2 Stopping the Bus: A Model for Inviting Instructors into Open Pedagogical Practice

Stopping the Bus: A Model for Inviting Instructors into Open Pedagogical Practice


Open Pedagogy: What is in the name?

What is “Open”?

Perhaps the concept that causes the most variance in the field in terms of the proliferation of definitions is the term “open”.  Cronin (2017), in her analysis of openness in literature, synthesized four interpretations of “open” in educational settings: open admission, open as free, open educational resources, and open educational practices.  Cronin (2017, p.16) also states, “The qualifier “open” is variously used to describe resources (the artefacts themselves as well as access to and usage of them), learning and teaching practices, institutional practices, the use of educational technologies, and the values underlying educational endeavors.”

In existing conceptualizations, then, “open” may refer to a product or process; access to anything from content to knowledge itself; transparency (Staggs & Bossu 2016), participatory practices (Anderson 2009; Inamorato dos Santos et al. 2016), student choice (“An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning” 2000), alternate means of learning (Inamorato dos Santos et al. 2016), and ultimately to different ways of constructing knowledge (DeRosa & Jhangiani n.d.).  Although often referred to as “free”, this alone is not sufficient to constitute “open” (Cronin 2017).  While it may be difficult to consider something that is not free “open”, there are many examples of content, particularly in relation to publishers and websites, where free clearly does not equate to open as no rights are given to others to reuse, remix, revise, retain or redistribute the work in question (Wiley 2013 & n.d.).

What is “Pedagogy”?

Pedagogy would seem to have a simpler definition.  According to Merriam-Webster (n.d.), pedagogy is “the art, science, or profession of teaching”.  This definition, however, captures only a portion of the dynamic present in the educational milieu.  UNESCO (n.d) defines pedagogy in relation to both the learner and educator, recognizing that pedagogy is not solely a function of the instructor, but also the learners themselves.  Murphy (2008) suggests similar sentiments in her writing on pedagogy while also acknowledging that pedagogy involves student agency, where the learner acts as part of knowledge creation instead of being a passive recipient. These definitions illustrate the short-sighted approach of viewing pedagogy as a concept entirely dependent upon the classroom instructor. “Pedagogy” then, similar to “open” may be correctly viewed a number of ways by practitioners and theorists.

In light of these dynamics, it should be no surprise that Open Pedagogy has generated a plethora of multi-valence definitions and potential implementation approaches. As indicated by Wiley and Hilton (2018),

The wide range of variation in the many recent definitions of open pedagogy makes it increasingly difficult to make sense of the term, potentially leading to claims of openwashing and creating other practical problems in the context of teaching and learning practices (p.135).

Varying Conceptualization of Open Pedagogy and Related Terms

The prediction of Wiley and Hilton (2018) has been shown to be accurate.  Consider the differences in the eight attributes described by Hagerty (2015), 1) Participatory technologies; 2) people, openness & trust; 3) innovation & creativity; 4) sharing ideas and resources; 5) connected community; 6) learner generated; 7) reflective practice; and 8) peer review, and the definition of Open Pedagogy provided by DeRosa and Jhangiani (n.d.),

. . . we might think about Open Pedagogy as an access-oriented commitment to learner-driven education AND as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that enable students to shape the public knowledge commons of which they are a part.

Both of these definitions are accurate but speak to different aspects of the terms open and pedagogy. These both differ from how Wiley (2013) describes the term, as learning activities that are free to access and only possible in the context of the then 4Rs of OER, free to reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute. In light of only these definitions, it is not difficult to understand the trouble those new to the literature may find in conceptualizing Open Pedagogy.

To further compound the issue, in addition to Open Pedagogy itself, other terms in the literature, including Open Educator (Nascimbeni & Burgos 2016), Open Teaching (Couros & Hildenbrandt 2016), and Open Learning (Bozkurt, Koseoglu & Singh 2019; Coffey 1977), could be considered pedagogical in nature as they relate to the teaching and learning dynamic embodied in more comprehensive definitions of “pedagogy”. Open Educator has been defined in relation to the beliefs and actions of such an individual and includes openly sharing ideas/plans, creating OER, allowing students to be co-creators of learning material, and utilizing collaborative student assessment techniques (Nascimbeni & Burgos 2016). Couros and Hildenbrandt (2016) indicate Open Teaching as,

. . . the facilitation of learning experiences that are open, transparent, collaborative, and social. Open teachers are advocates of a free and open knowledge society, and support their students in the critical consumption, production, connection, and synthesis of knowledge through the shared development of learning networks (p. 148).

Open Learning has been described as an environment where students have choice in the place, medium, pace, support mechanisms, and entry/exit points of learning activities (“An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning” 2000). These definitions clearly relate to the same overall concept, either the educational environment as it relates to the role of an educator or that of a learner.

