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.