{"id":766,"date":"2018-11-26T21:18:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-26T21:18:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hhk3.kau.se\/onl181-blogposts\/?guid=3b6004e47559890d4d13fa08d3b1d53e"},"modified":"2018-11-27T23:46:18","modified_gmt":"2018-11-27T23:46:18","slug":"should-we-head-for-the-open-spaces-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-openness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hhk3.kau.se\/onl181-blogposts\/2018\/11\/26\/should-we-head-for-the-open-spaces-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-openness\/","title":{"rendered":"Should we head for the open spaces? On the pros and cons of openness"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n
When it comes to teaching, the question of openness versus \u201cclosedness\u201d may seem like a moot point. Being a teacher per definition involves a certain degree of openness as one is sharing one\u2019s identity, personality, knowledge and experience with other people. The question is thus not \u201cif\u201d, but rather \u201chow\u201d and \u201chow much\u201d? With regard to \u201chow much\u201d, Ehlers (2011) specified three levels of openness \u2013 low, medium, and high.  <\/span><\/div>\n