Online Distance Education

Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Terry Anderson, Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Terry Anderson

• Publisher: AU Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781927356647
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Inclusive Education

Online Distance Education provides a systematic overview of the major issues, trends, and areas of priority in online distance education research. In each chapter an international expert or team of experts provides an overview of one relevant issue in online distance education, discussing theoretical insights that guide the research, summarizing major research on the topic, posing questions and directions for future research, and discussing the implications for distance education practice as a whole. Intended as a primary reference and guide for distance educators, researchers, and policymakers, Online Distance Education takes care to address aspects of distance education practice that until now have often been marginalized, including issues of cost and economics, social justice implications, cultural impacts, faculty professional development, and the management and growth of learner communities. At once soundly empirical and thoughtfully reflective, yet also forward-looking and open to new approaches to online and distance teaching, this text is a solid resource for researchers in a rapidly expanding discipline.

Part I

MACRO-LEVEL RESEARCH: DISTANCE EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND THEORIES

1 Internationalization and Concepts of Social Justice: What Is to Be Done?

Alan Tait and Jennifer O’Rourke

Introducing the concept of social justice into discussions of open, distance, and e-learning immediately creates tension. At its core is the question as to whether ODEL contributes to or detracts from social justice, given its facility for supporting the development of formal education on an international basis and the complexity of intentions, inputs, and outcomes in any educational provision.

Let us first consider what we mean by social justice. Clear, agreed-upon concepts of this term are essential underpinnings for robust support for strategies to remedy social injustice. Without this clarity, there is a risk that those who claim it as a goal but have no intention or capacity to deliver it will appropriate the term.

CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social Justice for Individuals

The central concept of social justice is a conviction that human beings have some core characteristics of equality. Philosophical and religious traditions developed this concept long before English priest John Ball asked the following of rebel peasants in 1381:

When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. (Chisholm, 1911, p. 263)

The concept of equality was also developed in the secular tradition of Universal Human Rights, articulated in the Egalité of the French Revolution, then adopted in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and subsequently embodied in UN institutions. Both religious and secular concepts of the value of each person underlie an ideological commitment to the fundamental equality of status of all human beings regardless of the lived reality of privilege and social hierarchy. Indeed, John Ball’s support for the Peasants’ Revolt might be seen as a very early attempt to bring these concepts together.

Rawls’ account (2001) of a social contract begins with a commitment to equality of worth of human beings and demands that entitlements be proposed by representatives of the population, especially those with responsibilities for government, on a “blind” basis, i.e., as if they had no knowledge of their own entitlement and acted for all rather than as advocates of their own interests. Rumble’s discussion of education and social justice elaborates Rawls’ contribution and, following Honderich, dismisses Rawls’ liberalism as too permissive of gross inequalities (Rumble, 2007, pp. 171–72).

The social justice concepts listed above tend to portray social justice as enabling individuals to access their fair share of social and economic benefits. In contrast, Sen and Nussbaum identify much broader and universal human rights as integral to social justice.

Sen’s human development theory (1999, 2009) contributes another dimension to the concept of social justice by focussing on what he terms the Capability Approach—the support of positive freedoms to be or do something “to choose a life one has reason to value” (Sen, 1999, p. 74). These freedoms depend on functionings or, “the various things a person may value being or doing” (Sen, 1999, p. 75). Sen’s perspective is significantly different from equality provisions because it regards material benefits or services not as social justice indicators in themselves, but as the basis for the freedom to deploy capabilities that represent the real social justice outcomes. Sen does not propose a set of universal capabilities, suggesting instead that they must be elaborated in specific contexts.

Nussbaum (2003) builds on Sen’s work by stipulating a list of essential capabilities for social justice. This step is crucial, Nussbaum argues, because there is no benefit in having rights without the underlying capabilities that make it possible to exercise those rights: “Thinking in terms of capability gives us a benchmark as we think about what it is really to secure a right to someone. It makes clear that this involves affirmative material and institutional support, not simply a failure to impede” (Nussbaum, 2008, p. 38).

Of the ten capabilities that Nussbaum (2003) identifies, three have direct relevance to education and learning, and two others have significant supporting roles. Those directly related to education and learning are:

4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason—and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one’s own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise…. 5. Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves … not having one’s emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.) 6. Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.) (p. 41)

Nussbaum (2003) describes capabilities that support education and learning as follows:

7. Affiliation. A. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.) B. Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, or national origin. (pp. 41–42)

Also relevant is Nussbaum’s capability 10:

Control Over One’s Environment. A. Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association. B. Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human being, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers. (2003, p. 42)

This concept of social justice as capabilities to which every human is entitled is consistent with Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) on the right to education:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

In summary, our concept of social justice for each individual encompasses both the notion of equality rights as a level playing field and the right to opportunities and support that enable each person to fully participate in all aspects of society—to get to the playing field in the first place. These include affordable education, housing, access to decent work with sufficient pay to sustain a family—rights that go far beyond access to participate in the economy.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AMONG SOCIETIES AND WITHIN DEFINED SECTORS OF SOCIETY

But there is more to social justice than the cumulative human rights of each individual. As Judt (2010, p. 131) points out, despite the current “cult of the private” that emphasizes enterprise over justice, an underlying concept of the common good is essential for democratic governance.

