Free Tier. You may not create more than one account to benefit from credits provided in the free tier of the Services. If we believe you are not using the free tier in good faith, we may charge you standard fees or stop providing access to the Services.

(v) represent that output from the Services was human-generated when it is not

met before

When I talk about switching control for trust, I’m not talking about blind trust

For my generation, how well you spoke English was not just a marker of intelligence but also class.

No system of academic assessment is intrinsically good, only good for a purpose. That purpose must be established first.

educators can adopt quickly and easily

4 Options for Creating Empathetic Online Midterms and Assessments

relying on high-stakes assessments can be completed successfully.

rigor of tests and exams

serving

integrity of their tests and exams

illusory sense

Zoombombing

hierarchical

In video conferencing, the software itself can assign power relations that may or may not map onto existing social relations.

But this framing of consent is problematic to say the least. Can you refuse if the host is your boss?

meaning that each time you enter a Zoom session, you are confronted by a new configuration of permissions

any participant has less control or awareness of how others are viewing them.

mirror

You watch yourself as you speak, as you move. You are self-aware and self-correcting in real time

how much more tiring it was to Zoom than to meet

oppressive

USEFUL

Authenticity

managing a house full of energetic children or caring for elders

share stories of article revise-and-resubmits and rejections with students, so they will know that even full tenured professors deal with critical feedback and rejection

who is watching her 8-year old learn online for the first time. 

Places that feel like a café on campus where we sometimes meet someone and sit down for a few minutes.

Things We Can All Do… Well-being/care literacy

resence of such voices

so many “new” discoveries about online learning were reported — discoveries that were already tired concepts in the ed tech field.

s if there is no time to look in the rear-view mirror in a field that is always interested in the future.

add comments next to the parts that we find interesting

Equity isn’t for all. Equity is for those farthest from justice, and if we are working towards true equity those farthest from justice can define for themselves what they need to be whole, healthy, and in just relations with others.

empathy

We must support the creation of structures of inclusion that recognize and accommodate difference, rather than seek to erase it

Democratic societies may tend to advantage electoral majorities over the interests of minorities, which merely underscores the need for structural safeguards for fairness and inclusivity. There must be representational forms that give voice to minority needs and to ensure that the structures and political processes do not burden minority groups.

it required proactive accommodations to ensure that merely “equal” treatment did not produce or reinforce inequality.80Title 42 of the US Code, chapter 126 § 12101 et seq., accessed on May 30, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code. Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (Title III) or see 42 US Code §§ 12181–12189, accessed on May 30, 2016, http://www.ada.gov/ada_title_III.htm. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_80").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_80", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); Formal guarantees of equal protection or equal rights are often insufficient to create inclusive structures.

Many groups require more than access; they require special accommodations.

reaching out to at-risk students with welcoming messages.79

Widening the circle of human concern involves “humanizing the other,” where negative representations and stereotypes are challenged and rejected.

American values.

Rather than reduce intergroup inequality or marginality, assimilation seeks to erase the differences upon which othering is structured. If those differences or identities become socially

South Suda

Moreover, group-based identities are multifaceted and complex. No matter how homogenous a society may appear along one dimension of difference, it will always contain a multitude of possible diversities along other dimensions of human difference. There will always be human difference in any society, and a minority or marginalized group in any geography can never be fully extirpated without violence.

Segregation is not simply physical separation; it is an attempt to deny and prevent association with another group. Denying association with another group is another way of denying that group’s basic humanity. In that sense, segregation is not just spatial projects but ontological.

gender-segregated schools are sometimes demanded, even in the United States, as a way to improve learning outcomes for boys and girls, who, its defenders argue, have difficulty learning in cross-sex environments,

At a minimum, there is evidence that markets do not do an effective job of promoting tolerance.58Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson, “Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?” IFN Working Paper, no. 918 (2012): 177–207, accessed February 16, 2015, http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/81340. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_58").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_58", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); This suggests that curbing discrimination is the provenance of policy rather than market forces.59

to separate and inferior schools, jobs, train cars, restaurants theatres, public bathrooms, parks, and even water fountains.

As harmful as discrimination, conscious or unconscious, may be on shaping group outcomes, it is the institutionalization and structural features of othering that perhaps most explain group-based inequalities.51See Charles Tilly, Durable Inequality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Charles Tilly identifies exploitation and opportunity hoarding as two of the critical mechanisms for institutionalizing group-based difference. The most extreme mechanism of othering is outright exploitation of marginalized groups. Exploitation allows one social group to expropriate resources produced or held by another social group, as was the case during antebellum slavery or European colonialism. See also Ali Jarbawi, “Israel’s Colonialism Must End,” New York Times, August 4, 2014, accessed February 16, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/opinion/ali-jarbawi-israels-colonialism-must-end.html. Centuries of European colonialism have provided the world with certain basic lessons about subjugating colonized peoples: the longer any colonial occupation endures, the greater the settlers’ racism and extremism tends to grow. This is especially true if the occupiers encounter resistance; at that point, the occupied population becomes an obstacle that must either be forced to submit or removed through expulsion or murder. In the eyes of an occupying power, the humanity of those under its thumb depends on the degree of their submission to, or collaboration with, the occupation. If the occupied population chooses to stand in the way of the occupier’s goals, then they are demonized, which allows the occupier the supposed moral excuse of confronting them with all possible means, no matter how harsh. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_51").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_51", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); Today, the most common mechanism for instituti

hostility toward the unfamiliar or unknow

collision of culture

wrapped within or organized around one or more dimension of group-based difference.

Constructing scales to assess self-regulatory efficacy requires prelimi-nary work to identify the forms the challenges and impediments take.People are asked in open-ended interviews and pilot questionnaires todescribe the things that make it hard for them to perform the requiredactivities regularly. The identified challenges or impediments are builtinto the efficacy items. In the formal scale, participants judge their abilityto meet the challenges or to surmount the various impediments. Suffi-cient gradations of difficulties should be built into the efficacy items toavoid ceiling effects

perceived self-efficacy will account formore of the variation in weight if the assessment includes perceived capa-bility to regulate food purchases, eating habits, and physical exercise thanif it is confined solely to eating habits

Perceived self-efficacy should also be distinguished from other con-structs such as self-esteem, locus of control, and outcome expectancies. Perceivedefficacy is a judgment of capability; self-esteem is a judgment of self-worth. They are entirely different phenomena.

Self-efficacy isconcerned with perceived capability. The items should be phrased interms of can do rather than will do. Can is a judgment of capability; willis a statement of intention.

Generic self-manage-ment strategies developed in one realm of activity are serviceable inother activity domains with resulting co-variation in perceived efficacyamong them

There is no all-purpose measure of perceived self-efficacy. The “onemeasure fits all” approach usually has limited explanatory and predictivevalue because most of the items in an all-purpose test may have little orno relevance to the domain of functioning.

