Discourses and realities of online higher education:a history of [discourses of] online education in Canada’s Open University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My dissertation research aims to develop a comprehensive account for the current state of online higher education beyond the common social and educational expectations about the adoption of online education. \nOnline education, according to dominant discourses in higher education, is commonly expected to (a) enhance educational accessibility to university education and (b) improve the quality of university instruction. And, this expectation further produces an imperative for its rapid adoption across all higher education institutions. However, my research fundamentally challenges these two rhetorical discourses, by providing an in-depth description of the disjunction between such discourses and the realities of praxis. \nDrawing on key concepts from Michel Foucault and Mikhail Bakhtin, I trace the historical development of these two discourses as two institutional principles of openness and innovation in an open university. The complex relationships between the institutional discourses and peoples’ practices, mediated by multiple factors are carefully addressed. \nMy analysis reveals that multiple understandings of openness and innovation co-exist within the university, and members take different pedagogical approaches to online education according to their own understanding of those two principles. As a result, openness and innovation often conflict with each other at the operational level, and the conflict is also visible within the ongoing struggles between instructors and learning designers, with regard to the adoption of a particular form of online pedagogical practices. \nIn summary, my findings demonstrate how the adoption of online education may introduce new problems and potentially oppressive power relationships among stakeholders in higher education, unlike the rhetorical claims that simply promote online education as a revolutionary solution for diverse social and educational problems. This disjunction continues to increase and is intensified by the existing instructional theory-practice gap in the academic field of online higher education. I urge that researchers and educators in online higher education as a united group, to make a collective effort to better understand and resolve the ongoing conflicts among the stakeholders and ultimately better serve our online students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".