Open Education Designs: A Taxonomy for Differentiating and Classifying
Open Learning Environments
Fredrick W. Baker III
University of South Alabama
www.fredwbaker.com
Dr. Daniel W. Surry
University of South Alabama
www.dansurry.com
Abstract: Open Education has seen explosive growth in the last decade and especially so in the last few
years. This growth has occurred in spite of the lack of common frameworks for identifying, differentiating,
and classifying open education structures and concepts. This paper presents an operational exploration of
open education, differentiates between three types of openness, offers an overarching term (Open
Education Designs) to identify open educational learning environments, and provides a taxonomy for
differentiating and classifying Open Education Designs (OEDs).
Introduction
Open Education has seen explosive growth since its revival in 2002 with the advent of MIT’s Open Course
Ware Initiative. Digital technologies enable the widespread diffusion of openness, and the prominence of open
education is growing in step with the newfound dominance of online education models. The open education
movement has roots in the open source movement of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (Coruos, 2006, Wiley, 2006),
the enlightenment (Peters, 2008), Dewey and Piaget’s work (Sherman, 2009), Karl Popper’s views on transparency,
feedback, and open government (Baker III, 2012a), and in the inquisitive style of Socrates (Giaconia & Hedges,
1982). Recently there have been so many articles, blog posts, radio programs, podcasts, etc. discussing open
learning environment designs that MOOC (Massively Open Online Course) was (un)officially declared as the
buzzword of the year (Siemens, 2012). More importantly, the current open education movement can be seen as the
digital transition of the analogue open education movement popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s, evidenced by the
strikingly similar core goals for learners found in each movement.
Openness is a continuous construct, where courses, resources, content, etc. can be open to varying degrees
(Wiley, 2012a). Some courses are slightly open, enabling only small freedoms in policy and uses of content, where
others are widely open, enabling free entry and exit, ubiquitous ownership of the course, and free use of content in
any way consistent with the 4R activities of Reusing, Revising, Remixing, Redistributing (Wiley, 2010). This
variance in levels of openness in seemingly similar settings can be confusing to someone who is outside of the
paradigm (and even to those within it!). In addition, the various types of emerging open education environments
each have different designs, contexts, and goals for the learners, and the lack of a common framework from which to
differentiate these is causing some issue in classifying and discussing them. For instance, the term MOOC is being
applied generally to all open education environment designs regardless of the individual design characteristics or
purposes of the course. This overgeneralization has spurred some criticism by researchers in open education (Wiley,
2012b) and caused others to clarify the position of their brand of MOOC from others being discussed (Siemens,
2012).
The purpose of this paper is to provide a taxonomy useful for differentiating and classifying the various
types of open education environments that have emerged in the last few years.
Defining the Open Environment
As discovered in the original open education movement, pinning down a solid definition of openness is not
an easy task. There have been attempts in both generations of the movement (Tunnell, 1975, Wiley, 2012a), and the
results tend to include contextually based caveats. However, it is possible to arrive at an operational, although still
admittedly limited, understanding of the open education environment through considering some of the core goals
and tenets of openness.
Tunnell (1975) identified four rules common to open educational practice: students should have agency
over their educational endeavors, known as the freedom rule; instructors must create rich environments full of
resources and opportunity, the environment rule; instructors should personalize education where possible but are
also obligated to guide students toward educationally worthwhile goals, the individual instruction rule; and
instructors must always provide respect to students, the respect rule. So an open education environment should
enable learners to have ownership over their experience (e.g. control their own schedule and tasks to some degree,
create or customize assignments), a flexible resource rich environment (e.g. accessible content of a variety of types
and sources), instructors who both cater the content to student’s personal interests and guide learners toward
educationally worthwhile goals (accomplished through a balance of providing learner agency and facilitating
learning based on experience), and an environment where the learner is respected (e.g. a diverse, inclusive
environment that trades exclusivity for collaborative learning opportunity).
