There is a danger that learning may become degraded by its availability, but in reality what could happen is that the splits in society could deepen and widen, and the new groups would not be the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, but the ‘knows’ and the ‘know nots’. Another danger of this is also that made by Naughton (2008), that students study on line in order to avoid actually reading about the subject they are studying.
Innovation and creativity go together - they cannot really be separated, since creativity must innovate, ‘creating something old’ would be a true oxymoron, and also innovation, by definition must create a new way of doing things.
The financial aspects of innovation in teaching are wide reaching, but the capitalist view that something which is free also has no value is difficult to overcome in this context. If education is to have a value, surely it must have a cost? If it has a cost, who will pay? If the learning is ‘sponsored’ then surely it will also be biased? Traditionally, primary and secondary education is ‘paid for’ by the state, or by parents who wish to give an enhanced education to their children. Tertiary education education, college, university, etc. was paid for by the learner, the learners parents, or a grant from an employer or the government. Access to tertiary education has become steadily more ‘open’, and in some respects more affordable, but at what point do the cost and the value cross? This is the point where higher education begins to be seen as having no value.
How can we bring a percieved value to free and open further education? This I think is the challenge facing the educational establishment, in that they are willing to share their knowledge and learning, but unless someone, somewhere, pays for it, they cannot afford to continue to exist. Perhaps there is some way of allowing free access for all, but ensuring that those (relatively few) who want to have an accredited qualification would need to pay, whilst those who were contnent simply to learn, without being tested or questioned, would not pay, but such a system hardly seems fair with the minority paying the overall costs whilst the majority sit back and enjoy the free education.
Reference:
Naughton, J., 2008. Thanks, Gutenberg - but we're too pressed for time to read. From: 'The Observer'. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jan/27/internet.pressandpublishing
[Accessed 4 February 2014].
