20150510 ORO Open Education and Critical PedagogyBroadly, these include moving to OER models of...

Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Open education and critical pedagogyJournal ItemHow to cite:

Farrow, Robert (2017). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology, 42 pp. 130–146.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© 2015 Taylor Francis Group

Version: Accepted Manuscript

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

1

Thisisanearlydraftofthepaperwhicheventuallyappearsashttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991.Ican’tuploadthefinalversionherebecauseofcopyrightbutImightbeabletoshareanauthorversionifyougetintouch…

OpeneducationandcriticalpedagogyDr.RobertFarrowInstituteofEducationalTechnologyTheOpenUniversityWaltonHallMiltonKeynesMK76AArob.farrow@open.ac.ukSubmittedtospecialissueofLearning,Media&Technology(http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/ed/call-for-papers/cjem-cfp-feb-14)Keywords:openeducation,OER,MOOC,critique,evidence,criticaltheory,criticalpedagogy,discourseanalysis,openwashingAbstract:Thispaperarguesforarevaluationofthepotentialofopeneducationtosupportmorecriticalformsofpedagogy.SectionIexaminescontemporarydiscoursesaroundopeneducation,offeringacommentaryontheperceptionofopennessasbothadisruptiveforceineducation,andapotentialsolutiontocontemporarychallenges.SectionIIexaminestheimplicationsofthelackofconsensusaroundwhatitmeanstobeopen,focusingontheexampleofcommercialandproprietaryclaimstoopennesscommonlyknownas‘openwashing’.SectionIIIusesRaymond’sinfluentialessayonopensourcesoftware‘TheCathedralandtheBazaar’asaframeworkforthinkingthroughtheseissues,andaboutalternativepowerstructuresinopeneducation.InSectionIVanexplicitlinkisdrawnbetweenmoreequalordemocraticpowerstructuresandthepossibilityfordevelopingpedagogieswhicharecriticalandreflexive,providingexampleswhichshowhowcertaininterpretationsofopennesscanraiseopportunitiestosupportcriticalapproachestopedagogy.

2

Introduction

Thispaperexploressomeoftheunder-theorisedaspectsofopeneducation,

primarilyfocusingonthepossibilitiesforaligningopennessineducationwith

possibilitiesforwhat,followingFreire(1970)andKincheloe(2008),Iterm

‘criticalpedagogy’.Criticalpedagogyrepresentsasynthesisofeducational

theoryandcriticaltheory,takingfromthelatteraninterestinthefundamental

relationsofpowerthatinfluencethesocialorderandtheformationofhuman

subjectivity.Criticalpedagoguesaimtoencourageindependentlyminded

learnerswhoquestionthestatusquoandengageexplicitlywithquestionsof

truth,powerandjustice.IraShor(1992:129)hasdefinedcriticalpedagogyas

follows:

“Habitsofthought,reading,writing,andspeakingwhichgobeneathsurfacemeaning,firstimpressions,dominantmyths,officialpronouncements,traditionalclichés,receivedwisdom,andmereopinions,tounderstandthedeepmeaning,rootcauses,socialcontext,ideology,andpersonalconsequencesofanyaction,event,object,process,organization,experience,text,subjectmatter,policy,massmedia,ordiscourse.”

Ishallarguebelowthatthisongoingcriticalinterestinformsofknowledge

productionandhowtheyinfluencebeliefs,thoughtsandactionsbothinthe

individualandinsocietyasawholeischaracteristicofcriticalpedagogy,and

thatopeneducation–andopeneducationalresources(OER)inparticular–

offersstrategiesthatareconducivetosuchgoalsviz-à-vizimproved

understandingofboththeconditionsandtechniquesthatsupportknowledge

creationandtransmission;andasenseoftheimportanceofpowerrelationsfor

thepedagogicalprocessitself.

3

Theriseofinterestinopeneducation–oftenintheformofMassivelyOpen

OnlineCourses(MOOC)–hasbeenwidelydescribedasaradicalordisruptive

forcewhichcallsintoquestionsomebasicassumptionsaboutmoderneducation.

AsJohnDanielshaswritten:

“Openeducationbrokeopentheirontriangleofaccess,costandqualitythathadconstrainededucationthroughouthistoryandhadcreatedtheinsidiousassumption,stillprevalenttoday,thatineducationyoucannothavequalitywithoutexclusivity.”(Daniels,citedinWilson&McCarthy,2012).

Thechangesthatareonlyjustbeginningtobefeltallultimatelyresultfromthe

factthatitisnoweasierthanevertoproduceanddistributeeducationalmedia

andresources.Whilethismayhaveuncomfortableimplicationsforeducational

institutionsandcommercialorganisationsthathaveaninterestincontrollingthe

supplyofsuchresources,thepotentialforamorecollectiveandinclusive

approachtolearningisconsiderable.

I.OpennessandDiscoursesofDisruption

InthesediscoursessurroundingMOOCreferencetocrisisintraditional

educationaremorecommonandmorehyperbolic.AsDeimann(2015)has

shown,discourseanalysisofthemediacoverageofMOOCrevealsofkindof

neoliberalframingwhichportraysMOOCasaninterventionwhichcanopenup

newmarketsforeducationwhilerevolutionizingexistingones.Inparticular,

articlesintheNewYorkTimesbetween2012and2013whichsupportpublic

4

investmentinthe‘efficiencies’oftheprivatesectorareidentifiedcloselywith

thisframework.Narrativeslikethesetendtopromotetheideathat

technologicalinnovationcanofferaneatsolutiontothevariousproblemsthat

beseteducationalinstitutions.

Fewwoulddenythatcontemporaryinstitutionsofhighereducationfacearange

ofchallenges.Againstthebackdropofageneralcommodificationofeducation

andeducationalinstitutions,pedagogicalrelationshipsarechangingandmoving

intounchartedwaters.Studentsareincreasinglyviewed(andviewthemselves)

asconsumersandmanyseeeducationaslittlemorethanpreparationforthe

worldofworkratherthanthetraditionalpublicgood.Facultyarewitnessinga

bifurcationoftheirteachingandresearchroleswhichisnowbecoming

entrenchedthewaythatuniversitiesarerunwithmanythousandsofadjunct

facultyonshortzerohourscontracts,lackingadequateemploymentsecurity.In

theUSAandtheUKlevelsofstudentdebtcontinuetoriseexponentiallywhile

theperceivedvalueofadegree(especiallyintheartsandhumanities)isfalling.

