Open education and me
Open education is a philosophy built around the idea of making educational resources freely and openly available to all. This requires everyone to be able to access, share, create and challenge high quality educational resources. Technology has been a critical enabler in doing this - especially in terms of making knowledge shareable and accessible.
If knowledge is a key part of this initiative then the Internet is by a a large margin the single largest resource of information that has every existed on earth, a large proportion of the information held within the Internet is open and accessible, therefore in many ways the Internet is the largest source for open education that has ever existed. However, in many definitions open education is seen as knowledge or resources that reside in an explicitly educational context - for example the OU question that has prompted this post asks us to describe 'your experience with open education. Is it just with the OU, or have you studied a MOOC, used open resources, or engaged with open access publications?', the sources listed all seem to point towards a formal means of 'storing' education, be that through a University, an open access course, or resources or documents that have been shared through an approved/recognised system. I would argue that this is a strange way to approach this topic, and possibly hints at a problem with the way we understand education. This question suggests that 'open education' or education in general needs to come from some kind of 'approved' source and that open education needs to be badged and labelled in some official way. In reality we learn from many different sources and ways - a key message about the learning that will occur through this course, is through interacting and discussing with peers. When I want to learn something on guitar I do not seek out an officially recognised guitar teaching source, I log on to YouTube and look at a demonstration that someone has made in their home.
So when I reflect on my experiences with open education I think I have found the internet and the information that resides there a massive experience in terms of learning and access to knowledge - the majority of which is open and freely accessible - and not necessarily put there explicitly for 'open education'.
Which brings me back to the start - when you look at the official sources of educational materials, it is actually these that are less 'free' and open than any other source. The majority of journals and journal databases require authentication and access to them, the majority of accredited university courses require payment and the 'knowledge' is kept locked behind a wall. While MOOCs have started to change this, they are only a 'revolution' because it has seen the breaking down of these walls, that the institutions who keep this knowledge constructed in the first place.
The philosophy of open education is a noble and important one, and one which will surely help us to advance and better work together as a human race. But I do take issue with the way in which many feel that knowledge has to be kept in an official repository which certain people are the gatekeepers to, where we get a certificate when we have achieved this knowledge- again making it a currency that can be 'kept' or traded on. When in reality the majority of learning we make comes informally and from open sources.
Therefore is the philosophy of 'open education' just a recognition of how we should learn and how we as a human race should have approached education from the start? Should all knowledge not be available to all people, the ability of us to learn from this be determined by ourselves and our capabilities, and those who seek to control and contain knowledge not be seen as great and wise institutions but in fact the enemy to those who wish to learn and progress? If knowledge is indeed power, then maybe open education is the democratisation and sharing of this power more widely, than has ever been possible or allowed before.
If knowledge is a key part of this initiative then the Internet is by a a large margin the single largest resource of information that has every existed on earth, a large proportion of the information held within the Internet is open and accessible, therefore in many ways the Internet is the largest source for open education that has ever existed. However, in many definitions open education is seen as knowledge or resources that reside in an explicitly educational context - for example the OU question that has prompted this post asks us to describe 'your experience with open education. Is it just with the OU, or have you studied a MOOC, used open resources, or engaged with open access publications?', the sources listed all seem to point towards a formal means of 'storing' education, be that through a University, an open access course, or resources or documents that have been shared through an approved/recognised system. I would argue that this is a strange way to approach this topic, and possibly hints at a problem with the way we understand education. This question suggests that 'open education' or education in general needs to come from some kind of 'approved' source and that open education needs to be badged and labelled in some official way. In reality we learn from many different sources and ways - a key message about the learning that will occur through this course, is through interacting and discussing with peers. When I want to learn something on guitar I do not seek out an officially recognised guitar teaching source, I log on to YouTube and look at a demonstration that someone has made in their home.
So when I reflect on my experiences with open education I think I have found the internet and the information that resides there a massive experience in terms of learning and access to knowledge - the majority of which is open and freely accessible - and not necessarily put there explicitly for 'open education'.
