In Conversation with Prof Melinda dela Peña Bandalaria,
Chancellor, University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU)
By Dr David Lim
On the Open Education Drive and Gendered Leadership
Dr David Lim [DL]: Prof Melinda Bandalaria,
you have been a leading voice in online,
distance, and digital education (ODDE)
since the inception of ODDE as a field,
mode, practice, and community. The cup
runneth over, as one might say of your career
achievements in ODDE. To cite but a few
milestones: You are and have been Chancellor
of the University of the Philippines Open
University (UPOU) since 2016; you led the
Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU)
as President (2017-2019); you have been a
key contributor to such organisations as the
International Council for Open and Distance
Education (ICDE) and the OU5 (a group of five
open universities in Southeast Asia); and you
have won numerous awards including the 2021
Prize of Excellence (for Individual Contribution
to the field of Open, Flexible and Distance
Learning) conferred by the ICDE, and the 2021
Meritorious Service Award conferred by the
AAOU.
Please could you tell us how you first
came into the field of ODDE and what it is
about ODDE that continues to propel you
through your illustrious career? As a leader,
how important is it to you that women are
equitably represented in ODDE leadership
in general, and in Southeast Asia (SEA), in
particular? If you agree that leadership styles
are inescapably gendered, what unique
contributions do you see women leaders
bringing to the field of ODDE?
Prof Melinda Bandalaria [MB]: First, thank you for this opportunity to be featured in your e-magazine. Thanks also for recognising the awards conferred on me, which I consider as validation or affirmation that, somehow, I am contributing to the field of open education.
Women leadership in ODDE can provide insights so that the essence or primary mission of ODDE can really be realised through the inclusion of the marginalised sectors of the society, which in most cases, include the women.
My first involvement in ODDE was as a
Research Assistant at the Office of Distance
Education (ODE) which my university, University
of the Philippines (UP), established in 1994. Each
major Constituent Unit of UP, of which there were
four at that time, had an ODE, which became
the forerunner of the University of the Philippines
Open University (UPOU). UPOU was established
in 1995, so one can say that I’ve been part of
the organisation long before its establishment
as a university. Distance education is very much
aligned with my advocacy of making quality
education available to many, especially, the
marginalised sector of the society. I consider
myself a social activist and, somehow, the idea of
democratising access to quality education through
the distance education mode of instruction
appealed to me. UP is known to provide quality
education but it also has that image of being
elite and exclusive as it can only accept a small
percentage of tertiary-level students seeking
admission into its various programs.
This advocacy for inclusion in a quality
education ecosystem continues to propel me to
pursue various initiatives and innovations, which
include convincing other academic institutions
to join the “movement” for open education by
offering some of their programs in this mode of
instruction; working alongside policymakers to
provide a more conducive policy environment for
ODDE; partnering with the industry so we can
develop and offer relevant programs that would
provide qualified workforce to the major industries
of the country; and promoting ODDE as the path
to learning for the new breed of learners.
On women leadership, I always believe that
equal opportunities should be given to both
men and women if they are qualified for the
position. While there is a need to recognise the
distinct characteristics of a gender which are
brought about by biological and physiological
features, such factors should not be barriers
for women to occupy leadership positions in
any organisation. Instead, these characteristics
should be considered in designing suitable work
environments to bring out the best from men,
women, and others who are beyond this binary
classification of gender in any organisation.
Specific to ODDE, women leadership can be an
advantage considering that traditionally and, in
some cases, culturally, women have not been the
priority where access to education is concerned.
There are some culturally attributed practices as
well as financial circumstances that may prevent
women from attending the conventional system of
education. And in most, although not all, cases,
it is the women who recognise how important
women education is to the building of the family,
the community, and the nation. Women leadership
in ODDE can provide insights so that the essence
or primary mission of ODDE can really be realised
through the inclusion of the marginalised sectors
of the society, which in most cases, include
the women. Mechanisms can be designed that
will suit the context of women to facilitate their
participation and inclusion in the education
ecosystem and learning opportunities.
Integrating Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Online Learning
DL: In the book chapter you authored titled “Universal Access in Online Distance Education: A Case Study from the Philippines” (2020), you made it disarmingly clear that “all the barriers to education as articulated by UNESCO are present” in the Philippines. Lest it is overlooked by readers, the Philippines is “an archipelagic country consisting of 7,107 islands”, with some parts facing natural instabilities, conflicts, and accessibility issues arising from geographical features. Other significant barriers include poverty, physical disabilities, as well as the technological and digital divide resulting from the lack of resources involving hardware and software, language and other skills, and the necessary capital to acquire these.