Thefundamentalvaluepropositionofhighereducationischanging.Inhisrecent

book,TheBattleforOpen,MartinWellersummarizesthisasfollows:

Spendingoneducationhasbeenincreasing,whilethereturngraduatesreceiveintermsofincreasedsalaryhasbeendiminishing.Inshort,highereducationisnolongeragoodreturnoninvestmentfromapurelymonetaryperspective.(Weller,2014:94)

Peopleareincreasinglyturningtoopenmaterialstomeettheirlearningneeds,

andfindingthatthereisagreaterrangeofchoiceavailablethaneverbefore,

5

muchofitavailableforfree.Atthesametime,opennessisincreasingly

proposedasasolutionwithinformaleducationalinstitutions.Whetheracrisis

offunding,organization,accessibility,curriculumpedagogy,orresourcesthere’s

anopen,networkedapproachthathasbeensuggestedtoaddresstheproblem.

Broadly,theseincludemovingtoOERmodelsofpedagogy,startingaMOOC,or

increasingtheprovisionoffreedigitalresources.Openaccesspublication,for

instance,isintendedtoovercomerestrictedaccesstopeerreviewedscholarship

andresearch.OpenlicensingoftextualandmultimediacontentasOERare

upheldasaresponsetocopyrightlawswhichlimitaccesstoeducational

materials,raisethecostofeducationandstultifyinnovationinpedagogical

practice.Opentextbooksarepresentedasasolutiontoproprietarytextbooks

whichareoftenprohibitivelyexpensiveintheUSA(Senack,2015).

Ofthedifferentelementswithintheconstellationof‘openeduation’,MOOCs

haveperhapsmadegreatestinroadsintothepopularimagination,withmany

inchesofcolumnspacedevotedtoitinbothacademiaandthepopularpress.The

cheerleadersoftheMOOCmovement–whoarethemselvesprimarilyproviders

ofMOOCplatformslikeCoursera,EdX,Udacity,etc.–oftenportraytheir

interventionsasbothpracticalsolutiontoeverydayproblemsandasasortof

historicallynecessary,technologically-necessaryformofdisruptiveintervention.

Apocalypseandcrisisarethusmotifsthatareincreasinglycommonin

contemporarydiscoursearoundeducationalandmediatechnology.

Theseapproachesareoftenaccompaniedbytheideaofsomesortofsalvation

throughtechnologyandrootedinChristiansen’s(1997)notionofdisruptive

6

innovation.In2013,Christiansen–aprofessorintheHarvardBusinessSchool–

isreputedtohavesaidthefollowing:

Fifteenyearsfromnowmorethanhalfoftheuniversitieswillbeinbankruptcy,includingthestateschools.Intheend,Iamexcitedtoseethathappen.(Christiansen,quotedinMeisenhelder,2013:8)

Similarly,SebastianThrun,founderofUdacity,hasassertedthat“In50years

therewillbeonlyteninstitutionsinthewholeworldthatdeliverhigher

education”(quotedinLeckhart,2012).Withthe“death”ofonekindofpractice,

newpracticesbettersuitedtocontextcanemerge–orsothedisruptive

innovatorswouldhaveit.Watters(2013)arguesthatthattheseapocalyptic

mythshaveapervasiveeffectinAmericanculture,andthattheideaofdisruptive

innovationisparticularlyprevalentamongSiliconValleyentrepreneursandin

business.Theideologicallysaturatednarrativeleadstopredictionsaboutthe

inevitabledeclineofestablishedsystemsinhighereducation:themovetomass

onlinelearning;theinevitabledeathofunder-performingschools;afundamental

changeinthenatureoftheuniversity.Publicinstitutions,itisargued,areunable

toinnovatebecausetheyaremonolithicallyinflexibleandsomehowbeyondthe

reachoftheefficiencyofmarketforces.Weareencouragedtoembracefor-

profitandMOOCstyleeducationsincetheirprevalenceisseenasboth

economicallynecessaryandastheinevitableculminationofthehistoryofthe

academyandthefutureofprofessionaltraining(Bond,2013).

TheNewYorkTimes(Pappano,2012)wentasfarastoproclaim2012“Theyear

oftheMOOC”inanticipationofthefar-reachingchangethatopennessin

educationwouldbringabout.YetMOOCareincreasinglyweatheredby

7

skepticismandthesenarrativesarebeingchallenged.In2012theBabson

SurveyResearchGroupaddedquestionsaboutMOOCtotheirannualsurveyof

morethan2,800chiefacademicofficersincollegesanduniversitiesandfound

thatmostfacultyandacademicofficerswereinfactskepticalaboutthevalueof

MOOCactivityfortheirinstitution(Allen&Seaman,2013).TheUniversityof

NewEnglandhasgoneasfarastocompletelyceaseitsMOOCactivitybecauseit

hasbeenunabletomonetizeitsuccessfully(Dodd,2014a)whileJohnMitchell,

vice-provostforonlinelearningandoverseerofStanford’sMOOCprogramme,

hassuggestedthatnocollegeoruniversitywillbeabletocontinuefundingfree

courseswithoutfindingawaytocoverthecosts.

MOOCshavestartedoutasafreeopportunity–andfreeisagreatwaytogetpeopleinterested…buttraditionally,studentsintheUSpaytuitiontogotocollegeoruniversityandIdon’tthinkitisunreasonabletoaskpeopletopayalittlebitforeducationactivitiesthathelpthemtomoveforwardintheircareers…Ithink[Stanford]willhavelowcost,highvolume,butnon-freecoursesonlinethatwillhelpmakeouronlineprogrammessustainable.(QuotedinParr,2014).

CommercialprovidersanduniversitymanagersseeinMOOCthepotential

profitabilityofscaleandthepromiseofextendinginfluenceandreachwithout

significantlyincreasingoverheads.Thoughno-onehasyetshownaviable

businessmodelfromMOOC,majorproviderslikeedXhaveannouncedthatthey

willbeginchargingforprofessionaleducationcoursesfromthisyear(Dodd,

2014b).

QuestionsarealsobeingraisedabouttheextenttowhichMOOCenhanceaccess

toeducation.ManypredictedthatMOOCwouldimproveaccesstolearningby

8

removingeconomicandgeographicalbarriers(aclaimthathasbeenmadeabout

technology-enhancedmasseducationsinceatleastthe1950s).Inparticular,the

claimthatMOOCsignificantlyincreaseaccesstoeducationbyextending

opportunitytothosedemographicswhicharelessrepresentedinformal

educationsystemshasbeenshowntobehighlyproblematicwhenmostMOOC

learnerstendtobewhite,relativelywealthy,andmostlikelyalreadyin

possessionof(atleast)anundergraduatedegree(Laurillard,2014;Emmanuel,

2013;Perryman,2013).