The various tasks that an instructor or learner engage in through the process of “education” has given rise to other, more specific terms themselves.  These include Open Content, Open Design, Open Assessment, OER-enabled Pedagogy, and Open Courses, to name some that are commonly used in the literature. Other “open” terminology, such as Open Education and Open Educational Practice normally include the teaching/learning dynamic as one component of a larger framework and highlight the proliferation of concepts within the field.


A Teaching and Learning Model for Open Pedagogy: Practical Open Pedagogy for Practitioners (POPP)

Although gains have been made in instructor awareness and understanding of “openness” in education, those working with new instructors cannot assume that these individuals will have a mental construct sufficient to guide their continued development and practice.  Open Educational Resources (OER) are perhaps the most widely recognized element of constructs related to openness in education.  Nonetheless, a recent survey by the Babson Survey Research Group indicates that while awareness of OER increased from 34% in 2015 to 46% in 2018, faculty and department chair awareness still is under 50% (Seaman & Seaman 2018). A number of studies have demonstrated that lack of awareness of OER presents a barrier to implementation (Cox & Trotter 2017; Padhi 2018).

Awareness of Open Pedagogy is undoubtedly less than Open Educational Resources. Not only is it a newer concept as currently conceptualized (Bliss & Smith 2017; Mishra 2017), but as evidenced earlier it is also more difficult to define. Interestingly, Open Pedagogy, as a teaching philosophy, has been suggested as an evolutionary step some instructors take after using OER for more pragmatic purposes (Jhangiani 2017c; Wiley 2017), while simultaneously being credited for possibly creating a barrier for the mainstreaming of OER (Mishra 2017). Open Pedagogy has also been described as having both pragmatic (evolutionary) or idealistic (revolutionary) purposes (Jhangiani 2017c). Whether one takes a more gradual (evolutionary) or radical (revolutionary) approach when advocating for Open Pedagogy with others may determine their likelihood of further considering open pedagogical strategies (Wiley 2017).

How can those who see the practical and theoretical value of Open Pedagogy provide educators new to the field with stable footing upon which to build? How can we embody the statement made by Wiley (2017), “If you want to go far in terms of sustainably transforming the entire system, you have to be willing to go slow enough to bring everyone along – you have to go together.”? If clarity is a detractor from stakeholders moving towards openness in education (consider the work of Mirshra 2017 and Wiley & Hilton 2018), then outlining clearly and succinctly the component parts that comprise a system represents a potential solution to create buy-in both at an individual and institutional level. Such an approach has been advocated for in other fields to enhance communication (Thomas & McDonagh 2013) with modeling being one method for building common understanding around more abstract concepts (Min, Jackman, & Chan 2014; Powell-Morse 2017). To use a metaphor, we need to temporarily stop the bus if we want people to be able to come along even if the stop does not in itself directly help us reach our destination. In other words, if the goal is to get as many people as possible to transition from traditional to more open teaching, be it through an evolutionary or revolutionary approach, a pause from time-to-time is not only appropriate but necessary.

A respectably comprehensive model of Open Pedagogy must include all of the principles mentioned above in a way that considers the fluidity of educational praxis and provides scaffolding upon which a viewer can construct further meaning. In an attempt to create such a model, Practical Open Pedagogy for Practitioners (POPP) was developed (see Figure 1).  The purpose of the POPP model is to visually represent the various terms related to Open Pedagogy in relation to one another, providing those new to the field with a less abstract starting point to understand the concepts. Here, the dynamic of the instructor and the learner is separated, respecting the broader definition of “pedagogy” evident in the definitions from UNESCO (n.d.) and Murphy (2008).  The second level of the model is the instructor (Open Educator) and the student (Open Learner).

In selecting Open Educator as a second-level term, the authors sought to recognize a learning facilitator’s complex role as teacher, designer and assessor of student development. Teaching, by its very nature, relates to the dissemination of information. Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) developed a well-defined outline for the role of the Open Educator, the elements of which have been included in the model. The concept of Open Educator as envisioned by Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) is not in conflict with that of Open Teaching as outlined by Couros and Hildebrandt (2016), however the term educator is seen by the authors as a more general descriptor than teacher which often holds the connotation of someone working within a school or whose primary profession is teaching, which need not be the case in relation to Open Pedagogy. Components of the model under Open Educator include Open Content, Open Design, Open Assessment, and OER-enabled Pedagogy.

Open Content is a term first used by David Wiley in the late 1990s and was defined as copyrightable works that are provided perpetually free to retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute– known within the field as the 5Rs of open (Wiley 2014). While Open Educational Resources (OER) are the most recognizable example of open “content”, other items within the literature have been proposed to belong to this family as well.  Open Content has been described as:

A broad term that covers a wider range of resources and materials made available openly on the web. It implies open licencing to enable re-use, revise, remix and re-distribute (the 4Rs). Open content is not defined by its intended use and covers raw data, research materials, learning and teaching materials and informational resources (McGill 2013).

