Perspectives on models and professional development

Welcome to the first 2022 issue of Open Learning. I do hope that readers enjoyed the previous issue, Volume 36, Issue 3 which explored Open voices on COVID-19: covid challenges and opportunities driving the research agenda. I do expect themes relating to distance learning and the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to feature within future issues, as the impact of the dramatic change in practice will continue to be evaluated and studied for some time. This issue touches upon important and related themes, such as the structures and models of organisations, inclusion, and the importance of professional development.

The first paper in this issue is by Seale et al. (2021). Their paper has a title which asks a question: One model to rule them all, one model to bind them? A critique of the use of accessibility-related models in post-secondary education. Accessibility, in this context, is about ensuring equal access to learning for students with disabilities. It is also concerned with considering and then removing barriers. Accessibility has the potential to be improved through the delivery of services to students, and through the application of information and communication technology (ICT) to enable students to gain access to educational resources and participate within educational activities.

To understand how to provide, develop or improve accessibility within higher educational institutions (including distance learning providers) a number of different models (or frameworks) have been proposed. Seale et al. (2021) ask three related questions: ‘1. What alternatives to the Universal Design model exist? 2. How do we differentiate between different accessibility models? 3. Do we need more than one model to inform accessibility practice?’ They go on to define models as being ‘practical or conceptual representations of the systems and processes within PSE [post-secondary education] that are required to promote the use of supportive ICTs that contribute to successful education and employment outcomes for disabled students’.

A critical assessment of nine accessibility models lies at the heart of their paper. These models take account of the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as university faculty, assistive technology providers, staff developers and senior managers. I found the section about staff development both important and interesting, where it emphasised the development of accessible practice and organisational culture change.

This paper represents a contribution to the debate about how best to develop and provide support for students with disabilities. Whilst reading their paper, it may be helpful to keep in mind the question of how the provision of accessibility could be enhanced within an institution. The different models that Seale et al. present outline different perspectives and considerations. It may also be helpful to consider practices at different levels: practice at the micro level, meso level and macro level. It is also useful to compare the idea of an accessibility model with the idea of a model of disability, which is an important distinction that Seale et al. consider towards the end of their paper.

Accessibility is an important theme that is regularly discussed and studied within Open Learning. Readers who are interested in this topic are directed to Volume 30, Issue 1, which is an Open Learning special issue entitled: Accessibility of open, distance and e-learning for students with disabilities. Since Seale et al. (2021) address the subject of organisations and frameworks, two papers that might also interest readers are by Slater et al. (2015) who write about institutional change and improving accessibility, and Rao et al. (2015) who also discuss universal design for online courses.

In the next paper in this issue, Janet Haresnape, Fiona Aiken and Nirvana Wynn describe and then evaluate an academic and professional development programme for distance learning tutors. The programme that they describe adopts a particular approach, which is expressed in the title of their paper: Sharing good practice and encouraging community cohesion online: a programme of tutor-led online events for Open University tutors.

Like accessibility, academic professional development, or continued professional development (APD or CPD) is a theme that should be familiar with readers and higher education professionals. Examples of this can be seen in the work of Evans et al. (2016) who addresses the theme of professional development as a part of an Open Learning special issue about assessment practice in open and distance education. An earlier paper which has particular resonance, given its emphasis on both description and evaluation, is by Cornelius and Macdonald (2008) who consider online informal professional development for distance tutors. It is interesting to look to the differences and similarities, particularly in terms of the theoretical perspectives that the two papers adopt. It may also be useful to look to the earlier work of Beaumont et al. (2009), Campbell et al. (2019), and Haresnape et al. (2021) reference.

Returning to this issue of Open Learning, Haresnape et al.’s (2021) paper is complemented by a paper by Enid Pitsoane and Patricia Lethole (2021), who are both from UNISA. Their paper presents a concise literature review of important learning theories and ideas, such as the broad notion of andragogy, social and individual constructivism, radical (or critical) pedagogy, connectivism and others. Pitsoane and Lethole carry out a small phenomenological interview study which is intended to explore ‘e-tutors’ views on in-service training’. It is worth reviewing the themes that were uncovered and the methodology that was adopted. Their conclusion is one that is direct and important, namely, that ‘pedagogical education … needs to be embedded in the e-tutors’ training’. Theories are, of course, as important as knowing how to use the technology that facilitates student access to learning.

