From open education to open learning: The experience at the National Autonomous University of Mexico

Abstract

Open education has existed for more than 6 decades. In its beginnings, it consisted of removing various controls that made it difficult for students to enter and remain in the educational system. Today, it involves characteristics such as accessibility, flexibility, and adaptability, in environments beyond academics. The student-centered teaching approach has now shifted its focus, prioritizing student learning and giving rise to the concept of open learning. In 1972, the National Autonomous University of Mexico announced the beginning of its Open University System (in Spanish, Sistema Universidad Abierta) with the purpose of offering opportunities to incorporate large segments of the population into higher education through the decentralization of university services and the renewal of teaching methods. In this article, we review some of the university’s initiatives and solutions within the framework of open learning. Specifically, we analyze the changes necessary to renew and update the Open University System after 50 years.

Keywords:

• open education system
• open knowledge
• open
• online
• flexible
• and technology-enhanced education (OOFAT) model
• flexibility
• accessibility
• personalization

Introduction

Open education has existed for more than 6 decades, a period during which there have been different approaches to its definition according to new contexts, showing several changes that have opened up new opportunities and a broader perspective through the concept of open learning.

Open education had its beginnings in 1969, when the Open University (OU) of the United Kingdom emerged (Li, 2018, p. 410). This open model arose with the intention of eliminating or making more flexible those barriers that prevented various people from attending university classes due to different reasons. It was a proposal that opened opportunities for adults to study part-time, regardless of the qualifications previously obtained or having any disability. The objective that the university set for itself was to promote the educational well-being of the community in general, which implied a new approach in the organizational structures of educational institutions, in terms of both administrative processes as well as pedagogical and didactic ones.

Open education had an impact worldwide. Besides the OU, other universities started offering open education programs and were considered as pioneers, such as the Open University of Japan, the National Distance Education University of Spain and Athabasca University of Canada (Li, 2018). In the case of Mexico, it was the Open University System (in Spanish, Sistema Universidad Abierta; SUA).

The SUA emerged in the 1970s at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the biggest and most important university in the country. It sought to offer an alternative solution to incorporate large segments of the population into higher education through decentralization of university services and a renewal of teaching methods (González-Casanova, 1972). By then, UNAM already had 72,951 students registered, 15% more students than the year before, according to the data from 1970 and 1971 (UNAM, 1974, 1975) and a growing concern to reach different social groups, especially nonurban groups and workers. UNAM’s president at that time had a special interest in opening higher education access to that part of the population who were full-time workers or were at a distance from the university facilities. What was necessary was to create a non-school system complemented by materials such as study guides, self-assessment tests, and a national exam system (González-Casanova, 1972).

Almost 50 years later, based on the data that UNAM’s General Coordination of Planning and Simplification of Institutional Management publishes, UNAM’s population is over 229,000 students with 40,000 of them being part of the SUA (UNAM, 2022); and every year, only 10% of those who take the admission exam can be admitted. The needs, problems, and solutions proposed in the 1970s for opening up access to education are still valid, but the context is different. Educational institutions, companies, and professionals have implemented several initiatives with the purpose of offering flexible and open education and training content. In the specific case of universities and educational institutions, an increasing number of them offer open access to content repositories of various kinds (cultural, academic, research) as well as to collections of digital libraries, digital publication of the open courseware of their programs, and live transmission of conferences. The Open Directory of Open Access Repositories initiative identifies more than 6,000 repositories all over the world that provide free, open access to academic outputs and resources with sufficient metadata or documentation to make the material reusable (Jisc, n.d.).

These initiatives point out that open education models that were traditionallyoffered by universities are framed in much more flexible schemes in all senses: curricular programs, learning environments, teaching, research, accreditation, and management. At the same time, progress is being made in giving nonformal education opportunities with high-quality proposals, founded on the idea of sharing knowledge. These initiatives consider a greater active and self-determined participation from students and a close accompaniment by teachers, professionals, or individuals with similar interests and experiences in the field of knowledge in question, to promote the analysis and in-depth study of a topic, the acquisition and development of skills and competencies in an area, in a collaborative manner. Given this context, what does open education mean now? How has this concept changed?

Open education: concept and evolution

Through open universities, open education represented the beginning of an open learning movement that widened access to university for those people who could not attend conventional full-time higher education (O. Peters, 2008).

