Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.