Open Education Is the New Punk: A Subversive Do-It-Yourself Approach to Pedagogy

Learner Autonomy and the DIY Ethos in Open Education

The concept of learner autonomy in open education often intersects with the ethos of do-it-yourself (DIY) culture, particularly as articulated within punk movements. Rooted in resistance to institutional gatekeeping, the DIY approach advocates for inclusive, self-directed participation in creative and educational practices (Stewart & Way, 2023). From the 1970s onward, DIY moved beyond a reactionary stance and developed into a critical proposal and political programme that expressed alternative ways of being and knowing (Silveira & Conter, 2015). In the educational realm, this ethos challenges standardized curricula by enabling learners to personalize their learning paths within decentralized, digitally mediated environments (Bhatia et al., 2023).

Scholars argue that DIY practices are not externally imposed but rather resonate with learners’ lived realities and are already embedded in their everyday lives (Sancho-Gil et al., 2015). Initiatives like the DIYLab project demonstrate how collaborative learning fosters digital literacy, creativity, and lifelong learning by placing learners at the center of content creation (Sánchez-Valero et al., 2017). Furthermore, the economic dimensions of DIY cannot be ignored; punk communities often navigate precarious labor conditions while generating temporary zones of resistance and possibility (McKee, 2024). As DIY culture expands to encompass environmental activism, citizenship, and social justice, it serves as a dialogic space bridging art, politics, and education (Bennett & Guerra, 2023).

Educational scholars have also critically engaged with the neoliberal instrumentalization of autonomy, warning that market-driven frameworks may reduce learners to atomized consumers (Olssen & Peters, 2005). Maker cultures and open learning communities, in response, reimagine autonomy as a relational, socially situated practice (Gibbons & Snake-Beings, 2018).

This body of work aligns with Research Question 1 by clarifying how learners assert autonomy and develop alternative learning practices within open education.

Networked Collaboration and Rhizomatic Learning

Contemporary open education increasingly relies on networked collaboration, where learners participate as co-producers of knowledge rather than passive recipients. Digital learning environments support peer-based interaction, positioning interaction as a central component of learning (Chen, 2019). Peer models foster communication and teamwork skills while offering flexible, context-responsive pathways for learning (Murphy et al., 2024). This shift reflects a movement away from static knowledge delivery toward relational and collaborative meaning-making. It also highlights the learner’s role as both a node and a contributor within distributed networks of education.

Rhizomatic learning, derived from the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari (1987), conceptualizes knowledge as an expanding network of nodes and connections rather than a hierarchical structure. In educational contexts, this approach enables learners to generate meanings by drawing on both human and non-human resources (Brailas, 2020). Research informed by rhizomatic perspectives values responsiveness to context and recognizes material agency, embracing knowledge production as experimental and emergent (Hickey-Moody, 2015). This orientation decentralizes authority and supports learners in navigating complexity and ambiguity without predetermined pathways.

Within this paradigm, curriculum becomes a negotiated space shaped through learners’ encounters rather than a fixed sequence of content (Honan & Sellers, 2007). Learners define their goals, identify relevant resources, and chart individualized learning trajectories (Axe et al., 2020). Learning is therefore understood as a dynamic and evolving process shaped through interactions with technologies, communities, and contexts.

These perspectives inform Research Question 2 by explaining how learners experience networked collaboration and co-construct knowledge through rhizomatic practices.

Challenging Authority and Practicing Critical Dialogue

Open education creates opportunities for learners to question traditional authority structures and participate in critical dialogue. Weber (2003) defines authority as the likelihood that one’s will is realized despite resistance. In educational contexts, authority is therefore not only instructional but also tied to legitimacy claims and power relations (Rust, 2018). Digital tools, including AI-mediated interactions, introduce new forms of dialogue in which learners shape and are shaped by knowledge flows (Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024).

Critical pedagogical approaches position discourse as a site of both reproduction and resistance, enabling educators and learners to examine how power operates through language and to mobilize this awareness toward transformation (Kibler et al., 2021). Disruptive pedagogies redesign learning activities to make knowledge processes more transparent and accessible, emphasizing learner empowerment and active participation (Harper & Parkin, 2024). Dialogic agency becomes central in these contexts, functioning as a condition for shared knowledge construction rather than a supplemental technique (Lawrence, 2019). Through these dynamics, open, distance, and digital education environments support forms of engagement in which learners contest authority, negotiate meaning, and assert agency.

This scholarship supports Research Question 3 by clarifying how learners challenge authority and engage in critical dialogue as forms of subversive learning.

