The advantages of open online learning are more than well-rehearsed on this course, but I feel that the disadvantages are hinted about but not openly addressed in the teaching materials like the lectures, videos and articles. Openly discussing the pros and cons would give a bit more balanced view of what can, and what cannot, be gained through open online education (for more information on the advantages and disadvantages please see Bali, 2014; Oudeweetering and Agirdag, 2018; Zhenghao et al., 2018). What seems to be missing in the studies dealing with open online learning is the examination and acknowledgement of open online learning as education policy and the political nature of educational transfer with potential unintended consequences. In the rest of the blog I will be dealing with these questions.
International education started long before open online learning and MOOCs entered the scene. Educational systems have always developed relationally but what is new is the level of global entanglement and the continuing if not increasing power of Western colonialization of educational policy (Silova, Rappleye and Auld, 2020). Cambridge (2001) argues that international education can be considered as any other branded product like soft-drinks or hamburgers with standardized practices and quality standards across the globe. Thus, it is no wonder why universities with strong global brands like Harvard, Yale, and University of California have been active producers of MOOCs and as such attractive to customers. What is problematic though, is that highly prestigious Western universities following particular educational policies do not recognize the relationality of educational development but see their view as representing universal criteria. The assumptions inherent in educational policies (Silova, Rappleye and Auld, 2020) and the course offerings, contents and pedagogics linked to them are not identified nor brought into discussion
Educational policy, like advancing open online learning, have always been used as a political tool. We can easily recognize the politics and propaganda involved in the educational policies and practices of North Korea and the former Soviet Union but can we Finns/Scandinavians/Westerners recognize the political/colonizing aspects of our educational policies and practices when offering open online learning and when creating new educational export products for international markets. Silova, Rappleye and Auld (2020) use Mignolo’s (2011) categorization of simultaneously existing competing trajectories of educational policy: (1) re-westernization, (2) global reorientation to the left, (3) de-westernization, (4) decoloniality, and (5) spirituality. I cannot go into details regarding each trajectory in this blog but will reflect upon the trajectory of rewesternization in regard the policy agenda of enhancing open online learning.
The most popular MOOCs provided by the major players of open online learning like Coursera and EdX are produced in English by major US universities. These universities are experienced in producing international education both through locally based universities, international subsidiaries and international export degree programs like international MBAs produced in different locations across the globe. MOOCs are just a new way to increase the international offering of these universities. As such these courses are based on the US educational policies and follow the standardization processes in place in these educational institutions. Given that universities with strong brands attract students/customer the MOOCs offered have huge numbers of participants from different parts of the world. Through the outreach of the courses to pretty much every corner of the world, they can be seen to powerfully contributing to the processes of rewesternization. According to Silova, Rappleye and Auld (2020) rewesternization means cost cutting and expansion of Western liberal model and neoliberal capitalist thought which are put forward through promotion of science and technology. I am asking what such policies do to local cultural practices in general, and local educational practices in particular (in good and bad). What does it mean that more and more people cannot learn in their native language? I suggest that we, as educators, should be much more reflective in regard what else we are doing when promoting open online learning in the name of development.
References
Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44.
Silova, I., Rappleye, J., & Auld, E. (2020). Beyond the Western horizon: Rethinking education, values, and policy transfer. In Handbook of Education Policy Studies (pp. 3-29). Springer, Singapore.
van de Oudeweetering, K., & Agirdag, O. (2018). MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1-11.
Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s benefiting from MOOCs, and why. Harvard Business Review, 25, 2-8.