It is therefore important that learning resources in the free online course be free as well, hence the impetus to use Open Educational Resources (OERs).
As someone who has been at the forefront of efforts to overcome these barriers in and out of the Philippines with ODDE, how would you help our readers to better appreciate the enormous challenges, especially given the imperative and additional challenge to “integrate the principles and features of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in online programs and courses in order to facilitate full participation of all learners”? As context for readers, UDL is a set of principles that “provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone [abled and disabled] – not a single, one-size-fits-all solution, but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs”, to pluck a line from the online course titled “Introduction to UDL” offered by the Commonwealth of Learning.
MB: Well, you have mentioned the different
challenges that may prevent an individual from
accessing learning opportunities relevant to his/
her context. Each barrier may need a specific
set of actions so that we can really attain that
universal access to learning. Offering programs
in the online mode of instruction addresses just
one barrier – that is the “any place learning” as
long as you have access to the internet. But
what about those who don’t have access to the
equipment/gadget to access the internet and the
digital/digitised content or learning resources?
What about those who cannot pay the course fees
associated with the online course?
In this context, an online course can be
offered as a free online course (e.g., as a
Massive Open Online Course or MOOC) which
removes the barrier of course fees and admission
requirements. However, if the content or learning
resources used in the MOOC will have to be paid
for or purchased, then we are presenting another
barrier to learning! It is therefore important that
learning resources in the free online course be
free as well, hence the impetus to use Open
Educational Resources (OERs). In using OERs,
we are not just facilitating access and inclusion to
the learning opportunity, we are also facilitating
course/learning journey completion and, in the
process, enabling the learners to access the
opportunities that will be made available as a
result of course completion. To further ensure
inclusion, we also have to make sure that the
content or the OERs are made available in
multimedia format and are in a repository which
integrates at least the basic features spelled out in
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
Further, as we all know, poverty is a major
barrier to learning even if courses are offered as
MOOCs. Partnership with the relevant agencies,
especially government agencies, can be a great
help to address the other barriers to learning.
In the Philippines, the government has what are
called Community eCenters/Tech4Ed Centers,
which offer free digital literacy training programs
and free internet access to the community.
Arrangements can be made, which can involve
other stakeholders as well, for a more focused
initiative for ODDE learners in the community.
In the case where learner mobility is a barrier
coupled with non-access to the internet, open
education can be implemented without an online
platform. Learning resources can be provided,
and radio and television can also be used for the
multimedia materials. We can learn our lessons
and draw insights from our experience during
the COVID-19 pandemic and improve from there
to facilitate inclusion and access to learning
opportunities for all.
So, depending on the context of the learner,
and the barrier that he/she is facing, many options
are available.
Truths and Myths about OERs and MOOCs in Southeast Asia
DL: You have championed and written
extensively on OERs, as well as on Massive
Online Distance eLearning (MODeL) courses
offered by UPOU – both as instruments to help
overcome access barriers to education. You
have usefully addressed the tight integration of
OERs and MODeL in, for instance, your book
chapter, “OERs for Development (OERs4D)
Framework as Designed and Implemented in
the Philippines”, which appears in the edited
volume, MOOCs and Open Education in the
Global South (2020).
Given the breadth of your experience,
how would you respond to the observation
that OERs and MOOCs (as the model upon
which UPOU’s MODeL courses have been
designed) have been adopted at varying rates
with varying levels of enthusiasm, urgency,
and success by the different ODDE providers
in SEA? How would you account for the
variations, if they exist? Also, based on global
trends and UPOU’s praxis, how much of the
OERs used, especially in SEA, have been
borrowed or adapted from existing resources
and how much have been produced entirely
anew and released under an open licence?
In other words, has there been more usage
of existing OERs than entirely-new creations
of OERs? Lastly, what are some of the most
enduring myths about OERs and MOOCs that
you keep encountering and find challenging to
dispel, particularly in the SEA context?
MB: You are correct. The level of enthusiasm, urgency, and success in adopting OERs and MOOCs varies. Some possible reasons, based on our experience at UPOU, include the still prevailing copyright mindset of many of our academics, and the resources required to produce/develop OERs and MOOCs.
A question like “Is ChatGPT the one answering the online exam questions or are the students doing their own work?” has direct implications on the integrity of the whole teaching and learning process.
