Hi all. Finally coming out of tenure crisis coma here. Falling behind has been an interesting reminder of where many of our students are coming from. Lol. As I fell behind I could feel the pressure of being overwhelmed by new material I hadn’t had a chance to properly digest step by step. So I decided to focus on one thing, the “From OER to Open Pedagogy: Harnessing the Power of Open” article, which seemed very substantive and something I could sink my teeth into. 

I like a lot of the questions they raise. They are selling the possibilities and potential of open pedagogy without overselling it, including lots of questions about the limits of what open pedagogy can do. Some of the potential of open pedagogy I like so far include: no textbook, possibility for increased student input/engagement, possibility for enactment of Freirean ideas/practices, and self-grading (lol). I hear Jason on his concern about platitudinous references to Freire and student empowerment, but I also do very much like the idea that I could learn new tactics/strategies for actually getting to the Freirean goals that many of us are motivated by: student participation and engagement and creative learning, rather than rote memorization, “banking method”, etc.

The question they raise, and the article Jason referenced asking whether the “rhetoric matches the reality” is an interesting concern. It’ll be interesting to see where I end up on this question, as I “learn by doing” open pedagogy. A couple questions I have so far, after reflecting on the article’s examples of open pedagogy (making a Wikipedia entry, creating your own textbook or course or student education video) are : to what extent is this exploitative? I.e., getting the students to “do the work”? I guess my question going forward is, will this model be more like prisoners making license plates or PPE for pennies in prison, or more like Rupaul’s drag race, where contestants create creative content, get experience in competition and performance, free publicity and exposure of their art, and even, maybe, a cash prize? 

The second question I have is, is the approach of open pedagogy more about learning content or tech skills (critical digital literacy)? Don’t get me wrong, I think tech skills like this are valuable – maybe even more so for students like ours coming from financially challenged families and communities that may not have access to the latest software programs, skills, etc. I myself kind of wandered into being a Tech Fellow at the Grad Center (mostly bc I needed more funding and the fellowship paid well), but I learned a lot of skills along the way, particularly for someone who didn’t see themselves as particularly tech savvy up to that point. Through learning by doing, I did actually learn a lot that has helped me through the years, including in the classroom. In fact, going further back in time, one of the most valuable classes I took in high school was my typewriting class! Randomly selected (I think – can’t really remember if the selection was intentional or not), typewriting has saved me innumerable hours (including, in fact, right now, as I am quickly able to record my thoughts with a coming deadline), that others, who never took typewriting, cannot do. In fact, I am a little shocked at how many academic writers, who do countless hours of writing, struggle to type with a hunt-and-peck approach. 

At the same time, I can’t help but question Rosa and Robison’s references to writing essays as being “disposable” or “pointless busywork”. Maybe I’m a delusional academic or Freirean, but I do very much want to believe – and try to set up – a system where student work involves grappling with ideas. In such a way that this grappling, such as low-stakes weekly reflections on readings and higher stakes thought papers, stimulate important activity in the brain and create lasting connections with ideas. Unlike cramming factoids for the multiple choice test, to be flushed out afterward, I try to get students engaged with ideas – even if only a few – maybe even only one! (if it’s really good). Ideas they can carry with them into their future and use in their lives. Whether they ever re-read their paper or give a crap about keeping it (or whether it becomes the seed for something they go on to publish or work with) isn’t something I have a lot of control over. But I am hesitant to look at writing (and the close and concentrated reading that goes with it) as “disposable”. My last question has to do with the limits of the idea of “learning by doing”. I do have a soft spot for conceptual learning. Can learning by doing really teach concepts? Beyond tech skill concepts? Or utopian/futuristic tech skill concepts? I really don’t know yet, but maybe I’ll learn by doing  (or not, lol).  Finally, I have to say I like the idea of using open pedagogy as a way to “rethink our courses”. Making teaching creative, like learning, seems important. Open pedagogy’s focus on creativity seems very valuable in itself, a slightly different emphasis than simply “learning by doing”, which could involve making PPE in prison. How to ensure a mixture of creativity and conceptual thinking sounds like an interesting challenge.