We need it from a 360 degree perspective. We need the students perspective because they are in, I hate to use business

s + Development Entrepreneurship Finance and Markets Arts and Culture

. And to do that work together with friends, my colleagues, my students.

greater empathy for my students and not to take things as personally

Like many college professors, I find the rhetoric of "outputs" and "outcomes" artificial, a fake metric that feeds the bureaucratic machine.

With such a definition in place, other related definitions such as OER may remain unchanged to denote different foci within the field. For example, the definition of OEP could remain more broadly about the processes of collaboration and sharing in a wide range of educational practices to improve pedagogy for all learners. The term “critical open pedagogy” could continue to be used to identify the set of intentionally empowering OEP which seek to shift the power balance between learner and teacher as a particular strategy to reduce inequality (DeRosa & Robinson, 2017).

Open Education is the development of free digitally enabled learning materials and experiences primarily by and for the benefit and empowerment of non-privileged learners who may be under-represented in education systems or marginalised in their global context. Success of social justice aligned programs can be measured not by any particular technical feature or format, but instead by the extent to which they enact redistributive justice, recognitive justice and/or representational justice.

What happens when something is “open" in all the ways that Open Education and open source and open data advocates would approve. All the right open licenses... All the right nods from all the right powerful players within “open.” And yet, the project is still not equitable. What if, in fact, it’s making it worse? What are we going to do when we recognize that “open" is not enough? I hope, that we recognize that what we need is social justice. We need politics, not simply a license. We need politics, not simply technology solutions. We need an ethics of care, of justice, not simply assume that “open” does the work of those for us (Watters, 2014).

the genesis and assumptions of OEP are tracked back to recent trends in the broader educational  literature, namely social constructivist, student-centred learning (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018). I would suggest that OEP can alternatively be considered a contemporary online iteration of social constructivist learning, positioned against OER as a more positivist resource and teacher-focussed paradigm

Dominant discourse leaves alternative ideas – such as those relating to social justice — at the periphery of a field.

openness determinism

A process and also a goal to achieve a fairer society which involves actions guided by the principles of redistributive justice, recognitive justice or representational justice.

The editing of such a textbook to include images and cases featuring more diverse communities, businesses and people will be an act of recognitive justice. But what if the textbook features people of colour, but does not value their perspectives, knowledges or histories? What if the textbook takes a white colonial view of black lives, if black stories are told solely by white voices?

OEP

Global North can play their part in reducing the social injustices of the global education system — especially the cultural side of it — through engaging with more OER from the Global South and incorporating them into their teaching.

more transformative way, as it bypasses, and therefore challenges, the current knowledge production regime, at least as it concerns educational materials

specifically mentioned the need for building partnerships between “schools, parents, community members and disabled people’s organisations

South

without catering to the biases or preferences of (often foreign) publishers

southern educators can play a greater role in the globally competitive production of knowledge, insisting on their own epistemic stance.

Culturally, the creation of OER allows educators to contribute to the global production of knowledge without regard for various gatekeepers (publishers, peers, etc.) who might otherwise — intentionally or not — stifle their voices.

an educator can overcome the cost challenges that users face by offering the resource for free, and the legal restrictions of full copyright by making the resource open, while still retaining attribution of the original author/

in most cases in the Global South, few governments or institutions have the awareness, resources or volition to mobilise a country, state or institution-wide effort to share their IP as OER. The more feasible option in most cases — which is affirmative, not transformative — would be to allow individual educators to share their own teaching materials as OER. This is a very low-cost alternative to the high-cost efforts required for full-scale institutional mobilization.

An ameliorative intervention would be to alter the institutional IP policy to allow educators to possess copyright of their own teaching materials, thus allowing them to openly license them and share them publicly. This is the approach taken at UCT (Cox & Trotter, 2017) where the institution automatically assigns copyright to authors

critical engagement is necessary for any type of pedagogy to battle against cultural inequality, but OER remixing as a type of OEP is inherently more likely to push educators to do so than simple OER use “as is” or OER translation.

While translation may change the linguistic interface through which students engage with this knowledge, it may not do much to alter the underlying frames of reference upon which that knowledge is built

It encourages students to engage with the OER but in a way that allows them to understand that the knowledge offered through it is likely not “universal” and that it exists within a complex space of competing knowledge claims, some of which are more or less relevant and compelling for their circumstances.

, a more critical approach is necessary to ensure that OER use does not inadvertently lead to increased cultural injustice

