An argument, not a verdict
The title of this article states a position: that online learning should move toward openness. It is worth treating that as an argument to be examined, not a conclusion to be accepted. Below are the main reasons people make the case, followed by the objections that deserve equal weight. The aim is to help you form your own view.
“Way forward” is also a prediction, and predictions about education have a poor record. What can be assessed is whether the reasoning is sound, not whether the future will follow it.
The case for openness
Online copying is cheap, so restricting it needs justification. Digital material can be copied at almost no cost. Where public funds or charitable money pay to create educational content, many people argue it makes sense for the public to be allowed to reuse it. This is often the basis of calls for open licensing of publicly funded materials.
It reduces repeated effort. Many teachers across many institutions write similar explanations of the same basic topics. If good versions are shared and adaptable, effort can go toward things that are specific to each class.
It lowers some costs for learners. Where good open alternatives exist, students can avoid certain materials costs. For learners with little money, this can matter.
It supports improvement. Material that others can see and correct has the chance to get better over time, whereas closed material is only as good as its original authors and publisher have time to make it.
It makes access more durable. Learners can keep copies, so access does not depend on a subscription or a particular provider’s continued existence.
It fits the aim of widening participation. For organizations whose purpose is to broaden who can study, openness is consistent with that purpose, because it removes some legal and financial barriers.
The counterarguments
Free to use does not mean free to make. Creating, reviewing and maintaining good resources costs money. If funding is unreliable, open materials can go stale or vanish. A sustainable funding model is a continuing challenge for open projects, and some critics argue that open approaches shift costs onto teachers’ unpaid time.
Quality varies. Without editorial processes, open resources may contain errors or gaps. Commercial publishers often provide editing, support and supplementary materials that open alternatives do not always match.
Online is not for everyone. Many learners do better with face-to-face contact, structure and personal support. Dropout is a well-known problem in unsupported online study. Promoting online openness as the way forward may overlook those who are poorly served by it.
Access is unequal. Online openness requires devices and connections. Where those are lacking, an “open” resource is effectively closed. Pushing provision online can widen gaps unless these barriers are addressed.
Academic and creator concerns. Some authors worry about giving up control over how their work is used or about not being rewarded for it. Concerns about academic freedom, credit and the quality of derivative versions are legitimate and discussed within the field.
Evidence of learning gains is limited. Showing that open materials reduce costs is easier than showing they improve learning. Studies that compare outcomes have mixed results and often differ in design, which makes firm conclusions difficult.
License complexity. Different licenses and the need to attribute and combine them correctly can make reuse harder than it sounds, particularly for non-specialists.
How the two sides can be reconciled
Many of the objections are not arguments against openness itself but against careless implementation. A sensible reading is that openness is a good fit in some situations and a weaker fit in others.
It tends to fit well where content is stable and widely needed, where budgets are tight, where reuse by many parties is likely, and where there is some way of funding upkeep. It fits less well where material changes quickly, where highly specialized or licensed professional content is involved, or where learners need a lot of personal support that open material alone does not provide.
Blended approaches are common: open core material plus paid or institution-provided support, assessment and feedback. This reflects a recognition that content and teaching are different things.
Questions to ask about any claim of “the way forward”
- Is the claim about all learners or about a particular group? Conclusions that suit confident, connected adult learners may not apply to younger or less supported ones.
- What is being compared? Open versus closed, or online versus in-person? These are different questions often blurred together.
- Who pays for upkeep, and for how long?
- What evidence supports the claimed learning benefits, and how strong is it?
- Who might be excluded?
Where this leaves the argument
The case for openness in online provision is reasonable and rests on sound points about cost, reuse and access. The counterarguments, especially around funding, quality, support and unequal access, are also reasonable and are not fully answered. A cautious conclusion is that openness is a valuable option to build into online learning where it fits, not a rule that suits every setting. Whether it becomes the dominant direction will depend on funding decisions, policy and the experience of learners and teachers over time.