Open Practices

Posted on by

As I search for meaning in the messy terrain of open educational pedagogies and open educational practices, I’m sifting and sorting the similarities and differences between these two concepts. From my background as an educator, as an open education practitioner, I believe they are distinctly different.

Cronin (2017) describes OEP as “collaborative practices that include the creation, use, and reuse of OER, as well as pedagogical practices employing participatory technologies and social networks for interaction, peer learning, knowledge creation, and empowerment of learners”.

Cronin and MacLaren (2018) examine the definitions from Andrade et al., 2011 where “OEP are defined as practices which support the (re)use and production of OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path (p. 12)” (p. 130). 

Cronin and MacLaren (2018) also examine Ehlers (2011a) definition of OEP as “essentially represent collaborative practice in which resources are shared by making them openly available, and pedagogical practices are employed which rely on social interaction, knowledge creation, peer-learning, and shared learning practices (Ehlers, 2011a, p. 6)” (p. 130).

This was extended and expanded, according to Cronin and MacLaren (2018) with “the potential of OEP to “flatten the traditional hierarchy and change the balance of power in learner/ teacher relationships” (McGill et al., 2013, p. 10) and identified key issues for students, staff, institutions and the community, particularly highlighting the challenge of “cultural inertia/cultural change” with respect to openness (Beetham et al., 2012, p. 10).” (p. 130)

Continuing into further the OEP agenda,

“Williams and Gray (2009) created a framework for analysing openness along a continuum using four degrees of openness: social, technological, legal and financial. In a later refinement of the framework, Hodgkinson-Williams (2014) elaborated further, disaggregating the social dimension of openness into two dimensions: cultural and pedagogical. The revised framework has five attributes of openness within a larger ‘Open Education’ cycle:

  • ••Technical (interoperability and open formats; connectivity; technical skills & equipment; availability and discoverability of resources)
  • ••Legal (open license parameters; open license knowledge and advice)
  • ••Cultural (conceptions of knowledge as given or constructed; curricula)
  • ••Pedagogical (student demographics and types of engagement; pedagogic, learning & assessment strategies; accreditation/certification)
  • ••Financial (costs ranging from free to fees; sustainable business models)”

as shared by Cronin and MacLaren (2018, p. 132).