Successfully reported this slideshow.

What's Open About Open Pedagogy? (final version)

1

Share

1 of 39
1 of 39

What's Open About Open Pedagogy? (final version)

1

Share

Download to read offline

These are the final versions of slides for a talk I gave at Douglas College in the Vancouver, BC area for Open Access Week in October 2017 (an earlier version is also posted here on SlideShare because I gave that URL out before, and SlideShare no longer allows replacing old files with new ones at the same URL).

The slides talk about what "open pedagogy" might be, showing how some people have defined it and then coming up with a list of six categories of things that are common to more than one definition of open pedagogy. They then ask what it is that these definitions share that relates to openness: what's "open" about open pedagogy?

These are the final versions of slides for a talk I gave at Douglas College in the Vancouver, BC area for Open Access Week in October 2017 (an earlier version is also posted here on SlideShare because I gave that URL out before, and SlideShare no longer allows replacing old files with new ones at the same URL).

The slides talk about what "open pedagogy" might be, showing how some people have defined it and then coming up with a list of six categories of things that are common to more than one definition of open pedagogy. They then ask what it is that these definitions share that relates to openness: what's "open" about open pedagogy?

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

What's Open About Open Pedagogy? (final version)

  1. 1. What’s Open About Open Pedagogy? Photo by Giga Khurtsilava on Unsplash Christina Hendricks Deputy Academic Director, CTLT University of British Columbia, Vancouver October 26, 2017 These slides licensed CC BY 4.0
  2. 2. Slides, in case you want to follow along http://is.gd/openped_douglas_2017
  3. 3. From Open Content to Open Educational Practices & Open Pedagogy Some of my recent journey to this topic …
  4. 4. Open Education Conference 2015 See these slides on Google Slides
  5. 5. Too much on textbooks? “I don’t actually care about textbook costs. I care about access, broadly conceived: access to ideas, access to pathways to contribute to knowledge … Fundamentally, I don’t want to be part of a movement that is focused on replacing static, over-priced textbooks with static, free textbooks.” -- Robin DeRosa
  6. 6. OEP & Open Ped, #OpenEd17
  7. 7. Open Edu Practices sessions popular
  8. 8. Year of Open https://www.yearofopen.org/ Year of Open logo licensed CC BY 4.0
  9. 9. Tried to pull together threads of many different views of open pedagogy in this blog post
  10. 10. Why try to define open pedagogy?
  11. 11. “I think the locking down of open is dangerous. I think it draws lines where they need not be, and it reconsolidates power for those who define it.” -- Jim Groom, “I don’t need permission to be open” (April 2017)
  12. 12. Value of some clarity on definitions
  13. 13. “I’m convinced that the terms “open pedagogy” and “open educational practices” are understood so differently by so many people that there is literally no hope of achieving a useful consensus about the meaning of either of these terms. …[T]he absence of a shared understanding of these terms removes any utility I previously hoped they had.” -- Wiley, “OER-enabled pedagogy,” May 2017
  14. 14. Open Educational Practices (OEP) See my Oct. 2017 blog post
  15. 15. Open Educational Practices Open Pedagogy Includes “the creation, use, and reuse of open educational resources (OER) as well as open pedagogies and open sharing of teaching practices.” -- Cronin (2017), p. 16
  16. 16. Some Open Edu Practices • Use, revision & creation of OER; encouraging others to do so • Open reflection on & sharing of teaching ideas, practices, process • Open learning • Open scholarship -- Open Practices Briefing Paper (Beetham et al., 2012) Open access logo from PLoS, licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 on Wikimedia Commons
  17. 17. Open pedagogy: what?
  18. 18. “… a grounded theory approach to the open definition …. we build up a definition based more on what is happening in practice, rather than preconceived theory about open. … [T]he conclusion would be to focus on openness in practice, what that looks like, how to do it well, and its benefits ….” -- Matthew Smith, ROER4D newsletter, Feb-March 2016
  19. 19. What are some examples of things you would call “open pedagogy”? http://pollev.com/christinahen284
