Unenlightenment and incuriosity

Curious Dogs - explored

I’m indebted to Sherri Spelic for introducing me to the term ‘incuriosity’. In her excellent post last year she writes “This concept of being ‘incurious’ fascinates me. ‘Not curious’ means that we feel no need to pose questions about a thing or to wonder about its origins. It’s not so much that we are against the thing, it simply stays off (not even under) our radar”. Incuriosity is defined in the dictionary as “indifferent, unconcerned, incurious, aloof, detached, disinterested mean not showing or feeling interest. indifferent implies neutrality of attitude from lack of inclination, preference, or prejudice”. But there is a cultural angle to it also. Sherri links to this piece talking about incuriosity from white Americans in terms of reparations. In this Patrick Phillips states “one of the main obstacles to racial justice is white incuriosity about the crimes of the past.”

I think it can be broadened out to be viewed as a result of cultural hegemony. I’m reminded of this great piece by Rebecca Solnit, in which she talks about the reaction she received after criticising Lolita. She makes the point that men don’t have to engage in empathy because most books and films feature them in central roles:

It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads. This is a problem straight white men suffer from especially, because the western world has held up a mirror to them for so long… The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield. But straight white men don’t, so much.
This paying attention is the foundational act of empathy, of listening, of seeing, of imagining experiences other than one’s own, of getting out of the boundaries of one’s own experience. There’s a currently popular argument that books help us feel empathy, but if they do so they do it by helping us imagine that we are people we are not.”

And this is what leads to incuriosity. White men don’t have to be curious, because they see themselves on screen (and elsewhere) all the time. It’s at the root of why some of them then become so angry when, say, an all female cast remakes Ghostbusters, or Mad Max has a woman as the main action lead, or Star Wars has a black hero, or a cinema hosts women only Wonder Woman screenings. They are being forced to confront their incuriosity, and they resent it. Boy, do they resent it. It is also exacerbated by being English speaking. If English is your first (and usually, only) language then you don’t have to engage with another culture. It all comes to you because English dominates movies and the internet.

The relevance of all this for attitudes to knowledge is that it makes people lazy. Why bother to engage with other cultures, consider other viewpoints? And incuriosity spreads like a virus because people pander to it (“don’t put subtitles on a film!”). It’s like having a pill that means you can eat whatever you want and stay slim, why bother to make the effort to exercise? Incuriosity is fatal to education – it suggests that there is no need to learn anything beyond that which your already know. Much of learning is an uncomfortable process, we often have our accepted beliefs stripped away, we are made to feel vulnerable because we lack knowledge, we have to expose our ignorance in order to address it. And as with the reaction to the film examples above, the incurious do not like to be made to be uncomfortable. Incuriosity spreads then to politics and communities – there is no need to be concerned with the plight or needs of people who are not exactly like you. The degree to which you feel you are representative of everyone is greatly magnified because of the cultural mirror that is held up to you. This lack of empathy solidifies and any challenge to it becomes an attack. Then along comes Trump, the King of Incuriosity…

Unenlightenment & Elitism

(Photo by James Clarke from Unsplash)

I’m giving a talk for Sian Bayne’s group up at Edinburgh this week, exploring the idea of the unenlightenment and open education. I’m using the talk to explore some of the ideas myself, so if you’re going, don’t expect coherence or polish. My main pitch is that we are experiencing a different attitude towards knowledge, experience, education in large parts of the population. This is particularly apparent with the successes of Brexit and Trump, which made this mistrust of expertise a key part of their campaigns. But it isn’t a ‘how did Trump happen?’ talk but rather an exploration of the various cultural phenomena that have give weight to this attitude.

I’ll explore some of those in later posts, but before I do I want to get in a couple of caveats, or rather flags to myself of things to avoid. The first is to avoid any romanticising of the past as some Camelot for intellectuals. There has always been a suspicion and mistrust of experts, and this is actually pretty healthy. One of the key factors in the rise of the unenlightenment is the manner in which experts over-stretch themselves, and think expertise in one area (say in running a tech software company) gives expertise in another (politics, social care, etc). We should be wary of experts when they stray outside of their narrow domain.