Inamorato Dos Santos et al. (2016) describe open content as, “. . . materials for teaching and learning, and research outputs, which are free of charge and available to all” (p. 25). Here again Open Content is envisioned to include not only teaching and learning items, but also the products of scholarly endeavors namely data, research materials, and research outputs. Wiley (n.d.) defines Open Content and Open Educational Resources synonymously, indicating that both are copyrightable items that are either released in the public domain or licensed in such a way that one can retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute them freely and perpetually. “Open Content” rather than “Open Educational Resources” is utilized in the POPP model to respect the idea that there is fluidity in what one may consider content, as well as variation in how data, research materials and outputs are used in an educational environment (e.g. scholarship for the sake of scholarship versus learning aids).

Open Design, more broadly, is associated with the “… creation and development of potentially meaningful learner experiences through open and transparent collaboration among course developers and peers using open educational resources, open educational practices and open technologies” (Open Design and Development n.d.). This parallels a similar concept found in Nascimbeni and Burgos’s (2016) first characteristic of an Open Educator; one who uses and shares learning designs openly with peers, colleagues, and experts in their field.

Open Assessment is evident in the conceptualization of Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) who emphasize the importance of peer-review as an assessment tool, as well as collaborative assessment practices, badges, and micro-credentialing. This aligns well with the definition developed by Chiappe (2012) and Chiappe et al. (2016), who acknowledge that Open Assessment relies on peer-to-peer engagement facilitated through the use of open tools. Peer-to-peer engagement, as a part of open assessment, is a vital component of the Open Educator’s facilitation process. Hegarty (2015), in development of the characteristics of Open Pedagogy also includes peer-review as one of the eight characteristics.

OER-enabled Pedagogy, introduced by Wiley and Hilton (2018), serves as a connector between elements in Open Educator and Open Learning. Defined as “teaching and learning practices that are only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions which are characteristics of OER” (p.135), OER-enabled Pedagogy encompasses both teaching and learning dynamics. Examples of OER-enabled Pedagogy include students collaborating with an instructor on developing course materials, writing Wikipedia articles, or assisting in the development of question bank items for assessments.  These activities have student learning as the ultimate goal but provide a different balance of power between the traditional role of the educator and learner.

The parent element for the student-focused side of Open Pedagogy, Open Learner, relates to knowledge acquisition being a fluid practice wherein the individual can explore information through a variety of modalities (“An Introduction to Open Learning” n.d.; Beetham et al. 2012; McGill 2013; Naidu 2016). Elements under Open Learner include OER-enabled Pedagogy (described above), Open Courses, Peer-to-Peer Learning, and Self-Directed Learning.

Open Course relates to class structures which attempt to reduce barriers to student participation through no/low cost options and reducing requirements to enroll. They generally follow a Constructivist and Connectivist approach, wherein diversity in participant perspective is highly valued (Cormier & Siemens 2010; McGill 2013; Siemens 2005). McGill (2013) warns that Open Courses do not always mean Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), a type of open course that often comes to mind, but may include other learning experiences that are not structured like traditional courses and are not “massive” in relation to learner enrollment.

Peer-to-Peer Learning is frequently cited as a key element of openness in education and provides students an opportunity to grow through collaborative approaches.  In Peer-to-Peer Learning, students themselves play a direct role in others’ journey to become proficient in a subject area, while also fostering their own knowledge acquisition (“Collaborative, and Peer to Peer Learning” n.d.). Generally, in Peer-to-Peer Learning the role of an instructor is to help guide experiences, but students learn from one another without immediate involvement of the formal instructor (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson 1999).  Examples of Peer-to-Peer Learning include situations in which more advanced students help remediate those who are struggling to understand concepts, the “jigsaw” approach to content learning where students individually or in groups master small parts of content that are then put together to form the whole, study groups, and mentorship programs.

The final element of Open Learner is Self-directed Learning. Knowles (1975) acknowledges that Self-directed Learning is student-driven, wherein the individual identifies their own needs, creates, and pursues a plan that allows them to achieve their goals. In Self-directed Learning, students must be both mature and self-motivated, able to chart a path from one developmental level to another while being reflective enough to assess their own learning and adjust their learning plan as need arises.

Integrated within the POPP model is the concept of the Golden Circle, a term coined by Simon Sinek and explained in a 2009 TedxPuget Sound video that at the time of this writing has over 50 million views (Sinek 2009).  According to the Golden Circle framework, organizations or leaders normally describe what they do or how they do it, but infrequently first articulate why.  Sinek indicates that what people relate and buy in to is the why.  What separates organizations that are exceptional from those that have similar resources and ability is often their focus and marketing around the “why” first. In congruence with this concept, the POPP model does not start with outlining key terms or strategies in Open Pedagogy, but outlines the what, the how, and the why of this pedagogical approach starting with the why. The result is a visual representation for Open Pedagogy centered on its ability to democratize education, foster transparency, give voice to disadvantaged populations, and personalize learning. These values are rooted in current literature and apply to both pragmatic and idealistic purposes one may reference in moving from traditional practices to Open Pedagogy.


