In a recent con­ver­sa­tion with Valerie Irvine, David Wiley shared insight­ful reflec­tions on the open edu­ca­tion move­ment, the impact of copy­right laws, and the inter­sec­tion of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and open­ness. A key take­away that res­onat­ed with me was the idea of mak­ing a delib­er­ate deci­sion to work only with open resources, even if it feels lim­it­ing at first.

Wiley explained how the Berne Con­ven­tion fun­da­men­tal­ly changed copy­right by auto­mat­i­cal­ly pro­tect­ing every cre­ation, whether intend­ed for com­mer­cial use or not. This shift made it hard­er to share knowl­edge freely. In response, the open source move­ment and lat­er the open edu­ca­tion­al resources move­ment pro­vid­ed path­ways to reclaim cre­ative free­dom.

A par­tic­u­lar­ly com­pelling idea was how choos­ing to work exclu­sive­ly with open mate­ri­als, while seem­ing­ly restric­tive, ulti­mate­ly grants more free­dom. Once that deci­sion is made, the wor­ry about legal issues dis­ap­pears, allow­ing cre­ators to focus pure­ly on inno­va­tion and edu­ca­tion. This mind­set aligns with my own expe­ri­ences in teach­ing wood­work. Con­straints can spark cre­ativ­i­ty rather than sti­fle it.

One exam­ple from my wood­work­ing class­es is the hand tool puz­zle project I assign to all grades at the begin­ning of the year. Stu­dents are lim­it­ed to using only hand tools, no pow­er tools, no CNC, no laser engrav­ing. At first, this con­straint seems frus­trat­ing because they are used to tech­nol­o­gy speed­ing up the process. How­ev­er, it forces them to think dif­fer­ent­ly about pre­ci­sion, mate­r­i­al choice, and tech­nique.

Stu­dents often dis­cov­er cre­ative solu­tions they might not have con­sid­ered if they had access to mod­ern tools. For exam­ple, one stu­dent want­ed to cre­ate a more com­plex inter­lock­ing puz­zle but strug­gled to cut per­fect­ly smooth joints with a cop­ing saw. Instead of giv­ing up, they exper­i­ment­ed with dif­fer­ent types of chis­els to refine the edges, learn­ing a new skill in the process. This kind of adap­ta­tion mir­rors the expe­ri­ence of work­ing exclu­sive­ly with open resources. While it may seem restric­tive at first, it encour­ages deep­er learn­ing, prob­lem solv­ing, and resource­ful­ness.

The con­ver­sa­tion also touched on the role of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence in open edu­ca­tion. AI gen­er­at­ed con­tent, by default, lacks copy­right pro­tec­tion, mak­ing it inher­ent­ly open. This presents excit­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties for teach­ers and learn­ers alike. Wiley described AI as a more knowl­edge­able oth­er (tak­en from Vygotsky’s Zone of Prox­i­mal Devel­op­ment) that expands our abil­i­ty to learn and cre­ate. Whether it is trans­lat­ing text, gen­er­at­ing code, or craft­ing per­son­al­ized expla­na­tions, AI enhances access to knowl­edge in ways that were once unimag­in­able.

As teach­ers, we have a choice in how we approach open­ness. Do we nav­i­gate the risks of restric­tive licens­ing, or do we embrace the free­dom that open resources pro­vide? Wiley’s jour­ney and insights rein­force that work­ing with­in an open ecosys­tem is not just a legal workaround, it is a phi­los­o­phy that empow­ers learn­ing, shar­ing, and inno­va­tion.