Attitude towards openness

Of the topics discussed by PBL08, one of them was: “what does open mean to us? How open would we be in sharing our resources?” Although the modern open education movement started in 2002, this remains a common question from faculty. Open education is founded on foundations of openness, sharing, critical pedagogy, and inclusivity.

Focusing on the concept of sharing, I find this talk by David Wiley on Open Education (2010) and the Future inspiring. Although presented more than 10 years ago the content is even more relevant today technology affords more opportunities for sharing. The central idea is that expertise is nonrivalrous – that it can be given without being given away.

He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mone; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me.

Thomas Jefferson

A confident and secure expert would understand that in this knowledge-based economy content is readily available everywhere. With a mindset of education as a relationship of sharing means sharing trumps protection.

A philosophy of openness is purposeless without action. Yet faculty is so bound to responsibilities in their institutions. A desire for openness requires support in higher education. The creation/sharing of resources on technological platforms is laborious. To create motivation for students to complete open courses, credentialing is a good strategy that has been effective. I appreciate the initiative in NUS where faculty can apply for funding and support to create Massive Open Online Courses. Such initiatives make it possible for faculty to have time and resources dedicated to the design of a quality course. The courses are mounted on platforms like EdX and Coursera to support the process of tracking and credentialing.

Open Pedagogy

The creation of open content is only one side of the coin. As students access open materials can they also have a hand at remixing them? I find De Rosa’s (2016) pedagogy and practice particularly instructive. De Rosa has empowered her students to create a textbook for their course using an outline. As students go through the course they curate resources and contribute towards the learning in the course. They can produce videos and other multimedia (some of which may be part of their assignments) to better illustrate course concepts. This can be an empowering experience for students leading to deeper learning as students engage in higher-order thinking skills like evaluation and creation. This is the outcome is De Rosa’s case study.

Open pedagogy can be a transformation. Clearly, it is radically different from the traditional schooling students have been accustomed to. A literature review by Clinton-Lisell (2021) on open pedagogy found barriers such as changes in power dynamics and student confusion. As much as I would like to see co-creation between faculty and students as one of the learning outcomes I think it is important to have: a clear structure, for students to see the intended learning outcomes, facilitation and motivation, and the willingness to learn within an ill-structured environment. This is an area of interest to further explore and this course on open education by OpenLearn (Open U) looks promising.