Page:The battle for open.pdf/206

Rh *S­ilos–The artificially closed and protected environment of the LMS does not allow for the benefits of openness.
 * Missed ­opportunities–Learners use a system that is unlike anything outside of education and spend their time learning to use the LMS itself.
 * Costs–LMSs drain the financial and also the human resources, so there is little capacity to support any innovation outside of the system. In essence the LMS becomes the answer to all elearning problems.
 * Confidence–there is a lack of enthusiasm for LMSs, and educational technologists who might otherwise be undertaking innovative work are required to manage the system, leading to a loss in confidence to experiment beyond this.

Referring to the manner in which universities often eschew innovative use of the internet in teaching, Groom (2014) sums it up, claiming, ‘In a depressing twist of fate, higher ed has outsourced the most astounding innovation in communications history that was born on its campuses.’ The resonance with open education is very strong; one could almost substitute commercial MOOCs for LMSs in the above and the same would be true. This recent history illustrates the potential danger in allowing control and direction of open education to be determined by external parties. Universities too quickly become the consumers of this solution rather than the driving force behind it.

Having looked at one possible area of open education progression in policy and the importance of involvement and ownership