talked about sharing one’s process of development, one’s works-in-progress, as did Carla Casilli.
I hadn’t really thought about doing this, except in the sense of talking to people on Twitter or other social networks (like Google+) about things I’m working on and getting their thoughts. And, of course, sharing thoughts and ideas on my blog that are unfinished. Of course, any educational resource/material I create is a
work-in-progress, like a handout, a syllabus, an outline of an argument,
etc. Those things change from term to term, year to year. I think they may also have been talking about sharing of processes in the sense of explaining to others how things were done, so they can be repeated: e.g., Alan Levine’s explanation of how he put together the ETMOOC blog hub
, and Alec Couros’ explanation of how the ETMOOC Lip Dub was done
During this presentation Carla Casilli also noted how we are usually rewarded according to a model that assumes everyone makes separate, individual contributions to research, a project, a practice, etc. She suggested it is more realistic to look at many works as collaborative, and this would change our evaluation of individuals’ contributions. We might ask, then, not so much about what an individual has done him/herself, but rather how much they have contributed to a collaborative effort, to a community that has worked together on the creation of something. That’s an intriguing idea; I do tend to see most (or all?) work as building upon that which came before, and the result of connections to and with others and what they’ve done. I find it difficult to claim credit for contributions as if they are solely my own, when there is so much that has influenced me, past and present.There were two other “open educators” panels during this topic, but this first one was most interesting to me, so it’s the only one I’ll report on here.With all the talk of the value of opening up one’s work and one’s practice as an educator, I found there was not a lot on our Twitter hashtag and our Google+ group talking about the downsides of openness (not that these were entirely missing, but they weren’t terribly prominent, either). So I decided to write a blog post explaining one such downside I could imagine, but fortunately have not experienced myself: it could give people the sense that they could be evaluated at any time, by those who have control over their employment. Being a fully open educator might be like undergoing peer review of teaching continuously. And further, this could potentially lead some people to self-discipline, to avoid taking too many risks in their teaching due to fear of possible, practical repercussions.For this blog post I rehashed what, for some, has become an old, tired, and too-simplistic link of panopticism to being open on the web, but I think it’s relevant in this case.