I received a direct message through Twitter last night from someone wondering whether I’d recommend attending the upcoming Open Education conference. The message was quite innocent and I hope my referencing it here doesn’t embarrass the author; but to me the nature of the question, and what it implies, is very significant and has really got me thinking.
The author appeared concerned that the conference might not be appropriate for her, emphasising she is a non-techie and non-expert. To me this implies a great deal about the way Open Education is perceived outside the realm of the initiated and highlights some of the key obstacles and challenges – both real and perceived – that must addressed and overcome before the wider topic of open education is fully understood, and the practice gains adequate recognition and representation.
More than just technology, objects and resources
Since the inception of open education a tremendous amount of energy and emphasis has been placed on the freeing of educational materials and thus the facilitation of sharing and reuse, with a great deal of attention also paid to the technical frameworks within which this sharing occurs.
The myriad of learning object repositories that emerged in the late 90s and early 00′s is testimony to this; as is the explosion of use of blogs, wikis, image and video sharing sites, sprouting up in the wake of new media. [Not all social media usage is open however, which complicates the situation.]
All of these are important elements, to be sure. But in my view it’s critical that they be recognised as existing in and resulting from a distinct culture that values a particular way of working and interacting. Much like the Free Software Foundation is as much about Freedom as it is about software. Certainly this is understood within the movement, but I don’t necessarily think that’s clear from the outside. What makes it open is not just the opportunities for reuse – or even the fact materials are shared – but the motives and values that inspire the openness in the first place.
So it would seem that what is actually being perceived and understood to be Open Education is in fact just one small aspect of it.
Educational Reefs
Open education is far more like a coral reef than a production line. Coral reefs are living things, borne out of a single cell that eventually growing into a colony, which expands and develops organically and collaboratively. As the coral interacts and thrives, it grows upwards and outwards, building upon the structures that existed previously. What makes it a coral reef is therefore as much the vibrant, flourishing colony as it is the skeletal, foundational structures and artifacts left behind as the colony grows.
In the context of open education, the colony is vast, diverse and accommodating. So the significance is not what you know or don’t know; only that you choose to engage. Each individual carries with them a life-time of unique experiences and knowledge that no one else possesses. Young and old, students or staff, PhD or non-graduate; everyone has valuable contributions they can make.
It’s all about freedom, man!
In my view, open education about participation; both participating and empowering the participation of others. It’s about open dialogue; the sharing of ideas and conversations. It’s about inclusion, and a recognition that everyone has and deserves a voice in the discussion – wherever they are, and whatever their context.
Above all, Open Education is about freedom. Freedom to engage, contribute, and collaborate; it’s about designing and implementing channels and solutions that cultivate and enable these opportunities. Above all, it’s about the freedom to learn.
Intersting comments. I was having a conversation only yesterday about a number of things related to my development/learning path etc and asked about my establishment’s attitude to open education. The reply was all about e learning! Almost if there is a culture that open education as a philosophy is something that only exists in virtualia.
Hi Moira,
I’m not that surprised to hear that actually. There still seems to be a prevalent view that eLearning is somehow separate or distinct from “other” learning and/or independent from basic cultural factors.
When I first came to UNSW I was involved in a project (the Learning Resources Catalogue) that tried to promote reuse and sharing, but failed to get any uptake at all – largely, I believe, because we failed to consider the significance of cultural factors and value systems and thought establishing the environment would inspire the change (e.g. “If we build it, they will come”).
Ultimately the local views regarding protection (hoarding) of teaching materials and particularly notion of Intellectual Property (IP) were so pronounced that people saw no personal benefit in sharing and refused to do so.
Personally I see the same factors as influencing the silos that develop in academia as well.
Many of the learning object repositories seem to have run into similar difficulties – and particularly a “what’s in it for me attitude.” This is why it’s so fascinating to me to see sites like Flickr and YouTube explode. People are openly sharing their own content, frequently devoting hours to doing it; whereas similar attempts in academia have failed completely.
I don’t see the technology as the influencing factor here – something else causes sharing to be recognised as valuable and desirable in one context, but not another.
From what several of my colleagues have told me, this is a no-miss event. You don’t have to live in the world of tech to appreciate the people who put this on. David Wiley is a very smart guy and when you combine him with the folks from UBC you end up with a killer event. I am working really hard to make it to Vancouver this year!
I know, that’s one of the many reasons why I’m still trying to find a way to get there. Brian Lamb was the first person to expose me to the existence of blogs and wikis (ironically at a workshop for the LRC project I mentioned to Moira (above), and has been a huge inspiration for me over the years – though I don’t think he realises it.
In fact most of what I’ve learned about new media I’ve learned from watching the folks who are likely to be in attendance. So it would be awesome to be able to go.
However at this point I’d say it’s seriously unlikely I’ll make it. Recessions and budget crises wait for no one.
If you do make it I encourage you to blog everything. I’m keen to participate however I can – asynchronously if need be.
I tried to write a post on a similar theme today but I like yours much better. You nail the human dimension of this work so well, where I was fixated on what were essentially technical distinctions. I’m sorry that economics will likely keep you away from OpenEd 2009 – it would be fun to see you again.
I agree with you about flickr, and especially the number of folks who post using a creative commons license for their works. I was amazed to see that all of my brother’s photos are cc licensed–he’s a real estate/business guy, and doesn’t seem particularly caught up in any kind of free culture/copyfight movement.
So how do we translate the larger cultural move towards sharing we see on flickr to the culture within our institutions? Is it something that will take a generational shift to accomplish, or can we somehow encourage our colleagues to make be more open the way my brother has?
They say that failure can sometimes be an even bigger lesson that success – I certainly found that to be the case with the LRC.
I learned an incredible amount about the prevailing culture in academia during that period – not necessarily in a good way. The self-centred “what’s in it for me” attitude was really unexpected.
As a result of these experiences I’ve come to believe that modeling and demonstrating the paradigm by living the ideals, engaging in the usage, and especially epitomising the values you wish to instill in others – is as effective a means of inspiring change as the dog-and-pony shows we did with the LRC (perhaps even more so), where we continuously pitched the idea to people who saw no tangible value in it and were forced into a defensive posture where we were forced to argue against the status quo and “the way things are,” instead of jointly discussing the possibilities and “the way things could be.”
My view now is to be be the change I wish to see in education.
My hope is that this will help people begin to recognise the values that are driving this sort of openness and altruism and begin to adopt it themselves, or start to ask questions that inspire them to think about it further. Either way they’ll be voluntarily stepping out of and away from the status quo (however briefly) to peer over the fence into the unbounded landscape of open education.
Jim Groom’s post on “Open is always outward facing” is quite relevant here and I’d recommend taking a look.
It seems a recurring theme in open education that individuals eventually reach the point, where an inability to influence the adoption of openness at home drives us to gaze outwards and look for others who share our views.
At the same time I can’t see myself completely turning my back on the local community – nor am I necessarily suggesting others do the same. Not the least of this is due to the fact that modeling and demonstrating openness will only influence change when people are paying attention to what you’re doing. So to a fair degree we have to ensure visibility in our actions, and this implies the need to continue to reach out in one form or another.
The question is how best to do this. Thoughts?
Thanks for this. For those of you looking to share your knowledge, ideas and lessons in an “open” forum, I highly recommend that you take a look at http://www.Curriki.org. This is a wonderful place to connect with people around the world, committed to the open education vision and movement.