Open to methods?
It has been argued that the course team, with its mix of academic and other staff, was a distinctive method of producing teaching materials which was pioneered by the OU. W Stewart, Higher education in postwar Britain, Macmillan, London , 1989, pp. 116-117, contextualised this development as one of many novel aspects of the OU when he argued that the university was innovative in nine ways.
1/ It was not part of a national plan.
2/ It was a political decision.
3/ It came not from the UGC in collaboration with the CVCP local authorities and academics.
4/ There was considerable opposition.
5/It was the largest single university institution.
6/ In academic administration and in teaching technique it was unique in the UK.
7/ It had the lowest student unit costs.
8/ ‘in several overseas centres the OU has been closely examined to ensure that it may travel’.
9/’its students have never been generally eligible for manatory grants’.
Others took a different view. David Harris was at the OU, 1970-1973 and wrote a book about it. He argued that ‘The teaching system was shaped as much by administrative and political pressures as by any particular educational goals and in three short years (1970-1973) it had already become institutionalised, reified and unmodifiable in essence’ (David Harris, ‘Educational technology at the Open University: a short history of achievement and cancellation’, BJET 1, 7, Jan 1976, pp. 43-53, p. 44).