WithMOOCandtheirvariousderivatives,‘open’tendstobeusedtodenote

courseswhichcanbejoinedbyanyonewhohastherighttechnologytoaccess

contentdeliveredonline–therearenorequirementsintermsofprior

qualification.Thishasledtosomecourseswithmanyhundredsofthousandsof

registeredlearners,withanaverageenrollmentofaround40,000students

(Jordan,2014).MOOChaveoftendescribedaseither‘cMOOC’or‘xMOOC’.

cMOOCoriginallyrantotestConnectivisttheoriesaboutnetworkedlearning

throughprocessesofaccumulation,collectivecontentcreation,andsharing

(Siemens,2005).Mostverylargecoursenumbers–sometimeswithhundredsof

thousandsoflearners–arefoundinthexMOOC,whichtypicallymake

institutionalcoursecontentavailabletoverylargenumbersoflearnersbuthave

beenaccusedofbeingpedagogicallyretrograde(Stacey,2014).AsBayne&Ross

(2014:21-22)note,wearestartingtoseeamoveawayfromthecMOOC/xMOOC

binaryandgreaterrecognitionofmorediverseformsofopenonlinecourse,

includingDOCC(DistributedOpenCollaborativeCourse);POOC(Participatory

9

OpenOnlineCourse);BOOC(Big/BoutiqueOpenOnlineCourse);andevenanon-

openvariant–SPOC(SmallPrivateOnlineCourse).

Astherangeofopenapproachescontinuestodiversify,itcanbedifficultto

retainclarityaboutthe‘open’dimensionwhichisbothdistinctiveandheldin

common.Witharecognisedlackofcleardataabouttheimpactofdifferentopen

approches–especiallywithrespecttoinformal,extra-institutionaluseofOER–

itcanbedifficulttoeffectivelystrategiseopenpractices.

Thislackofcleardata–partlyreflectiveoftheinformalandextra-institutional

natureofmuchopenlearning–createsaspacethatallowsforconjecture,

divergentclaimsandhyperbole.Butinessencethesedichotomiesreflect

differingviewsaboutthemeaningandvalueofopennessineducation.

II.CompetingVisionsof‘Open’

Does“open”meanopenlylicensedcontentorcode?And,again,whichlicenseisreally“open”?Does“open”mean"madepublic"?Does“open”meanshared?Does“open”mean“accessible”?Accessiblehow?Towhom?Does“open”meaneditable?Negotiable?Does“open”mean“free”?Does“open”mean“open-ended”?Does“open”meantransparent?Does“open”mean“open-minded”?“Open”tonewideasandtointellectualexchange?Opentointerpretation?Does“open”meanopentoparticipation—byeveryoneequally?(Watters,2014)

Theactofattemptingtodefineopennessisitselfvaluablefortheaction,

reflectionandstrategizationoftheopeneducationmovement.Thelanguageof

opennessiscertainlyusedwidely,andyetrelativelylittleisknownaboutthe

impactofopennessonthelearner.Yet,atthesametime,opennessretainsan

10

appealformany.Onewayofaccountingforthisisthroughthisveryambiguity,

whichisamenabletoseveralinterpretations,notallofwhicharenecessarily

consistent.

BecausemuchuseofOERisinformalorundertakentosupplementformalstudy,

identifyingthespecificinfluenceofopennesscanbedifficult.Theopennatureof

OERintroducesfurtherintricacyintothecomplexitiesofpedagogicalresearch.

Inpart,thisreflectstheimmatureresearchcontextandlackofconsistencyin

identifyingandmeasuringopeneducation.Manydifferentdefinitionsof

opennessineducationhavebeenproffered.Forinstance,asCobo(2013)notes,

opennessofeducationalresourcesistypicallycharacterizedbythreekey

features:

• Openintellectualpropertylicences

• Permissionstoduplicate/use/adapt/editcontentinwaysotherthan

establishedbytraditionalcopyright

• Non-discriminatoryprivilege(rightsextendtoanypotentialauthor)

Thisdoesnot,however,translateintoasharedunderstandingofwhatismeant

orimpliedby‘openness’inpractice.Forexample,itomitsanyreferencetoopen

technologies,methodsofdelivery,orpractice–featureswhichonemightjustas

easilyclaimareessentialaspectsofopenpractice.InthecontextofaMOOC,for

instance,‘open’typicallyreferstotheremovalofinstitutionalortechnological

barrierstoaccessingeducationalcontent:likefees;physicallocation;entry

requirements,andsoon.InthecontextofOER,‘open’istypicallyusedtoreferto

thelicensesassociatedwithorappliedtoaparticularpieceofcontent.Oftenthe

11

difficultiesaroundpreciselydefiningopennesscirculatearoundsubtle

contextualdifferencesandthemanifoldwaysopennesscanbeinterpreted.

Theclearestexampleofcontestedinterpretationsofopennesscanbefoundin

thecontroversiesaroundbrandingofproprietarycontentas‘open’without

showingaclearcommitmenttothevaluesoftheopeneducationmovement.

Theold‘open’vs.‘proprietary’debateisoverandopenwon.AsITinfrastructuremovestothecloud,opennessisnotjustapriorityforsourcecodebutforstandardsandAPIsaswell.AlmosteveryvendorintheITmarketnowwantstopositionitsproductsas‘open’.Vendorsthatdon’thaveanopensourceproductinsteademphasizehavingaproductthat‘usesopenstandards’orhasan‘openAPI’.(Finley,2011)

It’stellingthatopennessisnowviewedasamarketingasset,butcommercial

publisherswhodescribetheirproductsasopenwhentheyarenotlicensedin

suchawayastopromotenon-commercialre-usehavebeenroundlycriticized

fromwithintheopeneducationmovement.Wiley(2011)andothershave

termedthis“openwashing”afterthe“greenwashing”phenomenonassociated

withtheattemptbycorporationstorebrandthemselvesasenvironmentally

friendlyasthegreenmovementbegantogainwiderpopularity(Jermier,2013).

Examplesofpublishersorelearningproviderswhohavebeencriticizedfor

brandingtheircommercialproductsinthiswayincludePearson’s‘OpenClass’

learningmanagementsystem,Udacity’s‘OpenEducationAlliance’,andthe‘Open

English’startup(Watters,2014);aswellas‘OpenEdSolutions’(Wiley,2011).

Thestakesarebelievedtobehigh.AsWeller(2014:21)putsit:“Thisisnota

politedebateaboutdefinitions…therewillbeveryrealconsequencesfor

educationandsocietyingeneral”.Formanyintheopeneducationmovement

12

theattempttocommercialisetheconceptofopenisseenasanaffrontontheir

efforts.

