Distance and E-Learning, Social Jus

Distance and E-Learning, Social Justice, and Development: The Relevance of Capability Approaches to the Mission of Open Universities

Tait photo

Alan Tait
The Open University, U.K.

Abstract

This article reviews the discourse of mission in large distance teaching and open universities, in order to analyse the theories of development and social justice that are claimed or may be inherent in them. It is suggested that in a number of cases the claims are unsupported or naive. The article goes on to set out the nature of Amartya Sen’s capability approach for development, and to identify its potential for reviewing distance and e-learning more widely as a contributor to development and social justice.

Keywords: Distance and e-learning; open and distance learning; open universities; distance teaching universities; on-line learning; development; development theory; social justice; Amartya Sen; capability approaches

Introduction

For many individuals working in the field of distance and e-learning, a significant element in our commitment has been informally or formally to frame programmes of study as interventions to deliver social and economic change, that is some deliberate change in social or economic relationships that shifts the balance of livelihoods and wellbeing in a given context, and in particular to deliver increased equity. This is recorded as the case by a number of those who have occupied leadership positions (see Daniel, 2001; Paul, 1990; Zaki, 1997). This is as true in the richer countries, with their social segmentation and lack of equity in opportunity, not to speak of relative poverty, as in the poorer countries. It is at the same time true that it is not always easy for educators, perhaps in particular at the tertiary level, to see education not as a thing in itself but as a set of activities that delivers outcomes for individuals and societies. But if social change is our goal, this must be so. If educators accept that they have a role as workers in development, we then have to ask ourselves how we understand that process. This article is dedicated to that enquiry.

At institutional level too, many institutions working in the field of open, distance, and e-learning claim development goals within their mission, sometimes with an explicit reference to social justice. This article will review some of those claims, and ask what theories of development are inherently presented, and whether they are adequately theorised to be able to act as more than aspiration or rhetoric. It will seek to present a framework of ideas drawing in particular on the capability approaches proposed by Amartya Sen. The capability approach seeks to deliver freedoms ‘to be and to do’ with participants not to subjects of development, and is set out at greater length below. The outcome of discussion is intended to help institutions and individuals in understanding how to plan in distance and e-learning contexts to deliver change through development and contribute to social justice.

Institutional Missions

Below are reproduced a set of extracts from the mission and vision statements or similar texts from the websites of 12 major distance teaching universities (DTUs) around the world. Major distance teaching universities which reproduced purposes only associated with educational rather than social or developmental goals are not included here. Institutions from the regions of North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia are cited.

The selection of texts does not claim to be comprehensively representative but serves as a set of examples. The sampling from institutional mission statements has followed the theme of development, and in terms of validity is closer to the constraints of case study methods that provide illumination of ODL and development in a number of contexts.

Table 1

Analysis of Open and Distance Teaching University Missions

It can be noted that seven universities claim equity and equality of opportunity as goals: Athabasca, NOUN of Nigeria, Open University UK, Open University China, Open University Tanzania, UNED Spain, and UNISA South Africa. IGNOU also talks of an ‘inclusive knowledge society’, while Phoenix and Wawasan highlight making higher education accessible. Allama Iqbal OU of Pakistan prioritizes inclusion for women and remote communities. OU China also identifies the rural and remote communities, along with ethnic minorities as priorities for inclusion. Wawasan of Malaysia also mentions as a priority inclusion on an ethnic basis. OU Tanzania alone explicitly identifies sustainable development as a goal. OU Malaysia highlights ‘democratization of education’ as a priority. National and nation building goals are identified such as ‘an inclusive knowledge society’ (IGNOU); ‘national cohesion’ (NOUN); ‘China’s developing society’ (OU China); ‘the socio-economic development of Tanzania’ (OUT); and UNISA proposes to contribute to ‘our transforming society’. Scale of opportunity is mentioned by AIOU Pakistan (‘mass education’) and by IGNOU India with its commitment to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio. The opportunities for learners are explicitly mentioned by Athabasca of Canada; OU UK which talks of ‘all who wish to realise their ambitions’; OU Malaysia which aims to ‘give everyone a chance at self-actualisation’; University of Phoenix which promotes access to higher education in particular for professional and vocational outcomes; and Wawasan Malaysia who welcome ‘aspiring individuals’. Three universities use the term ‘social justice’, that is, NOUN of Nigeria, Open University UK, and UNISA of South Africa.

