20150510 oro open education and critical pedagogybroadly, these include moving to oer models of...
TRANSCRIPT
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.