CommentatorslikePeters&Deimann(2013:13)haveconsequentlysuggested

thereisaneedtodifferentiate‘pure’(authentic)opennesstowards‘pretended’

(inauthentic)opennesswhichoffersajustificationofmorecontrolforproducers

andothercommercialstakeholders.AsWeller(2011:105)notes,theoriginal

statementoftheOpenCourseWareapproachwastoactasanalternative

systemofcoursematerialdeliveryinatimewhencontentproviderssoughtever

morecontrolovertheprotectionandexploitationoftheirintellectualproperty.

Soopennessinthefirstinstancecanbeseenasarisingfromtheattemptto

liberateeducationalmaterialsfromtherestrictionsplacedonthembycopyright

holderslikeelearningprovidersandpublishers.

Arguably,thelackofconsensusaboutwhatshouldqualifyaslegitimately‘open’

hasitsrootsintheflexibilityandundeterminednatureoftheconcept.

FewwordsintheEnglishlanguagepackasmuchambiguityandsexinessas‘open’…Profitingfromtheterm’sambiguity[from]the‘openness’ofopensourcesoftwaretothe‘openness’oftheacademicenterprise,marketsandfreespeech.(Morozov,2013)

Whenwerefertoopennesswetendtorefertosomefieldofpossibleaction

ratherthanasetoflicensingoptionsorsomeothercriteria.Themostopen

licensingoptionsarealsotheleastrestrictiveintermsofprescribingthe

behaviorofothers;asWiley(2014)notes,anyrestrictionsonuseincreasethe

‘friction’involvedinworkingwithopencontent.Opennesshasaclose

13

associationwithfreedom–givingpermissionstojoinacourse,toremix

resources,toreadajournal,andsoon–andarguingthatcommercialproviders

mustadoptcertainlicencesorpracticesisanathematothiscoreelementof

openness.

Mysuggestionwillbethatweshouldthinkintermsofmultipleformsof

opennessratherthanmakingjudgementsaboutwhetheraparticularresourceor

practicequalifiesas‘open’onthebasisofabinaryqualitylikehavingaparticular

licence.Ourstartingpointforreflectingonthisareofthetwoformsof

organizationidentifiedinEricRaymond’sruminationsonthevalueoftop-down

andbottom-upmodelsofdesigninsoftwareproduction,‘TheCathedralandthe

Bazaar’(Raymond,2000).Mysuggestionwillbethatwemayoutlinetwo

modelsforthinkingaboutauthenticityandopennessthataredifferentiatedby

theirunderlyingpowerstructures,andillustratethewaysinwhichthe‘bazaar’

offersmorepotentialforreflexivityandcritique.(However,itshouldnotbe

inferredfromthisthatweshouldcategorizeopeninterventionsaccordingto

anotherdualisticorbinaryframework:myintentionisrathertoprovidea

preliminarydistinctionwhichcansupportfurtherreflectionwithoutbeing

reductive.)

III.TheCathedralandBazaarRevisited

InRaymond’s(2000)essay,the‘cathedral’and‘bazaar’refertotwodifferent

approachestosoftwaredevelopmentwhichcanbeextrapolatedouttosocial

14

organizationanddesign.The‘cathedral’modelemphasizestop-down,‘reverent’

design,wherecodeissharedbetweenasmallgroupofskilleddeveloperswho

co-createsomethingcomplicated.Essentially,thecathedralmodelusesaclosed

groupofexpertstoproduceacomplexproduct,muchlikethemedievalartisans

andguildmemberswhoworkedtoconstructanddecoratethegreatcathedrals.

Bycontrast,the‘bazaar’modelinvolvesdevelopingcodeintheopenviapublic,

onlineforum.Bydevelopingcodeintheopenitbecomesavailableforscrutiny,

criticismandpotentialredevelopmentfromawiderangeofdevelopersat

differentlevelsofskill.Raymondproposesthatthemorewidelyavailablesource

codeismade,themoreefficienttheprocessofdebuggingbecomes.Therelative

opennessofthepublicspaceofthe‘bazaar’allowsformoredispersedpatterns

ofcollectiveintelligencewhilethe‘cathedral’setsoutagrandvisionorplanand

thenworkstowardsrealizingthisthroughtheuseofexperts.Severance(2010)

hasofferedsomefurthercharacteristicsofthe‘bazaar’approach,includinguse

ofopenlicensing;transparencyofprocessesanddecisions;horizontalpower

structures;lackofinstitutionalcontrol;andvoluntarycooperationasacentral

organizingprinciple.Themoreauthentically‘open’natureofthebazaaris

identifiedwithmorewidelydispersedmodelsofpower,andwithastriving

towardsacollectiveconsensusaboutthebestmethodofaction.

Thinkingaboutthedifferentkindsofprovisionthathavebeenmadeinopen

education,wecanextendthisanalogyfurther.ThemajorMOOCproviderswhich

presentmassonlineeducationasthenextstepintheevolutionofeducational

technologymaybethoughtofascathedralbuilders,expertsworkingtocreate

grandedificeswhichwillshapethesubjectsoffuture.Ofcourse,weshouldn’t

15

thinkofallMOOCasfittingthismodel–‘ConnectivismandConnective

Knowledge’(Downes,2012)theoriginalMOOCbyGeorgeSiemensandStephen

Downesembodiedadynamismandreflexivitythatidentifiesitmorecloselywith

the‘bazaar’model–butthelargerMOOCprovidersareofteneffectively

institutionsinvolvedindeliveryofagranddesignwhoseoperationstendto

emphasizeverticalpowerandanasymmetricalmodelofcommunicationandco-

ordination.ArguablythisismorecloselyassociatedwithxMOOC,thoughwithin

thespectrumofcMOOC(ConnectivistorConstructivistMOOC)wecanfind

instanceswhichareclosertoeithermodel.Inshort,the‘bazaar’offersthe

possibilityformoreautonomous,spontaneousformsofknowledge

redistributionandcollaboration,whilethe‘cathedral’approachplacesthefocus

onthearchitectonic,thegranddesignwhichrequiresasignificant(top-down)

co-ordinationofeffortinordertoberealized.The‘cathedral’approachseesin

openeducationthepotentialforrollingouteducationalprovisiontolarge

audiences,andinpracticeultimatelyseeksafinancialreturnwhichreflectsthe

extentoftheinvestmentmade.Highereducationinstitutionsinvolvedin

producingandreleasingopencontentthroughMOOCareintheprocessof

buildingtheeducationalsystemsofthefutureandthisrequiresadegreeof

organizationthattherelativeanarchyofthebazaarmightstruggletoprovide.

