[quoting Dabbagh, 26 May 96] Don't you think "distilling the important aspects of strategies that lead to open-ended learning" defies the purpose of open-ended learning in the utopian sense?
I have not resolved, in my own mind, how much distilling is possible or useful in open learning design. I am reasonably sure that a highly customized model for designing a particular instance of an open learning system is likely to be better at reflecting the specific emphases and nuances of that approach than a broad, generic model. However, how much of these approaches truly require unique models for development? I'm drawn toward distillation for two main reasons:
(1) I doubt that all aspects of all open learning models are mutually exclusive of one another. Quite the contrary, I suspect that there is some conceptual and even procedural overlap among many approaches (e.g., learner-centeredness, problem orientation, contextual influences (as you point out), resource requirements, tools, etc.). Therefore, it may be unnecessary to treat each as entirely unique, provided the important distinctions can also be addressed. More significantly, from a conceptual point of view, we may simply fail to understand the similarities inherent across many approaches.
(2) The second point is pragmatic. There needs to be a better way to prepare designers to support the multiplicity of demands the various designs place on us. Can we reasonably prepare people sufficiently to support the design of the thousands of "unique" approaches that might need to be advanced? I don't think so. I value many of these designs, but find myself frustrated by the lack of collective enthusiasm they have generated. The approaches are interesting--even fascinating--to many of us, but we do not see how we might do them ourselves. There is no economy of scale, as yet, because it's not clear that the approaches are scaleable.
You needn't be "scared" about the idea of looking for a unified design system. Design technologies have been introduced across varied fields (e.g., architectural design, business systems, etc.) without replication of the same concept over and over again. This is accomplished by understanding which aspects affect any design need to be considered (need to comply with building codes, need for structural integrity, etc.) and which will signal the uniqueness of the individual effort (i.e., without mandating the same floor plans, elevation plans, and renderings repeatedly). Clearly, a balance needs to be discovered between things that are more or less generic and things that define fundamental uniqueness in the approaches. The search for a way to identify similarities across designs in no way implies an effort to homogenize the differences. My goal is not to make things look the same, but to discover easier, portable, AND reliable ways to ensure that the differences can be put into practice on scale. I doubt we will be able to implement, on scale, interesting open-learning approaches until a way is found to do so.