22.1 Can oer really impact higher education and human development  (Page 12/13)

If we use basic notions such as “access” and “ usability” as our touchstones for OER we do not have to worry so much about if they are intended for formal or informal educational purposes, or if they are going to be used for relieving human suffering, home schooling, personal development, integration into a traditional university curriculum, etc. The point is that they are available, and right now, as it has been pointed out, there is a lot of content available. Could it be made more accessible or useful? Can we do anything to help teachers and learners use and modify OER in ways that make sense for them given their needs?

17. ken udas -february 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am

This comment form “jsener” sort of slipped through the cracks and I think that it merits some thought.

I also disagree with the assertions that online learning in the U.S. “has not delivered on the promise of increased access” and has fared better for quality. There are now over three million online learners annually in U.S. higher education and probably over 12 million cumulatively since its inception. The majority of this has happened at community colleges, for which access is an integral part of their mission. How does this not represent an increase in access? While I think that online learning has finally succeeded in establishing a perception and reality of quality, IMO this still lags behind relative to its achievements in improving access. If online learning failed to deliver relative to some of its initial hype, the fault is with the hype.

I happen to agree with this. I feel that Online learning in the U.S. has, on the aggregate, increased access to higher education, but it might have done so with differential impact on different learner communities. For example in the “golden age” of paper-based distance education, incarcerated learners were relatively well served through distance education. That is, many facilities provided enough access to paper based materials to allow an inmate to engage in a formal distance education program. Very few prisons allow Internet access to inmates, significantly reducing access to that learner population for this modality. This becomes an access issue when institutions move from traditional paper-based distance learning delivery methods to online.

I wonder too, what percentage of institutions with a history in traditional distance education (Penn State, UMUC, Open Polytechnic of NZ, Open University UK, UNISA, University of Wisconsin, etc.) have moved away from paper and only offer their programs online. I also wonder if tuition and fees have risen disproportionally throughout the transition, creating another access issue for some learner populations.

18. christine geith -february 24th, 2008 at 5:03 am

Ken and John, appreciate your thoughtful responses in this thread. Regarding access, while what you’ve noted about participation is true, take a look at what’s in our paper (live at (External Link) ) and I think you’ll see why it’s not clear that online has increased access to degrees - albeit that’s just one definition of access.