The following paper, by Randall and West (2021), continues the theme of continuing professional development, but specifically explores the perceptions of microcredentials, or open badges, using a mixed method approach. Their paper contains a helpful literature review that highlights other comparable concepts that relate to skill development and accreditation, such as boot camps and the use of MOOCs. The qualitative section of the paper is particularly interesting, and the themes that are highlighted are thought provoking.

Looking to the Open University institutional perspective, at the time of writing, the OU OpenLearn platform enables students to study short online courses. When students have completed an OpenLearn course, students are then awarded a free digital badge, which their tutors can view. Students, of course, may then choose to present their OpenLearn digital badges on their CV or résumé, to evidence skills or learning. Further description of this approach can be found in an Open Learning paper by Law (2015).

It is important to recognise that the OU OpenLearn platform is different to the FutureLearn platform. Through the FutureLearn MOOC platform, students can gain microcredentials across an increasing number of disciplines. Rather than gaining a digital badge, a microcredential can be linked to formal academic credit, which can be theoretically used to contribute to a broader programme of study, providing that a higher education institution has the capacity to accept microcredential academic credit. Since there are important differences between these two approaches, a digital open badge (or, badged open course) and a microcredential, it is important to interrogate how language is used and how ideas are understood.

The final substantial paper in this issue is by Ofole (2021). This paper has the title: Social loafing among learner support staff for open and distance education programmes in south-western Nigeria: the imperative for counselling intervention. This paper is interesting since it is related to the structures and cultures of distance learning organisations. In particular, it presents the case study of one organisation and applies ideas from the domains of organisational behaviour and psychology. The themes and topics that Ofole’s paper introduces have the potential to be used to guide further research and reflection about distance learning organisations. Researchers may also wish to review the theoretical frameworks that were used as a basis for the empirical work.

When reading this paper for the first time, I was immediately stuck and challenged by its title. Drawing on the work of other researchers, Ofole offers a definition of social loafing as ‘a phenomenon whereby a person exerts less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone’. The paper adopts a survey methodology, which made use of standardised instruments, aimed to explore the prevalence of ‘social loafing’ within a particular context. On the surface, such a term can have negative connotations and denote the adoption of a managerialist perspective. This said, it was also acknowledged that ‘social loafing has recently been argued to help employees recharge their concentration and to improve satisfaction towards their jobs’.

From a personal perspective, this paper helped to inspire a number of research questions that relate to distance learning organisations. One question was: what are the factors that influence the concept of job satisfaction for academic and support staff who work in distance learning institutions? Another research question was: what characteristics and behaviours make up a highly performing team within distance learning higher education institutions, and what can senior leaders do to facilitate effective team performance? A final related research question: to what extent should leaders of distance learning organisations proactively facilitate social interaction between academic and support staff to actively develop team cohesion and communication? This final question has emerged from a reflection that I do, from time to time, carry out ‘social loafing’ for the reason that was mentioned earlier within the paper: to recharge, and to recover. This also speaks to another important theme, which relates to educators as much as it does to students: personal wellbeing.

Ofole concludes by offering five recommendations, which must be considered in the context of the research. One of these recommendations stood out for me: ‘there is a need for the management of ODL programmes to encourage as much face-to-face contact as possible with all employees in order to form strong social connections with staff, irrespective of position’. This strong assertion also inspires the asking of further research questions.

The final article in this issue is a short book review by Gomathy Soundararaj, who reviews The Manifesto for Teaching Online by Siân Bayne et al., published by MIT Press.

To conclude, I would like to take this opportunity share the news that one of our co-editors, Lucy Rai, is standing down from Open Learning. Lucy joined Open Learning in 2017, whilst working as a Senior Lecturer in the Open University faculty of Wellbeing Education and Language Studies (WELS). Lucy has been a real pleasure to work with over these last few years. I have always personally welcomed her practical perspective, sound views, and constructive editorial judgment.

With respect to this particular issue of Open Learning, thanks are extended to Vicky Cole, our editorial assistant, and Paola Trimarco, our book reviews editor. Thanks also to my co-editor, Denise Whitelock. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge the hard and dedicated work carried out by all peer reviewers, whose contributions are always incredibly valuable.