  20. 20. “Non-Disposable” Assignments David Wiley on disposable assignments (2013): “… assignments that add no value to the world – after a student spends three hours creating it, a teacher spends 30 minutes grading it, and then the student throws it away.” Images licensed CC0 on pixabay.com: ttrash can and symbol for no
  21. 21. Wiki Education Foundation Brochure covers licensed CC BY-SA, available from WikiEdu
  22. 22. Students & Open Textbooks Cover licensed CC BY 4.0; see book here Jacobs 1 house by Frank Lloyd Wright; image by James Steakley on Wikimedia Commons, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
  23. 23. Students Contributing to Other OER Game and explanation, from Uni of Kansas http://cases.open.ubc.ca
  24. 24. Students Contributing to Curriculum • Creating assignments: DS106 assignment bank • Creating quiz & exam questions: Social Psychology with Rajiv Jhangiani • Determining what to read and write about: Maha Bali’s “Content Independent Teaching” • Students creating learning outcomes, assignments, grading policies: Robin DeRosa’s First Year Seminar
  25. 25. Shared aspects of open pedagogy Students producing OER, public knowledge; non-disposable assignments Student choice, agency, autonomy; e.g., as co-creators of curricula Connecting to wider networks in teaching & learning Open-ended problems; value creativity & change Increasing access: financial and other Transparency in teaching & learning, fostering trust Equity & social justice in teaching & learning See these two blog posts: May 2017, Oct 2017
  26. 26. A detour into the past…
  27. 27. Open Edu in 1960s and 70s Flexibility in space & time, curricula Student choice, autonomy; sharing authority Individualized instruction; teacher as facilitator
  28. 28. Definition difficulties Lilian G. Katz (1972) on resistance to defining “open education”: “The resistance stems from fear of the development of orthodoxies, doctrines and rigidities. … [There is] a common assertion that specificity must necessarily, in and of itself, betray the spirit of openness and informality.”
  29. 29. What’s open about open pedagogy?
  30. 30. What’s open about these? Students producing OER, public knowledge; non-disposable assignments Student choice, agency, autonomy; e.g., as co-creators of curricula Connecting to wider networks in teaching & learning Open-ended problems; value creativity & change Increasing access: financial and other Transparency in teaching & learning, fostering trust Equity & social justice in teaching & learning http://pollev.com/christinahen284
  31. 31. Breaking down walls? Hole in the Wall, by Dave Walker on Flickr, licensed CC BY-SA 2.0
  32. 32. Removing barriers… • That block visibility: transparency • That bind us in particular answers & practices: promoting creativity, multiple approaches & pathways to learning • To education & content: access • To student choice: autonomy • Between people, places & times • between students and teachers: shared authority • connecting to wider networks, contributing to public knowledge Social justice & equity
  33. 33. What does “open” add? Does it help to call such things “open” pedagogy? Self-directed Learning Student as Producer Connected Learning Students as Partners
  34. 34. Too broad? Brian V. Hill, “What’s Open About Open Education?” (1975): We suffer from “attempts to lump diverse trends together under the rubric of ‘open education’. Let us press for more specific and descriptive labels to identify the values, objectives or procedures that are being commended to us ….”
  35. 35. An excellent candidate for sloganizing is the word ‘open’. Immediately one uses it, the options polarize. To be open … is to be not closed, restricted, prejudiced or clogged; but free, candid, generous, above board, mentally flexible, future-oriented, etc. The opposite [sic] does not bear thinking about, and there can be no third alternative. ‘Open’ is yum. -- Hill, 1975
  36. 36. Is open more than yum? in open pedagogy
  37. 37. Would love to hear questions!
  38. 38. Thank you! Christina Hendricks Professor of Teaching, Philosophy Deputy Academic Director, Centre for Teaching, Learning & Technology, UBC-Vancouver • Blog: http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks • Website: http://chendricks.org • Twitter: @clhendricksbc Slides: https://is.gd/openped_douglas_2017

Editor's Notes

  • Just finished BC campus open textbooks fac fellow, starting OER research fellowship

    This presentation on advocacy around open textbooks, including textbook broke, how to talk to your prof about open textbooks, also getting contributions to OER into T&P guidelines...
  • Posts by Robert Schuwer, Maha Bali, Arthur Gill Green, David Wiley, Rajiv Jhangiani, Heather Ross, Devon Ritter
  • Still working on that! This talk is part of that effort.

