Supported Open Learning and Decoloniality: Critical Reflections on Three Case Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting and well presented paper on the application of a Supported Open Learning model in three different cases associated with projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

I would like to share with the authors some suggestions for improvement:
- the title after the ":" I would write it without capital letters "critical reflections on three case studies".

- On page 4 there is a reference to OEP, indicate what this acronym refers to, at least once, it is true that Open Educational Practices is mentioned before but the acronym is not indicated.

- On page 8, in point 3.1.3, it speaks of "rate was 66%" but with respect to those enrolled in the course or those who started the course, on many occasions there are those who enroll in free courses and do not even start them. I would make it clear and the same in all 3 cases.

- Be careful because in general the article talks about Covid-19, but then on page 12, section 3.3.1, they only talk about COVID, homogenizing everything. I would always leave it Covid-19.

- On page 14, section 3.3.3., "over 230 participants" with respect to how many enrolled?

Very good work, congratulations.

Author Response

This is a very interesting and well presented paper on the application of a Supported Open Learning model in three different cases associated with projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

I would like to share with the authors some suggestions for improvement:
- the title after the ":" I would write it without capital letters "critical reflections on three case studies".

We are happy to be guided by the house style of the journal on this.

- On page 4 there is a reference to OEP, indicate what this acronym refers to, at least once, it is true that Open Educational Practices is mentioned before but the acronym is not indicated.

We added this to the abstract so it’s very clear.

- On page 8, in point 3.1.3, it speaks of "rate was 66%" but with respect to those enrolled in the course or those who started the course, on many occasions there are those who enroll in free courses and do not even start them. I would make it clear and the same in all 3 cases.

Replaced “The completion rate was 66%” with “37% (287 / 771) of all those who registered interest in the course completed it.  66% (287/437) of those who completed week 1 went on to complete the whole course.  These figures are…” 

- Be careful because in general the article talks about Covid-19, but then on page 12, section 3.3.1, they only talk about COVID, homogenizing everything. I would always leave it Covid-19.

Agreed and actioned

- On page 14, section 3.3.3., "over 230 participants" with respect to how many enrolled?

Replaced “Over 230 participants completed the programme and became digital education champions at their institutions; and some of them have been contributing to the formation of The Open University of Kenya. ” with “337 participants enrolled on the programme and 233 completed, becoming digital education champions at their institutions.  Some also contributed to the formation of The Open University of Kenya.”. 

Very good work, congratulations.

We are very grateful for the attention and input! Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a really well-written and thoughtful paper, which explores some vital issues in open and distance learning. I don't really want to offer any advice on revisions etc, as the authors clearly know both their context and their data very well, but I would make two small observations about both curriculum and pedagogy which might (and this is quite a cautious "might") result in minor amendments being made:

1) I think that you might want to have a defence against those academics who argue that direct instructional, transmission approaches to teaching (e.g. Paul Kirschner) work irrespective of cultural context, and that they work best for disadvantaged and economically impoverished communities. These sort of academics will sometimes seem to suggest that colonial education systems "worked" because of this. I obviously don't agree with this - primarily because I subscribe to Gert Biesta's view that "what works, won't work" - but it might be useful to have an argument up your sleeve to deal with this, because people like Kirschner will call upon things like "Project Follow Through" to make the point that they see  transmission models working in all sorts of contexts. 

2) Similarly, some sociologists of knowledge want to argue that decolonised curricula only function at the expense of valuable knowledge which learners should have access to. You can see this as far back as the work of Rob Moore, in the early 2000s, who tries to claim that an interdisciplinary, locally based curriculum creates low expectations and impoverishes the working class , black South Africans that it is meant to be helping. More recently though, you see the same arguments espoused by Elizabeth Rata, who wants to say that curricula focused on acknowledging the importance of indigenous cultures in New Zealand seems to "dumb-down" the educational experience of Maori children.  You might want to consider how you counter these arguments, because they can be quite easily weaponised by the enemies of decolonisation. 

I would completely understand, however, if the authors chose not to go down these paths here; they are merely my observations informed by my own scholarly biases. On the whole I think the article is excellent, and thoroughly deserves to be published. 

Author Response

This is a really well-written and thoughtful paper, which explores some vital issues in open and distance learning. I don't really want to offer any advice on revisions etc, as the authors clearly know both their context and their data very well, but I would make two small observations about both curriculum and pedagogy which might (and this is quite a cautious "might") result in minor amendments being made:

1) I think that you might want to have a defence against those academics who argue that direct instructional, transmission approaches to teaching (e.g. Paul Kirschner) work irrespective of cultural context, and that they work best for disadvantaged and economically impoverished communities. These sort of academics will sometimes seem to suggest that colonial education systems "worked" because of this. I obviously don't agree with this - primarily because I subscribe to Gert Biesta's view that "what works, won't work" - but it might be useful to have an argument up your sleeve to deal with this, because people like Kirschner will call upon things like "Project Follow Through" to make the point that they see  transmission models working in all sorts of contexts. 

This is an interesting counter-argument which indicates a useful vector into other debates.  We think it’s outside of the scope of this paper, since no-one seems to be claiming that the transmission model is somehow ‘decolonising’ in the way that open approaches are held to be.  But there’s definitely a point of relevance here that we could take up in future work.

2) Similarly, some sociologists of knowledge want to argue that decolonised curricula only function at the expense of valuable knowledge which learners should have access to. You can see this as far back as the work of Rob Moore, in the early 2000s, who tries to claim that an interdisciplinary, locally based curriculum creates low expectations and impoverishes the working class , black South Africans that it is meant to be helping. More recently though, you see the same arguments espoused by Elizabeth Rata, who wants to say that curricula focused on acknowledging the importance of indigenous cultures in New Zealand seems to "dumb-down" the educational experience of Maori children.  You might want to consider how you counter these arguments, because they can be quite easily weaponised by the enemies of decolonisation. 

This is another really interesting indication of where arguments against the overall position of the paper might come from. There’s something to these counter-arguments against the well-meaning yet ultimately socio-economically disadvantaging localisation of curriculum.  Again, we would argue that it’s outside the scope of the present contribution but we’re very grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful suggestion.

I would completely understand, however, if the authors chose not to go down these paths here; they are merely my observations informed by my own scholarly biases. On the whole I think the article is excellent, and thoroughly deserves to be published.

We really appreciate the positive feedback and suggestions!