The‘bazaar’isinsteadgearedtowardsamore‘do-it-yourself’approachwhere

actorsproduceandconsumetheopencontentthatisrelevanttotheirownneeds

aseducatorsand/orlearners.

16

Thuswemaydifferentiatetwobroadapproachestoopeneducation

(independentofcommercialinterest)withoutsuperficiallyidentifyingthese

directlywithinauthenticandauthenticexpressionsofopennessrespectively.

Thoughbothapproachesdeservetobecalledauthenticallyopenintheir

respectiveways,arguablythe‘bazaar’approachallowsforagreaterdegreeof

personalautonomyasaresultofmorehorizontalstructuresofpowerand

influence.WeseethismostclearlyinthecaseofOERwhichareproducedand

usedinformallyorlocally,ortailoredtoveryspecificorevenindividualneed;

whathasbeentermed‘little’OER(Weller,2010).The‘bazaar’isdecentralized–

perhapsmessierandnoisier–butalsooffersgreateropportunityforpersonal

freedom,agency,expressionandengagementforalargernumberofsubjects.

IV.Openeducationandcriticalpedagogy

Thisessaybeganwiththeobservationthatsomecommentatorshaveidentified

MOOCwiththeexpressionofneoliberalreforminhighereducation.This

positioncanbeunderstoodtodrawtogetheranumberofdifferentobjectionsto

openeducation,andreflectsageneralshiftintheacademyfromhumanistic

valuesandmethodstowardsrationalization,efficiency,industrialization,and

commercialization.Thereiscertainlyatemptationtoviewinnovationsofopen

educationinthiswaywhenmasseducationatmarginalcostoffersthepromise

ofreplacingwhatisnotprovidedbythestate.But,asIhavesuggested,muchof

thisperspectivecanbeattributedtosomeofthehypearoundMOOC,muchofit

originatingfromthosewithavestedinterestinthe‘disruption’narrative.It

17

would(ofcourse)beerroneoustocategoriseallMOOCinthiswaybutitremains

thecasethatforthemorehigh-profileproviderstheliberationofcoursecontent

andtheliberalizationofhighereducationmarketsgoeshand-in-hand.This

aspectof‘open’appearstoenableneoliberalaspectsasaresultofthe

centralizationofadministration,assessmentandaccreditation,andsincemost

majorMOOCprovidersarebusinessesratherthanuniversitiestheyalso

contributetothecorporatizationofknowledge.

Thoughclearlyimportant,anadequatediscussionoftheseissueswouldtakeus

beyondtheambitionsofthepresentpaper.Instead,Iwillconcentrateinthis

finalsectiononopportunitiesforautonomy,reflexivityandcriticalpedagogy

offeredwhereopeneducationisalignedtothe‘bazaar’modelofproduction

ratherthantherelativelydidacticapproachesfoundinxMOOCprovision.

Feenberg(2002,Ch.5)hasnotedthatcriticalapproachesareoftenexcluded

fromdebatesaroundeducationaltechnologies,andit’sreasonabletostatethat

therelationshipbetweentechnologyandcriticaltheoryisgenerallyunder-

theorized.Criticalapproachestoknowledgeproductionrecognizethat

knowledgeisfundamentallypoliticalandboundupwithdistinctivelyhuman

interests(Habermas,1971).Criticalapproachestoeducationthusstrive

towardsemancipatoryformsofknowledge;i.e.thosethatilluminateor

deconstructtheeconomicandsocialcircumstanceswithinwhichaparticular

pieceofknowledgeisproducedandunderstood.

18

Criticalpedagogy,incontrasttotraditionalpedagogy,understandsauthentic

educationasfundamentallyemancipatory.Therearemanyinterconnected

theoreticalframeworkswhichappealtothisnotion,includingcriticalrealism

(Corson,1991;EmamiandRiordan,1998;Shipway,2004);criticaltheoristsin

theFrench(Foucault,1986)andGerman(Kellner,2003;Gur-Ze’ev,2005)

traditionsandthewell-knownbodiesofworkinpedagogyandpsychologyby

Freire(1970),Illich(1971)andDewey(1938;1995).Despitevarious

differencesofemphasis,whatunitestheseapproachestoeducationisthe

interestinthecritiqueofoppressiveordominanteconomicand/orsociopolitical

forceineducation,andfocusexplicitlyonhowthisshapestraditional

educationalprocessesandtechniques.Coretotheseapproachesistheideathat

learnersmustrecognisethecontestednatureofknowledgethroughan

understandingofitsproductionandvalidation.Clearly,educationalandmedia

technologieshavecometoplayacentralroleinmediatingtheseunderstandings.

Construedasmediatingtechnologies,OERandMOOCcanbeseentodemocratize

indifferentways:MOOCintermsofaccesstoeducationalresourcesandOERin

termsoftheproductionanduseofeducationalresources.

OnereasontothinkthatOERcansupportcriticalpedagogiesisthroughthe

greaterautonomytheyaffordeducatorsandlearnersinchoosingeducational

materialsfromamorediverseuserbase.Throughthecreation,adaptationand

localizationofeducationalresourceswecanfacilitatenewwaysofperceiving,

categorizing,mapping,andconnectingtherelationshipbetweentheoryand

practice(OERResearchHub,2014).Byopeninguptheprocessesofgeneration

anduseofeducationalresourcestoagreatervarietyofactorsacultureof

19

interrogating(andimproving)pedagogicaltechniquescanbeencouraged.

WithineducationsystemsthatemphasizethevalueofcopyrightedcontentOER

shouldbethoughtofaspotentiallyradicalagentsofchange(McAndrew&

Farrow,2012:74).Openlicensingofaresourceenablesarangeofbehaviours–

or‘openeducationalpractices’(Conole,2011)–thatencourageanewkindof

relationshiptowardthematerialscreatedthatisarguablymorereflectiveof

authentic,situatedneeds.