    Image from pixabay.com (licensed CC0): https://pixabay.com/en/thread-embroidery-sewing-floss-841607/
  • Image from pixabay.com (licensed CC0): https://pixabay.com/en/the-fence-crash-barrier-boulevard-2142212/

    More from Ji’
  • Icons purchased through a subscription from thenounproject.com

    Open washing: from https://opensource.com/business/14/12/openwashing-more-prevalent

    As far as I know, Michelle Thorn, Mozilla’s Director of the Webmaker Program, was the first to define openwashing in 2009: “Openwashing: to spin a product or company as open, although it is not. Derived from “greenwashing," which should not be confused with "The Open Source Washing Machine." Also in 2009, Phil Marsosudiro, coined a similar concept: "Fauxpen," which is defined as "a description of software that claims to be open source, but lacks the full freedoms required by the Open Source Definition.

    See also: http://openwashing.org/

    When you see an individual, organization, or company claim that their software is "open," check to see if their software is licensed under an OSI approved license. If it is not, they are openwashing.
    When you see an individual, organization, or company claim that their content is "open," check to see if it is licensed under a Creative Commons license, another license that grants you the 5R permissions, or placed in the public domain. If it is not, they are openwashing.


  • Image from pixabay.com (licensed CC0): https://pixabay.com/en/bird-s-nest-chaos-complex-1044889/
  • Also: open professional development

    UDG Agora: http://udg.theagoraonline.net/

    The UdG Agora is the site for University of Guadalajara (UdG) Student Centred and Mobile Learning Diploma.  The goal of this faculty development program is for UdG professors to confidently integrate student centred and mobile learning strategies and activities in their courses.
    Through the use of practical examples, challenges and experiential learning, the program will provide learners with the tools they need to meaningfully plan, design, implement and share student centred and mobile learning in their courses.  Learners will collaborate, share, and contribute openly to a community of practice that fosters the enrichment of student centred learning experiences with the use of mobile learning technologies (iPads).
    The program adopts the Agora as a metaphor for an open, collaborative, community space where learning happens through interaction and engagement with others.  The Agora for this program are both face-to-face (f2f) and online spaces.

    Participants participate in challenges that they post their responses to (http://udg.theagoraonline.net/bank/), as well as the “daily try”


    Also Teaching with WordPress open online course: http://blogs.ubc.ca/teachwordpress
  • Matthew Smith, IRDC (International Development Research Centre) program manager, “Open Is as Open Does” (2016): http://roer4d.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ROER4D-Newsletter-February-March-2016.pdf

    “As someone who thinks about and funds research on openness in developing country contexts, I’ve often wanted to ditch the word altogether. It is such a value­ laden term, with so many potential meanings that people attribute whatever meaning they like to it – often with great passion. Then we end up in endless debates regarding effectively arbitrary definitions. Given that any application of “open” to a new social innovation (like open educational resources or open government) is really just a social convention, can we really say that one definition is the right one?”

    Criticizes the consensus definition of OER as technical or legal b/c misses out on lots of practices with non-licensed materials that would be considered open, especially in parts of the world where there isn’t as much copyright focus. Plus, something can be legally open w/o being really findable, or being hidden on purpose.

    "Definitions, however, are critical – particularly for research. So what can we do?