Visual representation of the PoPP model, breaking down elements of Open Educational Practice into more manageable sections for those new to this field. This model separates Open Education Practices into three concepts: The Why, the How, the What.

Fig. 1

Components of Practical Open Pedagogy for Practitioners: The POPP Model

Value of the POPP Model

Models exist related to Open Pedagogy, or the term it is sometimes conflated with, Open Educational Practices (OEP). As mentioned earlier, Hagerty (2015) described eight attributes of Open Pedagogy, 1) Participatory technologies; 2) people, openness & trust; 3) innovation & creativity; 4) sharing ideas and resources; 5) connected community; 6) learner generated; 7) reflective practice; and 8) peer review. Paskevicius (2017) modeled OEP in context of constructive alignment, describing the elements of OEP in relation to the ideal situation in which alignment exists between objectives, teaching and learning strategies, and learning assessment. Koseoglu and Bozkurt (2018) developed a framework to describe OEP via its philosophy (openness), theory (Open Education), practice (Open Educational Practices), models and approaches.  In their model, concepts such as Open Teaching, Open Assessment, and Open Courses are listed as evolving approaches.

The POPP model introduced here includes elements from each of these designs. Hagerty’s (2015) eight attributes can be found in sections of POPP outlining how and why one may utilize Open Pedagogy. Likewise, constructive alignment as explained by Paskevicius (2017) focuses on both teaching and learning, achieving the goal of well-constructed educational experiences through the “why” of OEP/Open Pedagogy. Finally, the model demonstrates in greater detail how those within a learning environment may function, provided that the ultimate goal is “openness” in educational praxis (Koseoglu & Bozkurt 2018).

The POPP model, however, provides practitioners with information on how some of the approaches described as “open” are related to one another, as well as which are normally initiated by instructors/teachers/educators and which are generally learner-directed. The model also demonstrates how OER-enabled Pedagogy can be viewed as an element in both categories, as it can be directed by an instructor or engaged in by a student directly. Cronin and MacLaren (2018) as well as Koseoglu and Bozkurt (2018) advocate for definitions and frameworks that respect the many ways in which openness may begin or develop within educational settings. The model described here recognizes that an individual can begin to utilize Open Pedagogy in a number of ways, as an instructor through the use of content, course design, or assessment and as a learner through participation in content creation, peer learning, open courses, or self-directed approaches.

In describing their Open Educators Factory Framework, Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) outline a self-evaluation tool that educators can use to enhance their “openness capacity” (p.7). Part of this framework is the recognition that as one progresses from being unaware to fluent in open practices, a primary transitional phase is awareness of concepts. The POPP model can be of assistance in helping nascent open educators by presenting what may be seen as both an expansive and abstract concept, Open Pedagogy, in a more concrete manner.

Not surprisingly, models of Open Educational Practices and Open Pedagogy normally depict the what and how of these approaches. The model presented here emphasizes the reason Open Pedagogy is beneficial for both students and educators, starting with the why followed by the how and finally the what.  Following this design, instructors can more easily position themselves within the values espoused by those practicing Open Education. Additionally, this provides a way for those working with individuals new to the field to focus training on reasons one may move towards openness. The values listed in the model may be framed in either pragmatic or idealistic terms depending on whether an instructor is ready to use Open Pedagogy for more revolutionary purposes (e.g. social justice, decentralizing classroom power structures, moving away from a deficit model of education) or an evolutionary approach (e.g. transparency, sharing of materials, enhanced student engagement). In the work of Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016), then, phase one of moving toward openness may not be an awareness of open approaches but awareness of the values upon which openness is built followed by a desire to achieve these within one’s class. As Wiley (2017) indicates, we need to be willing to meet educators where they are. While we may hope that every educator, from PK through college, has a deep-seated desire to achieve the whys found in Figure 1, we must be willing to concede that if this is not the case moving forward toward openness is not likely to occur at that time.

To complement the POPP model and provide additional information for educators, three tables are provided.  As with Figure 1, these are organized according to the why, how, and what of Open Pedagogy. These are intended to provide additional details as to how elements in the table are conceptualized, and relate to both one another and the values espoused through an open approach to education. Table 1 lists the values found at the top of the POPP model (the “why”) followed by a description of that value and representative citations for this material. Table 2 includes the items in the model associated with either Open Educator or Open Learner (the “how”) as well as example characteristics of each.  The third table provides a definition for each term (focuses on the “what”).



