The shifting landscape of open and distance learning

Welcome to the first issue of Volume 35 of Open Learning. The range of institutions involved in open and distance learning is developing apace and the papers in this issue consider some of the complex policy and practice issues that surround this development. Herodotou et al. (2019) emphasise the importance of research based evidence to guide transformations in educational practice. This issue contributes to evidence based reflections on such practice innovation in the context of higher education practice and policy development. Our first paper in this edition is by Galimullina et al. who explore the application of SMART education to teaching mathematics in Russia. The authors focus specifically on applying SMART learning to digital environments, although the concept and challenges involved have parallels with on ground and blended contexts (Dron, 2018) they distinguish ‘SMART education’ from ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’ (TEL), highlighting the importance of a genuinely SMART approach being context aware and involving interactions between learners and environments. Their study evaluates the benefits of taking learning beyond the limits of TEL to increase the level of immersion within the technology-enhanced environment so that learning takes place through rather than with technology. The authors suggest that this approach enabled learners to develop their ICT competencies across devices, co-create content, learn at their own pace and also adapt learning to their own learning needs.

McGowan and Rabin et al.’s papers are both concerned with the relationship between digital innovation and policy making in higher education. Rabin et al. build on the work of Kalman (2014; 2016) in Open Learning and suggest that digital innovation is a major driver of change and explore the relationship between what are referred to as ‘C-type’ and ‘B-type’ business models. C-type models include teaching and research based universities and major publishers whilst B-type include providers of Open Educational Resources and open technology providers. The authors propose that the relationship between these can be best understood by using a discourse of interdependence. The authors suggest both models have a role and mutual dependence, with B-type stimulating innovation and skills development which promotes independent lifelong learning for graduates. McGowan’s paper raises the important issue of institutional support for the development of Open Educational Resources (OERs). This study undertaken with American institutions of higher education explores the ways in which OERs are resourced and supported. While it is clear that support for OERs is growing with emerging formula’s for supporting their development, these appear to be primarily based on the associated benefits to the universities rather than the quality of the OERs themselves. McGowan suggests that resources which attract income, provide student or institutional savings through reduced text book costs. The author suggests that a greater emphasis could be placed on the quality and accessibility of OERs. Funding of OERs outside of library services is still developing and McGowan’s study argues convincingly that there is a need for institutional level strategy, which takes account of commercial conflicts and interests.

Rodriguez et al. consider learner retention on MOOCs. MOOCs typically recruit very high numbers but the retention is very poor (Kruchinin, 2019). Using a study skills MOOC, this study tests the hypothesis that shorter MOOCs result in better retention. The study offered an existing six-week MOOC alongside a second version offered as two courses delivered over two three-week time periods. The study concluded that despite a higher overall workload, participation and completion rates were significantly higher and also that there was a greater depth of engagement on the shorter versions. Interestingly the paper also suggests that in addition to the reduced length of the MOOC, the higher level of social interaction achieved might also have contributed to the improvement in retention.

The final paper in this issue, from Rezaei and Latifi, is concerned with online identity. The expansion of online and distance learning across disciplines offers a rich source of data for investigating learner identity. Rezaei and Latifi’s literature review draws together this research which includes the impact of online learning for individual and collective identities. Rezaei and Latifi explore the identities of Persian speaking learners studying an online English course and consider whether new identities were formed online which differed from offline identities. The authors conclude that while the course expanded learners’ identities, taking account of their growing linguistic and cultural awareness, these contributed to their offline identities rather than evidencing different or alternative identities online. The paper concludes that more research is needed into the sociocultural issues associated with language teaching in higher education.

We also have a book review by Sean McCready of the publication ‘High Impact Practices in Online Education’ edited by Kathryn E Linder and Chrysanthemum Mattison Hayes (2018). This book offers a collection which explores the development of High Impact Practices (or HIPs) in online learning and considers to what extent these are addressing the concerns in higher education to produce high quality degrees which meet the needs of an increasingly diverse demographic.

Finally, on behalf of Chris Douce, Denise Whitelock and myself, I would like to thank all our recent reviewers for their valuable contribution to Open Learning. Our thanks, also, to Paola Trimarco, Book Reviews Editor, and Vicky Cole, Editorial Assistant, for the work they do to ensure the smooth running of the Journal.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.