Instructors in such an environment would necessarily be tech savvy, flexible, lifelong learners who are
comfortable with ambiguity and willing to risk failure. These instructors would need to keep abreast of current
information and trends, make connections with others in a variety of ways, and work to deliver a flexible and
meaningful experience to their learners. They are essentially connected teachers (Couros, 2009, Drexler, 2010).
Similarly, students in these environments would need to take an active role in their own learning efforts and these
efforts would need to be flexible and fit within the context of the open education environment of which they are a
part. This calls for open scholarship. Open scholars are likely to interact and share with others using technology to
engage in a community. Open scholars are likely to have a personal learning environment (PLE) which they use to
aggregate, engage, create, and distribute content, and as a platform from which to network and connect with others
of similar interests (Weller, 2011).
So an open education environment is an organic open system that is comprised of a variety of unique
components found in the environment, the instructor, and the student. Within each of these components lies an
inconceivable amount of unique skills and combinations of different technologies, resources, contexts, and
components. The open education environment, while often scalable, is not a modernistic replicable entity, but is a
living, contextually dependent thing that grows and changes with every interaction and thought. It has core
components that are common across most environments, but to different levels. The considerations for defining an
open environment are the affordances of the environment, the role and skill of the instructor, and the motivation and
skill of the leaner.
Open Education Designs
As is by now evident, different instances of open education designs have widely different purposes and
intentions, levels and types of openness, intentions and goals for the learners, skill levels and roles of instructors,
and a variety of component differences found in elements such as assessment methods, participation levels,
instructional strategies and structures. This taxonomy is primarily concerned with classifying open education
environment designs used in an educational setting, called Open Educational Designs (OEDs), although certain
training or K-12 designs may fit within the framework. The different course designs also primarily (although not
universally) emphasize different types of openness. Hill (1975) defines three types of openness: Procedural,
Normative, and Revolutionary.
Types of Openness
Procedural Openness
Procedural Openness is primarily concerned with policy and design decisions that enable structured
openness within a course or context. It is represented through changes in the procedures and environment, and is
focused on enhancing educational goals (Hill, 1975, Klein, & Eshel, 1980). The idea is for the designer to empower
the learner through changes in the learning environment by using open resources, connecting with the communityat-large, enabling connected teachers and collaboration, and by implementing policies that enable the learner to have
agency over their own learning.
Normative Openness
Normative Openness is the idea that the learner should be in full control of their learning; that is, have total
agency over all tasks and activities involved in their education (Hill, 1975, Klein, & Eshel, 1980). In this case,
instructors have almost no control or influence over the learning experience of the learners. As you can see, this is a
very different form of openness than procedural openness, and seems radical from the perspective of more
traditional educators and instructional designers who may (and likely should) argue that, generally, an instructional
experience is more effective when well designed and guided by experience and research. While having total control
over one’s learning would likely work very well for an experienced and autonomous learner, it would surely lead to
disaster if implemented in another environment.
Revolutionary Openness
Openness is set to inevitably impact society-at-large; however, there is some tension between the
contrasting ideas of gradually and peacefully educating openness into a society or forcing openness upon the society
through hacktivism, releasing secrets, and dancing around ethical lines (Baker III, 2012b). Revolutionary Openness
is primarily concerned with transforming traditional education structures and thereby changing the larger society
through enacting these transformations (Hill, 1975, Klein, & Eshel, 1980). The idea of schools as oppressive
structures that promote certain cultures or characteristics, and thereby suppress others, fits within this type of
openness. The idea of oppressive educational structures was made popular in part by the work of Paulo Friere
(1970). Revolutionary openness intends to disrupt the societal value systems that are imposed on learners through
educational structures, and active opposition is called for.
