Topic 4

I think that the four-part test can be considered useful, although it is a little simplistic. I like the idea of a student-centric approach to teaching, and one advantage of the four-part test is its clarity. Such a test creates a straightforward set of requirements, applicable in a variety of different situations. The ability to plug this test into so many circumstances is what it most has to offer to students and instructors. The example of comparing a math class to an art class, and how the latter allows students “time to think, to dream, to gaze,” and to consider new ideas, experiment, and critically reflect on their work and the works of others, is one of the more interesting concepts in open pedagogy (Wiley and Hilton 136). Introducing a standardized way to encourage creativity, even in a non-orthodox way, deserves attention. One question that caught my eye was whether students who make their assignments publicly available demonstrate better learning outcomes. I hypothesize that it would lead to a more positive outcome, although more research is needed.

Personal opposition to the test mostly boils down to personal philosophy regarding an idea such as a test in the context of open pedagogy. The idea of informal classrooms where students are trusted to learn by exploring their interests, assuming that this will be less boring, demeaning and alienating is an important point (Wiley and Hilton 134). I know that if I decide to become a teacher I will need structure, and I think that the four-part test can be useful. However, I do not have an idea of how to specifically structure the teaching experience. I like the idea of keeping a more open-ended, student-centric teaching style as the best option.

References:

Wiley, David, and John Hilton. “Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy.” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2018, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 133-147. dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3022.