Both Judt (2010, p. 67) and Franklin (1990, p. 42) identify trust and reciprocity as essential components of social justice and as elements that convey social values. Franklin distinguishes divisible and indivisible benefits and the social and economic implications of both. Sharing a crop among all farm workers is an example of divisible benefits among a specified group. Indivisible benefits are inclusive and for everyone and include justice, peace, clean air, equal access to education, public institutions. Some significant indivisible benefits that, until recently, were supported by the public domain are being increasingly shifted into the private sector, for example, transportation, utilities, health care, and education (Judt, 2010; Franklin, 2006). Moreover, although the public purse has sustained the infrastructure that makes private divisible benefits possible, there is increasingly less political support and protection for the sources of indivisible benefits, such as the global environment (Franklin, 1999). Education provides both indivisible and divisible benefits, and it is difficult to isolate the benefits of education to the individual from the benefits to society.

As Franklin (2006) notes, the process of establishing social justice should be systemic rather than case-specific, so that the onus is on society rather than the individual to change structural, institutional, and cultural barriers that impede equal access to human rights, rather than on “putting the primary burden of change on the disadvantaged” (p. 345).

The ILO’s Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization summarizes the links between individual and social aspects of social justice in Article A1, which supports the following objectives:

promoting employment by creating a sustainable institutional and economic environment in which:

• individuals can develop and update the necessary capacities and skills they need to enable them to be productively occupied for their personal fulfilment and the common well-being

• all enterprises, public or private, are sustainable to enable growth and the generation of greater employment and income opportunities and prospects for all

• societies can achieve their goals of economic development, good living standards and social progress (ILO, 2008, p. 4)

WHY THERE ARE NO SIMPLE LINKS BETWEEN SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ONLINE DISTANCE EDUCATION AND LEARNING

On the face of it, it would seem that educational provision that is consciously intended to be more accessible to more people would make a contribution to social justice. But each of ODEL’s main attributes brings with it a caveat:

• ODEL’s capacity to disaggregate the constitutive elements of classroom learning offers freedom from place and time, providing the ability to offer flexibility and to support educational systems across national boundaries. However, flexibility brings with it the potential for disconnection from the learners’ contexts and from direct association with others engaged in learning. ODEL’s capacity to traverse national and regional boundaries also enables it to displace local or national provisions, and to disseminate ideologies that are incompatible with local beliefs or cultures.

• National governments, inter-governmental organizations, and NGOs have, as part of development of the Third World, or the Global South, promoted ODEL’s flexibility and scalability as an opportunity to fulfil the moral obligation to create urgently needed educational provision.

However, as McLuhan (1964) pointed out, no technology is neutral; all technologies affect both the creator and the user. Each technology includes underlying concepts and assumptions that may not always be evident to planners or practitioners. As well, the capacities and limitations of hardware and software affect how pedagogies are applied. For example, broadcast radio assumes a functional network, access to electricity, learners who can listen attentively at the broadcast time, and learners who can learn effectively from a transitory auditory medium. Radio can convey a voice of authority that is not easy to challenge, or a conversational tone that invites participatory learning.

Transplanting any technology along with its ideological roots brings the risk of imposing an inappropriate set of assumptions and values on the users, thus detracting from, rather than supporting, intended goals.

ODEL’s history includes the commercial provision of accessible accreditation both locally and internationally (for example, for-profit correspondence schools, or University of London External Studies). Online learning has greatly expanded opportunities to offer education and accreditation across international boundaries, making it possible for learners around the world to access the specific programs they need.

However, even with ready availability of online communication in some locations, learners are not always in the best position to assess the quality and appropriateness of a specific program that is on offer, given the lack of clear international standards for ODEL provision and the limited access to the kind of collegial local knowledge that is available in face-to-face learning settings. As well, ODEL that relies on advanced technologies can (intentionally or not) reinforce inequality by providing access only to those on the “have” side of the digital divide.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE, PART 1: SHOULD ODEL EMBED SOCIAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES?

Many ODEL providers began with a stated commitment to provide greater access to education for those who were previously excluded. However, there are questions about the effectiveness of access to education as a route to social justice and about the success rate of ODEL institutions in enabling disadvantaged people to attain their educational goals. (Prinsloo, 2011, summarizes these arguments.)

Moreover, times have changed since contemporary forms of ODEL emerged in the early 1980s with the promise of reaching underserved learners at all levels of education throughout the globe. Short-term economic goals have displaced social justice from policy agendas, along with a shift in societal expectations that supported publicly-funded access to affordable education.

These factors prompt the question: Should all ODEL provisions be required to follow social justice principles, and if so, what would this look like? Can a society or government require an educational provider to adopt a social justice mandate? Oversight bodies that represent government and/or society can require educational providers to meet specific standards—why not include social justice? Exploring this question involves considering different concepts of social justice in education: access, curriculum, pedagogy, and management.

Social Justice as Improved Access

Many distance education providers include social justice in their mission or values statements. For example, the Open University of the United Kingdom (OUUK) current website states, “We promote educational opportunity and social justice by providing high-quality university education to all who wish to realise their ambitions and fulfil their potential…. The OU was founded to open up higher education to all, regardless of their circumstances or where they live.” Athabasca University in Canada “dedicated to the removal of barriers that restrict access to and success in university-level study and to increas...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Foreword
• Introduction Research Areas in Online Distance Education
• Part I Macro-Level Research: Distance Education Systems and Theories
• Part II Meso-Level Research: Management, Organization, and Technology
• Part III Micro-Level Research: Learning and Teaching In Distance Education
• Contributors
• Index
• Footnotes