So here we are, in the final week, and final assignment, of my Theory & Philosophy of Open Education course. For this assignment, “drawing on week five and six’s readings, you will produce a list of design principles or key considerations (5-10) that could support an educational institution, organization, or other context adopting Open Educational Practices (OEP) for more equitable approaches to teaching and learning. You might provide these principles or considerations in written format, or in the form of a checklist or a visual.”

Well, I am not good at creating visuals, and I shy away from checklists as they are used too often, in my opinion, to make a good show of an institution having met their strategic “standards” if you will.  So, text it is!  And I warn you, this is a bit of a ramble – it’s just the way my blogging rolls.

My first task is to better understand the assignment instructions.  Design principles is a bit of a nebulous term, so I prefer key considerations, because I think you need to identify your priorities before you start the design.  And I will take this assignment to mean those considerations an institution needs to keep in mind in order to support more equitable approaches to teaching and learning.

Secondly, I need to review the topic for weeks 5 and 6: Critical Perspectives.  In week 5 We reviewed readings from Open at the Margins, edited by Bali, Cronin, Czerniewicz, DeRosa, and Jhangiani, and an article by George Veletsianos, Open educational resources: expanding equity or reflecting and furthering inequities? These readings ask us to consider who is invited into Open Education, who is cited, who is represented, and to understand that some people might prefer not to share their creations openly, and that’s ok.  In week 6 we reviewed Lambert and Czerniewicz’s Approaches to Open Education and Social Justice Research (an editorial for their collection Open Education and Social Justice), and Bali, Cronin, and Jhangiani’s Framing Open Educational Practices from a Social Justice Perspective which focuses specifically on the social justice aspect of Open Education.  Social Justice would seem to be firmly embedded in the definition of Open Education, but while OEP can indeed empower learners and liberate them from more traditional educational practices, they can also exclude those learners who do not have adequate technology access or who do not speak English (since the majority of OER are produced in English).  In addition, the very nature of open pedagogy (encouraging learners to engage in OEP) can exclude marginalized learners who may feel reticent to put their voices out there.

Now that I have a better handle on the task at hand, first, let’s start our key considerations with institutions coming to terms with what Open Educational Practices are and placing value on them.  Real value.  That means recognizing not only the importance of OEP, but also how institutions need to support faculty, students and EDI initiatives. My own experience is that institutions talk a lot about how everything they do is “for the students,” and yet students still have to decide between their next meal and purchasing course materials.  And faculty are not supported to support their students (and let’s be clear, this is not just about course materials – students need all kinds of support, but it is often left up to faculty to figure out how students are struggling and how to get them help.)

Following from this recognition and acceptance of value and what that might look like in practical terms, let’s then make OEP (not just Open Educational Resources (OER), but the whole range of OEP!) a part of our strategic priorities at the institution – embed them in every strategic pillar and goal (because it’s not hard to do).  Strategic goals generally revolve around student experience, EDI/Social Justice, collaboration, etc. – all clear attributes of OEP.

But, embedding OEP in an institutional plan also means supporting (yes, back to that support piece ’cause you can’t just visit it once) their adoption, adaption, creation, implementation, etc. across the institution.  Real support.  Meaning supporting departments and programs to review existing courses and curriculum to find where OEP can fit.  Meaning supporting faculty to do the work so it’s not just off the sides of their desks in spare moments.  Meaning supporting resources – people resources – who can work with faculty and departments as part of their main work, again not off the sides of their desk. Meaning supporting students to understand how they can engage with OEP in their classes and beyond.

Faculty need to be encouraged to share and talk to each other, not just within departments, but across the institution.  Community needs to be built so the work becomes collegial and open – not done in isolation which leads to discouragement and giving up.  The more the merrier – diversity of views and ideas is key, and you never know from whom you will learn that one thing that completely changes your perspective or practice.And students need to be informed, but also engaged by everyone doing OEP work at institutions.  They need to not only understand what OER are and how they can support their education (reducing cost, improving availability and access), but also need to understand how OEP can create situations where students become more front and centre in their own learning – how they can contribute to the scholarship of their discipline, build skills and confidence, and engage in collaboration and interdisciplinary work.  And through this all, the institution, faculty, and Open Education resource folks need to be there to support them.

Engaging with students in OEP means supporting their voices and diverse experiences to be heard and included.  At the same time, we need to recognize that much institutional administration is still primarily privileged, white and male, and while privilege makes it easy to encourage students to share diverse experiences, it doesn’t ensure safety in that disclosure.  In addition, how do we encourage the inclusion of diverse voices in OEP (and the institution in general) without making it seem like tokenism or a checklist (Indigenous voice, check.  Accessibility voice, check – see why I don’t like checklists?)  I don’t have an answer for this – I just remember someone once asking why aren’t XXX kind of people applying for jobs in our institutions, as if that is an excuse for not hiring diverse employees (because they aren’t beating down our doors), when we perhaps should wonder why the institutions educating our future employees are not opening more doors to that diversity and then what are we doing as an institution to open doors (as well as actively seek out diversity – especially at leadership levels) as an employer.  I’m likely not saying this well, but when you sit on multiple committees that have a “slot” for an Indigenous person, I think maybe we need to be asking different kinds of questions about how we are really “doing” EDI at our institutions.

Phew, that last paragraph took me out of the main focus of this post, but I think it all relates.  Basically, we can’t assume adopting OEP is going to be the panacea for all our social justice woes.  Engaging in OEP should be a mindful and intentional process and we (institutions, faculty, support folks, etc.) need to find ways of encouraging diverse voices to join in (and asking them how they would like to join), opening our doors to inclusion in meaningful ways, and supporting all who want to join in, while respecting those who may not yet be ready to take that step.