We should not assume that because a priority is not mentioned in the particular text highlighted here it is not mentioned elsewhere by a university; nor should it be assumed that institutions not mentioned may not have similar or indeed differing priorities. Nor lastly can it be assumed that priorities of development highlighted in institutional statements are always carried through with programmes of activity, and are evaluated against their mission goals, although of course in well-led and managed institutions this will be the case. We should also note the distinction between the ODL mission contributing to equity in educational provision, for example, making higher education more accessible to all, and those that contribute to equity more widely in society through education. In the latter category we have the OU China and UNISA, as expressed through their mission statements. This raises for consideration the scope of a university’s ambitions for development in a social and political context.

The major point however is to indicate that in a relatively cursory examination what major distance teaching universities in a range of geographies and economies, both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’, say about themselves is deeply embedded in development discourse and the politics of social change. Open universities cited here positively associate distance and e-learning with their delivery of goals of development defined in such ways. In summary most of these universities do not accept the current availability of opportunity as either fair or adequate, and intend through their activities to change it.

The range of approaches developed by the DTUs and other universities with substantial deployment of distance and e-learning is at core about the affordances that are delivered through the separation of time and space, and through the use of technologies to innovate in both pedagogy and logistics. These affordances above all deliver flexibility regarding time and place that permits study alongside work and family; includes people in geographies that would otherwise be excluded; supports the inclusion of women where independent movement to study on a campus is restricted, and of the house bound, the disabled, and the imprisoned for whom study on the campus is not possible; it can permit study by individuals otherwise excluded by cost where distance and e-learning has been able to lower cost as against other educational systems; and through scale can provide opportunities for far more people than would otherwise be possible. More generally, through scale and flexibility it can in terms of social policy provide a pressure valve to release frustration about educational opportunity; can deliver large scale opportunities for professional development that support improvement in quality of service and economic growth; and can support the development of an educated citizenry and so nourish self-fulfillment and democracy.

Theories of Development

How might this combination of the aspirations of and affordances available to the open and distance–teaching universities contribute to development? Development starts, as observed above, from a fundamentally non-conservative position, to the effect that society is not as it should be and change for the better can and should be planned for and delivered. Distance teaching universities, whether single-mode or blended in their modes of study, by virtue of their ambition for and potential scale of contribution to development are therefore political actors (Tait, 1989, 1994, 2008). Given the centrality of that framework of ideas in the cited extracts from statements of mission and so on of the DTUs above we might expect, even in these fragments of text, to find some evidence of understanding about how development is understood. However there is very little clue. The span of understanding ranges from human capital theory, to inclusion of the excluded, and in some cases to the explicit if unsupported use of the term social justice. The University of Phoenix, a substantial on-line as well as blended study for–profit university, does not state any larger social vision for change, and limits itself to supporting student advancement in the workplace. As an institution it would appear that it could without difficulty work within current social and econo

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

Distance and E-Learning Social, Development, Justice and: The Relevance of Capability Approaches to the Mission of Open. Universities




Tait photo Alan Tait The, Open University U.K.



This Abstract article reviews the discourse of mission. In large distance teaching and, open universitiesIn order to analyse the theories of development and social justice that are claimed or may be inherent in them. It is. Suggested that in a number of cases the claims are unsupported or naive. The article goes on to set out the nature of Amartya. Sen 's capability approach, for developmentAnd to identify its potential for reviewing distance and e-learning more widely as a contributor to development and social. Justice.

Keywords: Distance and e-learning; open and distance learning; open universities; distance teaching universities;? On-line learning; development; development theory; social justice; Amartya Sen; capability Introduction approaches



.For many individuals working in the field of distance, and e-learning a significant element in our commitment has been. Informally or formally to frame programmes of study as interventions to deliver social and, economic change that is some. Deliberate change in social or economic relationships that shifts the balance of livelihoods and wellbeing in a, given contextAnd in particular to deliver increased equity. This is recorded as the case by a number of those who have occupied leadership. Positions (see Daniel 2001; Paul,,, 1990; Zaki 1997). This is as true in the, richer countries with their social segmentation. And lack of equity, in opportunity not to speak of relative poverty as in, the poorer countries.It is at the same time true that it is not always easy for educators perhaps in, particular at the, tertiary level to. See education not as a thing in itself but as a set of activities that delivers outcomes for individuals and, societies. But if social change is, our goal this must be so. If educators accept that they have a role as workers, in developmentWe then have to ask ourselves how we understand that process. This article is dedicated to that enquiry.

