This month’s discussion will be facilitated by Connie Blomgren and Erik Christiansen.
This month’s article was published June 2019 in First Monday, and was written by Michael McNally and Erik Christiansen. It is titled “Open enough? Eight factors to consider when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses: A Conceptual framework.“
- The authors propose a conceptual framework to determine what is ‘open enough’ to help educators estimate workload when developing open courses (p.4). Do you find the framework helpful? How would you have framed it differently?
- The authors break down open education into eight factors. Are there other factors you would have added? Eliminated/combined?
- In Step 2 of the framework, the authors propose how much willingness/effort is required to implement each of the eight factors (pp. 10-11). Do you agree with their assumptions? Would you reassign willingness/effort differently?
- In Step 3 of the framework, the authors argue that accessibility/usability considerations, language, and cultural considerations require the most knowledge from educators when transitioning from closed to open courses (pp 11-12). Do you think this is accurate?
- The authors argue that maximizing openness for assessment, language, and support costs can have negative pedagogical trade offs (pp. 7-8). Eg. Instructor feedback (closed & mixed) vs. self-assessment (most open). What do you think of this argument?
- In the “Limitations and discussion” (pp. 12-14), the authors propose goal posts around openness (‘open enough’). Are there other suggestions that could have been included?