Exhibition: Philosophy in the Open

"Talks, being the nearest equivalent to conventional lectures, might seem to be the simplest to prepare, but there are reasons why this is not so. The main reason is that there may be only two or three radio talks, of slightly less than twenty minutes duration each, in a 32-week course. Another reason is that the same talk will be transmitted twice a year for up to six years, and may be listened to by thousands of people. So what is said must be capable of being said clearly, and it must be worth saying."

Follow these links to articles by Godfrey Vesey in the journal Teaching Philosophy on the early days of teaching philosophy at the Open University. These have been made freely available courtesy of the Philosophy Documentation Center.

Teaching Philosophy in Britain's Open University [I] Godfrey Vesey https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil1975112
Teaching Philosophy in Britain's Open University [II] Godfrey Vesey https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19751237 

In the two 1975 articles in the links above, Godfrey Vesey (1923-2013), founding Professor of Philosophy at the Open University, introduces the reader to the ground-breaking model of teaching philosophy devised by him and his colleagues. The OU had started offering modules (or ‘courses’, as they were then called) to students only four years earlier. The novelty of its mission and methods is perhaps hard to imagine now that this university is not only an important part of British higher education, but also of British culture, and is an international educational model. For somebody like me, who joined the OU Philosophy Department a quarter of a century after these articles were published, they make a fascinating read. On the one hand, it is surprising to see how many fundamental approaches have withstood the test of time. On the other hand, now that the internet is the default means of delivering content, holding tutorials, communicating with one another, accessing Library resources and more besides, it is hard to imagine the day-to-day activities of students and staff in the 1970s. 

The brief description of the production of teaching material in the first article still sounds very familiar, except for the direct involvement of the BBC, as the collaboration between this institution and the OU is nowadays focussed on programmes for the general public, rather than module content. The early OU TV programmes have become a symbol of distance education, and the object of gentle jokes, generally at the expenses of nerdy-looking science lecturers. In fact, as Vesey explains, the TV and radio programmes have always made up a small part of the teaching material, which was, and still is, largely written. Lectures in particular, which for most people are the bread and butter of higher education, are not very effective in distance learning, as students need precise guidance. Moreover, as Vesey points out, discussions among scholars holding contrasting ideas are more successful at conveying the diversity of philosophical views than lectures are.
In the second article, I was struck by the extent of the guidance offered to students for the writing of their assignments; I wonder if this was also due to the relative isolation of many students at the time. We still give guidance to our students, if perhaps not in such fine detail, as some of them at first may lack the tacit knowledge that is acquired in a conventional university, not to mention that some students do not hold the qualifications required to enrol in other universities. We know how to make that knowledge explicit, so that our students can acquire it, and so they do. Another aspect of OU teaching that has stayed the same is the extent and depth of feedback that students receive on their assignments. As Vesey writes, tutors do not just assign grades. They comment extensively, suggest to students ways to improve their work, guide them towards the teaching material they need to revise, they explain and clarify, all in a supportive and friendly way. I do not say this just rhetorically: tutors get their friendliness monitored! 

 
It is impossible not to feel some nostalgia at the mention of summer school in the second article; this symbol of the OU, immortalised in the film Educating Rita, is no more. It was an incredible experience, for students and staff alike, but it no longer fits with our times and lives. Students now have many different ways of meeting among themselves and with staff, although at the time of writing, the Covid-19 pandemic is still keeping all encounters virtual.

The OU, and Philosophy in it, have grown very considerably since then; the number of OU students is currently over 220,000, compared with the 52,000 that Vesey mentions; new disciplines and qualifications have been introduced. We still produce beautiful hard-copy books for our students, but much content and activities are online, including the electronic versions of the books. Modern technologies have also provided new instruments for inclusion: it is easier to deliver content in a variety of formats, written and spoken, so that ideally no student is excluded. As for the inclusivity of the contents, I think Philosophy at the OU is making its boldest changes as I write in 2022. The new module that we are planning promises to include an arguably unprecedented variety of experiences, approaches, and types of philosophy. 

Cristina Chimisso
Cristina Chimisso is Professor of Philosophy at the Open University.