In 2019, we conducted a study, in collaboration
with the SEAMEO Secretariat, on the adoption
of OERs in SEA. The results indicate that one
reason for the low adoption of existing OERs is
the language barrier, given that most OERs are
in the English language. At that time, there was
also a relatively low level of awareness about
OERs even among the teachers. At the onset of
the pandemic when academic institutions were
forced to immediately shift to remote instruction,
the massive and rapid training of teachers was
accompanied with a more intensified campaign
to use OERs to hasten the development of
course packages as well as to provide free
lesson contents. MOOCs were also used as the
platform for inclusive, rapid, and massive training
of teachers. Our experience at UPOU showed a
significant increase in our MOOCs enrolment and
the production of OERs during the pandemic. We
also promoted the model MOOCs as OERs so that
other institutions could develop and implement
their own training programs using our MOOCs as
content in the way OERs are used in courses.
A myth common to both OERs and MOOCs
is their questionable quality. For OERs, given the
ease with which one can develop video materials
and share them through the internet, quality can
really be a concern. Of course, there are now
recommended ways and even QA frameworks
for OERs which can guide users in determining
the quality of the OER that they want to use.
Institutions also have ways of vetting OERs before
they are made available on their OER platform or
repository.
Since MOOCs are basically a form of distance
education in which students are physically
separated from their teachers, they also share the
myth of being of low quality, and this dates back
to the beginnings of distance education. This myth
persists despite research showing that distance
learners can be on par with students from
conventional education in terms of performance
based on the expected learning outcomes of a
course.
The putative lack of integrity of the whole
learning process including assessment of learning
is another myth that seems to persist. Because
MOOCs, and other fully online courses for that
matter, rely heavily on modern ICTs, specifically
the online technologies, issues like verifying
the identity of the student doing the learning
activities and taking exams, using paper mills
for completing learning activities, and plagiarism
almost always become the subject of discussion.
This has become more apparent, and probably
more worrisome especially to online learning
providers with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI),
specifically ChatGPT and Bard. A question like
“Is ChatGPT the one answering the online exam
questions or are the students doing their own
work?” has direct implications on the integrity of
the whole teaching and learning process. One
thing is certain: digital transformation of education
should now include a major change in the way we
teach and conduct assessment.
For both OERs and MOOCs, the common
myth is “they are difficult to sustain” as there are
no course fees to be paid by the learners or users
of the materials. However, there are sustainability
models which institutions can consider which
include among others payment for certification
which is almost always assessment-driven,
funding for research on open education, and
others.
These myths imply that there is still a need
to do more awareness campaigns and even
invoke the UNESCO Recommendations on OERs
(adopted by member states in November 2019) so
that governments can also support the initiative,
and academic institutions can devise mechanisms
to engage in the use, development, and sharing of
OERs and MOOCs.
The Role of OUs in Decolonising Higher Education
DL: In your book chapter on OERs4D that
I cited earlier, you noted at the outset that
“Developing countries are often perceived as
resource-poor” and that some believe these
resource-poor countries need not and indeed
should not reinvent the proverbial wheel by
producing their own OERs and MOOCs, given
that so much of the same has already been
produced by the highly industrialised countries
and could be used for free or at almost no
cost. The rest of the chapter essentially
makes a case against the aforementioned
perception/belief, arguing, in the case of the
Philippines, that it is necessary to produce and
contextualise OERs to address local needs.
Related to but located outside the scope
of the aforementioned chapter is the subject
of decolonising higher education which I am
hoping to obtain your response on. There are
many strands to the decolonising project,
one of which is theoretically anchored to the
work of Walter Mignolo. Irrespective of the
theoretical foundations, though, all these
strands share the common understanding
that much of the knowledge circulating in
global academia emerges from the West and
that scholars and learners, especially from
the Global South, ought to be critical and
vigilant about what they consume, produce,
and disseminate as knowledge (facts,
assumptions, priorities, understandings,
values, perspectives, truths, ways of thinking
and sensing, etc.), for knowledge of all origins
is never neutral and even the most neutral-seeming
knowledge that purports to be
progressive might dissimulate its imperial
origin and bent. Based on the foregoing
understanding, scholars have increasingly
been attempting to decolonise higher
education, including the curriculum, this
being an investment that has been described
as “about being prepared to reconnect,
reorder and reclaim knowledges and teaching
methodologies that have been submerged,
hidden or marginalised” by the coloniality of
power, to cite Rowena Arshad in an accessible
article published by Times Higher Education.
There are no easy solutions to the project of
decoloniality, but it is gathering momentum
across all life spheres, as we speak.