ISSN 2311-1550 Editor Emeritus: Alan Tait Chief Editor: Anne Gaskell Associate Editor: Sanjaya Mishra Book Review Editor: Romeela Mohee     Open Journal Systems Journal Help User Username Password Remember me Notifications View Subscribe Journal Content Search Search Scope All Authors Title Abstract Index terms Full Text Browse By Issue By Author By Title <!-- $(function(){ fontSize("#sizer", "body", 9, 16, 32, ""); // Initialize the font sizer }); // --> Font Size Make font size smaller Make font size default Make font size larger Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Article Tools Abstract Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Supplementary files Email this article (Login required) Email the author (Login required) Home About Login Register Search Current Archives Announcements Home > Vol 5, No 3 (2018) > Hodgkinson-Williams Hodgkinson-Williams @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); body,td,th { color: #99000; text-align: left; } @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); .footnote { color: #990000; } A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South Cheryl Ann Hodgkinson-Williams and Henry Trotter VOL. 5, No. 3 Abstract: At the heart of the open educational resources (OER) movement is the intention to provide affordable access to culturally relevant education to all. This imperative could be described as a desire to provide education in a manner consistent with social justice which, according to Fraser (2005), is understood as “parity of participation”. Drawing on her concept of social justice, we suggest a slight modification of Fraser’s framework for critically analysing ways in which the adoption and impact of OER and their undergirding open educational practices (OEP) might be considered socially just. We then provide illustrative examples from the cross-regional Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project (2014-2017) to show how this framework can assist in determining in what ways, if at all, the adoption of OER and enactment of OEP have responded to economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. Furthermore, we employ Fraser’s (2005) concepts to identify whether these social changes are either “affirmative” (i.e., ameliorative) or “transformative” in their economic, cultural and political effects in the Global South education context. Keywords: Open Educational Resources, Open Educational Practices, social justice, Global South Introduction Many countries in the Global South face similar educational challenges, including but not limited to: “unequal access to education; variable quality of educational resources, teaching and performance; and increasing cost and concern about the sustainability of education (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams, King, Cartmill & Willmers, 2017, p. 6). The need for education in Global South countries is continuing to grow, propelled by high population growth (World Bank, 2017) and the burgeoning demand for post-secondary education. In some countries, such as South Africa, there are additional challenges, such as low participation and high attrition rates in higher education (Baijnath, 2018). The OER movement has been seen as a “means of contributing to the challenge of expansion of scale and opportunity and lowering cost in particular in post-secondary education” (Tait, 2018, p. 111). A few studies in countries in the Global South have indeed reported cost reductions as a result of OER adoption (Arumugam, 2016), including reduction of costs associated with course development (Pande, 2018). However, a recent study in the United States (US) raises a caution about the cost reduction argument for OER and suggests that “touting the financial value of an OER might not solely be a convincing argument for students or instructors independent of their educational use” (Abramovich & McBride, 2018, p. 37). A number of studies, mostly conducted in the Global North, have garnered evidence for cost savings of OER for students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), though some suggest that these student savings were not accompanied by any real change in their learning outcomes (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Riger, 2017) or student course satisfaction (Lawrence & Lester, 2018). Thus, the economic value proposition for OER may not be connected to any pedagogical, cultural, or political improvements, which would certainly be the hope for the OER community. Moreover, while OER are “often espoused as enabling educational equity, the reality is not always the case” (Willems & Bossu, 2012, p. 185). For example, in Kenyan schools, Orwenjo and Erastus (2018, p. 148) report that “poor infrastructure, negative attitudes, lack of ICT competencies, and other skill gaps among teachers and lack of administrative support are some of the implementation challenges that have continued to dog the implementation, adoption and use of OERs”. Crissinger (2015) suggests that the perceived relationship between openness and social justice be interrogated as, “in our excitement about the new opportunities afforded by open movements, we might overlook structural inequalities present within these movements”. These perceptions are in line with the findings by the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project which investigated the adoption and impact of OER in 21 countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. ROER4D Project The ROER4D project, funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Open Society Foundations, commenced in 2013 and included 18 independent sub-projects. Hosted by the University of Cape Town, South Africa and Wawasan Open University, Malaysia, a total of 103 research team members from 19 countries worked on these sub-projects. In the ROER4D project OER was seen as a component of Open Education and referred to “teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or which have been released under an intellectual property licence that permits activities enabled by different degrees of openness” (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017, p. 31). The open educational practices (OEP) that undergird the OER referred to are: individual or collaborative conceptualisation; creation, curation (retention), circulation (distribution) of OER through practices such as open pedagogies; crowdsourcing; and open peer review using open technologies so that they can be easily located to encourage copying (re-use “as-is”), adaptation, re-curation and re-circulation. In other words, “for OER to exist, there must of necessity be prior OEP” (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 31). In the ROER4D meta-synthesis, an “optimal” Open Education cycle (Figure 1) was used to identify the key OEP that underlie the phases of OER creation, use and adaptation (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Figure 1: An “optimal” Open Education cycle (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Image CC BY In the main output of the ROER4D project, an edited volume comprising 16 chapters (Hodgkinson-Williams & Arinto, 2017), there are two meta-synthesis chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. Chapter 2 (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017) adopts the key components of Archer’s (2003) social realist model of social change to identify the key factors influencing OEP and OER across the sub-projects. Chapter 16 (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2017) employs the social inclusion framework of Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler and Bereded-Samuel (2010) to uncover the factors that might account for the extent of OER use, adaptation and creation observed in the ROER4D studies to draw insights into how social inclusion through OER and OEP can be achieved in the Global South. In this paper, we endeavour to move beyond social change and social inclusion to develop a framework to make apparent the relationship between social justice and the adoption of OER and OEP. Drawing on examples from the ROER4D project, we propose a slightly adapted version of Fraser’s (2005) social justice framework as a way to map how and under what circumstances the adoption of OER and OEP by students and/or educators may counter economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. In addition, we highlight the extent to which these resources and practices can be construed as being what Fraser (2005) terms affirmative or transformative interventions. Social Justice Following Rawls, Fraser endorses the notion that “justice is the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalized injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish” (2012, p. 42). By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing. In relation to economic injustice or maldistribution, Fraser explains that “people can be impeded from full participation by economic structures that deny them the resources they need in order to interact with others as peers” (2005, p. 73). With respect to OER and OEP, this implies that educators and students in the Global South may be impeded from full participation by the lack of access to necessary educational infrastructure and materials, such as adequate buildings for instruction, uninterrupted power supply, functional technological equipment, affordable and stable connectivity and access to requisite educational materials. Because of these challenges, they may then lack the digital literacy necessary for engaging with OER and OEP. These types of obstacles, following Fraser, indicate “distributive injustice or maldistribution” (2005, p. 73) and need to be addressed through economic redistribution or economic restructuring. Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc. With respect to cultural inequality, or “misrecognition”, Fraser points out that “people can also be prevented from interacting on terms of [participatory] parity by institutionalized hierarchies of cultural value that deny them the requisite standing” (2005, p. 73). In relation to OER and OEP this means that educators and students in the Global South may be deprived of participatory parity due to the current domination of Western-oriented epistemic perspectives and proliferation of hegemonic English-language OER, a condition that can only be countered through the creation, localisation and/or redistribution of OER in preferred languages and from alternative epistemic stances. Countering cultural inequality or misrecognition with ameliorative modifications or symbolic change would assist in valuing local languages and esteeming various cultural interpretations; the process and outcome that Fraser refers to as “recognition”. By contrast, a transformative advance would involve what we have termed “re-acculturation” (Fraser does not specify a particular term for a transformative response to misrecognition) which would respect alternative epistemic positions and acknowledge alternative authorities on what is considered to be worthwhile knowledge and dispositions. With respect to education transformation, and therefore directly to OER and OEP, Luckett and Shay suggest that a “transformative approach would involve dismantling the power relations, social hierarchies and cultural hegemonies that currently underpin the canons, the assumed norms and values of inherited curricula and setting up processes to reimagine more inclusive ways of participating in curriculum and pedagogic practices” (2017, p. 3). Referring to political inequality, or “misframing”, Fraser explains that this “tells us who is included in, and who is excluded from, the circle of those entitled to a just distribution and reciprocal recognition” (2005, p. 75). In other words, political misframing surfaces “asymmetries of political power” (Fraser, 2009, p. 103) between those who have, and do not have, rights of membership in a decision-making community. In relation to OER, the question is: Who has the right to decide on what counts as worthwhile knowledge, who decides on school and university curricula and who publishes and disseminates textbooks, journals, etc.? An ameliorative response to political misframing is, according to Fraser, the provision of representation for under-represented people which creates the opportunity for participatory decision-making. However, as Luckett and Shay point out, this “affirmative approach works for justice within a given framing or ‘grammar’ - it accepts the social structures and institutions that have framed the social practices that need changing” (2017, p. 2). For a truly transformative response what is needed instead is a “reframing” so that people excluded from the authorised contexts are given a chance to “democratis[e] the process of frame-setting itself” (Luckett & Shay, 2017, p. 12). In other words, to have what Arendt refers to as the “right to have rights” (1951). With respect to OER and OEP, it refers to the opportunity for all the relevant stakeholders to decide on what is really important educationally in order to avoid becoming “objects of charity or benevolence […] or non-persons with respect to justice” (Fraser, 2005, p. 77). For just as national or provincial ministries of education and institutional agencies might be prescribing what counts as valuable knowledge, appropriate skills and desirable dispositions, so, perhaps unwittingly, do creators of OER. Our conceptualisation of Fraser’s social justice dimensions, injustices, affirmative (or ameliorative) and transformative responses is summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Conceptualisation of Fraser’s Social Justice Framework Dimension Injustices Affirmative response: addresses injustice with ameliorative reforms Transformative response: addresses the root causes of inequality Economic Maldistribution of resources: economic inequality Redistribution: of resources Restructuring: of economic model Cultural Misrecognition: attributes of people and practices accorded less respect, status inequality Recognition: valued, respected, esteemed Re-acculturation: plurality of perspectives, but always fallible Political Misrepresentation: lacking right to frame discourse, norms and policies Representation: social belonging Re-framing: parity of rights In her conceptualisation Fraser (2005) does not use the term “re-acculturation”; this is our suggestion for a transformative response to cultural misrecognition. We currently conceive of “re-acculturation” as a valuing of a plurality of perspectives, with the condition that all these perspectives are fallible and open to deliberation (following the tenets of social realism held by scholars such as Archer [2003]). Methodology Theoretical and Conceptual Framing As this paper is a conceptual piece proposing a way in which to better understand how OER and OEP could be judged as promoting social justice, and whether these are ameliorative or transformative interventions (Fraser, 2005), the main theoretical assumptions and conceptual framing are drawn from Fraser (2005; 2009; 2012), our underlying critical realist position draws on Bhaskar (1997 [1975]) and our social realist position on Archer (2003). The main method is conceptual research and specifically a critical analysis (Epstein, 2001) to illustrate the presence or absence of ameliorative and/or transformative adoption of OER and enactment of OEP. Where an OER or OEP example was not immediately identifiable in the ROER4D studies, we have drawn on examples from other OER initiatives. Data Analysis The data which this paper primarily draws upon is the open data set compiled for the two meta-syntheses of the ROER4D project (Arinto et al., 2017; Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017). In this paper, we re-engaged with the meta-synthesis open data and chose examples to illustrate our slightly reworked version of Fraser’s social justice framework which we have tabularised (Table 1) for conceptual clarity and comprehensiveness. Insights With Fraser’s social justice framework in mind, we draw upon the data and insights gained from the ROER4D project in assessing how OER and OEP may or may not promote social justice – in an ameliorative or transformational way – according to their economic, cultural and political dimensions. In each section we focus on various injustices that affect students and educators, assessing how certain OER and OEP strategies represent an affirmative or transformative intervention in different circumstances. Economic Dimension Some of the most powerful arguments made by the open education community regarding OER is that they can improve access to educational materials for students and educators in comparably poorer contexts. They can lower the cost of: (1) learning for students who may need to buy materials (such as textbooks); (2) funding by governments, bursars and philanthropic foundations who sponsor textbooks; and (3) teaching for educators, or their institutions, who must pay licensing fees to incorporate portions of copyrighted materials into their classroom teaching materials. To this end OER is being implemented by policymakers in a number of Global South countries (e.g., Colombia [Toledo, 2017]; Nigeria), states (e.g., Karnataka, India), institutions (e.g., UCT) and inter-governmental agencies (e.g., UNESCO, Commonwealth of Learning). Here we discuss some of the ways in which OER and OEP deal with the challenges associated with educational costs and copyright restrictions from the standpoint of students and educators, seeking to better understand the limits and opportunities provided by OER and OEP, and whether an intervention has neutral, ameliorative or transformative potential. OER in Contexts of Severe Infrastructural Constraint: A Neutral or Negative Intervention The broadest and most obvious type of economic maldistribution in the education system can be seen in the comparison between the levels of technological infrastructure available to students and educators in highly developed countries versus those in less developed ones. It can also be seen within many countries, with well-resourced educational institutions catering to an elite urban strata and poorly resourced institutions serving those in poorer or rural areas. This divergence is often characterised by institutions’ comparably different levels of access to stable electricity provision, functional computer hardware and affordable broadband connectivity – key technological foundations upon which OER adoption is often premised. A number of ROER4D studies focused on educational environments characterised by mild or severe technological constraints in Africa (Adala, 2017; Cox & Trotter, 2017; Wolfenden et al., 2017), India (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017) and Afghanistan (Oates et al., 2017). Considering that OER is often promoted as a pedagogical innovation that helps partially overcome economic maldistribution (or “access”) issues, ROER4D researchers were keen to understand how OER interventions might impact education in these situations. What they found is that, in contexts of irregular power supply, inadequate computer access and/or low levels of internet connectivity, most particularly in rural areas (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017), digitally mediated OER (the type that is most commonly meant when discussing them) are not appropriate to the needs of all students, although less so for educators. What students require most are printed educational materials that do not rely on continuous access to technological platforms for their use. Of course, OER need not be digitally mediated – as printed textbooks, for instance, can also be OER (Goodier, 2017) – but the most comprehensive elaboration of OERs’ value proposition does rely on them being digitally shareable. Thus, in cases where OER are produced in non-digital formats (i.e., printed and physically distributed like traditional educational resources such as the Siyavula textbooks in South Africa), they may reduce government expenditure if the production costs are sponsored (Goodier, 2017), but it is unlikely that they would do much to reduce any economic imbalances faced by the students and educators per se. Such an OER intervention would be neutral from a student and educator perspective regarding social justice. More worryingly, the continued proliferation of digitally mediated OER may, in some ways, unintentionally contribute to a “digital education divide” and inadvertently reinforce economic inequality. It appears that, for students and educators to truly enjoy the benefits of OER, they require a certain