The second flag is related – I read The Death of Expertise recently, and while there are good parts in it, I came away with a sense of elitism running through it. Nichols for instance has a chapter bemoaning the safe spaces argument and how students on campus won’t hear contrary views. And there is much complaining of students taking subjects that are not critically challenging. And at this point it starts sounding very elitist, sort of “if only everything was like it used to be, and everyone was as smart as me”. This is not what I am getting at with my talk – not knowing stuff is ok, all of us are ignorant on so many topics. But rather what is different today is a large media portrayal and cultural attitude towards the pursuit of knowledge itself. It is not that someone doesn’t know stuff, but that not knowing is depicted as a more desirable state. And my interest in this is what does it mean for open education in particular, as this is the context within which it operates. It’s an attitude that always exist, but its prevalence alters. It may be that we have hit peak unenlightenment in 2017. But as Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate accord demonstrates, the impact of this attitude can be far reaching for all of us.

Some anecdotes as evidence for the rise in this attitude are:

I’ll explore some of the contributory factors in later posts (eg like disruption), but if it wanders into romanticising the past or being elitist, then please sound the klaxon (politely).

Designing for retention – the ICEBERG model

Last year I worked with some colleagues from the Learning Design team here at the OU on a project focusing on designing for student retention. We of course, have many different aspects in mind when designing a course, but my pitch for this project was that it was worth devoting some time to specifically focusing on how design can influence whether students stay on a course or drop out. When thinking about retention there are, I would suggest, four categories of factors that can impact upon whether a student stays with a course:

1) Design – are there elements in the way that the course is constructed that make it more or less likely that a student will persist?
2) Delivery – when the course is delivered, what support and interventions can influence retention?
3) Personal factors – these can range from whether the student has taken on too much study, changes job, has a shift in personal circumstances, etc
4) Contextual factors – broader context within which the student and course operate within, for instance whether student fees are introduced, if there are increased requirements for this qualification, etc.

The first two factors are the ones most directly under the control of the higher education institution. And in this project, it was just the first one we were focusing on in this particular project (others within the OU are looking at Delivery aspects). So the question was “What can we do during the design of a course to increase the number of students who finish the course?” This is a particular issue for open entry courses, as MOOCs are now discovering.

We conducted research by interviewing course chairs in the Ou where retention had been noteworthy (in either direction), and undertaking literature review across a range of topics, including motivations for learning, MOOC retention data, and analysing our own student’s reasons for withdrawal data. Some of the findings of this might seem fairly obvious, and were part of what most curse teams did anyway, but it’s worth gathering them together and elucidating each clearly I think. My colleague Jitse van Ameijde did some excellent work in gathering all this together into a model. This has the acronym ICEBERG, for seven design elements that can influence retention:

  • Integrated – A well-integrated curriculum so it appears as a coherent whole where all the parts work together in a meaningful and cohesive way. This means that there is constructive alignment between learning outcomes, assessments, activities and support materials which all contribute effectively to driving students to pass the module. I like to think of it as the course having a clear narrative and identity.
  • Collaborative – group work is often stressful for students and difficult to successfully negotiate but there is also good evidence that students tend to persist with a course when they form social bonds with other learners. It also aids understanding of concepts, so courses need to create opportunities for collaboration, which can take different forms, while avoiding some of the frustrations these activities can create.
  • Engaging – An engaging curriculum draws students in and keeps them interested and enthusiastic about their learning journey. This can include varying the types of activities students do, so it’s not one long slog, but also deliberately trying to make the course engaging, for example in the first week providing an exercise that helps them see the relevance or excitement in this subject.
  • Balanced – this is mainly with reference to the workload. Our research showed that excessive workload can correlate with increased student withdrawal, but worse was wildly fluctuating workload. Students like to be able to plan and if what is required varies from one week to the next, this undermines their ability to do so (and often their confidence as a result)
  • Economical – too often the solution when designing a course is to give students more. If they were having difficulty with a concept or an activity we provide more explanation. In order to meet the needs of different learners and perspectives, we give more content than is needed. This can lead to a sense of being overwhelmed and so being economical with what is required and how key information is conveyed is useful for distance learners negotiating their pathways.
  • Reflective – reflection allows students to pull concepts together, and also to understand their own development. It’s important to provide space for this and structured reflective activities, and not just assume it happens. It can also be through the use of informal assessment, including quizzes, to help learners reflect on their own learning and any areas they need to focus on.
  • Gradual – one sure way to lose students is to dump them into complexity. It’s a bit like those “learn to draw” books that go circle, circle with triangle, and then full running horse with flowing mane. Nothing makes you think “this isn’t for me” than a very sudden increase in difficult. A well designed course then has gradually exposes students to increasingly complex and challenging materials, tasks and skills development.