Objectionsusuallyraisedtotheideaofdemocratizingeducationalprocesses

(ratherthandemocratizingaccesstoformaleducation)drawontheimportance

ofexpertknowledgeforeffectivepedagogyandmayassumethatOERareof

inferiorqualitytoproprietarymaterials.Suchworriesareusuallyoverstated,

especiallyastheopeneducationmovementhasestablishedclearerguidelines

andco-ordinationaroundqualitystandardsandevaluation.Butitisperhaps

worthbearinginmindFreire’s(1970:9)suggestionthat“[l]iberatingeducation

consistsinactsofcognition,nottransferalsofinformation”.Concernsaboutthe

qualityofaparticularresourcearevalid,butmayoverlookthefactthatthereare

alreadyaplethoraofalternativeresourcesavailableinanygivenarea.More

crucialistheneedtoposeandsolveproblemssinceitisthroughthisprocess

thatthatlearnersbettercometounderstandtheirownreality.Weneedlearners

tofeelmoreconfidentandincontroloftheirchoicesabouttheirownlearning,

andrecognisingthatlearnerswillinevitablyseekoutresourcesandsoshouldbe

encouragedtodeveloptheirownsenseofcriticalmedialiteracy.Buttherelative

anarchyofthebazaarisalsotobecelebratedinitsownrightforthecultureof

self-relianceandcriticalautonomythatcanbefostered.

20

AsRichardShaullwroteinhisforewordtoFreire’sPedagogyoftheOppressed,

educationisalwaysalreadypoliticised,concernedwiththeformationoffuture

subjectsandestablishingnormativeexpectationsaroundpracticesofconformity

andfreedom:

Educationeitherfunctionsasaninstrumentwhichisusedto

facilitateintegrationoftheyoungergenerationintothelogicofthe

presentsystemandbringaboutconformityoritbecomesthe

practiceoffreedom,themeansbywhichmenandwomendeal

criticallyandcreativelywithrealityanddiscoverhowto

participateinthetransformationoftheirworld.(Freire,1970:34)

Undoubtedly,moreresearchisneededintothekindofsupportweneedtooffer

thelearnersofafutureworldwhereinformationisinabundance,andthere

remaincriticalquestionsaroundtherightkindofmediaandcriticalliteracies

thatshouldbedeveloped.However,dependingontheinterpretationof

‘openness’beingoffered,itispossibletobeunderstandbothasabulwark

against–andapotentialpathwayfor–neo-liberalreformsineducation.AsI

havenotedabove,moreclarityisneededintheterminologyemployedaround

opennesssoastomakeiteasiertodistinguishdifferentusecasesandthe

degreesofopennessmadepossiblebyparticularplatformortechnology.The

mostopenformsoflicensing–rarelyusedinthemorecommerciallyminded

MOOCmodels–increasethecapacityforadapting,reusingandremixing

materials.Bydoingthistheyincreasethepotentialforengagementwith

educationalresources,promotingcriticalreflectionontheresourcesandthe

21

circumstancesunderwhichtheyhavebeenproduced.Thiscanbeasaresultof

purelypedagogicalfocus(suchasinthecaseofaneducatorwhoselectsand

adaptsresourcestomorecloselyfitclassroomneeds)butcanalsoreflectthe

newkindsofcommunicativepracticesthataredevelopingaroundOERandthe

communitiesthatmakeandusethem.

Itisthedecentralizationanddemocratizationofcontroloverknowledge

productionandpedagogyaffordedbyopenlicensingthatiskeytoappreciating

thepotentialaffordedbyOERtocriticalpedagogy.Ofcourse,MOOCdoenablea

kindofeducationaldialoguewhich,dependingonthekindofMOOCinvolved,

mayaffordgreaterorlesseropportunitiesforcritique.Forinstance,thereare

alreadyindicationsoftheadoptionofcriticalperspectiveswithinopen

education,includingMOOCbasedontheprinciplesofcriticalpedagogywhich

articulatethepedagogicalvalueofopennessthroughnewkindsofdialogicspace

andencouragetheuptakeofcriticalperspectives.

Severalexamplesofapproacheswhichcanbeseentofittheapproachoutlined

canbeidentified.ThehighlyinnovativecourseDS106(DigitalStorytelling106)

isacourseofferedforcreditatTheUniversityofMaryWashingtonbutwhichis

alsoopenforenrolmentfromanyoneonline.Studentscanjoinorleaveatany

time,andassessmentsandcourseassignments–generallybasedonusingdigital

mediacreatively–aredesignedcollaborativelythenusedbyfuturestudents

(Stacey,2014:113).DS106fosterstheagencyandcreativityofallparticipants

throughequalizingaccesstobothcoursecontentandpedagogicaldesign,andby

22

invitingstudentstorethinkprocessesofassessmentacriticalattitudetowardsis

encouraged.

AnotherexamplemaybefoundinSaylorAcademy(2015)whoareprovidersof

morethan100opentextbooksandstructuredcontentwhichmapto

undergraduatecurriculum.Theyhavetakentheunusualstepofaddingtheir

contenttoGitHub,arepositorywhichallowsuserstocloneandadaptcontent

whilepreservingtheoriginalsthroughversioncontrol.Bymovingfrom

proprietarydocumentformatstopureHTMLsharedinthiswaytheyhavefound

atechnicalsolutionwhichsupportswidercontributionsandfacilitates

collaboration.Thisapproachshowsthatfurtherdemocratizingtheprocessof

opentextbookproductionneednotleadtosacrificingquality.Furthermore,the

invitationtocritiquelearningresourceswrittenbyexpertsencouragesthe

uptakeofcriticalperspectives.

ConnectivistMOOChavelongbeeninterestedindevelopingtheautonomyand

self-relianceofparticipants.SeveralexperimentalcMOOChavetakendirect

inspirationfromtheworkofcriticalpedagoguesanddesigningcoursesthat

emphasizelearneragencyoverandabovetheepistemologicalauthorityof

courseinstructors.The‘MOOCMOOC’seriesofMOOCbySeanMichaelMorris

andJesseStommelwhichuseopenandcriticalmethodstoinvestigateMOOC

themselvesplacecriticalpedagogyattheforefrontoftheirapproach.Thecourse

wasdesignedtoencourageparticipantstoquestiontheverypropositionofa

MOOCandhowitoperatesthroughalargelydiscursive,improvisedapproachto

23

reflection,disaggregatedacrossarangeofsocialmedia.Reflectingonthe

outcomesofthesecourses,thecourseinstructorswrite:

Thepedagogicalvalueinopennessisthatitcancreatedialogue,andcandeconstructtheteacher-studentbinary,byincreasingaccessandbringingtogetheratoncedisparatelearningspaces.Opennesscanfunctionasaformofresistancebothwithinandoutsidethewallsofinstitutions.Butopeneducationisnopanacea.Hierarchiesmustbedismantled—andthatdismantlingmadeintopartoftheprocessofeducation—ifitspotentialsaretoberealized(Morris&Stommel,2014).

ConclusionThebestkindofopennessactsasachallengetotraditionaleducationalpractice

andsoopensupareflectivespaceforthinkinganddoingotherwise.Ihave

arguedthatthe‘bazaar’modelofopeneducationismoredemocratic,encourages

moreactiveparticipation,andcanactasacatalystforreflectionon(andcritique

of)thepedagogicalprocess.