    One alternative approach would be to take a grounded theory approach to the open definition. In other words, we build up a definition based more on what is happening in practice, rather than pre­conceived theory about open. Given the evidence emerging from IDRC supported research, the conclusion would be to focus on openness in practice, what that looks like, how to do it well, and its benefits – regardless of legal or technical status. I see this as the logical evolution of openness: First we define it (arbitrarily), then we research it, and then based on the new evidence, we redefine it. …

    We should be asking: for a given context, what are the different configurations of legal, technical, financial and social characteristics that are necessary to enable the types of open practices we are interested to achieve a particular goal?”


  • Renewable assignments: using OER, then releasing as OER

    Students contributing to OER falls under “open pedagogy” more than students doing things that add value to the world but are not OER, I think…but this could be disputed by others.

  • Link to course on the slide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UBC/ENG470D-003_Canadian_Studies_(2017)
    Assignment for this course (from above link)

    As a group, choose a topic relevant to our focus on Canadian literature (e.g., an author, text, or institution) that you argue is currently underrepresented in and symptomatic of systemic bias on Wikipedia. ... Importantly, your Canadian literature topic must meet the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability">Wikipedia community’s criteria of notability</a>, “a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article”. There are specific notability guidelines relevant to our CanLit project:

    books:  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)</a>
    people:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)</a>
    organizations:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)</a>

    Then together, draft and publish an article that begins or strengthens this representation by synthesizing existing scholarly and public knowledge. As well, write a group reflection of what you learned during this project. See Part One and Two below.


    Also courses in:

    Human Ecology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_British_Columbia/BIOL_345_Human_Ecology_(Term_2)
    -- Human Ecology is a participatory project-based course for upper-level students who are not biology majors. Each student designs and carries out three projects:. a short talk for YouTube, a small community project, and creation or enhancement of a Wikipedia page about a Canadian topic in ecology, climate change or sustainability. The Wikipedia work is done by teams of two students.

    Food, Nutrition and Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_British_Columbia/FNH200_Exploring_our_Foods_(Summer_2017)
    -- pick an article that needs some work and add to it

    Quotes from FNH course on Wikipedia at above link:

    Milestones: A 'good' topic for this FNH 200 project should have minimal coverage on Wikipedia. Foods that have been explored in details may not be a good topic for this 2nd-year food science course. For examples: Maple syrup is a good topic as it represents Canada. However, it has been covered quite extensively (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup) and there may not be much left for you as students with only introductory level background in food science. Soju, a Korean beverage, may be a good candidate for this project. Though there is quite a bit of info on soju on Wikipedia, the information are limited to history and consumption pattern of soju. Little information on processing is available. As students in FNH 200, you may want to expand on fermentation techniques, processing requirements, packaging needs, and Canadian regulations (if any) of soju on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soju


  • https://wikiedu.org/for-instructors/

    Also online orientation and training for instructors and students, and guides for editing Wikipedia articles in various areas, such as Psychology, Ecology, History, Medicine…
  • The following is from Rebus’ Guide to Making Open Textbooks with Students: https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/case-study-antologia-abierta-de-literatura-hispanica/#footnote-81-2

    Dr. Julie Ward, an assistant professor of twentieth- and twenty-first-century Latin American literature at University of Oklahoma….

    In the fall 2016 semester, she embarked on a project in her Spanish-language literature course, Introduction to Hispanic Literature and Culture, in which groups of four to five students selected ten texts from the fifteenth century to the twentieth century to include in a critical edition.

    The included texts span different genres of literature, with authors ranging from Christopher Columbus to Horacio Quiroga. Ward and a graduate student “research guide” had pre-established lists of texts students could review and choose from.

    For each work, the student groups compiled context in the form of an introduction, at least ten annotations on the text about style, references and colloquialisms, an image and a biography about the author–their style, milieux and how the work relates to the rest of their works, and a bibliography. The texts, introductions and all other contextual elements of the book are all in Spanish.

    The content of the critical edition was developed in the class, but the work on the text didn’t end there. In the subsequent semester, two students were paid to take the critical edition, verify the facts and public domain licenses, and format it using Pressbooks.


