Keeping an Open Mind - Opening up Open Education

Cronin (2019) defines OEP as “combin[ing] the use of OER, open pedagogies, and open, transparent teaching practices with the goals of improving access, enhancing learning, and empowering learners.”  Similarly, Peters (2008, p. 11, cited in Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 54) mentions the “core Enlightenment concepts of freedom, equality, democracy and creativity” with regards to Open Education.  Otto and Kerres (2022) identify a significant number of approaches related to Open Education, ranging from such initiatives as open culture to open source.  Moreover, Weller (2014) advises against thinking of “openness as a unified entity” (cited in Cronin 2017, p. 16).  Whichever one’s take on OE or on engaging in open education, the fact remains that OE is multi-faceted and it is highly unlikely that one inhabits an either/or territory when it comes to this educational concept (Cronin, 2017).  Of paramount importance in a discussion regarding openness in HE are considerations of neutrality and emancipation – is openness a neutral concept and in its bid towards emancipation, is it a given that it actually does so?

Photo by Katerina Pavlyuchkova on Unsplash

It is not enough to view openness as a term in opposition to closed-ness or further connoting the terms to positive and negative respectively.  Oliver (2015) makes a point of illustrating “the irrelevance of simple binary assertions about whether Higher Education is ‘open’ or not” (p. 381) and puts forward the multiplicities which inform the educational context.  In so doing, he calls for avoiding the trap of doing it differently in the blind belief that it will work out better.  In an attempt to escape the monolithic educational institution – Bayne et. al (2020, p. 91) refer to “the inaccessible and exclusive infrastructures of university education” - open education does not necessarily warrant a more just, more equitable or more socially inclusive learning environment just because it is open.  Even if that were the undisputed overarching aim of open education, the fact remains that such openness needs to be questioned.  As do Otto and Kerres (2022, p. 47) in “deconstructing the understanding of openness as a unidirectional and monolithic block” or as does Oliver (2015) in putting forward the idea that educational institutions are not the only circumscribed spaces.  If networked learning allows the undoing of geographical and temporal boundaries, as well as enhances flexibility such as the ability to learn from home, that is not by default a positive for all.  This is not to say that it is not positive (I myself embrace the advantageousness of it) but for some, the home may be a prison and flexibility in “time and pace of participation” (ibid, p. 370) may actually be a hindrance to collaborativist approaches.

It is not an either-open-or-closed that a realistic perspective should make us see.  Rather, it is the way open in its very being entails the closed.  Bayne et al. (2020, p. 91) claim that “open education projects are better understood as a much more complex, multiple, and conflicted arrangement that simultaneously opens certain opportunities for engagement while closing off others”.  In their consideration of OER, Otto and Kerres (2022) identify the advantages of broadening the availability of knowledge whilst simultaneously acknowledging the fact that the exportation of knowledge from Western industrialised countries may constitute a new kind of imperialism.  Along the same lines, Oliver (2015, p. 368) brings up the issue with regard to “scholars in low-income countries”, who he claims “would need incentives to produce [OER] materials”.  As stated by Funes and Mackness (2018, cited in Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 55), “[n]orms inside the temple intended to include and foster diversity lead to the opposite”.  In a previous blog post I had already mentioned that the body of knowledge related to Networked Learning may not be a fair holistic representation if it lacks contributions from the Global South and other “disadvantaged spaces” (NLEC, 2020, p. 317).  It is thus evident that “Openness is neither neutral nor natural: it creates and depends on closures” (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 82).

In view of the above, I ask myself therefore, should we give up on the idea of Open Education?  Should we, most notably as educators, stop sharing resources amongst ourselves and with students, stop publishing textbooks under a Creative Commons licence or stop reflecting on content, materials and pedagogies with educators and students alike?  My answer would be a straightforward No insofar as we are practising in Cronin’s (2017) words, “social learning” (p. 24) and concurrently “break[ing] down the traditional barrier between lecturer and student” (p. 25), fostering collaborativism amongst the latter two (Nascimbeni, 2020).  Insofar as we are “contribut[ing] to a social culture of sharing” (Otto and Kerres, 2022).  Insofar as individual freedom is respected and stakeholders allowed to decide for themselves whether or not and to what degree to engage in Open Education (Cronin, 2019; Ward, 2017, cited in Nascimbeni, 2020).  And most especially, insofar as we can be self-reflexive and not simply dream, but be able to consider and re-consider, how a utopic vision of openness translates itself into the realities and practicalities of education, and where necessary be critical.  How else to combat the neoliberal trend of a market-driven education (Giroux, 2014; Mayo, 2019), if not by believing in the first place that education is a right for all, and not a commodity for the few!

Block 5: Educational Openness - OER and OEP

References:

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(5), 15-34.

Cronin, C. (2019). Open Education: design and policy considerations. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Principles and Practices of Design. Third edition. New York, US: Routledge. https://hydi.um.edu.mt/permalink/f/1rh358i/TN_cdi_askewsholts_vlebooks_9781351252805

Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.

Mayo, P. (2019). Higher Education in a Globalising World. Manchester University Press.

Nascimbeni, F. (2020). Empowering University Educators for Contemporary Open and Networked Teaching. In D. Burgos (Ed.), Radical Solutions and Open Science: An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education (pp. 123-134). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8

Oliver, M. (2015). From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 365-384.

Otto, D., & Kerres, M. (2022). Deconstructing the virtues of openness and its contribution to Bildung in the digital age. In D. Kergel, J. Garsdahl, M. Paulsen, & B. Heidkamp-Kergel (Eds.), Bildung in the Digital Age (pp. 47-63): Routledge.