What is open education? (learning tomorrow 3)

Written by Andrew Rens on July 8th, 2011

In my first learning tomorrow post I spoke about the importance of open educational resources (OER’s) in the shaping of learning in the future. I was able to offer a definition of OER’s from the Cape Town Declaration as resources that are “freely shared through open licences which facilitate use, revision, translation, improvement and sharing by anyone” and “published in formats that facilitate both use and editing, and that accommodate a diversity of technical platforms”.

But the term “open education” is increasingly being used. Some salient recent uses in 2011;

  • in April 2011 UNU Merit published a book on the How and Why of Open Education (free download),
  • in a recent blogpost Cathi Davidson of HASTAC asks ow can we make education as open as the open web,
  • last week the Open Knowledge Conference in Berlin hosted a workshop on the How and Why of Open Education ,
  • the Open Education 2011 Conference to be held in Utah in October will be the the 8th “Open Education” Conference.
  • Each of these associate open education resources with open education.

    So what is “open education”? There doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory answer to this question. Wikipedia’s brief claims to distinguish the term from open educational resources: the entry begins “Not to be confused with Open educational resources”. The entry goes on to claim: “Open education is a collective term that refers to educational organizations that seek to eliminate barriers to entry. Such institutions, for example, would not have academic admission requirements.” While quaintly anachronistic the insistence on one of the meanings ascribed to the term in the 1970’s meaning of the term, doesn’t seem historically accurate since in the same era the terms was contrasted to “Traditional” education, as a process “founded upon contingency and uniqueness; each student, teacher and event is suie generis”.*

    Graham Atwell argues for a radical definition of open education, without actually offering a definition but suggesting that the starting place should be the claim made by Ivan Illich:

    “A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.”

    The preface of the Cape Town Declaration on Open Education offers a useful way of thinking about the relationship between open educational resources:

    “Open education is a living idea. As the movement grows, this idea will continue to evolve. There will be other visions initiatives and declarations beyond Cape Town. This is exactly the point. The Cape Town signatories have committed to developing further strategies, especially around open technology and teaching practices.”

    Perhaps the Wikipedia entry is useful after all in the suggestion that what is important is the elimination of barriers to education. Open educational resources eliminate one eliminates one barrier to education: highly priced learning materials. Thinking about open education in this way draws our attention to the second concept in the term “education”. When something is considered extraneous to education but nevertheless limits education in some way it can appropriately be described as a barrier. Eliminating a barrier to education makes education more open. That doesn’t provide a definition of open education but it does provide some practical guidance; when in doubt eliminate barriers.

    Different pictures of education will necessarily yield different answers about what constitute extraneous barriers and what constitutes inherent features of education. It will make dialogue clearer when we recognise arguments about these differences not as arguments about openness but arguments about education. For some education may necessarily involve some kind of formal assessment, while other pictures of education would regard that as extraneous.

    But opening educational resources has never been only about 0 cost, it has been about increasing freedom, freedom to remix and not just copy, freedom of teachers but also of learners. What is valued is freedom but also the kinds of co-operation enabled by freedom. The Cape Town Declaration refers to this as “planting the seeds of a new pedagogy where educators and learners create, shape and evolve knowledge together, deepening their skills and understanding as they go.”

    One of the first seeds to sprout is Peer to Peer University (P2PU), a volunteer driven project to create a peer to peer driven learning community**. P2PU bills itself as the “social wrapper around open educational resources.”

    Peer learning may well be the key innovation that helps resolve the crisis which tertiary education is experiencing worldwide. It may enable a education vibrant with free co-operation.But each new development in open education is only possible because of the development before it; peer learning is only possible with open educational resources; open educational resources are only possible with open licenses such as the Creative Commons licenses used for OER’s. Effective use of open licenses requires open protocols, open formats and the Internet. The Internet relies on layers of openness, including HTML, the URL system, and TCP/IP. Connection to the Internet often uses wifi, which uses a protocol; 802.11. that in turn relies on using unlicensed spectrum. Each layer relies on the continuing openness of the layers which it builds on.

    It won’t have escaped the well caffeinated reader that I don’t offer a definition of open education either. I’ve (re)raised the question because it is an important question. The Cape Town Declaration specifically and the Open Education movement more generally seems to point to an emerging answer, a picture of education characterised by free co-operation.

    * Open Education: An Operational Definition and Validation in Great Britain and United States Herbert J. Walberg and Susan Christie Thomas, American Educational Research Journal Spring 1972 Vol 9 No.2.

    ** Full disclosure: I am one of the volunteers.

     

    No more pirates in Africa?

    Written by Andrew Rens on June 6th, 2011

    Every year the United States Trade Representative releases a “Special 301 Report“. That report contains a “watch list” of countries that configure their copyright, patent, design and associated laws in ways that the USTR does not approve. This unilateral practice has continued despite criticisms that it is inconsistent with the WTO-TRIPS Agreement (1).

    The 2011 301 Report was released on 3 May this year. There is almost no mention of African countries in the 2011 Report, although historically African countries including South Africa have been cited. Why not? What does that mean for African countries?

    One way that African leaders might respond would be to congratulate themselves on their dutiful compliance with the demands of corporations that they change national laws to suit those corporations. East African countries such as Kenya have devoted considerable resources to “anti-counterfeiting” legislation and enforcement that goes well beyond any similar laws or investments in wealthier countries.

    Another response would see the 2011 report and watch list as supporting negotiating positions taken by the USTR in the negotiation of the Trans Pacific Partnership. New Zealand and Canada are both participants in the negotiations and both are listed on the watch list, apparently for issues around pharmaceuticals. Over the last few years Canada has reacted to being placed on the list by rejecting the validity of the process. The listing of New Zealand has been met with considerable anger.

    Rejection of the legitimacy of the process is a change from the historical patterns of compliance by countries listed. Israel, which was taken off the list in 2010 and then put back onto the list in 2011, has alsoreacted angrily.
    The primary complaint in the 2011 301 report about Canada and Israel is their non compliance with the demands of multinational pharmaceutical corporations that the corporations be entitled to use “data exclusivity” to prevent generic manufacture of medicines after the patent terms expire.

    Another response would regard the omission of Africa from the 2011 301 Report as indicative of a lack of political power in post recession global trade. Experienced trade law commentators have pointed out the protectionist trend in so called
    pluri-lateral trade agreements such as ACTA
    .
    The trend is towards OECD countries negotiating a consensus amongst themselves and then presenting other countries with a ‘take it or leave it’ regime.

    There may be good reason that issues in Africa are not currently pre-occupying powerful lobby groups in the same way that they have in the past. AIDS drugs have been a source of controversy in the past, however procurement of AIDS drugs is so dominated by US governmental and non-governmental agencies that Africa provides a useful subsidy to pharmaceutical companies through the likes of PEPFAR.

    In the ICT sector the lack of Internet connectivity in Africa means that the kind of measures currently demanded by certain lobby groups , such as intermediary liability, simply aren’t applicable in most African countries. A necessary result of lack of broadband is that laws that require broadband providers to disconnect users because of allegations of copyright infringement won’t work. Africans are already disconnected.

    This suggests that absence from the watch list not an achievement but rather a proxy for under-development. Perhaps against the prevailing “wisdom”, African trade ministries should be more comfortable about a strong appearance in the 301 report, and less comfortable about the reasons for non appearance.

    (1) Inconsistency between Section 301 and TRIPS: Counterproductive with Respect to the Future of International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, The, Monten, Lina M. 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 387 (2005)