To design for Open learning is a complex task. There are a set of requirements or design attributes that needs to be considered: participatory technology, people openness & trust, accessibility,… But rather than focusing on the technological side or design method, open learning could be viewed as a professional oath, a mission that guides teachers and institutions to deliver barrier-free and inclusive-based education.

At the heart of open learning it sits an ethics-driven view of education, which one of the main moto is education for all. We could argue that for this mission to be accomplished, scale – large number of students and global reach, is a core characteristic of open learning and an implicit goal to opening up a course. An attribute that I can imagine it may sound attractive to institutions, and used as a convincing argument when creating internal buy-in.

As much as I can agree and support the ethical and social mission behind open learning, when scale or growth are key motivations for any decision, it always raises some alerts for me. I’d like to pose some questions to critically evaluate the possible risks or unintended consequences that scale may have in open learning education.

Second intentions. Public visibility
Recently, I came across with a blog post from a teacher sharing a story about their course. The post was rather a publicity of the course, describing the content and benefits of taking the course. The most popular course in design – it said. Later on, I found out that that course was delivered both as a traditional course for enrolled students and also as an open learning course targeted to any professional in the field.

Using the same course in closed and open mode, reaching out both the academic and professional audiences, is certainly an advantage and a fantastic opportunity for practicing the ‘education for all’. I can’t help to think though, that there is a second intention behind it. Open learning exposes the course, the teacher and the institution in ways that traditional courses don’t. And inevitably in open, the course can become an enabler to professional and institutional visibility as well as a quick access to personal recognition.

Is it fair to take personal advantage of the benefits that open learning presents to educators and institutions? Is the personal recognition of going open a valid motivation? Does it still align or contradict with the core mission?

Numbers vs. Quality of learning
When scale is one of the main purposes of opening up education, effectiveness may become a key criteria to the course design. How might we reach out to as many geographies as possible? How might we host unlimited number of students Consequently, the ambition of reaching up to high student numbers may overshadow the constructive alignment principles when planning the course.

Learning in large groups have its limitations and do not always provide the right learning environment. It requires a set of considerations in the resources and teaching methods that may not be always possible to deliver in distance learning. What it might present at first as an opportunity it can as well compromise the quality of the learning experience.

In a way, ‘education for all’ has an implicit metric: when all are educated, then we will have succeeded. But what about putting the learning results before the ambitions of scale? Could we remove the scale out of the equation completely? Could open courses still deliver on the promise of ‘education for all’ when limiting the number of students to guarantee the quality of learning?

If ethics are a core value in open learning, we should then be consequent by being truly transparent about the real intentions of going public. A common mission – like a declaration of intentions that can be shared publicly, would need first be developed to guide course-related decisions, and align the institutional goals and personal motivations accordingly.