Three Types of Open Educational Designs (OEDs)
There are three major categories of Open Education Designs; Alternate Education Models, Topic Focus
Models, and Traditional Educational Models (see Figure 1). Each OED is characterized by different elements, and
there may be some overlapping characteristics between the categories.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Open Educational Designs
Alternate Education Models
The primary characteristic of Alternate Education Models is that they are presented as a design that is an
alternative form, substitute, or supplement for traditional education structures. In some cases these designs are
created with the intention of radically changing, or revolutionizing, the system of education or parts thereof (Murray,
2012, Friedman, 2012, Littlefield, 2012), and as such promote and identify well with revolutionary openness. This
category contains three major subcategories of designs, including Peeragogy Models, such as Peer-2-Peer University
and Wikiversity, Open University Models, such as edX and University of the People, and Mass Delivery Models
such as Udacity, Coursera, and institutional Moocs (xMOOCs). Peeragogy models utilize peer teaching and learner
generated content and courses. Open University Models largely utilize MIT’s Open Courseware (OCW) content and
develop new open content for use in their courses. This model category is also seemingly more concerned with
certification or degree conferment than other models. Mass Delivery Models often seek to amass as many learners as
possible and often custom generate their content specifically for each course. These are for-profit models that are
looking to monetize the process at some point. In some cases, these models are about collecting big data, and so they
often require registration and could potentially sell learner information (Salmon, 2012).
Topic Focus Models
The primary characteristic for Topic Focus Model OEDs is that students have free access to resources with
no obligation to follow a schedule or course structure. Even though such schedules or structures may be loosely
provided, they are merely scaffolds or supports to help students who may not be comfortable without their presence.
These designs often aggregate resources or connections to resources in a central place and provide free access to
anyone who wants to use them. The students are also free to utilize and interact with the resources in a variety of
ways and in their own spaces, although these designs may require registration.
Topic Focus Models fall into two main categories differentiated by their structure. Well-Structured designs
often have linear or clear paths through the content, suggest a definition for success in the course, and encourage the
learner to reach goals. Examples of well-structured Topic Focus Model OEDs include Curtis Bonk’s open course
(#BonkOpen) (Instructional Ideas and Technology Tools for Online Success, 2012), MOOCMOOC (MOOCMOOC,
2012), and Khan Academy (Khan Academy, 2012) (see Figure 1). Ill-Structured designs often have modules, but no
required order in which to engage in the content within the module. They also tend to avoid suggesting definitions of
success, and encourage the learners to define their own goals and build in their own spaces. Examples of illstructured Topic Focus Model OEDs are the Connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) such as Openness in Education
(#oped12) (Downes, 2012a), Change MOOC (#change11) (Downes, 2012b) or Connectivism and Connective
Knowledge (#CK11) (Downes, 2012c) (see Figure 1). Most of the Topic Focus Models seem to promote normative
openness, especially the cMOOCs, as the learner defines his or her own involvement, learning goals, and
participation status.
Traditional Education Models
The primary characteristic of Traditional Education Model OEDs is that openness augments an otherwise
standard education structure. These OEDs all have some core group of students who are registered with an
organization and enrolled in an actual class with an instructor. These courses promote procedural openness through
implementation of policies and designs that enable the learners to experience ownership over their own educational
processes, connection and collaboration with others (often from around the globe), and interaction with open
resources, experts, and the community-at-large.
There are three subcategories of Traditional Education Model OEDs, which are Open Home Schooling,
Open K-12, and Open Higher Education Designs (See Figure 1). While there is potential for new designs in Open
Home Schooling and Open K-12, this paper emphasizes examples in the Anchored Open Courses subcategory.
These are mostly extensions of higher education courses and are often from notable universities. Examples of
Anchored Open Courses include David Wiley’s Introduction to Openness courses (Wiley, 2012c), Couros’ EC&I
831: Social Media & Open Education course (EC&I: Social Media & Open Education, 2012), and Digital
Storytelling 106 (DS106) (DS106, 2012).
Conclusion
This paper provides a common overarching term to refer to open education learning environments, Open
Education Designs (OEDs), a consideration and operational definition of the major characteristics of OEDs, a
differentiation between three types of openness, and a taxonomy that outlines a logical way to classify and
differentiate various Open Education Designs. The lack of a taxonomy or clear framework up to this point has
enabled the improper generalization of the term MOOC to include a wide array of courses with vastly different
characteristics and goals and also contributed to general confusion about the major classifications of OEDs. OEDs
are each unique and emphasize different abilities, assessment methodologies, scholarship intentions, instructional
and learning strategies, and utilize resources in different ways and to different ends, and they often emphasize
completely different aspects of openness. They are also each very likely to each work best for different subsets of
learners. This taxonomy fits within the larger conceptual framework of open education and is a step toward
providing educators with the groundwork to think about and discuss the relevant characteristics of different designs
within open education.
