Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Week 6 | 1/ Open Learning in Practice 2/ Planning for Learners
Image: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 March 2017 Shift/Work (Neil Mulholland, Dan Brown, Jake Watts) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Design: Andrew Gannon www.shift-work.org.uk
In Open Learning in Practice, we first introduced what we have done and pointed out the purpose of our study again. That is to say, it is related to the educational turn and the expansion of artistic participation. Under the background of new institutionalism, this paper discusses the problem of cultural democracy and democratization of culture, and thinks about Cognitive justice.
In this paper, the author puts forward three questions: What do we actually expect from an art institution? What do we want an institution to stand for? What desires does an institution in the art field produce?
The new art institutions have taken on different responsibilities in a new era and we need to rethink these issues from a new perspective in the context of the new institutionalism.
Meanwhile, the Curator has played a new role in the new institutionalism. Curators no longer just invited critical artists, but were themselves changing institutional structures, their hierarchies, and functions.
Two aspects have aroused my concern about the status quo of the new institutionalism education. Who is the first to study behind OER? According to the data, more people who use OER have a certain level of education and education conditions, and there are more men than women, and the age group is also concentrated around 35 years old. This data reminds me of the Knowledge Gap Theory in communication theory.
In the 1960s, the American government opened a program called Sesame Street in an attempt to improve the conditions for poor children to receive preschool education and further realize equal educational opportunities. However, the overall actual effect was to widen the gap between poor and rich children in learning ability and achievement.
Therefore, a theoretical hypothesis is put forward: “Because people with high socioeconomic status can usually get information faster than those with low socioeconomic status, the more information the mass media transmits, the wider the knowledge gap between them.” Similarly, has the goal of helping more and more learners been achieved in OER?
This leads to the second question, put forward by Anton Vidolke, Are we genuine dispersing ideas and methodologies that further critical thinking about culture and society, or simply creating networking opportunities for new generation of producers to be harvested by international art institutions, galleries, art investors and so forth? Open learning resources can not only help more disadvantaged groups to acquire knowledge but also become a profitable tool for a few art institutions and form cultural capital. Let us critically consider the significance of open art education at a higher level.
In conclusion, we might focus on how might we do this’ as opposed to’ who is this benefiting?’ Instead of focusing on what elite education does in art education, we should rethink the role of university concept transformation. These are all worth thinking about and enlightening for me.