Which brings me back to the start - when you look at the official sources of educational materials, it is actually these that are less 'free' and open than any other source. The majority of journals and journal databases require authentication and access to them, the majority of accredited university courses require payment and the 'knowledge' is kept locked behind a wall. While MOOCs have started to change this, they are only a 'revolution' because it has seen the breaking down of these walls, that the institutions who keep this knowledge constructed in the first place.
The philosophy of open education is a noble and important one, and one which will surely help us to advance and better work together as a human race. But I do take issue with the way in which many feel that knowledge has to be kept in an official repository which certain people are the gatekeepers to, where we get a certificate when we have achieved this knowledge- again making it a currency that can be 'kept' or traded on. When in reality the majority of learning we make comes informally and from open sources.
Therefore is the philosophy of 'open education' just a recognition of how we should learn and how we as a human race should have approached education from the start? Should all knowledge not be available to all people, the ability of us to learn from this be determined by ourselves and our capabilities, and those who seek to control and contain knowledge not be seen as great and wise institutions but in fact the enemy to those who wish to learn and progress? If knowledge is indeed power, then maybe open education is the democratisation and sharing of this power more widely, than has ever been possible or allowed before.
Hi Will - you raise a number of interesting points that I hadn't considered. I particularly enjoyed your observation on how the prevailing notion of open education existing in an "explicitly educational context" was embedded in the question, although the main thing that struck me was the tension between 'learning' and 'education'. I think that 'education' in a should come from an approved source and to a certain extent have 'gatekeepers', and although learning as you say should be available to everyone, if it is not accredited or standardised in some way that makes it difficult for third parties to assign value to it. I agree that knowledge shouldn't be locked away, made inaccessible or placed in silos (I think this something Siemens (2005) talks about, but neither should we accept that specialised knowledge and skills are not specialised and worthy of status. I suppose this is broadly the difference between formal and informal learning.
ReplyDeleteTo jump on your example of learning to play guitar: the difference between an 'educated' guitar player and a learner is that the educated guitar player (at degree level) is likely to have disregarded the video because they have the all-round musicianship to learn the piece by ear. The learner in this instance might not be able to scrutinise the demonstration video to ascertain it's reliablity and accuracy and may end up learning to play the piece incorrectly. Although the learner is perfectly entitled to learn to play the wrong thing (they may even have learned a new chord or lick along the way), and set their own informal learning objectives - if everyone learned this way, then over time the quality of guitar playing from classical to metal would decline, mainly through the loss of the underpinning knowledge base of musicianship, making it harder for guitar players to communiciate with other musicians.
Ross
Hi Ross, thanks for your considered reply. In some ways my whole post was intended to be a 'reaction' as opposed to fully formed and thought out - so I am glad you have critiqued some of my less accurate/refined ideas. I do see your point about education coming from approved sources and having gatekeepers, and I can appreciate the rationale and sensibility in this. But I do also think this idea should be questioned and challenged - there are plenty of 'official' and recognised educational sources that really aren't very good. A colleague of mine has recently attended a 'train the trainer' course which was delivered by a reputable local college, this was an accredited course with an examinable component and a certificate. So arguably coming from an approved gatekeeper led source. And yet this course was thoroughly outdated, very poorly designed, filled with 'do as I say not as I do' examples - such as terrible PowerPoint presentations telling the learners how to do 'teaching', and disproven myths - learning styles. On the flip side, I learnt more language skills by living with a community who spoke absolutely no English, than I ever did learning language in school (yes this argument could and probably should be demolished!). So I suppose my argument is - yes maybe gatekeepers and approved sources are valuable - but there are problems with this.
DeleteYour point about guitar is a good one and very valid. You are correct that while learning something from a Youtube video is helpful, it does provide limited technical knowledge, and a lack of feedback about doing things incorrectly. Although I suppose with AI and machine learning both of these points could potentially be addressed in the future...
Will
Hi Will - I couldn't agree more about the *ahem* inconsistent provision of recognised educational sources. I think the gatekeeper/approved source debate is a really important and interesting one in the context of open, thanks for making me aware of it.
DeleteAnd the learning styles stuff does my head in, who knows what damage that rubbish has done over the years!