We have tips for how to achieve this, but I’ll save that for another time. While the model is especially relevant to distance ed, open courses, I think it’s applicable for any good course design, whether it’s face to face or online. I should stress this is only one aspect, there are related ways of viewing design to achieve different aspects, so it’s not the only consideration in course design. But it should be one consideration, so we recommend that one meeting is given over where Designing for Retention is the sole focus, rather than being subsumed in other design aspects.

Open business models

(Image Clarisse Meyer CC0 from Unsplash)

At the Creative Commons summit I was lucky to get a copy of Paul Stacey and Sarah Hinchliff’s Made with Creative Commons. It explores businesses that have based a model through licensing some aspect of their product via a CC license. They set out a number of case studies such as Cards Against Humanity, Noun Project, OpenDesk, etc. It’s freely available (of course), and definitely worth a read. In the first part Paul and Sarah set out some key principles underlying the case studies.

The authors are quite honest in stating that their approach to the book changed as they worked with the case studies. Initially they were interested in categorising the business models that were effective in purely financial terms for those who used Creative Commons. But they found that for most of the case studies, while making money was a goal to keep operations functioning, they were more interested in social good, in realising a particular aim. As they state:

“What we didn’t realize was just how misguided it would be to write a book about being Made with Creative Commons using only a business lens.”

This brings me on to something I’ve been pondering after developing a research proposal (it didn’t get funded) on exploring aspects of openness across different sectors. Digital and networked were the first wave of this change. And we thought that was all that was required, but as we’ve seen this leads to the embodiment of ‘bro-culture’ in software. Facebook, Twitter, etc – these have been tools for significant social change but a considerable chunk of darkness has come along with that, because they believe the algorithms they code are detached from the culture they embody.

When I used to do my digital scholar talk, I would use this Venn diagram and suggest that it is the intersection of digital, networked and open that leads to transformation.
But now I think Open is the aspect that makes any venture socially interesting. It’s not a guarantee, you can still have a misogynistic or racist venture which deploy aspects of openness but it usually denotes a desire to share, to create a connection with a broader audience. Potentially, when you add deliberate openness into the mix you get models which include users as people rather than seeing them just as data points. While digital and networked got us so far, that may have been just a first stage, and with that foundation there is room to explore open models on top of this. Adding open gives you Mastodon over Twitter, and while it is nowhere near as popular, it does represent a different approach to social media. And digital and networked gave us Uber, which is a useful platform for the customer, but came with a whole host of social and employment issues. Now we are seeing taxi driver cooperatives, where the drivers have all the benefits, deploy an open source Uber-like platform, and keep the profits. Who knows if such cooperatives will flourish and compete with Uber, but like the examples in Made with Creative Commons, they represent models that build on existing digital, networked practice and add a dash of open to produce something more interesting.

Assuming digital and networked aren’t going to go away, we have to find models that make it more humane. Exploring these sorts of approaches across different domains is something I’m interested in pursuing. Watch this space. Or not.

Developing models of open, online education

The “OOFAT” project is currently looking at different models of open, online, flexible and technology-enhanced learning (OOFAT) in higher education. It’s conducted on behalf of the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), and a key element is the desire to cover and model a wide range of activity. Too often research projects are too focused on the search for new, innovative practices. The emphasis on very tech- oriented models also tends to favour the ‘silicon valley’ approach to education. This tends to over-represent some small scale examples, which often don’t develop into sustainable models once the hype has died down. These models are not always applicable to providers elsewhere, given their particular situation and the audience they serve. The result is that many institutions fail to see themselves in some of the more breathless accounts of technology use in education.

So, in this project we wanted to explicitly capture a range of practices covering a global perspective. In order to do so, we spent quite a lot of time at the start of the project developing a conceptual model that could cover the range of interests and practices in the OOFAT area. We made an early decision to focus on models that had demonstrated their viability and sustainability already. We focused on three aspects of offering:

· Content – including content production, personalisation, range of topics
· Delivery – covering aspects such as place, pace and timing of delivery of the content, and the support offered.
· Recognition – consists of both assessment and credentialization, which are formal processes leading to recognition of learning achievements.

