Author: Sally Farah

Introduction: In this topic, we explored the benefits and challenges of openness in education and learning. Openness can be understood as both an attitude and a practice that transforms how knowledge is created, accessed, and shared. First, we examined the traditional notions of access and inclusion, then moved to the development of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP). We also reflected on the role of open licensing (Creative Commons), copyright, and emerging technologies such as generative AI in reshaping the boundaries of education and knowledge.

Today, many universities publish course materials—lectures, textbooks, and course modules—as OERs under Creative Commons licenses that allow users to reuse and adapt content within certain terms. Examples include MIT OpenCourseWare, OpenLearn, MERLOT, Open UBC, and the OER Search Index (OERSI.org). Similarly, millions of media files can be accessed through open repositories such as Openverse, Wikimedia Commons, and Pixabay. These platforms enable educators and learners alike to contribute to the global exchange of knowledge (Wiley & Hilton, 2018).

Open Educational Resources (OER) as a Way of Improving Inclusive and Equitable Access to Education (Lia)

As Lia emphasized, the concept of Open Education is deeply rooted in UNESCO’s call for equitable and inclusive access to knowledge. Following the 2019 UNESCO Recommendation on OER, open education seeks to promote sustainable and resilient knowledge ecosystems by enabling the 5Rs of openness—Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix, and Redistribute (UNESCO, 2019).

The 2020–2025 post-pandemic context has made this mission even more urgent: open practices now represent both a right and a responsibility toward global equity. In developing contexts such as South Africa or Brazil, OER initiatives (e.g., OpenUCT, Pantheon UFRJ) support lifelong learning opportunities that reduce socioeconomic disparities. However, access alone is insufficient; educators and learners must also be empowered to reuse, repurpose, adapt, and redistribute OERs meaningfully.

AI tools can further scale the reach of open education by translating, adapting, and contextualizing high-quality learning materials for underserved populations (UNESCO, 2023). Yet, as Lia noted, this must be done cautiously to avoid reinforcing the digital divide. The Dubai Declaration on AI and OER (2025) highlights this balance between technological potential and ethical responsibility in digital learning ecosystems.

Open Access Week Conferences and Global Awareness (Mary)

Mary highlighted the global conversation around open access through initiatives like Open Access Week, whose 2025 theme, “Who Owns Our Knowledge?”, continues the dialogue from 2023–2024’s “Community Over Commercialization”. These annual events, supported by organizations like SPARC and UNESCO, promote transparency, collaboration, and fair access to scholarly knowledge.

Conferences such as Behind the Scenes: Open Scholarship (Concordia University, 2025) explore how openness can bridge “third spaces” between academia and the public. Similarly, the SUNY OER Summit (2022–2025) and the University of Calgary’s presentation “Fear of the Unknown: What Really Happens When You Make Your Work Open?” reflect ongoing debates about intellectual ownership, cultural differences in copyright interpretation, and the ethics of sharing across contexts (Adams, 2025).

These initiatives demonstrate that openness is not only a technical or legal question but also a cultural and epistemological one—asking who benefits from open knowledge, and whose voices are represented in it.

Selecting Ways to Share

Selecting how to share educational resources openly depends on the purpose, audience, and level of openness intended. I found several ways to share online: through institutional repositories (like OpenUCT or UFRJ’s Pantheon), dedicated OER platforms (MIT OpenCourseWare, OER Commons, MERLOT), or open media sites (Wikimedia Commons, Openverse, Pixabay). Educators can also share via MOOCs or academic networks such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, depending on whether the goal is open education, scholarly dissemination, or collaboration (Cox & Trotter, 2017; Hilton, 2020).

1. How Many Ways Are There to Share?

There are multiple modes of sharing educational materials depending on purpose, audience, and licensing preferences:

• Institutional Repositories:
  Many universities maintain open repositories (e.g., OpenUCT, Pantheon at UFRJ, Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook) where educators can deposit publications, datasets, and teaching materials under open licenses (Cox & Trotter, 2017).
• Open Educational Resource Platforms:
  Sites such as OER Commons, MERLOT, OpenLearn, MIT OpenCourseWare, Coursera, and edX enable public access to teaching content globally.
• Creative Commons and Open Licensing:
  Sharing can be structured through Creative Commons (CC) licenses, which provide clarity on reuse, remixing, and redistribution rights (Hilton, 2020).
• Wikimedia and Open Media Platforms:
  Wikimedia Commons, Openverse, Pixabay, and similar media repositories allow sharing of images, videos, and music that can complement OERs.
• Academic Social Networks:
  Platforms like ResearchGate or Academia.edu allow semi-open sharing, though often outside the fully open-access ecosystem (Piwowar et al., 2018).

Example: UNESCO’s Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (2019) encourages governments and institutions to support diverse dissemination channels that promote “equitable and inclusive access to quality education.”

