Chapter 1
Open and Distance Learning (ODL) systems
Theoretical and global perspectives
1.1 Unpacking open learning and distance education
āAs a force contributing to social and economic development, open and distance learning is today one of the most rapidly growing fields of education and trainingā (UNESCO, 2002). Although not new in the area of education and education philosophy, ODL as an effective, efficient, and equitable method of education has gained greater impetus in the past two decades. UNESCOās Paris Declaration (June 2012), commits to āencourage the development of mechanisms for the assessment and certification of learning outcomes achieved through Open Education Resources (OER)ā while emphasizing some key concepts of ODL like open education, open access, open resources, awareness-building, enhancing technological capability, cultural inclusion and cooperative research, and shared resources. With the coming of online courses like Coursera and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), the world is witnessing an explosion in terms of the multiplicity of courses, media of access, usability, and relevance. The urban internet language has seen inclusion of new terms with the word āopenā prefixed to it ā like open classrooms, open access, open assessments, open professors and so on (Peter and Deinmann, 2013). This in turn has also influenced the discourse on education, making ODL more relevant and topical. Materu (2004) acknowledges this movement when he calls the past decade the āopen decadeā.
Although synonymously used, the terms open and distance education while reflecting similar principles have different meanings. In this context, it becomes essential to deconstruct the terms āopenā and ādistanceā not just to establish the teleological difference but to get a better understanding of the juxtaposition and resultant use of these terms in the discourse of education. Some definitions of open learning, such as the following, are too wide and hence recognise its use as an umbrella term: āOpen learning is an umbrella term for any scheme of education or training that seeks systematically to remove barriers to learningā (definition provided by UK Open University, 2003, as cited in UNESCO, 2016). Open education has also been defined as an āarrangement to enable people to learn at the place and space which satisfies their circumstances and requirementsā (UK Manpower Service Commission, 1984, as quoted in John OāNeil, 1994). The statement defines the spirit of open education, where human interest rather than the institution is given precedence to provide space for the relative pace and need of the learner. The idea of open education is rooted in the philosophy that education is an individual experience. However, āopen learning is not just about access alone, it is also about providing people a fair chance of success.ā (Holt and Bonnici, 1988). The āopenā nature of education is formally institutionalised through policies that allow for flexibility in terms of open admissions and freedom of selection of what, when, and where to learn.
The term ādistance educationā as the name suggests is any educational process in which all or most of the teaching is conducted by someone removed in space and/or time from the learner. More (1990, as quoted in Roy, 2015) defines distance education as āall deliberate and planned learning that is directed or facilitated in a structured manner by an instructor, separated in space and/or time from the learnerā. Swamy (1992) writes about five features and uses of distance education: flexibility, high productivity and the capability to readily respond to market demands and an instrument that can satisfy the requirements of equity and universal education. Resonating with these features, Keegan (1996) charts a more comprehensive list of features by which distance education might be characterised: āseparationā of teaching-learning processes, āinstitutionalisationā ā although spatially segregated the learner is under the influence of an educational organisation which distinguishes distance education from private study, āspaceā for two-way communication and dialogue in teaching-learning processes, āself-motivationā which refers to the self-directed nature of learner involvement, use of technology and, lastly, the possibility of occasional meetings for purposes of interaction. Therefore, most of the learning is facilitated through media like electronic or print but it is often combined with face-to-face interaction as well.
It is up to the organisations that impart distance education to decide upon the extent of their openness but traditionally they have shown a strong inclination towards supporting the freedom of individual learners to exercise choice over one or more of the main processes of their learning. Typically, this involves helping learners take responsibility for aspects such as what they learn, how they learn, where they learn, how quickly they learn, who they turn to for help and whether, when, and where to have their learning assessed. The openness of distance education is also seen in relatively flexible organisational structures, delivery and communication patterns, and the use of various technologies in support of learning. However, it is not necessary that all distance education is also open.