minimum standard of technological infrastructure which would allow them to engage with OER in a meaningful way (de Oliveira Neto et al., 2017). This minimum standard need not require great national or institutional wealth, but at least a level of provision where there is no question as to the stability of the power supply, hardware accessibility and Internet availability. Hence, for students and educators, the full value proposition of OER requires that institutions receive the necessary infrastructural and technological inputs to be able to leverage OER. Moreover, creators of OER need to be mindful of technologically impoverished contexts and make resources available in a variety of formats, including the use of open source software that can be quickly downloaded and inexpensively reused (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017). OER for Reducing the Cost of Education: An Ameliorative Intervention With the cost of higher education being borne more and more by students and their families – and less and less by the state – the use of OER has been proposed as part of a broader strategy to bring down education costs (Hilton, 2016). As shown above, this outcome has indeed been noted in US community colleges (Chae & Jenkins, 2015), as the nominally free price of OER reduces the overall education cost burden that students bear. This type of intervention is inherently ameliorative because it reduces costs but does not change the economic foundations of the costly system. For example, in the ROER4D project Czerniewicz et al (2017) describe the value of MOOCs that are made available as OER for non-degree purposes. For many students seeking immediate relief from educational costs, this is the best that can be hoped for. In this sense, in students’ discrete moments of engagement with educational materials, OER can overcome key inequalities produced by otherwise commercialised, expensive educational resources. A more transformative approach to this challenge, not reported in any of the ROER4D studies, would be for governments and institutions to make the successful completion of quality-assured MOOCs or OER count as micro-credentials towards a qualification, as recently announced by New Zealand’s regulated education and training system. Another transformative approach would be for the relevant government agencies to prioritise educational spending to the point that it is free for all students. OER could contribute to this, especially if entire course materials (not just single textbooks) were openly licensed for extensive public use. But fully free education is typically only possible through massive state intervention (such as in Sweden, where even tertiary education is free). Thus, with regard to dealing with economic inequality borne by high education costs, an OER intervention is an affirmative response, and a worthwhile effort given the challenges that most governments face in pursuing the more transformative approach. OER for Abolishing the Cost of Teaching Resources for Educators: A Transformative Intervention For educators, materials can be expensive to source for using as teaching materials due to the commercial nature of how materials are accessed, coupled with copyright restrictions, which ensure that materials remain bound by commercial constraints. In many parts of the world, higher education instructors cope with this by leveraging national fair use (or fair dealing) legislation which allows instructors to use portions of copyrighted works for educational purposes. This offers educators and students limited access to a specific resource but without requiring its purchase. This is a useful, ameliorative intervention which seeks to balance the need of educators to provide high quality materials to their students while protecting the commercial interests of the copyright owners. Yet because the proliferation of digital technologies has made the sourcing and sharing of educational materials so easy, piracy has become a common strategy for students and instructors to overcome copyright restrictions (on a range of materials), allowing them full, yet “illegal”, access to some educational resources (Czerniewicz, 2016). In the ROER4D project a few of the studies pointed out that students and even educators were not sure about the difference between materials available on the Internet and OER per se (Cox & Trotter, 2017; Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017) and so may have unwittingly contravened copyright regulations. While this “illegal” approach is certainly transformative in dealing with the cost and access issues associated with copyrighted materials, it also opens up users to potential legal scrutiny, which limits the extent of usability of materials. It is a hazard that few worry about in their own private use of materials but which they would fear for any public sharing of the same. In this situation, OER represents the more transformative intervention than both fair dealing and piracy as open materials overcome the cost challenges associated with copyright restriction, and it does so in a completely legal manner. As OER are free for educators to source and use, whether partially or in their totality, they are potentially transformative financially and legally. This section on the economic dimension of social justice has focused primarily on a particular OEP, which is OER “use” (as opposed to OER adaptation or OER creation). This is because, in the economically deprived contexts we’re concerned with here, it is the greater use of OER (whether derived locally or, quite often, from the Global North) that appears to offer the most relevant OEP response to the issues raised by educational economic injustice. As we will see in the next section, however, while OER use may be a fitting response to the economic inequities faced by many students and educators, it may also inadvertently lead to greater cultural imbalances if OER is used uncritically. Cultural Dimension While the initial promotion of OER largely centred on ensuring broader access to educational materials faced by those in economically deprived circumstances (Daniel, Kanwar & Uvalić-Trumbić, 2006), scholars have begun to be more critical about the cultural impact that OER — much of it produced in the Global North — might have on users, especially those in the Global South (Cannell, Macintyre & Hewitt, 2015; Willems & Bossu, 2012). The question is: Might the proliferation of OER from culturally privileged regions lead to even greater inequalities in the global cultural sphere, as students and educators in low-resource environments become inundated with (and/or reliant upon) “free” OER from more highly resourced contexts? For OER advocates, this is a difficult question because the economic value proposition of OER discussed above seems to be so virtuous as to make other considerations potentially less important. But according to ROER4D’s research, one of the key desires that educators from the Global South have for the educational materials they use is that they be locally relevant with respect to content (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017), language (Oates et al., 2017; Sáenz et al., 2017) and pedagogy (Karunanayaka & Naidu, 2017; Wolfenden et al., 2017). Indeed, because educators are typically as concerned about the pedagogical import of their materials as they would be about their costs (or even more so), the question of a material’s relevance — its meaningfulness and utility in a given cultural context — is often the ultimate one when deciding whether to use it or not (Cox & Trotter, 2017). As we will argue below, OER should not be viewed as culturally neutral materials that can be used without attendant cultural ramifications. In this section we assess how three forms of OEP — OER use “as is”, OER adaptation through translation, and OER adaptation through content remixing — address the cultural dimension of social justice. Throughout, we will pay close attention to now the notion of pedagogical suitability can inflect the outcomes of these three types of OEP. Using OER “as is”: Reproducing Cultural Inequality? The use of an OER “as is”, without modification, is the quickest and easiest way to engage with OER pedagogically. In the Open Education cycle (Figure 1), this OEP use is referred to as “copying”. In some instances, such as when the OER is an image or short video that succinctly captures an intended educational lesson, then this copy-and-paste form of OEP makes sense. The unmodified OER would hopefully be the best possible example of the knowledge that the educator is hoping for the students to engage with. In the cross-regional study undertaken by de Oliveira Neto et al (2017), among 295 randomly selected educators at 28 higher education institutions in nine countries in the Global South, 51% of respondents reported that they had used OER at least once; 25% stated that they had never used OER; and 24% were uncertain whether they had used OER or not. Of the 4784 students surveyed in the same study, 39% said that they had used OER at least once; 26% reported that they had never before used OER; and 35% were unsure whether they had used OER or not (de Oliveira Neto & Cartmill, 2017). Some of the other qualitative ROER4D studies confirmed that copying originals seemed to be a common practice. In Mongolia, for example educators confirmed that they were more likely to use OER “as is”, if at all (Zagdragchaa & Trotter, 2017). As OER come in a variety of shapes and formats (courses, modules, lesson plans, etc.), the use of OER without alteration can be problematic if it ends up propagating hegemonic forms of knowledge and values, reinforcing the cultural power and prestige of the knowledge domain in which the OER was created rather than that in which it is used. This can reproduce a neo-colonial form of so-called “knowledge transfer”, privileging dominant discourses over local ones and external frames of reference over internally relevant ones. This is not to say that all such use of OER “as is” is necessarily culturally problematic but just that this particular type of OEP is often the least pedagogically critical as it relies heavily on the distant OER creator to develop the terms by which the knowledge embedded in the OER can be understood and applied locally.