2. Who Do I Want to Share With?

Deciding on audience and purpose determines the right channel and license:

• Students: Learning platforms, MOOCs, LMS-integrated OERs (Salmon, 2013).
• Educators/Peers: Institutional repositories, OER Commons, professional networks.
• General Public: Open platforms (YouTube, Wikimedia, blogs) under CC licenses.
• Researchers: Preprint servers (e.g., arXiv, SSRN) or open-access journals for scholarly outputs.

Choosing the audience shapes how openly the material is licensed (for reuse, remix, or adaptation).

3. How Can I Do This?

Practical steps for open sharing include:

• Select a License: Use creativecommons.org/choose to determine the appropriate license (e.g., CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC).
• Upload Strategically: Post on trusted OER or institutional repositories rather than only on personal websites for discoverability and credibility.
• Ensure Accessibility: Provide materials in editable and accessible formats (e.g., .docx, .rtf, subtitles on videos) to align with inclusive education goals (UNESCO, 2019).
• Cite and Attribute Properly: Always credit the original creator, and if you remix or adapt materials, clearly indicate your contributions (Hilton, 2020).
• Monitor Use and Impact: Platforms like Zenodo and Figshare provide metrics for downloads and citations to track the reach of shared materials.

4. Balancing Openness and Control

Concerns about quality, misuse, and attribution are common (as in the scenario).

• Educators can mitigate these by using licenses that restrict commercial use or modification (e.g., CC BY-NC-ND).
• Open sharing increases visibility and collaboration opportunities, which can enhance academic reputation rather than diminish it (Wiley & Hilton, 2018).
• Quality assurance can also be community-driven — through peer feedback and adaptation tracking (Cronin, 2017).

Ethics, Sustainability, and the Future of Openness

Openness should be viewed through an ethical and sustainable lens. Open education must ensure data privacy, authorship recognition, and the protection of indigenous and community knowledge. Sustainable openness requires shared governance and equitable funding models so that open access does not rely solely on individual or institutional goodwill (Hess & Ostrom, 2022).

In this light, open education becomes not just a pedagogical innovation but a social contract that commits institutions to inclusivity, accountability, and justice in the digital age. It asks: how can we sustain open practices in a way that values diversity, ensures representation, and supports long-term global collaboration?

References

Adams, S. (2025). Fear of the unknown: What really happens when you make your work open? University of Calgary. Retrieved October 23, 2025, from https://yuja.ucalgary.ca/V/Video?v=1110604&a=32129370

Concordia University. (2025). Behind the scenes: Open scholarship | Fourth Space events. Retrieved October 23, 2025, from https://www.concordia.ca/cuevents/offices/provost/fourth-space/2025/10/24/behind-the-scenes.html

Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2017). Factors shaping lecturers’ adoption of OER at three South African universities. Open Praxis, 9(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.1.473

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, 18(5), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096

Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2022). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. MIT Press.

Hilton, J. (2020). Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., … & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge.

UNESCO. (2019). Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER). Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370936

UNESCO. (2023). Dubai Declaration on AI and OER. UNESCO Open Education Global Forum. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-educational-resources

Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

Introduction: Navigating the Digital Age as Learners and Educators

In an era where learning increasingly unfolds through screens, networks, and shared digital spaces, online participation and digital literacy have become indispensable for educators and learners alike. The Open Networked Learning (ONL) course’s first topic, Online Participation and Digital Literacies, invited participants to explore how we communicate, collaborate, and construct meaning in virtual environments. Beyond mastering tools and platforms, this topic illuminated the social, ethical, and affective dimensions of digital engagement. As our group, Roots & Routes, discussed, thriving in this environment requires confidence, critical thinking, and a reflective approach to our own digital identities.

Digital Participation and Engagement (Rotich)

Rotich emphasized that successful online participation depends on both student and faculty engagement. Students are expected to manage time effectively, maintain digital etiquette, and cultivate responsibility for their learning, while instructors must provide clear communication, accessible materials, and meaningful feedback. These practices are consistent with research showing that engagement in online education depends on the quality of digital interaction and the presence of “social immediacy” (Henry, 2020; Stancin et al., 2025).

Rotich’s insights align with pedagogical frameworks emphasizing community, connection, and autonomy as drivers of motivation in virtual classrooms. Faculty can encourage deeper participation by using strategies such as peer review, open discussions, and negotiated expectations for camera use, approaches that create belonging while respecting learners’ diverse contexts (Acacia University, n.d.). This balance reflects the human side of digital learning: building trust and connection through intentional design.

Modes of Participation: Synchronous, Asynchronous, and In-Person (Lia)

Lia compared online synchronous, asynchronous, and in-person learning, emphasizing that no single modality is superior. Each offers distinct advantages and limitations. Synchronous learning enables real-time dialogue and shared presence but demands coordination across time zones. Asynchronous formats promote flexibility and reflection but can feel impersonal. In-person settings strengthen social bonds yet lack the global reach of online environments.