Community, Identity, and the Affective Dimensions of Digital Learning

The formation of learner identity and a sense of belonging in open education is deeply tied to digital communities and affective engagement. While the role of digital communication in fostering lasting relationships remains debated (Maffie, 2020), community-based knowledge production supports culturally responsive curriculum design (Mpuangnan & Ntombela, 2024). Digital human capital within communities acts as a catalyst for the diffusion of knowledge, skills, and innovation (Mossberger & Tolbert, 2021).

Learners’ affective ties within digital communities foster an environment of mutual recognition, in which identity is developed not in isolation but through shared narratives and symbolic practices.Such affective dimensions of learning environments play a vital role in motivating sustained participation, especially when learners experience social visibility and emotional resonance within their networks. Agency in such contexts is multidimensional, encompassing not only self-recognition but also professional self-articulation aligned with the sociocultural conditions of learning (Chávez et al., 2022). Institutional approaches shaped by neoliberal values redefine academic identity through performance metrics, while managerial strategies promote internalization of such belief systems (Adler & Lalonde, 2020).

Interdisciplinary collaboration further enhances these processes by facilitating cross-boundary interactions and co-learning in supportive digital environments (Elofsson et al., 2025). In this regard, identity formation within open education emerges as a situated process shaped by interpersonal dynamics and collective affect. This underscores the importance of emotional investment and reciprocal recognition in sustaining inclusive and participatory learning networks.

These insights support Research Question 4, which examines how learners construct identity and belonging in digital communities and cultures of participation.

Research Design and Approach

This study adopts a qualitative case study design rooted in an interpretive paradigm. As Busetto et al. (2020) note, this approach is particularly well-suited for examining the contextual and processual dimensions of learning practices that transcend rigid structures. By engaging deeply with participants’ narratives, the framework offers the interpretive flexibility needed to explore emotional and cultural dynamics. Purposive sampling was prioritized over broad representativeness to allow for a detailed exploration of lived experiences (Bouncken et al., 2025). Additionally, grounded in diverse philosophical traditions, the method contributes to testing and refining existing theories rather than starting with fixed hypotheses (Köhler et al., 2023). This reflexive design enables the identification of patterns across participants while preserving the integrity of individual voices.

Data Collection Tools

This study employed semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method, conducted with 22 participants between September 2024 and June 2025. Interviews were held either face-to-face or online, depending on participants’ availability and contextual circumstances. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was granted by Gebze Technical University (E-43633178-199-199386). All participants were informed about the scope, aims, and procedures of the study, and provided informed consent before taking part in the interviews. Ethical principles were followed throughout the process, with attention to institutional norms and situated contexts, particularly given the influence of local regulatory frameworks on everyday academic life (Åkerfeldt & Björklund Boistrup, 2022, p. 52).

The interview protocol was designed to explore learners’ experiences of autonomy, collaboration, critique, and identity in open and distance education. To support both data handling and analysis, generative AI tools were used alongside manual thematic coding. AI-assisted steps were limited to transcription support, preliminary pattern exploration, and organizational functions. All outputs generated by AI were cross-checked manually, and final coding decisions were made through human-led interpretation. This approach enabled efficiency while maintaining analytic rigour and ensuring that meaning-making processes remained grounded in participants’ narratives.

Research Group

The study involved 22 participants (P1–P22) who completed open education programs between 2010 and 2024. Selected via purposive sampling, the group represents diverse fields including sociology, engineering, and the arts, with professional roles ranging from freelance designers to public sector employees. Most participants possessed experience in both analogue and digital environments, offering longitudinal insight into evolving educational practices. Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the participant demographics.

Research Procedures

The research process consisted of three stages: preparatory work, structured implementation, and interpretive analysis. In the preparatory stage, the interview protocol was refined through a pilot application, ethical approval was obtained, and written informed consent was secured from all participants. Each section of the protocol was aligned with the research questions to ensure coherence between the study’s aims and procedural design.

During implementation, interview sessions were scheduled, documented, and supported with memo-writing to capture contextual details relevant to learner experiences. Reflexive notes were kept throughout this stage to trace the researcher’s positionality and decision-making.

The interpretive stage involved a thematic analysis process in which generative AI tools were used for transcription support and preliminary organisation of the data. All AI-assisted outputs were cross-checked manually. Coding progressed iteratively, connecting emerging categories to the analytical framework and the four research questions. An audit of coding decisions was maintained through analytic memos to enhance transparency and traceability.

