(H817 - block 1, activity 5)
In order to judge OpenLearn by wikipedia’s definition of ‘innovation’, I found the distinctions between ‘innovation’ and ‘invention’ as well as ‘improvement’ quite useful:
“Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better.”
In terms of ‘innovation’ as doing something different rather than doing the same thing better, OpenLearn is not innovative where it is about making course materials available free and online. For this purpose it is using new technology to improve access to knowledge and learning materials which help to acquire it. Here it particularly meets the needs of what McAndrew call the ‘volunteer students’ who are “most interested in more content, tools for self-assessment, and ways to reflect on their individual learning” (McAndrew et al. 2010).
On the other hand, looking at the second type of student, the ‘social learner’ who is mainly interested in engaging in discussions with like minded people, OpenLearn can be innovative if it succeeds in establishing new communication settings. In this case it would advance the shift from the supply-push mode of traditional learning environments towards a demand- pull mode of a more collaborative learning practice (Seely Brown, J. and Adler, R. 2008). However as Nuala really neatly sums up her experience (similar to mine) this seems not yet to have happened.
If OpenLearn eventually does establish itself as a forum for social learning, it might also become an enabler of invention, a place where ideas or method itself are being created.
The Openness of OpenLearn
As already stated, OpenLearn offers openness primarily in terms of accessibility and flexibility: the course materials can be accessed from anywhere and at any time by an unlimited audience. It certainly does also serve as an experimental base of new course materials and technologies, but the fact that the larger part of available funding has been used for the initial setting up of OpenLearn, openness in terms of innovation and change might be limited.
Challenges of conventional assumptions about paying for higher education modules
If knowledge and the respective courses and materials to acquire it are available free of charge and - even more important - is more and more developed in a technology enabled collaborative environment, the traditional function of an educational institution as producer of such content might eventually become superfluous. What I think will still be needed - and probably even more so - are supporting and commonly accepted assessment and accreditation services. These (payable) services might best be provided by effective users or “established practitioners” (Seely Brown, J. and Adler, R. 2008).
References
McAndrew, P., Scanlon, E. and Clow, D. (2010) ‘An open future for higher education’ [online], EDUCAUSE Review Online, (EQ) 33/1, http://www.educause.edu/ ero/ article/ open-future-higher-education (accessed 8 February 2013).
Seely Brown, J. and Adler, R. (2008) ‘Minds on fire: open education, the long tail and learning 2.0’, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 16–32; also available online at http://net.educause.edu/ ir/ library/ pdf/ ERM0811.pdf (accessed 8 February 2013).