As OER are free for educators to source and use, whether partially or in their totality, they are potentially transformative financially and legally.

OER should not be viewed as culturally neutral materials that can be used without attendant cultural ramifications.

valuing of a plurality of perspectives,

Conceptualisation of Fraser’s Social Justice Framework

Who has the right to decide on what counts as worthwhile knowledge, who decides on school and university curricula and who publishes and disseminates textbooks, journals, etc.? An ameliorative response to political misframing is, according to Fraser, the provision of representation for under-represented people which creates the opportunity for participatory decision-making. However, as Luckett and Shay point out, this “affirmative approach works for justice within a given framing or ‘grammar’ - it accepts the social structures and institutions that have framed the social practices that need changing” (2017, p. 2). For a truly transformative response what is needed instead is a “reframing” so that people excluded from the authorised contexts are given a chance to “democratis[e] the process of frame-setting itself” (Luckett & Shay, 2017, p. 12). In other words, to have what Arendt refers to as the “right to have rights” (1951).

ISSN 2311-1550 Editor Emeritus: Alan Tait Chief Editor: Anne Gaskell Associate Editor: Sanjaya Mishra Book Review Editor: Romeela Mohee     Open Journal Systems Journal Help User Username Password Remember me Notifications View Subscribe Journal Content Search Search Scope All Authors Title Abstract Index terms Full Text Browse By Issue By Author By Title <!-- $(function(){ fontSize("#sizer", "body", 9, 16, 32, ""); // Initialize the font sizer }); // --> Font Size Make font size smaller Make font size default Make font size larger Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Article Tools Abstract Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Supplementary files Email this article (Login required) Email the author (Login required) Home About Login Register Search Current Archives Announcements Home > Vol 5, No 3 (2018) > Hodgkinson-Williams Hodgkinson-Williams @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); body,td,th { color: #99000; text-align: left; } @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); .footnote { color: #990000; } A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South Cheryl Ann Hodgkinson-Williams and Henry Trotter VOL. 5, No. 3 Abstract: At the heart of the open educational resources (OER) movement is the intention to provide affordable access to culturally relevant education to all. This imperative could be described as a desire to provide education in a manner consistent with social justice which, according to Fraser (2005), is understood as “parity of participation”. Drawing on her concept of social justice, we suggest a slight modification of Fraser’s framework for critically analysing ways in which the adoption and impact of OER and their undergirding open educational practices (OEP) might be considered socially just. We then provide illustrative examples from the cross-regional Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project (2014-2017) to show how this framework can assist in determining in what ways, if at all, the adoption of OER and enactment of OEP have responded to economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. Furthermore, we employ Fraser’s (2005) concepts to identify whether these social changes are either “affirmative” (i.e., ameliorative) or “transformative” in their economic, cultural and political effects in the Global South education context. Keywords: Open Educational Resources, Open Educational Practices, social justice, Global South Introduction Many countries in the Global South face similar educational challenges, including but not limited to: “unequal access to education; variable quality of educational resources, teaching and performance; and increasing cost and concern about the sustainability of education (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams, King, Cartmill & Willmers, 2017, p. 6). The need for education in Global South countries is continuing to grow, propelled by high population growth (World Bank, 2017) and the burgeoning demand for post-secondary education. In some countries, such as South Africa, there are additional challenges, such as low participation and high attrition rates in higher education (Baijnath, 2018). The OER movement has been seen as a “means of contributing to the challenge of expansion of scale and opportunity and lowering cost in particular in post-secondary education” (Tait, 2018, p. 111). A few studies in countries in the Global South have indeed reported cost reductions as a result of OER adoption (Arumugam, 2016), including reduction of costs associated with course development (Pande, 2018). However, a recent study in the United States (US) raises a caution about the cost reduction argument for OER and suggests that “touting the financial value of an OER might not solely be a convincing argument for students or instructors independent of their educational use” (Abramovich & McBride, 2018, p. 37). A number of studies, mostly conducted in the Global North, have garnered evidence for cost savings of OER for students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), though some suggest that these student savings were not accompanied by any real change in their learning outcomes (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Riger, 2017) or student course satisfaction (Lawrence & Lester, 2018). Thus, the economic value proposition for OER may not be connected to any pedagogical, cultural, or political improvements, which would certainly be the hope for the OER community. Moreover, while OER are “often espoused as enabling educational equity, the reality is not always the case” (Willems & Bossu, 2012, p. 185). For example, in Kenyan schools, Orwenjo and Erastus (2018, p. 148) report that “poor infrastructure, negative attitudes, lack of ICT competencies, and other skill gaps among teachers and lack of administrative support are some of the implementation challenges that have continued to dog the implementation, adoption and use of OERs”. Crissinger (2015) suggests that the perceived relationship between openness and social justice be interrogated as, “in our excitement about the new opportunities afforded by open movements, we might overlook structural inequalities present within these movements”. These perceptions are in line with the findings by the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project which investigated the adoption and impact of OER in 21 countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. ROER4D Project The ROER4D project, funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Open Society Foundations, commenced in 2013 and included 18 independent sub-projects. Hosted by the University of Cape Town, South Africa and Wawasan Open University, Malaysia, a total of 103 research team members from 19 countries worked on these sub-projects. In the ROER4D project OER was seen as a component of Open Education and referred to “teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or which have been released under an intellectual property licence that permits activities enabled by different degrees of openness” (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017, p. 31). The open educational practices (OEP) that undergird the OER referred to are: individual or collaborative conceptualisation; creation, curation (retention), circulation (distribution) of OER through practices such as open pedagogies; crowdsourcing; and open peer review using open technologies so that they can be easily located to encourage copying (re-use “as-is”), adaptation, re-curation and re-circulation. In other words, “for OER to exist, there must of necessity be prior OEP” (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 31). In the ROER4D meta-synthesis, an “optimal” Open Education cycle (Figure 1) was used to identify the key OEP that underlie the phases of OER creation, use and adaptation (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Figure 1: An “optimal” Open Education cycle (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Image CC BY In the main output of the ROER4D project, an edited volume comprising 16 chapters (Hodgkinson-Williams & Arinto, 2017), there are two meta-synthesis chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. Chapter 2 (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017) adopts the key components of Archer’s (2003) social realist model of social change to identify the key factors influencing OEP and OER across the sub-projects. Chapter 16 (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2017) employs the social inclusion framework of Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler and Bereded-Samuel (2010) to uncover the factors that might account for the extent of OER use, adaptation and creation observed in the ROER4D studies to draw insights into how social inclusion through OER and OEP can be achieved in the Global South. In this paper, we endeavour to move beyond social change and social inclusion to develop a framework to make apparent the relationship between social justice and the adoption of OER and OEP. Drawing on examples from the ROER4D project, we propose a slightly adapted version of Fraser’s (2005) social justice framework as a way to map how and under what circumstances the adoption of OER and OEP by students and/or educators may counter economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. In addition, we highlight the extent to which these resources and practices can be construed as being what Fraser (2005) terms affirmative or transformative interventions. Social Justice Following Rawls, Fraser endorses the notion that “justice is the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalized injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish” (2012, p. 42). By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing. In relation to economic injustice or maldistribution, Fraser explains that “people can be impeded from full participation by economic structures that deny them the resources they need in order to interact with others as peers” (2005, p. 73). With respect to OER and OEP, this implies that educators and students in the Global South may be impeded from full participation by the lack of access to necessary educational infrastructure and materials, such as adequate buildings for instruction, uninterrupted power supply, functional technological equipment, affordable and stable connectivity and access to requisite educational materials. Because of these challenges, they may then lack the digital literacy necessary for engaging with OER and OEP. These types of obstacles, following Fraser, indicate “distributive injustice or maldistribution” (2005, p. 73) and need to be addressed through economic redistribution or economic restructuring. Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc. With respect to cultural inequality, or “misrecognition”, Fraser points out that “people can also be prevented from interacting on terms of [participatory] parity by institutionalized hierarchies of cultural value that deny them the requisite standing” (2005, p. 73). In relation to OER and OEP this means that educators and students in the Global South may be deprived of participatory parity due to the current domination of Western-oriented epistemic perspectives and proliferation of hegemonic English-language OER, a condition that can only be countered through the creation, localisation and/or redistribution of OER in preferred languages and from alternative epistemic stances. Countering cultural inequality or misrecognition with ameliorative modifications or symbolic change would assist in valuing local languages and esteeming various cultural interpretations; the process and outcome that Fraser refers to as “recognition”. By contrast, a transformative advance would involve what we have termed “re-acculturation” (Fraser does not specify a particular term for a transformative response to misrecognition) which would respect alternative epistemic positions and acknowledge alternative authorities on what is considered to be worthwhile knowledge and dispositions. With respect to education transformation, and therefore directly to OER and OEP, Luckett and Shay suggest that a “transformative approach would involve dismantling the power relations, social hierarchies and cultural hegemonies that currently underpin the canons, the assumed norms and values of inherited curricula and setting up processes to reimagine more inclusive ways of participating in curriculum and pedagogic practices” (2017, p. 3).

Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc

By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing.

There is also a growing community that focuses on challenging the design of algorithmic bias, with a wave of recent feminist publications such as Virgina Eubanks’ Automating Inequality (2018) and Safiyah Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression (2018). There are new organizations such as Data4BlackLives, the AI Now Institute, Data and Society, the Data Justice Lab, the Data Equity Lab, and the Algorithmic Justice League, and conferences such as Fairness, Accountability,and Transparency in Machine Learning

discussion of platform cooperativism

valorization of intentionally inclusive hacker and makerspaces

Design justice encourages a shift from deficit to asset based approaches to design scoping, the formal inclusion of community members

values that are reproduced in the social relations of power of the design process itself, as well as what happensto the profits, attribution, and governance of the designed object or system.

Design justice centers the perspectives and values of Queer, trans*, Black and POC, indigenous, migrant, decolonial, antiauthoritarian, and commons-based communities, among others, while recognizing that there is always conflict both within and between marginalized groups.

For example, “Native Americans, African Americans, and other people of color are banned disproportionately because, to Facebook, a “real” name sometimes means “traditionally European” (Kirkham, 2015). This happens, in part, because the algorithms used to flag ‘real’ vs ‘fake’ names were trained on real name datasets that over-represent European names, using machine learning and natural language processing techniques

The key lessons include: involving members of the community that is most directly affected by the issue that you are focusing on is crucial, both because it’s ethical, and also because the tacit and experiential knowledge of community members is sure to produce ideas, approaches and innovations that a non-member of the community would be very unlikely to come up with. It is also possible to create formal community accountability mechanisms in designprocesses.

Accountability: “Nothing About Us, Without Us”

Designers most frequently assume that the unmarked user has access to a number of very powerful privileges, such as U.S. citizenship, English language proficiency, access to broadband internet, a smartphone, no disabilities, and so on. Diversifying the software workforce, unfortunately, will not automatically produce a more diverse default imagined user. Unless the gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, nationality, language, immigration status, and other aspects of end user identity are specified in advance, the imagined user for whom technology design teams develop products tends to default to the dominant social group

Structural social injustice and systemic racism are harder to tackle – and that’s where the tech sector has, until recently, thrown up its hands

Design justice as a framework asks us to engage with a series of questions abouthow design processes currently work, and about how we want them to work. These include questions of equity (who gets to do design?), beneficiaries (who dowe design for, or with?), values (what values do we encode and reproduce in the objects and systems that we design?), scope (how do we scope and frame designproblems?), sites (where do we do design, what design sites are privileged and what sites are ignored or marginalized, and how do we make design sites accessible to those who will be most impacted?), ownership, accountability, and political economy (who owns and profits from design outcomes, what social relationships are reproduced by design, and how do we move towards community control of design processes?), and discourse (what stories do we tell about how things are designed?)

Design justice as a framework urges us to explore the ways that design relates todomination and resistance at each of these three levels (personal, community, and institutional).

“People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions.

heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism.

Universalist design principles and practices, as well as single-axis evaluations of fairness in design, erase certain groups of people: specifically, those who are intersectionally disadvantaged (or multiply-burdened) under white supremacist heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism. When designers do considerinequality in design (and most professional design processes do not consider inequality at all), they nearly always employ a single-axis framework. Most design processes today are therefore structured in ways that make it impossible to see, engage with, account for, or attempt to remedy the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens that they reproduce.

We center the voices of those who are directly impacted by the outcomes of the design process.We prioritize design’s impact on the community over the intentions of the designer.

English

not prepared to address the intersections of healing, politics, and emotion in classrooms.

Further, many institutions do not recognize OEP in promotion and tenure policies.

Who’s doing it?

potential inherent in OER

and

leverage OER

bruzzi regularly fields requests to present about his experiences with OEP at professional conferences. Through contacts he has made at such meetings, including some in other countries, he is now sharing techniques, tools, and experiences with a growing community of OEP practitioners. On his home campus, Abruzzi was instrumental in helping the provost craft new policies for ten-ure and promotion that take into account work in OEP

When colleagues ex-pressed interest in what he was doing, Abruzzi helped a biologist and a social psychologist adopt OEP in their courses

real and significant learning, and continues beyond the course itself. 

figures out both what they are trying to learn and how they learn b

foundational

, the University, subject to the terms of any applicable agreements with third parties under which the work was created, will accommodate such wishes as long as it determines that the benefits to the public of making such works freely available outweigh any advantages that might be derived from commercialization. The University, through the Intellectual Property Committee, will act as expeditiously as reasonably possible in making such determination

Works by Non-Employees

may not commercialize course content or courseware created or taught at AU

Outside Interests and Activities

A faculty member may not teach any course or create any course or courseware for an outside commercial enterprise without the approval of the appropriate department chair, dean and the Provost.