Validity and Reliability Measures

This study adopts Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research. Credibility was supported through prolonged engagement during the data collection period from September 2024 to June 2025, as well as peer debriefing that allowed emerging themes to be reviewed with critical feedback. Confirmability was strengthened through the triangulation of manual coding, AI-assisted analytic support and reflexive notes that kept a record of key decisions. The preservation of raw data, fieldnotes, interview transcripts and a reflexive journal helped relate and cross-check the material in line with the view that transparent documentation supports analytic rigor (Nowell et al., 2017, p. 3).

Dependability was addressed by applying a consistent analytic protocol and documenting each procedural step. Transferability was supported through detailed contextual information about participants’ demographic backgrounds, educational settings and digital learning experiences. These descriptions enable readers to evaluate the extent to which the findings may be relevant to other contexts. Although no formal audit trail was created, referential adequacy materials and methodological notes were retained to ensure transparency. Reflexive journals were also kept throughout the study to articulate the researcher’s thought processes and reasoning behind methodological choices, which supports methodological clarity (Gunbayi, 2024, p. 5).

Limitations

This study is based on a limited number of participants from Türkiye, which restricts the generalisability of its findings to broader open education contexts. The sampling process involved a purposive approach where initial screening questions assessed whether participants resonated with values aligned with the punk ethos, such as autonomy, anti-authoritarianism, and critical engagement with institutional norms. The study predominantly reflects the experiences of learners who view open and distance education as a space for resisting traditional pedagogical structures. While this focus provides rich insight into alternative learning imaginaries, it also introduces selection bias by foregrounding participants with subversive inclinations. Cultural, institutional, and linguistic specificities unique to Türkiye may also limit the applicability of these findings to other national or transnational settings.

RQ1. How Do Learners in Open Education Assert Autonomy and Adopt Alternative Learning Practices?

Against the Curriculum: Punk Ethos, DIY Innovation and Educational Autonomy

This section presents how participants in open and distance education actively exercised autonomy to develop alternative learning practices beyond institutional boundaries. The data reveals that learners did not simply respond to formal limitations; they embraced autonomy as a mode of resistance and identity formation. Across participant narratives, this autonomy frequently appeared as a refusal to passively follow prescribed curricula. For example, P04 described a deliberate process of avoiding the university’s suggested syllabus to craft a personal path using open-access lectures and political podcasts, seeking content “that aligned with how I think and live”.

Aligning learning with personal values transforms education into a means of self-definition. Learners consistently moved away from standard frameworks to engage with alternative tools. P12, for instance, explained how their study group moved to Discord and began using generative AI tools to enable real-time collaboration, describing the shift as “less about meeting requirements and more about shaping our own learning space”. Beyond choosing platforms, several participants described the act of creating their own learning materials as a transformative practice. P09 remarked that standard readings failed to resonate, prompting them to compile “zine-style summaries by combining diagrams, selected quotes, and even pieces of graffiti” to gain a sense of ownership over the learning process.

Personalising learning content through these self-made formats supported critical thinking and creative expression. Many participants framed these production processes as affective and ideological acts that provided agency within a restrictive system. P16 expressed this view clearly:

“I know I’m stuck in this system. I am working a job that drains me and chasing a degree that might not mean much. But every time I organize a study circle or design my own learning schedule, I feel like I’ve stolen something back” (P16).

The narratives indicate that the application of DIY practices in learning settings often expanded beyond the individual to encompass collective purposes. Communities formed around co-learning practices engaged in critical discourse. P01 described their collaborative syllabus project as “a shared process of questioning what counts as valid knowledge” and a way to “reclaim learning as something collective, reflective, and meaningful beyond the formal curriculum”.

Participants frequently positioned themselves as agents responding to uncertainty and change, rejecting the role of passive knowledge recipients. P18 linked their engagement with alternative practices to a desire for resilience:

“The official curriculum didn’t reflect what we were going through. By creating alternative projects, we were not simply reacting to a situation but actively preparing for what might come next. In our own way, it felt like we were building a form of resilience for the future” (P18).

Figure 1 presents the frequency of references to punk ethos and DIY practices among participants (P01 to P22). The blue bars represent references to punk ethos, including themes such as autonomy, resistance, anti-authoritarian values, and subcultural identity. The pink bars indicate references to DIY practices, which involve self-organised learning, alternative content production, and collaborative study formats. The side-by-side bar layout illustrates the comparative distribution, showing how individual participants placed different levels of emphasis on the ideological versus the practical aspects of autonomous learning. The data reveals that while most participants addressed both themes, the intensity and balance of references varied, suggesting that learners experience autonomy through a combination of abstract values and concrete, creative practices of knowledge production.

