Reactions to Sharing a Pragmatic Networked Model for Open Pedagogy: The Open Hub Model of Knowledge Generation in Higher Education. Lee Graham and Verena Roberts (2018.)

The first open model hub to which I was exposed was in 2000 in Victoria at the CTV2 (formerly monikered the New VI when owned by CityTV – Moses Znaimer).  I took my Video Arts Career Preparation class on a tour of the brand new television station and to meet a former graduate of my class who had landed a job their as an editor. This “file-sharing” model fit quite well in the working environment of a broadcast newsroom. At that time, it was one of three stations in North America that had built a digital infrastructure on the open hub idea wherein videographers would bring their footage from the field into the station and upload it to what is still today an essentially closed server. From the server, editors would cut the “stories” together and then send off a message to the producer who would view it and then give the edit a preliminary approval. The graphics department would then add the appropriate titles and message the producer for final approval. The finished “story” would sit in a virtual broadcast bin that the program/script department would then put in order for the broadcast. This networked model continues to work very well as all of the stakeholders in the station were working toward the same end while meeting broadcast standards for the industry. The result was a culmination of different skills and abilities poured into a single product, the newscast.

The open hub model for knowledge generation presents a challenge in that stakeholders, although their collaboration and feedback are key to the process of academia, are not working toward one common goal or producing a singular product, rather each stakeholder is working to develop and produce their own individual piece of work. This introduces the possibility of ideas coalescing, being watered down to fit popular opinion or subconscious agreement among the group participants, and in so doing creating a shared body of works whose outcomes may not sustain any radical new ideas that promote any significant change in practice. It may conversely serve as a tool to share similar self-expressions in much the same way that social networks aggregate their content with surreptitiously user-created hashes and tags, in much the same way that online advertising is targeted by aggregating a user’s mouse clicks. The pure proliferation of content available to the academic scholar is overwhelming to the point that any “novel” idea can then be backed-up and supported by research no matter how impractical or unrealistic its application in the real world might be.

As the article suggests through its literature review (Anderson, 2018), how to teach may have taken popular precedence over what to teach. However, the article does not go in detail about the focus in collaborating on pedagogy and rather tangents into a focus on the collaborative process. The purpose of the collaborative open hub process is not clearly defined and again, this presents the risk of the collaboration to dilute the individual’s focus as much as it might bring a stronger sense of direction to the individual’s academic exploration. 

As this kind of learning acts as an effective model for students to employ in their own learning, it cannot be stated clearly enough that modelling the behaviour of an “expert” does not explicitly incorporate a student’s own schema, lived experience, or ability to understand themselves better through the process. This kind of teaching by modelling negates putting the student at the centre of their learning and, although it has a right time and place in the class, should never be considered a foundational aspect of the learning process. Learning by modelling experts is a valuable adjunct to personal development, but should never replace hands-on physical experience as the groundwork for self-growth and change. Sharing theories can only direct an individual toward a particular praxis that may or may not work in the reality of the workplace.

The advent of internet technology has allowed the essential dialectic style of education to expand into the virtual with limitless implications for the posing of questions and sharing of ideas. Personal learning networks as described by the Online Learning and Differentiated Instruction model (OLDI) (Roberts, 2018b) provide a somewhat intellectualized version of what students already engage in on social media sites. Having established a mode of conduct online, the student may need to be taught to use the internet for a different purpose and to clearly define how Online Education Programs (OEPs) differ from how learning what the latest meme says about their culture.

While OEPs can be an effective tool in higher learning environments, they too run the risk of blending individuals’ ideas in a homogeneous process allowing for the chance for the seeds of growth in personal development never to germinate just as likely as for them to grow into fully realized new ideas and practices. It would be interesting to find research that has measured the effect of OEPs on the change in practice. How much does an OEP homogenize one’s thoughts and practices? How much does an OEP enhance differentiation and independent thoughts and practices?

Clearly, a more open and transparent learning environment is beneficial for both student and teacher. Expectations communicated at the outset embed a level of trust needed to deal with the inevitable feelings of vulnerability that such an open process commands. Open hub of knowledge generation is perhaps best suited to higher education environments where students have an established amount of life experience to adopt the principles of this modality in a mature and professional manner.  For younger learners, a more prescriptive approach may be in order.