Atthispointinhumanhistorymorepeoplehavemoreaccesstobetter

educationalresourcesatanypointinthepast.Thisshouldbeacausefor

optimism!Butitalsomeansmoreresearchisneededintothekindofsupport

weneedtoofferthelearnersofthefutureinaworldwhereinformationis

ubiquitousandcontentmorereadilyavailabletoeducatorsandlearnersthan

everbefore.

24

Crucially,opennessisbecomingamoreimportantcategoryineducation,and

thusonewheresomethingimportantforthefutureisatstake(aswesawwith

thecontroversiesaround‘openwashing’).Inthedifferentinterpretationsof

opennessineducationthatcurrentlyexistwecandetermineanumberof

potentialfutures.Someofthesearemorelikewhatwehavenow,othersare

moredifferent,andtherearedystopianandutopianversionsofallofthem.

Whatismostimportantatthisstageisforrelevantpartiestocontinuetoengage

aroundthethemeofopenness,thinkaboutthewaysinwhichopennesscan

makeadifferencetoindividualorgrouppractice,andtoremainoptimisticabout

thingsmovingintherightdirection.

Criticalapproachestoeducationhave“anormativeandevenutopiandimension,

attemptingtotheorizehoweducationandlifeconstructalternativestowhatis.”

(Kellner,2003:3).Bydemocratizingtheprocessesthroughwhicheducational

materialsandprocessesaredesignedanddelivered,openeducationallowsa

greaterpluralityofvoicestobeheardandtocontribute,andtheexperiencesof

groupswhoareoftenmarginalizedmaybebetterheard:perhapsthisiswhatwe

shouldreallymeanby‘open’.

25

ReferencesAllen,E.&Seaman,J.(2013).ChangingCourse:TenYearsofTrackingOnlineEducationintheUnitedStates.BabsonSurveyResearchGroupandQuahogResearchGroup,LLC.Availablefromhttp://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Atkins,D.,SeelyBrown,J.,&Hammond,A.L.(2007).Areviewoftheopeneducationalresources(OER)movement:Achievements,challenges,andnewopportunities.SanFrancisco,CA:WilliamandFloraHewlettFoundation.http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Bayne,S.&Ross,J.(2014).ThepedagogyoftheMassiveOpenOnlineCourse:theUKview.TheHigherEducationAcademy.Availablefromhttps://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/HEA_Edinburgh_MOOC_WEB_240314_1.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Bond,P.(2013).MassiveOpenOnlineCourses(MOOC)forProfessionalDevelopmentandGrowth.InSmallwood,C.,Harrod,K.&Gubnitskaia,V.(eds.)ContinuingEducationforLibrarians.Jefferson:McFarlandandCompany.

CapeTownDeclarationonOpenEducation(2007).Availablefromhttp://www.capetowndeclaration.org/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Christian,C.(1997).TheInnovator'sDilemma:WhenNewTechnologiesCauseGreatFirmstoFail.HarvardBusinessPress.

Cobo,C.(2013).ExplorationofOpenEducationalResourcesinNon-EnglishSpeakingCommunities.InternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearningVol.15,No.2.Availablefromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1493/2482.Accessed5thMay2015.

Corson,D.(1991).Bhaskar'sCriticalRealismandEducationalKnowledge.BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation.Vol.12,No.2pp.223-241.

CreativeCommons(2013).WhatisOER?Availablefromhttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/What_is_OER%3F.Accessed5thMay2015.

Deimann,M.(2015).ThedarksideoftheMOOC:Acriticalinquiryontheirclaimsandrealities.CurrentIssuesinEmergingeLearning.Vol.2,Issue1,Article3.Availablefromhttp://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/3/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Dewey,J.(1938).Experience&Education.NewYork,NY:KappaDeltaPi.

Dewey,J.(1995)[1916].DemocracyandEducation.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Dodd,T.(2014a).UNEshutsdownitsloss-makingMOOCs.AustralianFinancialReview.25thAugust2014.Availablefrom:http://www.afr.com/p/national/education/une_shuts_down_its_loss_making_moocs_ZQoeYL6tucYL6h5TJTAXBI.Accessed5thMay2015.

Dodd,T.(2014b).TopMOOCprovideredXnolongerfreeforall.AustralianFinancialReview.6thOctober2014.Availablefromhttp://www.afr.com/p/national/education/top_mooc_provider_edx_no_longer_FooMSmV3LdSQHYGKND4LoI.Accessed5thMay2015.

Downes,S.(2012).ConnectivismandConnectiveKnowledge.Availablefromhttp://www.downes.ca/post/58207.Accessed5thMay2015.

Emami,Z.,&Riordan,T.(1998).TonyLawsononCriticalRealism:What'sTeachingGottoDoWithIt?ReviewofSocialEconomy,56(3),311-323.

26

Emmanuel,E.J.(2013).OnlineEducation:MOOCstakenbyeducatedfew.Nature503,342.doi:10.1038/503342a

Feenberg,A.(2002).TransformingTechnology:ACriticalTheoryRevisited.OxfordUniversityPress.

Finley,K.(2011).HowtoSpotOpenwashing.ReadWrite.com.http://readwrite.com/2011/02/03/how_to_spot_openwashing.Accessed5thMay2015.

Foucault,M.(1986)[1975].DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison.Harmondsworth:Peregrine.

Friere,P.(1970).PedagogyoftheOppressed.NewYork:ContinuumBooks.

Friesen,N.(2008).CriticalTheory:IdeologyCritiqueandtheMythsofE-Learning.Ubiquity(June).Availablefromhttp://ubiquity.acm.org/issue.cfm?volume=2008&issue=June.Accessed5thMay2015.

Gur-Ze’ev(ed.)(2005).CriticalTheoryandCriticalPedagogyToday:TowardaNewCriticalLanguageinEducation.Haifa,Israel:UniversityofHaifaPress.

Habermas,J.(1971).KnowledgeandHumanInterests.trans.byJeremyJ.Shapiro.Boston:BeaconPress.

Habermas,J.(1989)[1962].TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere.T.BurgerandF.Lawrence(trans).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Illich,I.(1971)DeschoolingSociety.NewYork:HarperandRow.

Jermier,J.M.(ed.)(2013).CorporateEnvironmentalismandtheGreeningofOrganizations.SAGELibraryinBusinessandManagement.

Jordan,K.(2014).Initialtrendsinenrolmentandcompletionofmassiveopenonlinecourses.TheInternationalReviewOfResearchInOpenAndDistributedLearning,15(1).Availablefromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1651.Accessed5thMay2015.