Figure 1

RQ2. How Do Learners in Open Education Experience Networked Collaboration and Co-construct Knowledge Through Rhizomatic Practices?

“Networked Collaboration and Peer-Based Learning in Open Education”

Participants in open education environments consistently described a fundamental shift in how they perceived their peers. They moved from viewing others as competitors or passive classmates to seeing them as active co-constructors of knowledge. This networked collaboration emerged as the primary engine of learning. The interaction often appeared as a horizontal sharing economy where hierarchy dissolved. P07 articulated this collaborative intimacy by describing peers not just as classmates but as collaborators where they “share everything: tools, drafts, even failures,” noting that feedback often redirected their work. Similarly, P14 highlighted how such relationships created essential structures of accountability that the formal institution did not provide, stating they “wouldn’t have finished the course” without the group’s habit of checking in and co-writing.

These narratives suggest that the learning structure operates through multiplicity and interconnectedness. In instances where the formal syllabus was absent or fluid, this peer-driven reliance became even more pronounced. P02 described the initial uncertainty of such an environment as “strange at first, but exciting,” where the group decided together what was worth exploring, shifting focus from submitting assignments to “shaping the learning path collectively”.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the learning process creates a decentralized network where learners, resources, and topics engage in multidirectional flows. This visual complexity mirrored participant behaviors regarding resource creation. Learners engaged in curation as a form of learning instead of simply consuming a static reading list. P19 explained how individual exploration evolved into a community asset; after diving into a “rabbit hole of open-source materials,” they began curating sources on Discord, eventually building “a resource map made by learners for learners”.

Figure 2

The curriculum in these settings functioned as a negotiated terrain. The boundary between teacher and student became porous, allowing learners to inject their own interests into the formal structure. This co-creation became evident when P11 realised they were “not just following something” but making it, seeing their questions incorporated into session plans. P06 added that the tutor avoided lecturing, allowing students to bring examples, articles, or memes that guided the discussion, creating a feeling of “co-creating the course” instead of merely attending it.

These accounts indicate that agency in open education is tied to how the path is navigated. P21 noted that the lack of templates forced them to “figure out who to talk to” and how to combine tools, making the project meaningful. While initially challenging, the act of navigating the unknown itself became a pedagogical outcome. P16 emphasized the ownership derived from this freedom:

“The freedom to choose my tools, my format, even how I engaged with others, gave me a sense of ownership. I wasn’t performing for grades but really building something with others” (P16).

Figure 3 visualizes this interplay and shows that high learner autonomy does not imply isolation. On the contrary, the data suggests that as learners exercised more autonomy, their engagement with peer networks and diverse resources often intensified. This challenges the assumption of the solitary autodidact, revealing that autonomous learning in open contexts is inherently social and resource-intensive.

Figure 3

RQ3: How Do Learners in Open Education Challenge Traditional Authority and Engage in Critical Dialogue as Acts of Subversive Learning?

Critical Disruption and Dialogic Agency in Open Learning Contexts

In this study, participants reflected on how open education environments enabled forms of resistance to traditional authority. Unlike traditional settings with rigid curricular structures, open models encouraged learners to deconstruct these patterns by co-authoring their educational pathways. This process often involved challenging the conventional logic of submission. One participant disrupted the flow of a scheduled class to propose a reorientation of content, while others engaged in acts of subversion by choosing unconventional topics. These experiences show that open learning reshapes the relationships that structure knowledge.

Specific moments of agency demonstrated how learners actively intervened in the course design. P09 challenged the reliance on a specific source, questioning why the discussion depended on a central textbook; ultimately, the group “switched to another open source that made more sense to everyone”. Similarly, P13 introduced a completely new case study, bringing in a feminist media case from Türkiye to question the conceptual framing. Despite the lack of a central instructor, the platform moderators “incorporated my critique into the design of the next week’s activity”.

These narratives indicate that subversive learning often emerged as a productive response to institutional inertia. In the absence of a central teacher figure, open and distance learning environments created a space for learners to articulate their own priorities. P04, P10, and P19 described situations where they rejected passivity. P04 described pausing a confusing video to search for other explanations and sharing a thread about it, noting, “It wasn’t about showing off. It was about finding something that worked for us”. P10 realized they could decide the reading order, choosing a podcast and writing their own questions to make the class feel like it “belonged to me”. Likewise, P19 posted a project idea and found that the group offered critiques and tools, realizing, “I didn’t need a teacher to tell me what to fix”.

