A Comparison of Weller and Anderson

1. A comparison of the views of
Anderson and Weller
This is a subjective personal
viewpoint

2. Common Views
• Initial view of ‘open’ learning was focussed on
late 1960’s desire to provide higher education
access to greater numbers of the population.
• The view has changed largely facilitated by
technology and in particular Web 2.0,
including:
– Open sources, open educational resources, open
courses, open data, open publishing, open
support, open networks

3. Common Views
• Open Scholar is someone who:
– Online identity
– Central focus of identity eg facebook
– Networks
– Has a Personal Learning Environment
– Uses New Technologies
– Engages and encourages critique
– Induces others to be open

4. Weller’s Additional Views
• It is the combination of Web 2.0 technologies
and a desire to share that creates an open
environment.
• The degree to which openness is embraced is
also shaped by the degree of ease and offers 3
levels:
– Frictionless – requiring little or no effort
– Quick sharing –requiring some interaction
– Content Creation – requiring active participation

5. Weller’s Additional Views
• Open Education Resources (OER’s) can be
categorised as 2 overlapping elements:
– ‘Big OER’s’, designed by institutions often using
existing resources but presented through different
processes and therefore requiring less creativity.
– ‘Little OER’s’, designed by individuals using
informal methods and innovation eg
facebook, YouTube, and therefore being less
process and more content focussed, requiring
greater creativity.

6. Modes of learning
Formal Informal
Big OER’s Little OER’s
cc Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, 2010
E-portfolios Blogging
Reflective
Essay writing Microblogging
Group work
Collaborative Social networking
Co-operative learning
Lower Creativity Higher

7. Weller’s Overview
• Openness is self-generating through sharing
and that creativity and openness are
interlinked.
‘the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put
back’

8. Anderson’s Additional Views
• Adopts a student centric view of the
requirement.
• Openness requires a change in leadership
attitudes and behaviours to one which accepts
disruptive technology.
• Relationships are more important than
information.

9. Collective intelligence
“If you put together a big enough
cc Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, 2010
and diverse enough group of
people [.....] that group’s decisions
will, over time, be intellectually
superior to the isolated
individual, no matter how smart or
well-informed he is”
~ James Surowiecki
http://thekaoseffect.com/

10. Anderson’s Additional Views
• There are 3 overlapping learning
environments each of which has value,

11. Group Network
Collective
‘Aggregated other’
Unconscious ‘wisdom of crowds’
Stigmergic aggregation
Algorithmic rules
Augmentation and annotation
More used, more useful Metaphor:
Data Mining Wisdom of Crowds
Never F2F
11

12. But it is the adoption of the Open
Scholar characteristics that
engender an attitude of lifelong
learning

13. Personal Critique of Both Proponents
• Positives
– The expansion of available information and
knowledge should produce a better outcome.
• ‘a thousand brains must be better than one’
– The recognition that the educational context has
changed since 1960’s in terms of both technology and
student needs is extremely important.
– The Open Scholar attitude should produce a more
receptive and active student.
– The recognition that institutions need a framework to
ensure effective sharing.

14. Personal Critique of Both Proponents
• Questions
– There is an assumption that ‘few would argue for a
closed system’ however my experience is that there
are many who seek an easy life without change.
– Is openness more of a Western culture or can it be
accepted as a worldwide concept?
– There is an assumption of confidence in sharing,
critiquing et al whereas my experience is that not all
students are confident to do this.
– Where do the age old comments go now?
• ‘in your own words’
• ‘it must be your own work, you must not plagiarise’