Then for each of these three elements we are concerned with two aspects of each: openness and flexibility. For instance very flexible delivery will enable study at any time, any place, as we see in a traditional distance university. This can be distinct from openness in delivery, however, as a very open model allows anyone (whether formally enrolled or not) to access this flexible delivery ofcontent.

Additionally, we also want to investigate the business model that an institution or project is using. We’re producing a set of case studies from this, and have started developing some visual representations. For example the following figure shows how these different aspects of flexibility and openness could be configured for one provider:




We’re running a survey gathering this data. Initial findings have shown a wide range of practice, and what is interesting is that different institutions see different approaches as key. For example, some focus on a very flexible assessment process, while others are concentrating on opening up the content production process. This differentiation will hopefully both allow any interested party to locate themselves within the framework, but also find examples of practice in areas they wish to develop themselves.

You can find the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/OOFAT2. Please share this link with anyone in a position to contribute data.

We already have 42 responses from across the world – see Figure below, but we encourage more higher education institutions to stake their claim and provide case study material for us. Our aim is to be globally and thematically comprehensive and we need your help. In particular, we are keen to encourage people in the Global South to participate.


We’d love to hear from you if you represent an institution, department or project that offers some form of open, flexible, technology enhanced learning. We’ll be presenting the findings at the ICDE conference in Toronto in October.

Annotation & the net conundrum


Annotation tools such as hypothes.is have gathered a lot of interest over the past year, and certainly have a lot of potential in education. It was at Open Ed last year that Jon Becker brought some of the ethical issues to my attention. These tools allow others to overlay annotation and commentary on any site, visible to anyone with that browser extension. It’s not on that site as such, so they don’t need permission to do that. This is great for annotating, say, an article in a newspaper, or a Governmental press release for example. But as Audrey Watters points out, less great if as an individual, you have been subjected to threats and trolls in the past. Just as you may want to turn off comments, so you may want to turn off annotation. And that’s what Audrey has done by installing a bit of code. As she puts it “My blog. My rules. No comments.” That seems fair enough – part of the message around helping people develop digital identity is owning your own space, which means have agency and control over that.

However, it comes at a cost. There is no speaking truth to power if you can block tools, you can’t annotate say the latest White House environmental policy stating the scientific evidence for damage this will cause (of course you can elsewhere, but it’s working on that document that others will see where there is value). This is the essential problem we keep coming back to with the internet: The great thing about the internet is that anyone can say anything. The terrible thing about the internet is that anyone can say anything. It’s why discussion lists, chat rooms and twitter have all succumbed to dark forces. Annotation is just the latest manifestation of this essential dichotomy between complete openness (but vile people use it to make people’s lives miserable) and control (used by states and corporations to block criticism). There are negatives at either end (and positives too it should be said).

In his excellent newsletter (sign up if you haven’t already) Mike Caulfield sums it up “the lessons of the past decade or so of the web have been harsh. The dream of open participation, in the economic and social climate it has been dropped into, has been as much plague as cure. It’s been easily perverted by the hateful, the corporate, and more recently perhaps, the state-sponsored.” Mike goes onto argue that we can address this dichotomy by careful tool design: “the separate question is what should be encouraged by the design of our technology. People want to turn this into a legal debate, but it’s not. It’s a tools debate, and the main product of a builder of social tools is not the tool itself but the culture that it creates. So what sort of society do you want to create?”

I’m not sure the problem can be addressed by tool design, it’s just too intractable. But I don’t know enough about tool design, so maybe it can, it would be good to see if there are ways we can shape it. And in this, hypothes.is seem like a reasonable ally, they’re a non-profit and from what I know of them, seem genuinely want to engage in this issue. So if we’re going to make it work, then they represent a good case study. Maybe we can’t though – and simply being able to block is the best solution. Because this issue is central to the future of the internet, and will resurface with the next tool. And given that the internet shapes pretty much most of society now, it is THE FUTURE OF ALL HUMANITY (what’s that? You were with me up until the last bit and then I overdid it?)