At institutional. Level too many institutions, working in the field, of open distance and e-learning, claim development goals within their. Mission sometimes with, an explicit reference to social justice. This article will review some of, those claimsAnd ask what theories of development are, inherently presented and whether they are adequately theorised to be able to. Act as more than aspiration or rhetoric. It will seek to present a framework of ideas drawing in particular on the capability. Approaches proposed by Amartya Sen.The capability approach seeks to deliver freedoms' to be and to do 'with participants not to subjects, of development. And is set out at greater length below. The outcome of discussion is intended to help institutions and individuals in understanding. How to plan in distance and e-learning contexts to deliver change through development and contribute to social justice.

Institutional. Missions

.Below are reproduced a set of extracts from the mission and vision statements or similar texts from the websites of 12 major. Distance teaching universities (DTUs) around the world. Major distance teaching universities which reproduced purposes only. Associated with educational rather than social or developmental goals are not included here. Institutions from the regions. Of North America Europe,,Africa and Asia, are cited.

The selection of texts does not claim to be comprehensively representative but serves as. A set of examples. The sampling from institutional mission statements has followed the theme, of development and in terms. Of validity is closer to the constraints of case study methods that provide illumination of ODL and development in a number. Of contexts Table 1.



.Analysis of Open and Distance Teaching University Missions

It can be noted that seven universities claim equity and equality. Of opportunity as goals: Athabasca NOUN Nigeria, of, University, Open UK Open University China Open University Tanzania,,, UNED Spain and UNISA, South Africa. IGNOU also talks of an 'inclusive knowledge society',While Phoenix and Wawasan highlight making higher education accessible. Allama Iqbal OU of Pakistan prioritizes inclusion. For women and remote communities. OU China also identifies the rural and remote communities along with, ethnic minorities. As priorities for inclusion. Wawasan of Malaysia also mentions as a priority inclusion on an ethnic basis.OU Tanzania alone explicitly identifies sustainable development as a goal. OU Malaysia highlights democratization of. ' Education 'as a priority. National and nation building goals are identified such as' an inclusive knowledge society' (IGNOU);? 'national cohesion' (NOUN); 'China' s developing society '(OU China);' the socio-economic development of Tanzania '(OUT);And UNISA proposes to contribute to 'our transforming society'. Scale of opportunity is mentioned by AIOU Pakistan (mass. ' Education ') and by IGNOU India with its commitment to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio. The opportunities for learners. Are explicitly mentioned by Athabasca of Canada; OU UK which talks of 'all who wish to realise their ambitions';OU Malaysia which aims to 'give everyone a chance at self-actualisation'; University of Phoenix which promotes access. To higher education in particular for professional and vocational outcomes; and Wawasan Malaysia who welcome 'aspiring, individuals'. Three universities use the term 'social justice', that is NOUN Nigeria, of, University, Open UK and UNISA of South Africa.

.We should not assume that because a priority is not mentioned in the particular text highlighted here it is not mentioned. Elsewhere by a university; nor should it be assumed that institutions not mentioned may not have similar or indeed differing. Priorities.Nor lastly can it be assumed that priorities of development highlighted in institutional statements are always carried. Through with programmes, of activity and are evaluated against their mission goals although of, course in well-led and managed. Institutions this will be the case. We should also note the distinction between the ODL mission contributing to equity in. Educational, provisionFor example making higher, education more accessible, to all and those that contribute to equity more widely in society. Through education. In the latter category we have the OU China and UNISA as expressed, through their mission statements.? This raises for consideration the scope of a university 's ambitions for development in a social and political context.

.The major point however is to indicate that in a relatively cursory examination what major distance teaching universities. In a range of geographies and economies both 'developed and,' 'developing', say about themselves is deeply embedded in development. Discourse and the politics of social change.Open universities cited here positively associate distance and e-learning with their delivery of goals of development. Defined in such ways. In summary most of these universities do not accept the current availability of opportunity as either. Fair or adequate and intend, through their activities to change it.

.The range of approaches developed by the DTUs and other universities with substantial deployment of distance and e-learning. Is at core about the affordances that are delivered through the separation of time, and space and through the use of technologies. To innovate in both pedagogy and logistics.