    This one is from same book: https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/case-study-frank-lloyd-wright-and-his-madison-buildings/

    Anna Andrzejewski, an art history professor and director of graduate studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was looking for a hands-on learning project for her Frank Lloyd Wright art history course.

    The class was an upper-division, research course designed for art history majors or grad students, but also open to other disciplines. Andrzejewski had arranged access to seven historic local Frank Lloyd Wright houses for the course.

    At each home they visited, students all had the same shared experience, but two or three took ownership to document that home for a chapter of the book. Those students asked the others for feedback during and after the site visit on what they found most interesting and what they should write about. Students got to pick a theme for each chapter.

    First and foremost, the assignment specified that each chapter must include a theme appropriate to the home featured. For instance: preservation, a period of Wright’s career, modular design, a style of architecture.
    In addition, the assignment specified that each chapter should include three different sections:
    An introduction, a one- to two-paragraph overview of the house and thesis statement of the chapter to follow
    An architectural description of the building, to include three to five paragraphs of description and complementary images
    An interpretive thematic section, which was a minimum-three-paragraph, “abundantly illustrated” narrative that was to demonstrate evidence that they listened to their classmates at the class discussions at the site and that they had done additional research outside of class. (Sources for this research could include anything from oral histories to archival research, book research or interviews.)
    Students did all the writing, image collection and uploading, editing, book styling and footnotes as they built the book.

  • University of Kansas game:

    The Digital Storytelling Project on Library Anxiety is a student-designed, interactive game intended to introduce first-year students to KU Libraries’ resources and services. It adopts a fun yet informative tone to lower library anxiety among incoming freshmen and illustrate the benefits of library use.

    Description

    The Digital Storytelling Project on Library Anxiety began as a project in a service learning course offered by the Film and Media Studies Department at the University of Kansas (KU). In spring 2015, three undergraduate students enrolled in the course collaborated with KU Libraries to create an interactive, digital game addressing experiences of library anxiety among undergraduate students that could be integrated into first-year-experience courses offered by the university. The original student team created the game’s branching pathways within Twine, wrote the game text, and drafted a small number of animated GIFs that established the tone for the game. In spring 2016, after receiving funding to support production of the game’s missing elements, KU Libraries contracted one of the student team members to create the remaining illustrations and ensure their integration into the Twine file. Type-specific handouts were created to supplement the game, which was integrated into KU’s University 101 courses beginning in fall 2016. Additional authorship information is located in the Read Me.

    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1808/21508
    Collections
    Libraries Scholarly Works [362]
    Citation
    Reed, Michelle, and Alaine Caudle. 2016. “Digital Storytelling Project on Library Anxiety.” University of Kansas Libraries. https://hdl.handle.net/1808/21508



    See also:

    UBC Geography student-created projects: http://environment.geog.ubc.ca/

    University of Edinburgh undergrad med students revising content from MedEd portal to create module on LGBTQ health: http://www.teaching-matters-blog.ed.ac.uk/?p=461

    “We identified a set of teaching resources on the MedEdPortal – an open resource tool for teaching and assessment resources – specifically designed to support a two hour session with medical students on this topic.
    … we wanted to make two key changes. Firstly, the original teaching package was designed for a US audience so we updated the literature review and presentation slides to reflect a UK context.
    Secondly, we wanted students to use this project as an opportunity to undertake patient interviews and record digital stories that could be used as resources for future teaching, for example when a face-to-face panel discussion might not be possible to organise.

    We had six dynamic students who took on this project (see picture). They worked with the LGBT Health and Wellbeing centre in Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh student societies and a range of other networks to identify LGBT volunteers willing to share recorded experiences of healthcare. So far, the students have undertaken a number of interviews with these volunteers and digital stories have been recorded and transcribed.

    In March 2016, the team organised and ran an ‘LGBT Healthcare 101’ event for nearly forty of their peers using the updated teaching resources and with a panel of LGBT individuals, community representatives and medical practitioners.”


