Wikiversity, the enlightenment, and popular education

I was taken by the Wikipedia article on popular education (I had actually never properly read it before), with its mentioning of a number of initiatives, such as Ciph, an open university founded by Jacques Derrida and others, to be explicitly “liberated” from the government or “the university”. I don’t know exactly what “the university” means in this context - my experience of universities is to have a largely independent, and often provocative role within the state structure (even though they are of course dependent on funding), and that individuals within universities are similarly free to pursue their own agendas, as long as they continue to publish articles, and show that their students meet required standards. Yes, there are a lot of constraining features in that model, but I would argue that it is naive to imagine that there will never be any constraining features within a given social context (for example, there will always be inherent issues of power and participation). However, what “the university” is may be being redefined, and it was in this light that I reread Teemu’s paper for Wikimania last year: Wikiversity:Free education and free school? I now want to explore more of these initiatives - for example Summerhill in the UK, or even the Irish hedge schools, set up illegally under British rule. (In fact, it’s very interesting to reflect on the conditions under which various alternative public models of education have evolved.)

So, to the enlightenment, which gave us, amongst other things, the scientific method - to base our theories on empirical observation, and to make transparent the process by which we make these observations and develop these theories. It is transparency which is so vital in research - to be able to see how the research is constructed, in order to enable others to critique it from a particular perspective, or critique a particular part of its methodology. Similarly, I think it is transparency which is so important to the development of such a learning context (or perhaps “meta-university”) as Wikiversity. This is truly “open source education” - making the process explicit, in order to see how learning is constructed, in just the same way as open source code is readable, and modifiable.

In the OER movement, we have set ourselves the challenge of creating multiple and distributed repositories of free content, which people can not only access, but modify, adapt, recontextualise, redistribute. I know it’s too early for this to be an actual problem yet, but I do think that sheer quantity will actually pose a threat to this movement - unless it is made findable and meaningful through processes like social tagging. This is where I think Google scholar’s use of the slogan “stand on the shoulders of giants” is a tad on the arrogant and misleading side - my own personal experience of Google scholar is often to “drown in the grey literature of academic hopefuls” (”grey literature” being typically non-peer reviewed papers). :-) The more we enable wide and meaningful searching of OERs, the more flexibility people will have in taking ‘a bit of this, and a bit of that’ for their own needs. Because, at the end of the day, we cannot simply hand someone a proscribed class to download and print off - everyone learns and teaches in their own particular way.

3 Responses to “Wikiversity, the enlightenment, and popular education”

  1. Peter Rawsthorne Says:

    Cormac,

    You present some very thought provoking writings. A few ideas that fall out of my head while reading your post include;
    1) Does the idea of doing a PhD completely online without an affiliation with an existing institution make sense?
    2) Who learns the most? those creating the OERs or those consuming them? And where would the reuse of OERs fit withing this?
    3) If wiki based OERs followed the same edit revert cycle as wikipedia, wouldn’t this be a peer-review?

  2. Cormac Lawler Says:

    Thanks very much Peter! Well, in response to your first question - I wonder if this will ever actually be the case. I mean, someone needs to accredit your PhD, don’t they? So therefore, Wikiversity (or whoever) would need to go through a fairly rigourous process that is completely unrealistic right now. I know a lot of people want to make it possible - and it well be one day - but just not yet. I think it would be far more pragmatic to align work done over a distributed context with an accredited institution/programme - in other words, do work on Wikiversity and then get a degree with Wikiversity’s partner, the University of X. This is realistic to aim for relatively soon - I’ve heard of such initiatives, linking informal learning with formal accreditation, and will have to find out more and report back.

    On creating OERs, I believe that there is a huge amount of learning being done as a meta-community here (the OER movement being this meta-community). Perhaps the teachers are learning more than the students in this sense - though I can really see classrooms being invigorated by ideas (content) from elsewhere - we’re creating multiple edge systems here. Not to mention the possibility of collaboration between students in different parts of the world studying and developing the same content pool. :-) And yes, absolutely - this constitutes a very real (and dynamic) peer review system - Etienne Wenger (are you familiar with his work? Communities of Practice?) calls a wiki “peer review on steroids”. :-)

  3. Stew Jean Says:

    Cormac:

    Its truly interesting how each participant’s focus on a different aspect of the course reading heighten’s one’s understanding of the many interrelated issues presented. For example your idea about “transparancy” makes me surmise this must be an effective peer pressure tool in the open learn situation. I also quite agree that at present there is more free educational content and the creators thereof than end-users, thus the movement will have to adopt a strategy to combat this problem.

Leave a Reply