Open learning – when somebody asked what it meant to me I had not watched any preparatory video or participated in a webinar, so I had to think on my feet to provide my understanding of the notion. I quickly came up with some mumbo jumbo about free exchange of ideas and accessibility of resources. Only a while later did I have a chance to pause and think how I really see that openness. As a result of my reflection, I classified open learning and openness as another myth. Where does anybody see openness and availability if resources are hidden behind paywalls and subscription fees? Specialist knowledge is only available to a handful of the privileged affiliated to a sect of lawyers, psychologists or other professionals and an ordinary mortal has to prove first that they are in the sect too. Our organizations are not open either. They may boast about turning international but the moment we express a wish to run an international project we are overwhelmed with bureaucracy, thousands of formalities, agreements to get and sign and deliver personally in multiple paper copies although our partner organization is located at the other end of the world.
As I recall the beginnings of the Internet, which coincided with the change of the political system in my country, I was almost choking on endless number of films, books, periodicals, etc, available on the Internet. My ambition at that time was even to download the whole Internet and store it on my own hard disc drives. This openness of resources, however, did not last for long. Their accessibility soon started to be gradually and systematically restricted. The sad truth is that we are all part of the system and we play according to its rules. The organizations we represent cannot be fully open. We have climbed ladders to get to the positions we hold today, obtaining degrees, diplomas and certificates. Eventually, we got to the caste of the few chosen ones. This is probably why we will help our institutions ourselves to guard their resources from laymen, denying them free access to something we have had to work for so hard. On the one hand, our pride will not let us admit that knowledge does not have to be institutionalized and locked in for good in university libraries like in some medieval abbey. On the other hand, we profit from our affiliation to various institutions. They secure our privileged positions and grant access to payable resources. I wonder then if democratization of knowledge is possible at all.
Talking to my PBL group, I realized things are not that hopeless everywhere. There are societies that are not driven by profit or individual convenience but by common benefit. Following up on our discussions how to make knowledge more open, I was struck with a somewhat naive idea.
As I have been teaching numerous age groups, I have become particularly fond of senior citizens. In my country, the moment they retire they are relegated to the margin of the society, unnecessary and invisible. For the state, this group is a burden. Meanwhile, the classes with them are of enormous satisfaction to me. I admire their wit, wisdom and experience. Many of them are former lawyers, engineers, and psychologists. Their great potential stays neglected. Why not activate seniors, include them back in the society instead of pushing them into the abyss of oblivion? The benefit is obvious: senior citizens will regain purpose in life and social respect while the younger will get access to the source of knowledge, practice and support. Not to say social intergenerational bonds will get strengthened too.
