A comparison of the views of Anderson and Weller This is a subjective personal viewpoint
Common Views• Initial view of ‘open’ learning was focussed on late 1960’s desire to provide higher education access to greater numbers of the population.• The view has changed largely facilitated by technology and in particular Web 2.0, including: – Open sources, open educational resources, open courses, open data, open publishing, open support, open networks
Common Views• Open Scholar is someone who: – Online identity – Central focus of identity eg facebook – Networks – Has a Personal Learning Environment – Uses New Technologies – Engages and encourages critique – Induces others to be open
Weller’s Additional Views• It is the combination of Web 2.0 technologies and a desire to share that creates an open environment.• The degree to which openness is embraced is also shaped by the degree of ease and offers 3 levels: – Frictionless – requiring little or no effort – Quick sharing –requiring some interaction – Content Creation – requiring active participation
Weller’s Additional Views• Open Education Resources (OER’s) can be categorised as 2 overlapping elements: – ‘Big OER’s’, designed by institutions often using existing resources but presented through different processes and therefore requiring less creativity. – ‘Little OER’s’, designed by individuals using informal methods and innovation eg facebook, YouTube, and therefore being less process and more content focussed, requiring greater creativity.
Modes of learning Formal Informal Big OER’s Little OER’s cc Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, 2010 E-portfolios Blogging Reflective Essay writing Microblogging Group workCollaborative Social networking Co-operative learning Lower Creativity Higher
Weller’s Overview• Openness is self-generating through sharing and that creativity and openness are interlinked.‘the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back’
Anderson’s Additional Views• Adopts a student centric view of the requirement.• Openness requires a change in leadership attitudes and behaviours to one which accepts disruptive technology.• Relationships are more important than information.
Collective intelligence “If you put together a big enough cc Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, 2010 and diverse enough group ofpeople [.....] that group’s decisions will, over time, be intellectually superior to the isolatedindividual, no matter how smart or well-informed he is” ~ James Surowiecki http://thekaoseffect.com/
Anderson’s Additional Views• There are 3 overlapping learning environments each of which has value,
Group Network Collective ‘Aggregated other’ Unconscious ‘wisdom of crowds’ Stigmergic aggregation Algorithmic rules Augmentation and annotation More used, more useful Metaphor: Data Mining Wisdom of Crowds Never F2F 11
But it is the adoption of the Open Scholar characteristics that engender an attitude of lifelong learning
Personal Critique of Both Proponents• Positives – The expansion of available information and knowledge should produce a better outcome. • ‘a thousand brains must be better than one’ – The recognition that the educational context has changed since 1960’s in terms of both technology and student needs is extremely important. – The Open Scholar attitude should produce a more receptive and active student. – The recognition that institutions need a framework to ensure effective sharing.
Personal Critique of Both Proponents• Questions – There is an assumption that ‘few would argue for a closed system’ however my experience is that there are many who seek an easy life without change. – Is openness more of a Western culture or can it be accepted as a worldwide concept? – There is an assumption of confidence in sharing, critiquing et al whereas my experience is that not all students are confident to do this. – Where do the age old comments go now? • ‘in your own words’ • ‘it must be your own work, you must not plagiarise’