Peer Learning and the Intellectual Commons
Edited By Markus Deimann and Michael A. Peters
Chapter Six: Of Two Contrasting Philosophies That Underpin Openness in Education and What That Entails
← 82 | 83 →
Of Two Contrasting Philosophies That Underpin Openness IN Education AND What That Entails
PETER B. SLOEP AND ROBERT SCHUWER
OPENNESS IN EDUCATION
We are now faced with numerous examples of the use of the word ‘open’ in the context of education. There are open schools, open universities, open participatory learning infrastructures (OPLI), open courseware (OCW), massive open online courses (MOOCs), open educational resources (OER), open educational practices (OEP) and so on (see, e.g., Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007; Schuwer, van Genuchten, & Hatton, 2015). What these terms at face value seem to share is their reference to the removal of barriers to the access of education. Open universities have relaxed entrance requirements, open courseware and MOOCs allow for free access to courses, as do open educational resources and open educational practices at the levels of materials and practices, respectively, although the kinds of barriers removed and the extent to which they are removed differ widely (Mulder & Jansen, 2015). However, there is more to openness than this prima facie characterization in terms of the removal of barriers reveals. A brief overview of some existing definitions of openness in education can help to make this evident.
An early definition was framed in 1975 by Brian Hill in a book devoted to the philosophy of open education (Hill, 1975; Nyberg, 1975). He discerned procedural, normative and revolutionary openness, which in turn refer to attendance,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.