The argument that OER discourse would benefit from being connected with the well-developed broader literature is evident in Kanuka and Gauthier’s chapter, which does exactly that: The diverse ways of teaching and learning unique to each discipline — referred to as “pedagogical content knowledge” — has been widely discussed, researched and generally accepted as being imperative to effective design and development within higher education. This chapter also advances our understanding of the challenges of applying open educational resources between and across diverse cultures. One could take the connection with the mainstream literature further by asking questions related to the basic characteristics of OER. For example, teachers might need to build the implications of multiple voices of “authority” into their teaching. Do teachers guide students in using OER in ways that maximise learner opportunity for learning at their own pace, and possibly in a sequence not envisaged in the curriculum? As noted earlier, educators at all levels are subjected to calls and pressures for more “learner-centred”, interactive teaching. OER lend themselves naturally to learner-centred styles of teaching. This is a feature (or asset) of OER that merits much greater consideration.
OER and All Disciplines? The fields of health education and teacher education are most strongly represented in our chapters. This might be coincidence, or it might be a reflection of the basis on which authors were recruited for this book. It could also be that these are the fields most favoured by donors, which could lead to further questions in light of the priorities of national governments. Or it might be that the relevant professions and semi-professions are most readily receptive to OER. These certainly are fields in which case study approaches are widely used in teaching, and OER lend themselves to case study design. Nonetheless, Kanuka and Gauthier’s concept of “pedagogical content knowledge”, with different pedagogies being called into play across the unique knowledge structures of disciplinary content, provides a theoretical basis for asking an important question: What are the implications for OER across the range of disciplines offered in higher education? One would certainly like to know more about OER compatibility with a far greater range of disciplines than are represented in this book. Indeed, we need to know this if OER practices are to be “scalable”.
OER Take-Up in the Broader Academy OER take-up can refer to OER in policy (e.g., at the government and/or institutional level) or in practice (e.g., by academics and students, in both formal and non-formal learning situations). Chapters in this book provide insights that highlight OER take-up across multiple interest groups that include: students, individual OER “champions”, enterprising individuals, individual institutions, funded projects, governments and international organizations. However, what of take-up beyond these initiatives and experiences? We limit discussion here to institutions and academics more generally — which we refer to simply as “the academy” — because it is here that the issue of OER take-up
288