  • From Rajiv Jhangiani’s blog: https://thatpsychprof.com/why-have-students-answer-questions-when-they-can-write-them/

    Here’s how it went:

    The students were asked to write 4 questions each week, 2 factual (e.g., a definition or evidence-based prediction) and 2 applied (e.g., scenario-type).

    For the first two weeks they wrote just one plausible distractor (I provided the question stem, the correct answer, and 2 plausible distractors). They also peer reviewed questions written by 3 of their (randomly assigned) peers. This entire procedure was double blind and performed using Google forms for the submission and Google sheets for the peer review.

    For the next two weeks they wrote two plausible distractors (the rest of the procedure was the same).

    For the next two weeks they wrote all 3 plausible distractors (the rest of the procedure was the same).

    For the remainder of the semester they wrote the stem, the correct answer, and all the distractors.


    although I wouldn’t consider this a polished question bank ready for use by other instructors, I still consider this assignment to have been a success because the questions steadily improved over the semester (the experience of serving as peer reviewers was especially useful to the students when constructing their own questions). The students were also buoyed and motivated by my practice of including a few of their best questions on each of the three course exams.


    Maha Bali on Content Independent Teaching: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/content-independent-teaching/62493

    Instead of assigning them readings, I encourage them to ask important questions about the course, then work together to find sources to help them answer those questions, crowdsource a set of links (from Google or Twitter) onto a shared document, and then choose a number of those articles to read and blog about. Students end up reading different things and learning different things, so when they sit and work in their groups for the final course project, each one of them brings something different to the table. Sure, they don’t always find the most credible sources (and that could be a gateway to discussing information literacy), but they usually find sources I hadn’t thought of, and occasionally also teach me something I did not know. Which is pretty awesome.

    Later talking with her on Twitter: I use it in educational game design and now in a digital literacies/intercultural learning course. I think any course that is not like "basic science" or a prerequisite to others can be flexible this way...where the process/skills are more important than any particular canon (or really, no canon exists; I'm really anti-canon). Alsoooo any course where learners may have different interests to begin with.

    Robin DeRosa’s blog post: http://robinderosa.net/higher-ed/extreme-makeover-pedagogy-edition/

    First Year Seminar: 25 students

    “After we had some basic plans in place for how we would communicate and where besides our classroom we would work, we started talking about content. What should we learn in the course? I presented the latest version of learning outcomes that I had collected from the leadership of our campus-wide FYS program, and brought them to the table. We talked about them, and whether or not we should use them all (thank you, tenure– more about that later). Students wanted to use most of them, though we tweaked a few words here and there. Then I asked students to contribute their own learning outcomes, on the basic principle that learning outcomes for the course should not be cemented without participation from the learners. After making some brainstormed lists together, students blogged a bit about what kinds of outcomes were important to them. They ranged from highly skills-oriented, like this one from Jordyn Hanos, to those that leaned more toward connection and engagement, like this one from Skyla Dore.

    We put all the outcomes we came up with into a GoogleDoc and students tweaked and revised and ultimately voted on them. I opened the online syllabus live at the front of the class when we finished and we updated the learning outcomes based on what they had created and chosen to upvote. …

    Some of these I love. Some of them I would probably never have included myself. There are others I would have liked to have seen in here, but my suggestions were outvoted….

    We set about designing assignments to correspond to learning outcomes. … We built all of this week by week, with a syllabus that started almost completely blank and got filled in as we went along.

    In OpenSem, I decided to let students design the grading process.  It took a couple of weeks (while we simultaneously did other things as well) to hammer it out. Basically, they designed a competency-based model where they would have unlimited time within the confines of the course to improve each assignment if it initially they did not “achieve the competency.” Achieving the competency would require them to meet all of the parameters of the rubrics, which were often designed by the students as they crafted the assignments.