Whether one favors Open Pedagogy for pragmatic or idealistic reasons, those who have come to value what openness brings to the teaching and learning dynamic view this approach as a step toward a more democratic, engaging, and meaningful educational environment. Great ideas that live as islands of excellence or isolated anecdotes, however, fail to significantly move the needle in relation to the inertia of our prevailing educational systems. To realize the potential of Open Pedagogy, advocates must find ways to bring fellow educators on a journey to open practice.

The majority of instructors at the post-secondary level are not trained in educational theory and pedagogy. To these individuals, changing practice toward a concept that is difficult to define and abstract in nature may be overwhelming. As Wiley (2017) suggests, without care we will leave many behind.  Meeting instructors where they are means not only deciding between advocating for a revolutionary versus evolutionary approach when discussing Open Pedagogy, but ensuring that terminology is clear and understandable to those new to a concept.  To effectively communicate we need to be speaking a common language, or, to tie back to the previous metaphor we must pause now and then to provide educators an opportunity to join us in engaging students through Open Pedagogy. It is difficult for someone to board a moving bus.

The POPP model presented here is not intended to remove the fluidity and adaptability many in the field of Open Education view as necessary. It is intended instead to serve as a tool for those educators, perhaps only familiar with OER but with interest in using open practices to improve student learning and orient themselves in terminology found within the literature. The model is also useful for those who teach our instructors about effective pedagogy to introduce Open Pedagogy in a way that is more concrete. In his 2017 post, Wiley indicates “. . . if we give faculty a viable path to revolution – one that starts with a small step and can be followed by steps of any size, large or small – we can help the majority of them transform their teaching through open.” The POPP model is intended to serve as only part of this path to transformation in teaching practice. Through focus on the “why” of Open Pedagogy, perhaps we can move instructors into position to begin the transition to Open Educator described by Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016).

As a final note, the authors would like to recognize that questions have been raised regarding whether Open Pedagogy exists as a subset of Critical Digital Pedagogy. Critical Digital Pedagogy (CDP), as defined by Stommel (2014), places an emphasis on community and the collaborative nature of teaching and learning; requires recognition of a multitude of voices, perspectives, and narratives across cultural, socioeconomic, and political borders; and must be able to be used outside the walls of academia. The POPP model does not list CDP as a separate concept, but recognizes it as permeating the values and approaches used in either the educator-focused or learner-focused elements of Open Pedagogy.


Table 1

Values Espoused in Open Pedagogy (The “Why”)


Why Description Representative Citations
Sharing Freely sharing of content and knowledge. Individuals allow others to use what they create to further their own personal and professional development.  This may be done through collaborative efforts, publishing open articles, or licensing creative works in a way that permits the 5Rs of Open Educational Resources. Ehlers & Conole (2010); Hegarty (2015); Hodgkinson-Williams & Gray (2009); Inamorato dos Santos et al. (2016); Nascimbeni & Burgos (2016); Ossiannilsson (2018)
Transparency Transparency is evident in the purpose of educational activities, expectations, and practices for assessment. Transparency is also provided into the values inherent in education such as how knowledge has been constructed and how one’s own biases, beliefs, and values impact the teaching/learning dynamic. Couros (2010); Couros & Hildenbrandt (2016); Hegarty (2015); Inamorato dos Santos et al. (2016); Paskevicius (2017)
Collaborative knowledge construction Knowledge is not viewed as complete, unchanging, or being determined by those traditionally in positions of authority (e.g. scholars, professors, teachers). Educators and learners acknowledge the value of and participate in efforts to construct knowledge together. Couros (2010); Couros & Hildenbrandt (2016); DeRosa & Robison (2017); Ehlers (2011); Ehlers & Conole (2010); Hegarty (2015)
Deconstruct traditional power structures Concerted efforts are made to evaluate and evolve power structures in the educational environment, such as the traditional teacher-student relationship. Voice is given to those in underrepresented groups and those with authority move instruction away from a deficit model of learning. DeRosa & Robison (2017); Ehlers (2011); Hegarty (2015); Lambert (2018)
Personalize learning Authority is given to learners to determine what is learned, how it is learned, how mastery is demonstrated, and/or when learning takes place. This personalization takes place in traditional classroom settings as well as non-traditional learning environments. An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning (2000); Hegarty (2015)
Learner empowerment Students are empowered in all aspects of their learning. For example, students participate in knowledge creation, how learning occurs, and the assessment of themselves and others. An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning (2000); Lambert (2018); Couros (2010);  DeRosa & Robison (2017); Ehlers (2011); Hegarty (2015); Paskevicius (2017)


Table 2

Examples of Open Pedagogy Approaches (The “How”)


Term Example Characteristics Citation
Open Educator
Open Content Examples of Open Content:

●       Learning modules

●       Courseware items

●       Teacher resources (e.g. curricula, videos, syllabi, lesson plans)