Lia’s contribution underscores the value of a blended approach that integrates all three modes to cultivate meaningful inquiry. This mirrors findings by Afonso et al. (2025), who argue that hybrid and flexible models empower students to engage through varied learning rhythms and cultural lenses. By blending modalities, educators not only accommodate learners’ individual needs but also sustain community across digital boundaries.

AI and Authentic Participation (Daniela)

Daniela explored how generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude are transforming online class participation. She argued that discussion boards, once cornerstones of asynchronous interaction, risk losing their authenticity when students can generate responses instantly. This challenge calls for educators to rethink assessment and move toward authentic, reflective, and dialogic forms of engagement.

Daniela proposed alternatives such as oral assessments, reflective journals, and project-based learning, echoing Hertz’s (2025) call for assessment that fosters “genuine intellectual growth.” She also advocated for transparent institutional guidelines on AI use, framing it not as a threat but as a catalyst for redefining what constitutes meaningful participation. This approach positions AI as a partner in inquiry, not a shortcut to performance.

Developing Digital Literacies

I believe the essential role of faculty development is in building digital literacies. According to her synthesis, instructors who model consistent, creative technology use inspire students to develop their own competencies. Digital literacy, as Buchan et al. (2024) explain, extends beyond technical skills to include critical evaluation, adaptability, and ethical responsibility.

Supporting both students and faculty through professional development and mentorship enhances confidence and inclusivity in online learning spaces. This resonates with Zhang and Wu’s (2025) findings that faculty digital teaching skills directly influence teaching quality and student motivation. Ultimately, fostering digital literacy is not merely a technical endeavor; it is a human process of empowerment and connection.

Third Spaces and Brave Spaces

This topic also opened conversations around Third Spaces, a framework I explored deeply in my reflection. Drawing on Bhabha’s (1994) theory, the Third Space represents a hybrid zone where learners negotiate their personal and professional identities, merging what they know with who they are becoming. In online education, these spaces invite authenticity and intercultural dialogue, enabling students and educators to co-construct meaning beyond institutional boundaries (Zhang & Jian, 2020).

In my reflection, I emphasized that teaching in multilingual and multicultural environments requires co-creating Third Spaces where both teacher and learner bring their full selves into dialogue. As Fellows (2025) notes, digital third spaces foster “identity work and relational agency” that make learning personally significant.

While Third Spaces address identity and hybridity, Brave Spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013) add the emotional and ethical dimension necessary for learning in the open. The Six Pillars of Brave Space: vulnerability, storytelling, respectful challenge, accountability, empathy, and acknowledgment of inequity (University of Maryland School of Social Work, 2021), remind educators that discomfort is not failure but growth. To best capture this spirit, we need to understand that learning in the open requires managing the fear of being seen. As Rountree (2025) argues, such spaces become “ritual grounds for voice and belonging” when difference and discomfort are welcomed rather than silenced.

Conclusion

Our ONL group’s exploration of Online Participation and Digital Literacies revealed that thriving in digital education requires much more than technical proficiency. It involves cultivating critical awareness, emotional courage, and relational sensitivity. Lia’s focus on flexible modalities, Rotich’s insights on engagement, Daniela’s call for authenticity amid AI, the emphasis on literacy-building, and my reflection on Third and Brave Spaces all point to a shared truth: online learning is a deeply human practice. As learners and educators, our task is not only to navigate networks but to create spaces, digital or otherwise, where knowledge and identity evolve together.

References

Afonso, A., Morgado, L., Noguera, I., Sepúlveda-Parrini, P., Hernandez-Leo, D., Alkhasawneh, S. N., Spilker, M. J., & Carvalho, I. C. (2025). Flexible learning by design: Enhancing faculty digital competence and engagement through the FLeD project. Education Sciences, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070934

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus Publishing.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

Buchan, M. C., Bhawra, J., & Katapally, T. R. (2024). Navigating the digital world: Development of an evidence-based digital literacy program and assessment tool for youth. Smart Learning Environments, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00293-x

Fellows, A. (2025). Third spaces in digital pedagogy: Identity, agency, and relational learning. Routledge.

Henry, M. (2020). Online student expectations: A multifaceted, student-centered understanding of online education. Student Success, 11(3), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.1678

Hertz, A. (2025). Authentic assessment in the age of AI: Rethinking academic integrity and creativity. Journal of Digital Pedagogy, 9(2), 45–58.

Rountree, L. (2025). Voicing difference: Brave spaces in digital learning communities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Stancin, K., Jaksic, D., & Petrovic, A. (2025). How can we understand students’ needs and expectations in online courses to improve their engagement and learning experience? In Advances in Online Learning Research (pp. 97–118). Springer.

University of Maryland School of Social Work. (2021). The six pillars of brave space. https://share.google/014hEAo3Yn9ujJsYY

Zhang, J., & Wu, Y. (2025). Impact of university teachers’ digital teaching skills on teaching quality in higher education. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2436706

Zhang, X., & Jian, X. (2020). The third space and Chinese language pedagogy: Negotiating intenti