  • Blog posts with discussions of these aspects, which are gathered from many others’ views (the first post in particular lists all those views and gives hyperlinks; the second post adds a few readings to the list)

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/05/23/navigating-open-pedagogy-pt2/

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/25/open-pedagogy-shared-aspects/

  • Some of these still resonate today in discussions of open pedagogy



    See blog posts:

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/21/open-education-in-the-60s-and-70s/
    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/25/open-pedagogy-shared-aspects/

    From first link above:

    Claude Paquette, 1979: focus on:

    Individual differences, individual growth directing the learning
    Instructors having an indirect influence: not to make students assimilate info but help them progress individually
    Flexible space and time
    Student choice in activities and students proposing activities themslves
    Learning activities should be such that there could be multilple answers, multiple pathways to reaching goals; also bringing different disciplines together
    Class rules established by teacher and students




    Don Tunnell (1975)

    provides what he takes to be a list of characteristics many conceptions of open education share (p. 12 of Kindle edition; emphasis mine):
    (1) Students are to pursue educational activities of their own choosing;
    (2) Teachers are to create an environment rich in educational possibilities;
    (3) Teachers are to give a student individualized instruction based on what he/ she is interested in, but they are also to guide the student along educationally worthwhile lines;
    (4) Teachers are to respect students. The following count as exhibiting respect for the student
    :
    (a) the student is granted considerable freedom; he/ she is, for the most part, autonomous,
    (b) the student’s interests and ideas are considered to be important and he/ she receives individual instruction and guidance based on his/ her interests,
    (c) there is considerable interaction between teacher and student; they are considered to be equal in some sense,
    (d) students are rarely commanded; uses of authority are minimized,
    (e) students’ feelings are to be taken seriously.


  • Katz, L. G. (1972). Research on Open Education: Problems and Issues. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED068202

    From my blog post: http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/21/open-education-in-the-60s-and-70s/

    Nevertheless, she points to some commonalities, including “rejection of traditional-formal academically oriented education” and “commitment to ‘humanistic’ values including self-determination, freedom of choice and aesthetic appreciation” (1; emphasis mine).

    She also connects “open” education to “informal” education, the latter term coming from the UK. Open-informal education is opposed in her article to formal-traditional education, which she says is more routinized and fixed. This means the space and activities in open education will be more flexible and open to continual changes. There will be more learner choice in activities, guided by their own interests. And teachers will be focusing more on individual students, less on instructing the whole class as a group.

  • Blog posts with discussions of these aspects, which are gathered from many others’ views (the first post in particular lists all those views and gives hyperlinks; the second post adds a few readings to the list)

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/05/23/navigating-open-pedagogy-pt2/

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/25/open-pedagogy-shared-aspects/


  • Connected learning: https://clalliance.org/why-connected-learning/

    What is Connected Learning?
    Connected learning is when someone is pursuing a personal interest with the support of peers, mentors and caring adults, and in ways that open up opportunities for them. It is a fundamentally different mode of learning than education centered on fixed subjects, one-to-many instruction, and standardized testing. The research is clear. Young people learn best when actively engaged, creating, and solving problems they care about, and supported by peers who appreciate and recognize their accomplishments. Connected learning applies the best of the learning sciences to cutting-edge technologies in a networked world. While connected learning is not new, and does not require technology, new digital and networked technologies expand opportunities to make connected learning accessible to all young people.The “connected” in connected learning is about human connection as well as tapping the power of connected technologies. Rather than see technology as a means toward more efficient and automated forms of education, connected learning puts progressive, experiential, and learner-centered approaches at the center of technology-enhanced learning.




  • Hill, B.V. (1975). What’s open about open education? In D. Nyberg (Ed.), The Philosophy of Open Education (International Library of the Philosophy of Education Volume 15). Taylor and Francis.
  • Hill, B.V. (1975). What’s open about open education? In D. Nyberg (Ed.), The Philosophy of Open Education (International Library of the Philosophy of Education Volume 15). Taylor and Francis.

    Kindle edition, p. 2
  • ×