Twenty-five years into the future? I would say ODDE will be the default and no longer an alternative.
Given the position you established in the said chapter – that being perceived as resource-poor should not preclude one from doing what needs to be done to meet local needs – I wonder what your thought are on decolonising higher education in general, and in the context of open universities (OUs) in particular. Taking into account the OUs’ ability to reach the masses, how actively should OUs be partaking in, if not leading, the epistemic project of decolonisation? In these contemporary times, should OUs not seek to redress the reality/stereotype that “Innovation in curriculum is not in general the strongest element of innovation in an Open University profile, which has centred on mission and technologies for learning and teaching”, to cite Alan Tait in his article titled “Open Universities: The Next Phase” (2018)?
MB: First, on the issue of decolonising higher
education, yes, I think I made it clear in that
book chapter what my stand is when it comes
to producing knowledge products. But I think
I also implied the need to keep abreast of the
developments and progress that are happening
at a very fast pace in Western countries. What
is important is we keep a critical mind about
what we consume. Relevance is an important
consideration, and contextualisation can be
the key to make Western-produced knowledge
suitable to our context. Being critical does not
preclude recognising the potential of the Westernproduced
knowledge to be the “seeds” that
will yield other unique innovations that can be
our contribution to the continuous process of
knowledge-building. I believe we have enough
supply of intellectuals to do that in various fields or
areas of study.
It is also important for us to recognise and
cultivate the local knowledge that we have here
especially in SEA countries. I believe that we
also have something to contribute to the world,
especially given the important role that Asia would
play in the political and economic arena in the
years ahead.
In the case of OUs, I guess we need to go
back to the essence of our being and answer
the question, “Why are we here?” Does our
mission necessitate innovation in curriculum?
Probably, OUs should take a leadership role in
this movement to decolonise higher education
if it is relevant to our mission or, specifically, if
innovation of the curriculum would be relevant
to our target learners. However, we should also
be cognisant of the changing role of OUs given
the increasing adoption of online learning. In this
context, relevance would probably take a new
meaning given the possibility of a wider reach that
can go beyond geographical boundaries. If we
are to consider the demand from universities to
produce globally competitive graduates given also
the changing work environment and system, then
decolonisation of higher education will have to be
rearticulated.
The OU5 Synergy
DL: Open University Malaysia (OUM) and UPOU, with Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU), Hanoi Open University (HOU), and Universitas Terbuka (UT), constitute the members of the OU5, a group of five OUs in SEA set up to conduct joint collaborative research. I’ve been made to understand that you were one of the key figures in setting up OU5. Please could you share your point of view on how OU5 came to be, what its mandates are, what its key challenges have been, and what has been its most significant contribution to the collective thus far?
MB: If you were to ask the different personalities
now involved in OU5, they will have different
stories as to how it started. As indicated in the
email exchanges that I had with some of our
colleagues in 2013 when I was arranging for the
signing of the MOU between OUM, STOU, UT, and
UPOU, I was informed that there was already an
existing MOU among these universities, together
with HOU, signed as early as 2010. This early
collaboration, though, was more focused on the
development of a graduate program on ASEAN
Studies.
For the institutional research component of
OU5, I would like to consider the initiatives of OUM
and STOU and the inclusion of UPOU in 2013 as
the starting point, at least from my perspective. It
was OUM who invited me (for UPOU) to be part
of the research team in August 2013. The idea
was for us to do research on the same topics in
our respective institutions. Then we planned to
compare notes so we can somehow establish
some foundations on distance education in
Asia. The first institutional research was on the
Importance-Satisfaction Survey. In October of the
same year, UT was invited to be part of the group
doing institutional research and, in January 2014,
HOU was invited to join the group. In May 2014,
another signing of the MOU among the five OUs
took place in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and research
collaboration both for institutional research (on
open distance learning) and ASEAN Studies
became part of the collaborative work among
the institutions in addition to the development
and offering of the graduate program on ASEAN
Studies. We can say that the signing of the MOU
in 2014 strengthened the collaboration among the
five OUs and the formation of OU5 which we have
come to know.
Every year, one or two member institutions
would host in-person meetings for the researchers
to discuss the progress of their research initiatives
and identify a new set of research topics for the
next cycle of collaborative research. Beyond the
ASEAN Studies program and research which
are our contribution to strengthening the ASEAN
spirit and community, research on ODDE has also
contributed to the building of knowledge on ODDE
in the context of Asia and ASEAN.