Some participants enacted disruption by intervening in the discursive structure. As P22 explained, this form of agency was central to their engagement with a media literacy project. By introducing punk zines, P22 challenged the aesthetic and linguistic norms of the course:

“I used punk zines as examples for a media literacy project. At first, my peers didn’t get it. But I explained how they question authority, aesthetics, and language. That started a long discussion, and others ended up using alternative formats too” (P22).

The data also shows that these dynamics appeared in exchanges with machines. P18 recounted an ongoing interaction with AI tools. In this context, the AI ceased to be a passive instrument and became a dialogic partner that filled the role of a private tutor:

“Through open and distance learning, I encountered productive AI tools that effectively became my personal tutors. During lessons, I constantly adjusted prompts and refined responses. This repetitive interaction gradually became engaging… I realized I wasn’t simply using a tool. I was learning with it. It revealed what I was missing and showed me how to explore topics more deeply” (P18).

Figure 4 shows how participants (P1–P22) engaged with five domains of dialogic and subversive learning: AI Tools, Peer Feedback, Punk Aesthetics, Open Curriculum, and Dialogic Writing. The stacked area chart presents individual contributions across these categories and makes visible the range and intensity of their involvement. The patterns suggest that subversive learning in this setting does not rely on confrontation. Instead, it reflects efforts to rethink learning, pose questions, and shape meaning together.

Figure 4

RQ4: How Do Learners Construct Identity and Agency Through Digital Communities and Cultures of Belonging in Open Education?

Community, Identity, and the Affective Dimensions of Digital Learning Cultures

Identity construction in open education environments extends beyond academic performance or curriculum compliance. It unfolds within dynamic digital communities where learners find opportunities to belong and transform themselves through relational engagement. Participants described how these environments provided new forms of presence through shared values and mutual support. Several early graduates reflected on their engagement in forums and blog communities before the rise of social media. P02 recalled accessing the internet via cafés and connecting through forums, noting that although the process was slower, they “remained connected and regularly shared drafts” when questions arose. Similarly, P06 added that trust built over time through long blog threads and email chains, especially through “feedback on each other’s drafts and project ideas” because instant notifications did not exist.

Current narratives suggest that belonging is defined by relevance and reciprocity instead of just duration. Identity construction appeared tightly interwoven with cultural and community-based knowledge. P11 emphasized how sharing locally rooted examples, such as a media campaign challenging gender stereotypes, led to inclusive dialogue where “other learners really engaged with it”. P15 described expanding professional capabilities through peer support, noting that they “wasn’t familiar with design software at first” but learned through shared tutorials and AI tools, filling the gap left by the formal curriculum.

These expressions signal the affective labor that sustains digital belonging. Collaborative interactions often reoriented professional views. P07 recounted how these networks shifted her perspective on teaching from delivery to facilitation:

“I studied teaching and sociology through distance and open education… What shaped my identity as an educator was not just the content but the collaborative learning process. Interacting with peers, sharing resources, and asking critical questions fostered a sense of belonging and helped me grow through the community, not just the curriculum” (P07).

However, the data shows that identity formation was not always emancipatory. Several participants critiqued how performance-oriented cultures shaped their roles. P10 argued that standardized tests promoted rote learning, creating a system that “rewarded continuous output” instead of thoughtful engagement. Similarly, P14 pointed out a conflict between stated autonomy and the reality of rankings, stating it was “difficult to feel genuinely free or creative” amidst constant deadlines.

Despite such tensions, interdisciplinary collaboration emerged as a theme of identity affirmation. P21 described how working with people from tech and arts made the group vibrant, noting, “I learned to reframe my points depending on the audience”.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of key community learning themes based on participant contributions. The radial chart visualizes how learners engaged in practices such as resource sharing, informal mentorship, and collaborative problem-solving. Each segment represents a distinct theme and is scaled by the density of participant responses. Themes like peer feedback appeared frequently among those navigating interdisciplinary environments.

Figure 5

Ultimately, these interactions show how identity and agency evolve through dialogic exchanges. P18 summarized this sentiment by framing open education as a form of creative resistance:

“What shaped my learning most were the shared conversations, moments of doubt, and the collaborative exploration of tools, rather than the formal structure of the course itself. For me, this confirmed that open education is the new punk. It emerged through collective effort, creative resistance, and the freedom to learn on our own terms” (P18).