Open learning is defined as a student-centred approach to education that removes all barriers to access while providing a high degree of learner autonomy. Distance education refers to a mode of delivering a course of study in which the majority of communication between teachers and students occurs non-contiguously and the two-way communication between teacher and student necessary for the educational process is technologically mediated. Distance education may or may not be based on open-learning ideals.
(Maxwell, 1995, p. 44)
An open learning course could be offered on campus or at a distance. Therefore, open and distance education (ODL) can be understood as a system that uses distance education as a mode of delivery and follows the philosophy of open education while giving utmost primacy to the learnerās autonomy.
1.2 Historical and theoretical evolution of ODL
Peter and Deimann (2013) classify the historical progression of ODL into three phases, namely, the Late Middle Ages, which was short-lived and student driven, Renaissance to the industrial revolution guided by open teaching and self-education and, lastly, the twentieth century, which focused on the right to access knowledge. The Late Middle Ages saw the growth of ODL mainly due to high rate of urbanisation and growth of medieval towns leading to an increasing demand for knowledge and media to access it. As a result, student-led initiatives were established, where rented apartments and other such spaces were used by student gatherings to acquire knowledge through sharing of resources and peer engagement. Often scholars were invited to lecture them. These spaces were guided by informal rules and were mostly attended by the working or less privileged classes. However, these initiatives were mostly short-lived. From the Renaissance to the industrial revolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, coffee houses became the hub for discourses and ODL education. Equipped with libraries, these coffee houses provided spaces for discussion and sharing of resources in an open manner with all sections of society.
The eighteenth century also saw the rise of self-education societies. Although restricted only to men, these societies helped in developing a collective consciousness among men for the need to educate themselves. The establishment of the external system in the University of London was a benchmark move in the growth of ODL. This system delinked the access to its examination from study and learning, in turn making it possible for learners across the world to attend the university. This established the building block for the first open university in the world. In the twentieth century, this trend was carried forward and many open universities were established the world over. The British Open University was founded in the 1960s, the University of South Africa started offering distance education courses at the end of the second world war and continued to do so for all, irrespective of race and ethnic background. In India, ODL gained impetus with the formation of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 1985.
One feature that distinguishes Peterās third phase from the first two is important to understand to gain an insight into the issues of current ODL practices: while the first two were open in nature, there was very little distance in terms of actual participation in the processes of learning that took place largely through discussions and discourses. On the other hand, the third phase made the process of open learning more organised and the element of distance education got introduced as a more critical factor. With distance becoming important in open learning, the role of technology also became increasingly important, and various phases reflect the progression of distance education based on the adoption of contemporary technologies.
UNESCO (2002) divides the historical evolution of ODL in four main phases mainly based on the mode of technology used. The first phase was the correspondence system, which originated in the nineteenth century and continued to be popularly used in less developed counties. The main medium of interaction between the learners and the system in this case was through letters and other written or printed documents sent through post. The second phase was the educational television and radio system, which uses technologies like terrestrial, satellite, cable television, and radio to interact with learners. The third was the multimedia system, which consists of text, audio, video, and computer-based materials along with some face-to-face learner support systems. The last is the internet-based system in which multimedia material in electronic format is delivered to individuals through computers, along with access to databases and electronic libraries. It uses a combination of interactive techniques for learners. A number of modern systems including those in India use all these technologies in combination.
Using a post-industrialisation model, Keegan (cited in Simonson, Schlosser, and Hanson, 1999) classified theories of distance education into three groups: theories of independence and autonomy, theories of industrialization of teaching, and theories of interaction and communication. The theory of independence and autonomy propagates individual autonomy and resonates with the idea of self-learning and a self-motivated learner in the ODL system. Otto Peters (1971) views the field of distance education as an industrialised form of teaching and learning drawing analogy from the industrialised production of goods. Simonson, Smaldino, and Zvacek (2014) take this notion forward, highlighting how the division of labour is the key element of distance education delivered through the use of mechanisation and automation. The third approach integrates theories of interaction and communication formulated by Baath (1982), and Daniel and Marquis (1979). It refers to eight features of distance education:
- 1 Distance education serves individual learners who cannot or do not want to make use of face-to-face teaching.