Kellner,D.(2003).Towardsacriticaltheoryofeducation.Availablefromhttp://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/edCT2003.htm.

Kincheloe,J.L.(2008).CriticalPedagogy(2ndEd.).NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.

Knox,J.(2013)FiveCritiquesoftheOpenEducationalResourcesMovement.TeachinginHigherEducation,Vol.18Issue8.Availablefromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13562517.2013.774354.Accessed5thMay2015.

Laurillard,D.(2014).WhatistheproblemforwhichMOOCsarethesolution?ALTOnlineNewsletter(June26th)https://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/2014/06/what-is-the-problem-for-which-moocs-are-the-solution/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Leckhart,S.(2012).TheStanfordEducationExperimentCouldChangeHigherLearningForever.Wired.Availablefromhttp://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_aiclass/.Accessed5thMay2015.

McAndrew,P.&Farrow,R.(2013).‘OpenEducationResearch:FromthePracticaltotheTheoretical’inMcGreal,R.,Kinuthia,W.andMarshall,S.(eds)OpenEducationalResources:Innovation,ResearchandPractice.CommonwealthofLearningandAthabascaUniversity,Vancouver.pp.65-78.Availablefromhttps://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/pub_PS_OER-IRP_CH5.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

27

Meisenhelder,S.(2013).MOOCMania.TheNEAHigherEducationJournal.Fall2013.Availablefromhttp://www.ww.isea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA2013Meisenhelder.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Morris,S.M.&Stommel,J.(2014).IfFreireMadeaMOOC:OpenEducationasResistance.OpenEducation2014.OpenEducation2014.HiltonCrystalCity,Arlington,Virginia,USA.Availablefromhttp://www.hybridpedagogy.com/tag/OpenEd/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Mozorov,E.(2013).TheMemeHustler.TheBafflerNo.22.Availablefromhttp://www.thebaffler.com/articles/the-meme-hustler.Accessed5thMay2015.

Nichols,R.,&Allen-Brown,V.(1996).Criticaltheoryandeducationaltechnology.InD.Jonassen(Ed.),Handbookofresearchforeducationalcommunicationsandtechnology.NewYork:SimonandShusterMacmillan,226-252.

OERResearchHub(2014).OERPolicyMap.Availablefromhttp://oermap.org/policy-map/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Pappano,L.(2012).TheYearoftheMooc.NewYorkTimes.Availablefromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.Accessed5thMay2015.

Parr,C.(2014).Moocsarefree–butforhowmuchlonger?TimesHigherEducation,21stAugust.Availablefromhttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/moocs-are-free-but-for-how-much-longer/2015204.article.Accessed5thMay2015.

Perryman,L.-A.(2013).CanOERbreakdownbarrierstoparticipationineducation?OERResearchHub.http://oerresearchhub.org/2013/08/16/can-oer-break-down-barriers-to-participation-in-education/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Peter,S.,&Deimann,M.(2013).Ontheroleofopennessineducation:Ahistoricalreconstruction.OpenPraxis,5(1),7-14.doi:10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.23

Raymond,E.S.(2000).TheCathedralandtheBazaar.http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html.Accessed5thMay2015.

SaylorAcademy(2015).SaylorAcademyhostedtextbooksnowinHTMLandeditablebyanybody.Availablefromhttp://www.saylor.org/2015/03/blog-saylor-academy-hosted-textbooks-now-in-html-and-editable-by-anybody/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Senack,E.(2015).OpenTextbooks:TheBillion-DollarSolution.StudentPIRGS.Availablefromhttp://www.studentpirgs.org/reports/sp/open-textbooks-billion-dollar-solution.Accessed5thMay2015.

Severance,C.(2010).ConsideringOpen–RethinkingCathedralandBazaar.Dr.Chuck’sBlog.http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2010/01/considering-open-rethinking-cathedral-and-bazaar/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Shipway,B.(2004).TheEducationalLimitsofCriticalRealism?EmancipationandRationalAgencyintheCompulsoryYearsofSchooling.2004IACRConference(Cambridge,UK).Availablefromhttp://www.csog.group.cam.ac.uk/iacr/papers/Shipway.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Shor,I.(1992).EmpoweringEducation:CriticalTeachingforSocialChange.UniversityofChicagoPress.

Siemens,G.(2005).Connectivism:Alearningtheoryforthedigitalage.InternationalJournalofInstructionalTechnologyandDistanceLearning,2(1),3-10.

Smith,M.S.&Casserly,C.M.,(2006).Thepromiseofopeneducationalresources.Change:TheMagazineofHigherLearning,38(5),8–17.

28

Stacey,P.(2014).PedagogyofMOOCs.INNOQUAL-InternationalJournalforInnovationandQualityinLearning.Vol.2,No.3.Availablefromhttp://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/161/50.Accessed5thMay2015.

Thomson,S.(2010).UnicycleOpenEducationalResourcesProjectReport.JISC.Availablefromhttps://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/unicycle_final_report.pdf.Accessed5thMay2015.

Tonks,D.,Weston,S.,Wiley,D.,&Barbour,M.(2013).“Opening”anewkindofschool:ThestoryoftheOpenHighSchoolofUtah.TheInternationalReviewOfResearchInOpenAndDistanceLearning,14(1),255-271.Availablefromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1345/2419.Accessed5thMay2015.

Watters,A.(2014).From"Open"toJustice#OpenCon2014.HackEducation.Availablefromhttp://hackeducation.com/2014/11/16/from-open-to-justice/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Weller,M.(2010).BigandlittleOER.In:OpenED2010:SeventhAnnualOpenEducationConference,2-4November2010,Barcelona,Spain.Availablefromhttp://oro.open.ac.uk/24702/.Accessed5thMay2015.

Weller,M.(2014).BattleforOpen:Howopennesswonandwhyitdoesn'tfeellikevictory.London:UbiquityPress.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bam.

Wiley,D.(2011).Openwashing–thenewgreenwashing.iteratingtowardsopenness.http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1934.Accessed5thMay2015.

Wiley,D.(2014).RefiningtheDefinitionof“Open”inOpenContent.iteratingtowardsopenness.http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3442.Accessed5thMay2015.

Wilson,A.&McCarthy,R.(2012).“TheFutureof(Open)EducationwithSirJohnDaniel.”EducationPolicyandReformUnit,UNESCOBangkok.Availablefromhttp://www.unescobkk.org/news/article/the-future-of-open-education-with-sir-john-daniel/.Accessed5thMay2015.