●       Open source learning management systems

●       MERLOT II

●       MIT Open Courseware

●       Textbooks: OpenStax, Bookboon, Saylor

Bliss & Smith (2017); Green et al. (2018); Hodgkinson-Williams & Gray (2009)
Open Design ●       Uses freely available software and materials

●       Uses educational technology to increase access

●       Infuses openness into learning outcomes, teaching and learning resources, teaching and learning activities, and student assessment/evaluation

●       Utilizes a collaborative approach in creation of learning experiences

●       Employs an iterative approach to design

●       Values the sharing, reuse, and remix of materials

●       Values transparency in course design process and elements

Bozkurt, Koseoglu & Singh (2019); Couros & Hildenbrandt (2016); Paskevicius (2017); Nascimbeniet al. (2018); Open Design and Development (n.d.)
Open Assessment ●       Focuses on formative assessments

●       Recognizes value in collaboration and consultation in achieving learning goals

●       Develops assessment tools in a participatory manor with learners

●       Encourages students to share work products beyond the educator-learning dyad

●       Involves students in the creation of Open Educational Resources

●       Utilizes peer and self-evaluation

●       Prefers authentic assessment tools

●       Provides transparency in expectations and evaluations

Chiappe (2012) in Chiappe, Pinto, &  Arias (2016); Jacobs (2019); Nascimbeni & Burgos (2016); Paskevicius (2017)

enabled Pedagogy

Students may:

●       Write articles for Wikipedia

●       Create an openly licensed textbook

●       Edit Wikipedia articles

●       Take photos and license them openly

●       Author test questions for wider use

●       Develop tutorial resources

●       Create summaries of key concepts

●       Develop social media postings with content to which others may refer

Couros & Hildenbrandt (2016); DeRosa (2016); Jhangiani (2017b); Wiley et al. (2017); Wiley & Hilton (2018)
Open Learning
Open Courses ·       Multiple models exist (e.g. MOOC, open courses that are not “massive”)

·       Attempts to reduce barriers to student participation through no/low cost options and reducing requirements to enroll

·       Follows a Constructivist and Connectivist approach

·       Values diversity in participant perspectives

Cormier & Siemens (2010); McGill (2013); Siemens (2005)
Peer-to-Peer Learning ●       Favors collaborative learning approaches

●       Utilizes peer review and assessment

●       Involves students learning directly from each other without immediate educator input

●       Includes advanced students teaching others, group work, student led workshops, mentorship programs and study groups

Belin (2019); Boud, Cohen, & Sampson (1999); Collaborative and Peer to Peer Learning: What is Collaborative Learning (n.d.)
Self-directed Learning ●       Individuals assess own need for learning and learning goals

●       Individuals seek own materials for achieving learning goals

●       Individuals assess their learning in relation to learning goals

●       Learning may not be isolated but it is directed by the learner

Aşkin Tekkol & Demirel (2018); Garrison (1997); Knowles (1975)



Table 3

Existing Definitions of POPP Model Components and Values (The “What”)


Term Definition Inherent Value Citation
Open Educator “An Open Educator implements openness along four main activities. He/she:

1. Implements open learning design by openly sharing ideas and plans about his/her teaching activities with experts and with past and potential students, incorporating inputs, and

transparently leaving a trace of the development process.

2. Uses open educational content by releasing his/her teaching resources through open licenses, by facilitating sharing of her resources through OER repositories and other means, and by adapting, assembling, and using OERs produced by others in his/her teaching.

3. Adopts open pedagogies fostering co-creation of knowledge by students through online and offline collaboration and allowing learners to contribute to public knowledge resources such as Wikipedia.

4. Implements open assessment practices such as peer and collaborative evaluation, open badges, and e-portfolios, engaging students as well as external stakeholders in learning assessment.” (p. 4)





Collaborative knowledge construction


Deconstruct traditional power structures

Nascimbeni & Burgos (2016)
Open Content “It [Open Content] implies open licencing to enable re-use, revise, remix and re-distribute (the 4Rs). Open content is not defined by its intended use and covers raw data, research materials, learning and teaching materials and informational resources.” Sharing


Collaborative knowledge construction


(McGill 2013)
Open Design “Open design refers to the creation and development of potentially meaningful learning experiences through open and transparent collaboration among course developers and peers using open educational resources, open educational practices and open technologies.” Collaborative knowledge construction Open Design and Development (n.d.)
Open Assessment “The process of learning verification and feedback that takes place collaboratively, mediated by free access tools in which teachers produce or adapt assessment resources and students adapt and reshape these resources for the purpose of generating for themselves an assessment that meets their personal needs, learning styles and context.” (p. 10) Personalize learning


Collaborative knowledge construction


Deconstruct traditional power structures

Chiappe (2012) in Chiappe, Pinto, &  Arias (2016)

Enabled Pedagogy

“We define OER-enabled pedagogy as the set of teaching and learning practices

that are only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions which are characteristic of OER.” (p. 135)

