminating session offers a moment of reflection, celebration, and peer-to-peer learning whilst helping to position the instructor to actual implementation in a course.
Program Assessment
Assessment is an essential component of the Open Pedagogy Incubator, ensuring the program remains responsive, relevant, and effective. Our approach is iterative and grounded in both participant and facilitator reflection.
At the end of each cohort, we invite participants to complete an anonymous feedback form designed to assess their experience with the program’s content, structure, facilitation, and outcomes. The form includes both quantitative and qualitative questions, allowing participants to rate aspects of the program (e.g., session usefulness, pacing, facilitator support) while also offering open-ended reflections and suggestions. We have found that anonymity encourages more candid and constructive responses, which we believe has a deeper value.
Sample questions include:
- What aspects of the program did you find most valuable?
- Were there any topics or sessions that felt less relevant or engaging?
- What would you change or improve for future cohorts?
- How did this program impact your teaching practice or understanding of open pedagogy?
Following the conclusion of the program, each facilitator team meets to discuss these individual reflections, plus share their own. These reflections often cover what worked well, challenges encountered, observations from participant engagement, and recommendations for change. This step captures insights that may not surface through participant surveys alone. Additionally, this collaborative review helps us identify patterns, celebrate successes, and surface areas for growth.
We actively incorporate our conclusions into the design of each new cohort. Sometimes this means logistical changes—adjusting timelines, reordering sessions, or extending time for project development. Other times, it means rethinking content or focus areas. For example, in early iterations of the Incubator, artificial intelligence (AI) was not yet a factor in open pedagogy conversations. As interest in generative AI has grown, we have added new sessions and resources that support critical and creative engagement with this evolving topic.
Following each cohort, we compile a brief one-page report summarizing key findings from the assessment process. These reports serve as both internal planning tools and a way to communicate the value of the program to stakeholders and potential supporters. These “snapshot” reports include:
- Summary of program
- Key Highlights
- Participant Reflections
- Notable successes and areas of strength
- Recommendations for next time
Challenges and Lessons Learned
As with any faculty development program, facilitating the Open Pedagogy Incubator has presented us with different types challenges and learning opportunities. Below, we share key lessons that have shaped how we design and deliver the program today.
Cohort Size & Group Dynamics
Finding the right cohort size was an early and important challenge. In our experience, a virtual program works best with 5–8 participants. Smaller cohorts (fewer than five) tended to lack the diversity of perspectives needed to generate rich discussion and peer learning. They also placed greater pressure on each individual to sustain conversations and momentum. Conversely, cohorts larger than eight introduced new complications—such as less opportunity for individual voices to be heard and a heavier burden on facilitators to support multiple projects and personalities. We’ve found that smaller, intentional groups allow for deeper connections, manageable facilitation, and more meaningful collaboration.
Scheduling & Managing Time Commitments
Scheduling is one of the most complex logistical aspects of running a cohort-based program. The more schedules you try to accommodate, the more difficult it becomes to maintain regular engagement. To mitigate this, we’ve shifted to pre-scheduling all cohort meetings and communicating the time clearly in the Call for Proposals (CFP). Applicants are expected to commit to this meeting schedule up front, which has reduced drop-off and improved engagement. This simple change has had a major impact on participation and accountability.
Clarity of Expectations
We learned that simply inviting faculty to a program isn’t enough—clear communication of expectations is crucial. When participants are expected to produce a deliverable, such as a renewable assignment or syllabus policy, this should be explicitly stated in the CFP, reiterated in the first session, and consistently referenced throughout the program. Faculty are often balancing many demands, so keeping the deliverable top of mind helps them budget time and sustain momentum.
Reframing the Role of Stipends
While stipends can be a motivating factor, participant feedback has shown that the value of the experience often outweighs the financial incentive. Faculty have told us they most appreciate the opportunity to engage in a high-quality program that supports their teaching practice and professional development. We now frame the Incubator as a space for meaningful growth, and when stipends or other financial incentives are available, we present them as a bonus rather than a central feature.
Balancing Active Learning and Facilitation Styles
One of the ongoing challenges has been striking the right balance between active learning and direct instruction. We’ve found that programs relying too heavily on lecture-style sessions struggle to sustain engagement. Faculty respond best to a mix of content delivery and opportunities to apply concepts through discussion, collaborative work, and reflective activities. We now build each session with intentional space for active learning, peer interaction, and personalized application.
Maintaining Momentum Between Sessions
Early on, we noticed a drop in momentum during the weeks between meetings. To address this, we adopted a more proactive communication strategy: sending regular reminders about upcoming meetings and asynchronous assignments, posting relevant readings or prompts, and encouraging peer-to-peer interaction through shared readings (using the Hypothesis tool).
Weekly Reflections as a Feedback and Engagement Tool
Incorporating weekly participant reflections has been one of our most effective tools for both supporting participants and adapting the program in real time. These short prompts allow individuals to pause and process what they’ve learned, track their progress toward their final deliverables, and surface any questions or concerns. They also offer facilitators valuable insight into each participant’s engagement and evolving interests. For example, when several members of one cohort expressed uncertainty and frustration about a specific session’s framing in their reflections, we were able to quickly adjust the remaining sessions to better align with their needs.
References
Clinton-Lisell, V., & Gwozdz, L. (2023). Understanding Student Experiences of Renewable and Traditional Assignments. College Teaching, 71(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2179591
Cross, W., Burke, A., & Strawbridge, J. (2020, March 28). Open Pedagogy Incubator. OSF. https://osf.io/gyrzb/
Wiley, D. (2016, July 7). Toward renewable assessments – improving learning. Improving Learning: Eclectic, Pragmatic, Enthusiastic. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4691
Learn more about the Open Pedagogy Incubator
Winemiller, S., & Tully, D. (2023). Fostering Open Pedagogy in Faculty Cohorts: Opportunities for Applying the Open Pedagogy Incubator Model. UNC System Learning and Technology Journal, 1(1).
Strategies to Empower Students Through Open Pedagogy and Citizen Science
McKenney, E. A., Gates, T. A., Goller, C. C., Tully, D., Leggett, Z., Lupek, M., & Krieg, C. (2024). Strategies to empower students through open pedagogy and citizen science. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 5(1)
North Carolina State University Libraries. (2021, March 3). The Libraries’ Open Pedagogy Incubator: Sharing information, lowering barriers, and engaging more learners. NC State University Libraries.
Leveraging Open Pedagogy to Create an Authentic and Renewable Curriculum
McKenney, E., Winemiller, S., Fox, H., & Cross, W. (2025). Leveraging open pedagogy to create an authentic and renewable curriculum. In E. Elkhoury, J. Olivier, & T. N. Thurston (Eds.), Open Educational Resources for and as Assessment. University of Utah Press.
Recommended Citation:
Tully, D. (2025). Open Education at NC State University Libraries. Approaches to Open Pedagogy: A Guide for Practitioners. https://doi.org/10.52750/825532