The mission statement

mission and purpose

This follows on from yesterday’s post, last week at the Hewlett meeting I was asked to do a two minute presentation about OER work at the OU. There’s quite a lot to fit into two minutes, so I concentrated on four aspects:

  • Research – the OER Hub conducts research on the impact of OER
  • Community – GO-GN develops a global community of OER phD researchers
  • Content – OpenLearn releases thousands of hours of openly licensed learning material
  • International – projects like TESSA and TESS-India use locally developed OER to aid teacher education

My overarching theme was that all of these could be directly influenced by the OU’s mission statement. Now, most mission statements are rather mom and apple pie, and aspirational word bingo (I suspect many of you won’t be able to state your university’s mission statement if you work at one). But at the OU our mission statement ‘is to be open to people, places, methods and ideas.’ This is something we all really sign up for and believe. It is also a really well crafted, concise mission statement that has a number of consequences.

In its original interpretation it translated as the following:

  • People – anyone can study with the OU, there were no entry requirements
  • Places – you could study at a distance and didn’t need to attend a campus
  • Methods – part time, distance education, augmented by the use of television, summer schools, face to face tutorials and then other technologies
  • Ideas – less tangible, but for instance when the traditional universities were being snobbish and refusing to let the OU run summer schools, they considered hiring a boat and doing summer school cruises around the UK (the other unis realised what a massive cash cow summer schools would be and so this idea was not put into place).

The adoption of OER can be seen as an extension of this mission. But it also underpins each of my four example above, for instance in doing research we have to be open to methods, there are often different approaches you need to adopt to get at an answer (not just quantitative research for example).

I raise this because someone commented yesterday that they hadn’t really twigged that it meant the OPEN university. I know what they mean, we get accustomed to saying it as one noun, and not hearing the individual elements. But the mission statement illustrates I think how much openness is core to its identity. It’s a pretty good statement to return to when considering the direction of the OU I find, and if I were tasked with coming up with a mission statement that was relevant today, I don’t think I could do better.

The Open who?

The Open University

I was at the Hewlett OER meeting, and then the Creative Commons summit last week in Toronto. I’ll blog about that later, but for now (and to mark the OU’s 48th birthday today), here is a short post about the Open University. I was surprised at how often during those two meetings I would say I was from the Open University, and it be the first time the person had heard of it. I don’t mean to sound arrogant, I don’t expect everyone to have heard of us, but in two meetings that are largely about open education, it was telling. The follow up conversation would then be along the lines of ‘are you a proper university?’, ‘how do you make money?’, ‘what do you do?’.

My take on this is that open education, at least in this context, has become something quite distinct from open education as it was defined by the OU, and subsequent distance ed universities. What it means here is something like ‘openly licensed education’, or ‘OER education’. When I was in these conversations, it became clear that the model people had in mind was a foundation, NGO or ed tech start up, not a large scale, national university. I have no evidence for this, but my sense is that this would not have been the case 10 or 15 years ago. But open education is, like ed tech, a field people come into from elsewhere (and that diversity of experience is one of the reasons I like it). What this does mean is that their interpretation of open ed is shaped largely by immediate experience, and not a canon of foundational work (I’m NOT getting into the ‘should it be a discipline‘ discussion here again :).

In the Battle for Open, I suggested that there were three ‘parents’ for the current interpretation of open ed: open universities, open source and web 2.0. These merged together into a set of coalescing principles. But I wonder if we are witnessing a divergence now. If you go to conferences such as EDEN or ICDE, these were borne out of the distance ed movement, and here someone from Lumen learning (say) may get the same response I had at these other conferences, whereas everyone knows them at these two I attended.

I think there is, however, real benefit to both sides in maintaining overlap and dialogue between them. For the open universities, there are practices which are relevant. I have often remarked that we struck lucky with the title “The Open University” as it is still a very applicable, resonant name now. But we have very carefully and strategically worked with new definitions of openness in education – adopting open source Moodle as our VLE, setting up OpenLearn to be part of the OER movement, and FutureLearn to engage with MOOCs. Similarly there are current developments in the ‘new’ open education movement we might take advantage of, including open textbooks, open pedagogy and open business models. The reverse is true for the OER-related open ed movement, they are often times creating approaches that look akin to the OU model (I remember the excitement in the MOOC field when it rediscovered the idea of face to face study groups – we ruffled its hair and said “that’s nice”). We can provide years of experience and research in pedagogy, course production models, support, student profiles, etc.