Collaborative knowledge construction


Learner empowerment


Deconstruct traditional power structures

Wiley & Hilton (2018)
Open Learning “The educational philosophy of open learning emphasises giving learners choices about:

· medium or media, whether print, on-line, television or video;

· place of study, whether at home, in the workplace or on campus;

· pace of study, whether closely paced or unstructured;

· support mechanisms, whether tutors on demand, audio conferences or computer-assisted

learning; and

· entry and exit points” (p. 4)

Personalize learning


Learner empowerment

An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning (2000)
Open Courses “There are a range of different models for open courses, and they are not all Massive (in a student numbers sense). Structure may be imposed or not, assessment may be included or not, learners can be fully open or registered paying students.” Deconstruct traditional power structures


Learner empowerment


Personalize learning

McGill (2013)
Peer-to-Peer Learning “ . . . peer to peer learning allows students to work through new concepts and material with other individuals engaged in the same work and provides them with opportunities to teach and be taught by one another, expanding their perspectives and fostering meaningful connections.” Learner empowerment


Deconstruct traditional power structures

Collaborative and Peer to Peer Learning: What is Collaborative Learning. (n.d.)
Self-Directed Learning ““In its broadest meaning, “self-directed learning” describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.” (p. 18) Learner empowerment


Personalize learning



Knowles (1975)


Conflict of Interest Statement: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


Availability of Data and Material: Not applicable


Code Availability: Not applicable



Anderson, T. (2009, October). Open scholarship. Presented at Open Access Week 2009, Athabasca University.  http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/2320/7/oas.pdf

An Introduction to Open and Distance Learning. (2000).The Commonwealth of Learning.  http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/138/ODLIntro.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Aşkin Tekkol, I. & Demirel, M. (2018). An investigation of self-directed learning skills of undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2324. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02324

Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open practices: Briefing paper. JISC. https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%20briefing%20paper.pdf

Belin, A. (2019, 03 September). How to incorporate peer-to-peer learning in online classes? EdTechReview. https://edtechreview.in/e-learning/3632-how-to-incorporate-peer-to-peer-learning-in-online-classes

Bliss, T. & Smith, M. 2017. A brief history of open educational resources. In: Jhangiani, R S and Biswas-Diener, R. (eds.) Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. Pp. 9–27. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.b. License: CC-BY 4.0

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405

Bozkurt, A., Koseoglu, S., & Singh, L. (2019). An analysis of peer reviewed publications on openness in education in half a century: Trends and patterns in the open hemisphere. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4252

Chiappe, A. (2012). Prácticas educativas abiertas como factor de innovación educativa con TIC. Boletín REDIPE, 818(1), 6–12.Chiappe, A., Pinto, R., and  Arias, V. (2016).  Open assessment of learning: A meta-synthesis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2846/3965

Coffey, J. (1977). Open learning opportunities for mature students. In C. Davies (Ed.), Open learning systems for mature students (CET Working Paper 14). Council for Educational Technology.

Collaborative and peer to peer learning: What Is collaborative learning.  (n.d.).  https://www.uopeople.edu/student-experience/quality/collaborative-peer-peer-learning/

Cormier, D. & Siemens, G. (2010, August 5). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30-39. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/8/through-the-open-door-open-courses-as-research-learning-and-engagement

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos(Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education. Athabasca University Press.

Couros, A., & Hildebrandt, K. (2016). Designing for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos, Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Athabasca University Press.

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 15-34. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096

Cronin, C., & MacLaren,L. (2018). Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in Open Educational Practices. Open Praxis, (2), 127. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.825

Cox, G. & Trotter, H. (2017). An OER framework, heuristic and  lens:  Tools  for  understanding  lecturers’ adoption  of  OER.  Open Praxis9(2): 151–171.  DOI:https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.571

DeRosa, R. (2016). My open textbook: Pedagogy and practice. http://robinderosa.net/uncategorized/my-open-textbook-pedagogy-and-practice/

DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power of open. In R. S. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. London: Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc

DeRosa, R., and Jhangiani, R. (n.d.).  Open Pedagogy. http://openpedagogy.org/open-pedagogy/

Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). From open educational resources to open educational practices. Elearning Papers, 23, pp. 1–8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260423282_From_open_educational_resources_to_open_educational_practices

Ehlers, U., & Conole, G. (2010). Open educational practices: Unleashing the power of OER. In UNESCO Workshop on OER in Namibia. Windhoek. https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/OEP_Unleashing-the-power-of-OER.pdf

Green, C., Illowsky, B., Wiley, D., Ernst, D., & Young, L, (2018, 14 June). 7 things you should know about open education: Content. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/6/7-things-you-should-know-about-open-education-content

Garrison, D. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.

Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology. https://www.scribd.com/doc/276569994/Attributes-of-Open-Pedagogy-A-Model-for-Using-Open-Educational-Resources

Hills, L., & Hughes, J. (2016). Assessment worlds colliding? Negotiating between discourses of assessment on an online open course. Open Learning, 31(2), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1194747

Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Gray, E. (2009). Degrees of openness: The emergence of OER at the University of Cape Town. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 5(5), 101–116. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=864

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016) Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN; doi:10.2791/293408

Jacobs, L. (2019). Openness in assessment practices: Reviewing assessment in an open distance eLearning (ODeL) environment. https://wcol2019. ie, 453.

Jhangiani, R. (2017a). Ditching the ‘‘disposable assignment’’ in favor of open pedagogy. http://teachpsych.org/E-xcellence-in-Teaching-Blog/4583103

Jhangiani, R. (2017b) Why have students answer questions when they can write them?


Jhangiani, R. (2017c). Pragmatism vs. idealism and the identity crisis of OER advocacy. Open Praxis, 9(2), 141-150. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.569

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. Association Press.

Koseoglu, S., & Bozkurt, A. (2018). An exploratory literature review on open educational practices. Distance Education, 39(4), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520042

Lambert, S. (2018). Changing our (Dis)Course: A Distinctive Social Justice Aligned Definition of Open Education. Journal of Learning and Development, 5(3), 225-244. https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/290/334

McGill, L. (2013). A guide to definitions and terminology around OER and Open Educational Practice with links to further sources informed by work on the UKOER Programme.  https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/46010546/navigation

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Pedagogy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogy

Mishra, S. (2017). Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance Education, 38(3), 369-380. 10.1080/01587919.2017.1369350

Min, K., Jackman, J., & Chan, J. 2014).  Visual models for abstract concepts towards better learning outcomes and self-efficacy. Psychology Conference Papers, Posters, and Presentations, 4. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/psychology_conf/4

Murphy, P. (1996). Defining pedagogy. In P.F. Murphy and C.V. Gipps (Eds), Equity in the Classroom: Towards Effective Pedagogy for Girls and Boys, UNESCO. https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/32079_Murphy(OU_Reader_2)_Rev_Final_Proof.pdf

Naidu, S. (2016). The case for open educational practice. Distance Education, 37(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1157010

Nascimbeni, F., Burgos, D., Campbell, L. M., & Tabacco, A. (2018). Institutional mapping of open educational practices beyond use of Open Educational Resources. Distance Education, 39(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520040

Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2016). In search for the open educator: Proposal of a definition and a framework to increase openness adoption among university educators. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 17(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2736

Open Design and Development. (n.d.). https://course.oeru.org/ds4oer/learning-pathways/designing-a-blueprint/open-design-and-development/

Ossiannilsson, E. (2018). Ecologies of openness: Reformations through open pedagogy. The Asian Society of Open and Distance Education, 13(2), 103-119. https://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/273

Padhi, N. (2018). Acceptance and usability of OER in India: An investigation using UTAUT model. Open Praxis, 10(1), 55-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.623

Paskevicius, M. (2017). Conceptualizing open educational practices through the lens of constructive alignment. Open Praxis, 9(2), 125–140.

Powell-Morse, A. (2017, March 23). Conceptual models – What are they and how can you use them? https://airbrake.io/blog/sdlc/conceptual-model

Seaman, J. & Seaman, J. (2018). Freeing the textbook: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2018. https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/freeingthetextbook2018.pdf

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Seraphin, S. B., Grizzell, J. A., Kerr-German, A., Perkins, M. A., Grzanka, P. R., & Hardin, E. E. (2019). A conceptual framework for non-disposable assignments: Inspiring implementation, innovation, and research. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 18(1), 84–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718811711

Stagg, A., and Bossu, C. (2016).  Educational policy and open educational practice in Australian higher education, in Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher Education https://books.openedition.org/obp/3522

Stommel, J. (2014, 18 November). Critical digital pedagogy: A definition. https://hybridpedagogy.org/critical-digital-pedagogy-definition/

Thomas, J., & McDonagh, D. (2013). Shared language:Towards more effective communication. The Australasian Medical Journal, 6(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2013.1596

UNESCO. (n.d.).  Effective and appropriate pedagogy.  https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/issue-briefs/improve-learning/teachers-and-pedagogy/effective-and-appropriate-pedagogy

Wiley, D. (n.d.). Defining the “open” in open content and open educational resources. https://opencontent.org/definition/

Wiley, D. (2013, October 21). What is open pedagogy? https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975

Wiley, D. (2017, February 16). Evolution vs revolution [Blog post]. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4910

Wiley, D., Webb, A., Weston, S., & Tonks, D. (2017). A preliminary exploration of the relationships between student-created OER, sustainability, and students’ success. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4).: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3022

Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 19(4), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601


Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Deconstructing Open by Eric Werth; Katherine Williams is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book