- 2 Distance education promotes studentās freedom of choice and independence.
- 3 Society benefits from distance education.
- 4 Distance education is an instrument for recurrent and life-long learning and for free access to learning opportunities and equity.
- 5 Distance education may inspire metacognitive approaches.
- 6 Distance education is based on deep learning as an individual activity.
- 7 Distance education is open to behaviourist, cognitive, constructivist, and other modes of learning.
- 8 Personal relations, study pleasure and empathy between students and those supporting them are central to learning in distance education.
A perusal of the literature on ODL shows the presence of a number of attempts to classify the theoretical underpinnings of ODL and identify the main features, both similar and dissimilar to face-to-face education-based learning. Three major concepts or themes that play a very critical role in determining the success and relevance of ODL-based systems emerge from the analysis of this literature: (i) the learnerās autonomy and motivation (ii) transactional distance and (iii) the use of technology in mediating and moderating transactional distance. We discuss these three themes as referred to in literature before building an analytical frame based on which we examine our main research questions.
1.2.1 Learnerās autonomy and motivation
The notion of the learnerās autonomy as a dominant feature of ODL has its roots in mainstream learning theories. Historically tracing the pedagogical influences on ODL, Hartnett, George, and Dron (2011) as cited in Aydemir, Ozkeskin, and Akkurt (2015) write about cognitive-behaviourism, social-constructivism, and connectivism as the three most powerful pedagogical approaches that ODL borrows from. They further elaborate that cognitive behavioural theory (CBT) emphasises on the role of cognition (thought) in the behavioural patterns manifested by the individual and is therefore central to ODL since it focuses on individual autonomy. Similarly, the social constructivist theory of education is rooted in a student/learner-centric approach, where the learner is an active participant in his/her experience of education. Here, knowledge is seen as dynamic and ever-changing and the learners are not passive receivers but actors in epistemology of this knowledge. While cognitive behaviourism and social constructivism believe that learning takes place within the individual, connectivism believes in the reverse. This theory emphasises on the role of the external: it believes that the socio-cultural environment that the individual is subjected to is the main contributor to the learning that takes place. Most learning systems in the contemporary world recognise the importance of both internal and external factors, especially in the context of the need for interactions with other people based on the Vygotskyās socio-cultural theory, for learning to take place.
In the context of ODL, the notion of individual autonomy is closely linked with the issue of learner motivation. Learner motivation is defined as the process by which goal-directed activities are instigated and sustained (Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece, 2008). Motivation plays a significant role in the process of learning where a motivated learner exhibits certain special characteristics like creativity, better performance, and persistence. Motivation directly influences the learning environment in terms of what, when, and how the learning takes place (Schunk, 1995). The learner motivation theory points to two kinds of motivations, intrinsic and extrinsic. When a learnerās action is stimulated by factors intrinsic to the performance of the action, the learner is said to be motivated intrinsically.
In other words, when a learner performs an activity for the sake of performing it and not because of external rewards, the learner is intrinsically motivated. For example, if one chooses a course because one enjoys the subject area and finds the course work challenging shows intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, extrinsic motivations are visible in actions guided by rewards for performance or punitive actions for non-performance of that particular activity. For example, when learners take up a course just to get certified and do not engage in the coursework with the spirit of learning or gaining knowledge, that learner is said to be extrinsically motivated. Hartnett, George, and Dron (2011) write that viewing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as dichotomous categories may present an overtly simplistic view of learner motivation. A learner can be motivated to varying degrees as a result of various means at any given time and context referred to by them as the situated nature of motivation. Therefore, learner motivation is a complex phenomenon, especially in a technology-enabled situation where various factors such as technological familiarity/literacy, user interface of the technology, alignment of the courseware with learner interest, labour market linkages, and other structural factors like the learning environment at home and availability of technological infrastructure all play a role in learner motivation.
Motivation was also revealed to be multidimensional. Within a given context, l...