OURSE CONTENT AND COURSEWARE

retain

enter for Learning and Teaching support, se

created with significant use of University resources, financial support or non-faculty University personnel beyond the usual level of common resources provided to similarly-situated affiliated individuals; (ii) created or commissioned for use by the University; or (iii) created under the terms of a sponsored project where the terms of the sponsored project require that copyright be in the name of the University

University recognizes faculty and student ownership of copyright in traditional works of authorship such as textbooks, other works of nonfiction and novels, articles, or other creative works, such aspoems, musical compositions and visual works of art, whether such works are disseminated in print or electronically.

ghts given to authors for their literary and artistic works. The kinds of work covered by copyright include literary works, such as novels, poems, plays, reference works, newspapers, computer programs, databases, films, musical compositions and choreography, artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs and sculpture, architectural works, advertisements, maps and technical drawings.

Open Infrastructure.

advocacy for “having faith in uncertainty, finding pleasure in mystery, and learning to cultivate doubt” suggests, to me, that educators can also appreciate the unexpected and recognize their own biases and limits.

educators build with ignorance,

Constructing learning

how might new designs for educator learning connect to

surveying linkages between building and learnin

at a time when the inequalities of educational systems appear more intentional than accidental, is it not my responsibility to build toward more equitable student learning opportunities and experiences?

One exampleis the difficulties of discussing gender oppression when the teacher is a woman with institutional power but societal disadvantage compared to White male students, and the dynamics are more complex for male/female students of color

within each of these sub-groups, there existedfurther divisions of privilege related to gender and social class.

Ellsworth's (1989)

can become a source of epistemic alienation and neocolonialism in the South”

cognitive justice

Qazeefeh became shell. Msalaheen became militiamen, gunmen. Hajez became checkpoint. Malja’ became shelter. But the new words were strangely light.

To witness, however, feels too passive a word. It is an action that is at its heart, inaction.

Who is the reader I’m addressing when I am writing in English? It is not my mother tongue, though I feel almost at home in it, though I love it as if it were my own. Like any language, I know it is a tool, as available to raw beauty as it is to hegemonic violence. And I know the only way to redeem it for all of us who it marginalizes is to fight our way out of those margins and insist on being part of the text. But my English is a war wound. It is a result of the roughshod amputation of my mother tongue. Because we were forced, or rather, allowed the privilege to flee at an age when I was first learning to use my voice on the page.

We are in the midst of a pricing crisis for scholarly journals. For four decades, subscription prices have risen significantly faster than inflation and significantly faster than library budgets.

To everyone who shapes technology today

We must seek to design with those for whom we are designing.

Let us move from human-centered design to humanity-centered design.

In a deterministic system, like that of a computer, a single input leads to a single output: cause leads to effect.

This pilot program has worked with faculty who teach core courses, ranging from composition to calculus, to build digital literacy skills into their classes

Obtain

Learn software quickly.

what is truly needed in higher education today is integration of digital literacy throughout the curriculum,

earning to form computational structures and to think digitally are requisites not only for employment but also for intellectual independence

transformed

For-profit schools are multiplying at an incredible rate and being funded by money machines … to sell dreams to people, young and old. The problem is those dreams don’t exist. These schools are churning out thousands of graduates to an industry without jobs. The only selection process at these types of schools is can you pay or can you sign this student loan from the government.  Your aptitude and your potential talent is never evaluated. Guidance counselors (sic) never reveal the reality of the industry you’re getting into or your odds. In most cases these diploma mill types of schools teach very little of value and even those that do now have cranked out so many others it doesn’t matter. (Squires, 2013)

Taking a cue from the Occupy movement, as does Giroux, the project occupies the space of the existing University – and in this sense is unrepresentable. Such a project can have no architecture, no totalising vision.

signally

my

Everyone, if they wish, produce and not just consume.

Protip: because each Hypothesis user’s annotations are streamed on their public “My Annotations” page, teachers can monitor and assess student work there rather than on individual texts if so desired

It’s hard to generalize about OA journals beyond saying that they have all the advantages of being OA and all the disadvantages of being new.3

The OA movement focuses on research articles precisely because they don’t pay royalties

Authors who make their work OA are always serving others but not always acting from altruism.

academics have salaries from universities, freeing them to dive deeply into their research topics and publish special-ized articles without market appeal.

At the same time it frees them to microspecialize and defend ideas of immediate interest to just a handful people in the world, which are essential to pushing the frontiers of knowledge

This

As C. Wright Mills (1959, p. 15) aptly observes: As images of ‘human nature’ become more problematic, an increasing need is felt to pay closer yet more imaginative attention to the social routines and catastrophes which reveal (and which shape) man’s nature in this time of civil unrest and ideological conflict.

will discontinue.

‘When Google… releases a Beta, it’s saying this product is imperfect, it is unfinished, help us finish it. It is necessarily a call to collaboration. And what is education but a constant process of living in the Beta and understanding how to benefit from that… and how to make mistakes part of your process. We don’t do that in education.’

Emma’s blog also re-connected me to my own research experiences not least in the challenges of conducting authentic PAR. During my doctoral journey I used a similar method of self-reflexive write-ups, and whilst not in the form of a blog, they were shared openly with my supervisory team and participants. As a valid form of ‘data,’ these entries were used alongside the practitioners’ narratives, and analyzed as part of ‘first person action research practice’ as discussed by Heron and Reason (2001)[4], as part of fostering an inquiring approach, acting with awareness, and carefully considering the effects of action. This emphasis on the researcher playing a committed part within the inquiry process, and not taking an outsider researcher role, can only help to portray the layers of complexity involved in research inquiry and to question established theories, to situations as they arise, to acknowledge that people think differently from one another, and importantly that one does not always know what is best.

1492

1545 | 1547 | 1499

1513

1456 | 1467 | 1494 | 1524

Discussion155

Panel1531

1460 | 1489 | 1520 | 1557

Kate Green

Muireann O'Keeffe

Critical Pedagogy and Open Data as Means for Educating to Social Cohesion as an answer to

Perspectives on Open Education in a World of Brexit & Trump

1531Staying open: sustaining critical open educational practice in a time of walls and bordersParticipation & social equalityWorkshops and panelsSheila MacNeill, Frances Bell, Vivien Rolfe, Catherine Cronin, Josie Fraser, Kate Bowle

Breaking the physical presence barrier: Virtually Connecting as an approach to open, inclusive conferencesParticipation & social equalityPresentationsMaha Bali, Martin Weller, Sue Beckingham, Mia Zamora, Rebecca Hogue, Autumm Cain

complicity

right

Klan’s endorsement of Trump’s campaign

even people in the know make mistakes, and because people in the know may have reasons for not telling the truth.

you

European referendum

Workshop