References
Baker III, F.W., (2012a). Unshackling future minds: How including openness in teacher education can avoid
insurrection and usher in a new era of collaboration. Presentation at the Annual Conference for the Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) 2012, Austin, TX.
Baker III, F.W. (2012b). Unshackling Future Minds: How including openness in teacher education can avoid
insurrection and usher in a new era of collaboration. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 1488-1493).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39793.
Couros, A. (2006). Examining the open movement: possibilities and implications for education. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3363/Dissertation-Couros-FINAL-06WebVersion
Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social-implications for educational design. Campus-Wide Information Systems
26 (3). Retrieved from http://www.icicte.org/ICICTE2008Proceedings/couros041.pdf
Downes, S. (2012a). Openness in Education. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://open.mooc.ca/
Downes, S. (2012b). Change in Education. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://change.mooc.ca/
Downes, S. (2012c).Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://cck11.mooc.ca/
Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing
teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3). 369-385.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/drexler.pdf
DS106. (2012). Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://ds106.us/
EC&I 831: Social Media & Open Education (2012). Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://eci831.ca/
Friedman, T. (2012, May 15). Come the revolution. The New York Times. The Opinion Pages. Retrieved October 2,
2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/opinion/friedman-come-the-revolution.html?_r=0
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Giaconia, R.M., & Hedges, L.V. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational
Research, 52(4), p. 579-602.
Hill, B.V. (1975). What’s open about open education? In Nyberg, D. (1975). The Philosophy of Open Education
(pp.3-13). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.
Instructional Ideas and Technology Tools for Online Success. (2012). Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
https://www.coursesites.com/webapps/Bb-sites-course-creationBBLEARN/courseHomepage.htmlx?course_id=_215194_1
Klein, Z., Eshel, Y. (1980). The open classroom in a cross-cultural perspective: A research note. Sociology of
Education, 53 (April) pp. 114-121.
Khan Academy. (2012). Khan Academy. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://www.khanacademy.org/
Littlefield, J. (2012). How edX will revolutionize learning. About.com. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://distancelearn.about.com/od/isitforyou/a/How-Edx-Will-Revolutionize-Online-Learning.htm
MOOCMOOC. (2012). Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://moocmooc.com/
Murray, P. (2012, January 28). Sebastion Thrun aims to revolutionize university education with Udacity. Singularity
Hub. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://singularityhub.com/2012/01/28/sebastian-thrun-aims-torevolutionize-university-education-with-udacity/
Peters, M. (2008). The history and emergent paradigm of open education. In Peters, M., & Britez, R.G. (2008). Open
education and education for openness. Sense Publishing. Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://danielaraya.com/docs/9789087906818PR.pdf
Salmon, F. (2012, January 31). Udacity’s Model. Reuters. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/01/31/udacitys-model/
Sherman, S. (2009). Haven’t We Seen This Before? Sustaining a Vision in Teacher Education for Progressive
Teaching Practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 41-60. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ870214.pdf
Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Elearnspace. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/
Tunnell, D. (1975). Open Education: an expression in search of a definition. In Nyberg, D. (1975). The Philosophy
of Open Education (pp.14-23). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.
Wiley, D. (2006). Open source, openness, and higher education. Innovate 3 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=354
Wiley, D. (2010) Openness as a catalyst for an educational reformation. Educause Review, 45(4). Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/openness-catalyst-educational-reformation
Wiley, D., (2012a). Defining the “open” in open content. Iterating toward openness. Retrieved from
http://www.opencontent.org/definition/
Wiley, D., (2012b). The MOOC misnomer. Iterating toward openness. Retrieved from
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2436
Wiley, D., (2012c). Introduction to Openness in Education. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://openeducation.us/
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice. USA: Bloomsbury
Academic.