We need to talk about how we talk about what we talk about - Revisiting ODL

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Mabel

Revisiting ODL critiques how the terms “open” and “distance” function in contemporary education discourse. The paper argues that “open” should be reframed toward education that is increasingly available, inclusive, scalable, and sustainable, while “distance” should be replaced by “designed,” emphasizing diverse learning approaches that remove geographical barriers. Drawing on experience from a dedicated ODL institution in New Zealand, it explains how ODL was marginalized during sector renewal and how “distance” became associated with “online.”

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Problem framing: “open” and “distance”

Illustrating the problem

New Zealand consolidation context

Open Polytechnic and contrasting institutional models

Proposal and rationale

Reframing “open” toward availability and inclusion

Replacing “distance” with “designed”

Implications

Needs for theory, practice, and policy

Key contributions

We need to talk about how we talk about what we talk about: Revisiting ODL Mark Nichols Abstract: The terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ are no longer helpful for advancing approaches to education traditionally served by open institutions. A proposal to reframe the terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ is made:‘open’, it is suggested, needs to be linked more explicitly to education that is increasingly available, inclusive, scalable, and sustainable. ‘Distance’, on the other hand , needs to be replaced with the term‘designed,’which places attention on to the range of educational approaches now used to facilitate learning in ways that remove geographical barriers. The paper is based on part on the experience of a dedicated ODL institution in New Zealand, which found itself marginalized while a nation-wide renewal of the vocational education sector was taking place. Rather than being seen as a central part of the solution, ODL was instead assumed to be possible across regional provision . The ‘distance’ component was even represented as ‘online,’ which is becoming common across new entrants into what was traditionally understood as ODL. Five reasons for the decline of traditional understandings of ODL are offered. Keywords: available, definitions, distance education, education design, inclusive, ODL, online education, open education , reframing, scalable, sustainable. Highlights What is already known about this topic: • Open and Distance Learning (ODL) is a recognized field of educational provision, with its own literature and professional representation. • Practice in ODL is varied , and multiple terms now exist for describing alternative models to classroom-based education , including ‘online.’ • The terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ have always been controversial. What this paper contributes: • A critique of the terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ as now popularly understood. • Proposals for reframing the terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ in ways that reposition the significance of ODL. Implications for theory, practice and/or policy: • Researchers need to be more deliberate in their use of ODL as a term. • Describing educational approaches in terms of their ‘design’ helps make practices more explicit. Introduction ‘Open’ is now too open as a term to be meaningful. ‘Distance’ is now too distant a term for reflecting a point of difference. The complexity of the title for this piece is deliberate, as is the conversational tone throughout. The former is intentional, as the title reflects some of the befuddlement facing the terminology swirling around open and distance education. The conversational tone is an attempt to extend engagement with this perspective as broadly as possible. The intention of this piece is to provoke debate and stimulate thought rather than initiate a referendum (though a proposal for change is included) . In open and distance learning (ODL) there is a need for urgent dialogue about how the field is represented. Put provocatively, ‘we talk about how we talk about what we talk about.’ It’s not that the commitment to the principles of ODL should be in any way relaxed; if anything, ODL as a system of thought is as contemporary and relevant as it always has been. It’s just that , from this author’s perspective, the terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ no longer carry the same significance they once did. They are no longer a call to action, reliable point of contrast, or rallying point for improvement. It is possible to think of ‘open’ and ‘distance’ as having in-house meanings that are very dissimilar to how these terms are understood in general (the term ‘in-house’ here indicates that part of the ODL community using these terms with reference to theories enshrined in the 1970s up to the early millennium) . The historic impetus of the terms ‘open’ and ‘distance’ is now displaced. Popular discourse and innovation are progressing without these terms. In literature and strategic thought this is now problematic to the e

FAQs

Why does the paper argue that “open” and “distance” are no longer helpful terms in ODL?

It contends that these labels no longer reliably signal meaningful contrasts or action in education practice and discourse. The paper suggests their historical impetus has been displaced by current innovation and mainstream usage.

What reframing does the paper propose for the term “open”?

“Open” should be linked more explicitly to education that is increasingly available, inclusive, scalable, and sustainable, repositioning its significance in relation to contemporary educational provision.

How does the paper propose replacing “distance”?

It recommends replacing “distance” with “designed,” focusing attention on a range of educational approaches used to facilitate learning and remove geographical barriers.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Mabel