According to Keegan (1986), open education aimed to remove those controls—whether time, space, or academic programs—that were making it difficult to enter and remain in the school system;. Lewis and Spencer (1986) also pointed out this aspect of eliminating entry and school term difficulties; however, they also referred to a learning philosophy centered on the student. Guri-Rozenblit (1989) mentioned that there were different dimensions of openness, given by seven variables: admission requirements, graduation requirements, curricular planning, place of study, pace of study, individualized learning, and self-assessment.

In this sense, considering that open education involves not only admission barriers but also teaching and learning barriers, a whole system needed to be built. Coffey (1977, cited in Rumble, 1989, p. 29) referred to open education systems as follows:

An open education system is one in which controls over students are continually reviewed and removed when necessary. A wide variety of teaching strategies are used, especially those used in independent and individual learning.

Years later, Ramón-Martínez (1985, cited in García-Aretio, 1987, p. 4) integrated the open model with distance education by defining it as a strategy to operationalize the principles and purposes of continuing and open education, in such a way that any person, regardless of time and space, can become the protagonist of their own learning, thanks to the systematic use of educational materials reinforced with different media and forms of communication.

Lewis and Spencer (1986) and Rumble (1989) were concerned with pointing out the characteristics that distinguished open education, emphasizing that this form of education had to do with the flexibility of structures and processes as well as the presence of dialogue and support systems for the students. On the one hand, Lewis and Spencer (1986, p. 9) defined open education as follows:

Open education is a term used to describe flexible courses, designed to meet individual needs. This methodology attempts to remove the barriers imposed by some traditional courses that require attendance and also refers to a student-centered philosophy of learning.

On the other hand, Rumble (1989) classified the characteristics of openness into the five following criteria related to:

• access (financial, age, prerequisites)

• place and pace of study

• media

• the structure of the program (definition of learning objectives, contents materials) and

• support services.

Although by 1995 the term open learning was already used, researchers had different approaches. Maxwell (1995) identified two different levels: one referred by the breaking of barriers that prevented from attending a traditional school and a second level that referred to a learner-centered model, enabling students to learn when, how, and what they wanted. Holmberg (1989), acknowledging these different approaches, suggested that blending distance education with open learning could lead to open learning proposals concerned with the development of student autonomy and liberal approaches to education. In this sense, Holmberg reaffirmed Boot and Hodgson’s (1987, cited in Holmberg, 1989, p. 21) proposal through open curriculum, which they suggested in order to provide “structures and processes to enable individuals to control the direction and content of their own learning, and to support them in the creation and validation of their own meanings.” In 2019, Teixeira et al. proposed a scenario for higher education in which the distance university model would dominate because enrollment in massive open universities would continue to increase and that, in different regions of the world, institutions, especially those combining distance education with an open access philosophy dedicated to distance education, would prosper. They explained different reasons for this situation to occur, such as that institutions would achieve massive economies of scale while most of them would offer nationally recognized degrees; and in almost all cases, the cost to students would be lower than compared to conventional universities; or that there simply would not be enough available places in conventional universities with face-to-face models.

Bates (2022), in his effort to assist teachers in modifying their teaching practices, mentioned that due to the increasing availability of digital content and the expansion of digital education in higher education, students would increasingly seek out institutions for learning support, under flexible schemes, which would impact on the role of teachers and the design of courses.

Jung (2019) stated that it was necessary to resume the results that had been generated in recent years in research, on different theoretical proposals related to open education in such a way that their validity could be verified and the theoretical frameworks redefined and updated under new digital environments. For this, he recommended that both research and practice could be guided by the most relevant theories, as well as promoted, developed, and consolidated by emerging theories, taking into account technological development, to explain and understand the new realities. A new reality that all institutions had to deal with was the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Chand et al. (2023), during 2022, a large number of institutional training initiatives were generated, such as webinars, conferences, workshops, books, and articles as well as networks and international groups that shared and collaborated in both academic activity and professional development. As open, distance, and online education, along with blended or hybrid approaches has become more important, the challenges for maintaining flexibility and access have become more relevant.