So on the OU’s birthday this is a note to make sure we maintain on both sides that cross over. And also slight *ahem* – it’s why having a research team such as the OER hub that spans both communities is worthwhile. Anyway, happy birthday OU, 48 is a good age, I’ve been there for 22 of them, and I hope I’ll be here for a few more yet.

The open gift

Quarters Only

The second of my OER17 posts. Having come down on the side of a loosely defining OEP, a connected strand was the idea of openness as a gift. In Maha Bali’s keynote she mentioned that gift giving can be problematic, we don’t always know that people want that gift, they feel indebted, and it may be inappropriate. In our panel session later, I wondered whether this was applicable to openness in general – we give the gift of open to people, in the assumption they will want it, or it will do them good. Maybe they don’t want it. In that sense maybe it’s like giving someone a dog – now, if it’s me, great, I love dogs, but others don’t and would feel a sense of burden them or it at least might not be appropriate at that stage in their life.

And to riff off another Maha thought, in our joint session about Virtually Connecting she made the analogy with local and maximum optimum from neural networks. This argues that you may think your at an optimum, but there could be a better one further away, but that it requires energy and resources to get out of your current one and reach that one. So for Virtually Connecting, maybe it’s at or near a local optimum for the people it can reach given the current set up. In order to reach another optimum, it might require a lot of resources (more people, funding etc). I wonder if this is true of openness, and OEP, also. We are not near a local optimum yet, but we might get to one that helps a lot educators do beneficial things with their learners, for learners to take control of aspects of their own educational experience, etc. But we’ve been operating under the assumption (I think) that it’s for everyone. Maybe, like the dog gift, it isn’t, or if it is, that is a whole other level of resource and energy required, and we should concentrate on finding the local optimum first.

PS – don’t actually give me a dog as a gift, this chap says no:


My definition is this

Magnifying glass

I was at OER17 last week (I have another post about the evolution of the OER conference coming up – but in short, great work everybody). I have a couple of posts now in an attempt to fuse together some strands that came out of that and subsequent discussions, particularly around the topic of Open Educational Practice.

The first strand is around definitions. Beck gave a good overview of definitions of OEP in her talk, which led nicely into a presentation from Catherine Cronin and Laura Czerniewicz on the use of critical pragmatism to address issues in OEP. Laura and Catherine took a fairly broad approach to what constitutes OEP, and a member of the audience raised the question that could lead to openwashing, if you have a loose definition then it becomes easy for someone to claim they are doing it. At the same time there was a post from David Wiley, who really attempted to pin this down with regards to ‘open pedagogy’:

open pedagogy is the set of teaching and learning practices only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions. Or, to operationalize, open pedagogy is the set of teaching and learning practices only possible or practical when you are using OER

This led to an almighty Twitter discussion, particularly from Mike Caulfield, who suffers from being way more intelligent than most of us and therefore bringing more to bear on any topic than I can usually accommodate. I certainly began to lose the will to live reading this thread (sorry Mike). It began to remind me of the old “learning object” definition debates. Remember how much we enjoyed them? Or even better the “all day debate” between Downes and Wiley from 2009 (I believe there are some alternate universes where this is still going on). Jim Groom blogged that he felt uneasy with this push to define OEP so tightly:

I am not interested in the strict rules that define open; open is not the ends, it is one means amongst many. But, I do wonder at the push to consolidate the definition beyond OERs into Open Educational Practices. Seems to me there is an attempt to define it in order to start controlling it, and that is often related to resources, grants, etc

I think this is where I’m coming around to – OER has benefitted from a tight definition, and so we thought OEP would also. But that tight definition works for content, not practice. We should stop focusing on OEP definitions and instead look to a general opening up of practice. And hey, if some things get a bit messy around the edges, we’ll have to live with that. So, in order to combat the need to define things, I’m going to offer, erm, a definition. This is roughly what I have in my head when we talk about OEP, and is broad enough to include interesting stuff:

Open educational practice covers any significant change in educational practice afforded by the open nature of the internet

That’s it. You don’t have to have the same definition, but that’s what I’m going with. And if that leaves too much room for doubt, then as Douglas Adams said “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”

And here are the Dream Warriors to tell us about My Definition of a Boombastic Jazz Style