SEA’s ODDE Agenda
DL: OU5 is a Southeast Asian initiative, which complements the AAOU, the latter being an Asian initiative. OUM and UPOU are members of both, and both OUs clearly believe that various forms of regional synergies are crucial to push their shared agenda in providing quality open, distance, and digital education (ODDE) to the masses within and beyond their national boundaries. If we agree that regionness is a method that serves, how would you characterise the present state of intellectual leadership in the ODDE field in the region of SEA? How strong a voice on the global stage do we presently have in advocating SEA’s ODDE agenda? What is or should be the shared SEA’s ODDE agenda, as compared to the ODDE agenda of, say, Latin America, or Eastern Europe?
MB: When we talk of ODDE, I think, or rather, I
believe, that our shared agenda include: access,
inclusion, relevance, and people-centeredness.
We can also say that sustainability is slowly
gaining prominence in our agenda, given the
global advocacy on this and considering the
major role that technologies play in the ODDE
ecosystem. To be mindful of the environmental
impact of our IT usage should, in other words,
soon, if not already, be included in our shared
agenda.
As regards the intellectual leadership of SEA in
the ODDE field, I think we are slowly being heard.
We are no longer the silent voice in the discourse
on ODDE and this has been happening for a
number of years now based on my observation
and involvement in the global initiatives. The OU5
members are active participants; in fact, we have
held the leadership position of Presidency for
several terms and as such have been instrumental
in shaping the direction of the AAOU. In the global
arena, our universities are active members of
the ICDE and the recently organised Consortium
for Benchmarking Framework and Data Set for
Online, Open, Smart, and Technology Enhanced
Higher Education which is being spearheaded
by Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University
(HBMSU) based in Dubai, UAE. We have to
consider that our universities represent different
contexts in SEA: we have mega open universities
like STOU and UT, medium open universities like
OUM and HOU, and small open universities such
as in the case of UPOU. We may model different
strategies to promote inclusion and access given
the different economic status of our respective
countries and the way we do things can guide
countries and economies on how to implement
ODDE.
Our combined action and voices (our
publications and involvements on the international
stage) will pave the way/clear the path especially if
we push for the Global South-South cooperation
and collaboration.
The Future of ODDE
DL: The field of ODDE has grown by leaps and bounds since the nascent days when the field was known as “distance education” and “used to be the ‘private garden’ of a small minority of educators who devoted themselves to its practice and research because they embraced its mission and value propositions”, to cite Prof Junhong Xiao in our conversation with him in Issue 18. Still, there’s a long way to go in our mission to widen access to education to all, especially the underserved. How would you paint the best-case scenario for ODDE if you were to project yourself, say, twenty-five years into the future?
MB: Twenty-five years into the future? I would
say ODDE will be the default and no longer an
alternative. There are various factors why such can
be a strong possibility. For one, the experience
during the COVID-19 pandemic is propelling
ODDE now; academic institutions have made so
much investment in implementing online learning
infrastructure, training teachers, digitising learning
resources, and so on. Online learning may be
considered a new business model for many
academic institutions and a platform to respond to
the call for these institutions to perform their social
responsibility.
In the near future, the Alpha Generation (born
from 2010 to 2024) and the Beta Generation (or
the Artificials, born from 2025 to 2039) will be our
students at the tertiary level. They will definitely
prefer a new way of learning, very much different
from the conventional way, probably even different
from the way we are currently doing ODDE.
The way we are teaching and administering
assessments are already being disrupted by AI
(e.g., ChatGPT). With the way AI is progressing, we
may not have to wait for 25 years for the teaching-learning
process to change or to be turned upside
down.
We have observed how the fast-changing
world of work is driving the transformation not
only of our curriculum but also the way we deliver
instruction and the impact will be felt mostly
by the conventional universities. Related to this
is the emergence of the gig economy which is
already happening in many countries in Asia.
We have been talking about IR4.0 since the pre-pandemic
period. We have also been talking about
IR5.0, and we have started to talk about IR6.0
(a combination of human intelligence, AI, cloud
computing energy, human-robot working big
data, and quantum computing). Associated with
all these is the necessity for individuals to engage
in lifelong learning, and ODDE can be the most
appropriate system.
We can probably say that the countdown for
the 25-year timeline has already started with the
commencement of the post-pandemic era. The
pandemic pushed (or forced) the onset of digital
transformation of conventional universities which
should have happened at least a decade ago.
DL: Thank you, Prof Melinda, for the illuminating conversation. It’s been a pleasure.
MB: Thank you, also. I am honoured to be part of your series!