Technology

As digital technology evolved, particularly with the exponential growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web, so did the proposals to integrate information and communications technology in the educational field. At the end of the 1990s, due to Internet’s growth and as the use and development of web pages and learning management systems increased, the need to establish standards that would allow the easy search, transfer, and exchange of data and information also increased. Both students and professors, and the institutions themselves, faced new challenges, such as the search for and location of information, the reuse of previously generated content, and the possibility of sharing resources with other people or institutions. In response to this need, the idea grew of creating digital catalogues that would expedite the consultation of materials and would facilitate the identification of the type of materials that were to be consulted, and even that would provide the possibility of exchanging and reusing educational materials. Thus, in 1997 the concept of learning objects was used for the first time to refer to those digital resources that support education and can be constantly reused (L’Allier, 1997). Subsequently, with the intention of facilitating even more the generation, distribution, and consumption of educational resources, a more flexible and accessible way of educational resources was conceived by the Massachussets Institute of Technology, which announced its OpenCourseWare and gave birth to open educational resources (OER), putting aside the use of interoperability standards in order to ease their use, modification, storage, and distribution (Open University, 2023).

Gradually, the number of universities participating in open courseware grew exponentially (Hylén, 2006). Following the practices of developers of free software and open source such as Linux, universities began offering open access to diverse digital content repositories including cultural, academic, and research materials, in addition to digital library collections. The publication of open courseware corresponding to the degree programs and the live transmission of conferences and courses opened up an opportunity to any person, regardless of whether they were enrolled or not at those universities, to be educated. M. A. Peters (2009) mentioned that open digital content publishing, open access, and archiving were part of a broader movement called “open education,” just as open source and open software were for digital systems and programming development.

All of this made it clear that open education models traditionally exhibited by universities were now framed within much more flexible schemes not only in terms of what they offered as curricular programs, learning environments, teaching practices, research, dissemination, accreditation, and management but also in the possibility for people to choose, design, and manage their own learning experience. In particular, according to Zawacki-Richter et al. (2020, p. 327):

Given greater technological possibilities and probable digital disruptions of traditional learning and working roles, future learners’ needs will continue to evolve. Open universities, with their policies of flexibility, reduced barriers to learning, and access will need to explore further options to offer more choice and ease of access. This implies placing greater emphasis on the micro or individual level, and further justifies this emphasis considering that learners are at the center of open learning ecologies.

As an example of options for mediated technology learning, higher education institutions began to incorporate massive open online courses (MOOCs) as a type of open education. These open online courses were originated using web technologies to present an open education, and later transformed into an experience for the masses.

As reported by Rodríguez (2013), in 2008, a total of 2,200 people enrolled in the Siemens and Downes course Connectivism and Connective Knowledge; this first MOOC was located in the broader context of open education and OER as a MOOC, albeit with a very different pedagogical approach. According to Cormier (2008), who introduced the MOOC concept, the pedagogical basis for these types of courses are that:

• they are based on the theory of connectivism, elaborated by George Siemens in 2005 and Stephen Downes in 2006

• learning is centered on communities and learning networks

• they extend knowledge beyond the borders that time and space can establish

• they rely on information and communication technologies.

From this event, companies and organizations such as Coursera, edX, FutureLearn, and Miríadax began to coordinate a growing number of MOOC offerings (Ruiz-Bolívar, 2015). Alongside this, they aimed to promote learner-centered education, based on an open knowledge environment provided by the open initiatives.

Open knowledge

Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access it, use it, modify it, and share it under conditions that recognize and preserve authorship and the same openness.

Constructivism followed by connectivism have put an emphasis on the social aspect for knowledge building. As Durán et al. (2022. p. 8) have pointed out, life in a network demands new approaches as far as the production of knowledge is concerned, where it cannot necessarily be considered as an act of collaboration between a group of individuals but rather that people connect with what they need to know or investigate; it is a process that implies the generation of personal networks on the Internet and the ability to navigate in said networks. Within this framework, when speaking of the open knowledge movement, reference is made to a set of academic and scientific practices that are carried out based on collaborative initiatives open to different audiences and communities, using resources available to everyone and for free. In the words of Elizondo (2019, p. 134), “open knowledge is the result of the use of open data. When open data becomes a useful good, it can be shared and used in a variety of ways.”

One of the most important components of the open education movement refers to the production, use, dissemination, and reuse of OER, which is a term first used at the beginning of this century. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (n.d.) considers OER as teaching, learning, or research materials that are in the public domain or that have been published with an intellectual property license that allows their use, free adaptation, and distribution. This fact marked the beginning of the open knowledge movement and modified the trend that existed with work around learning objects.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2007, pp. 30–31), OER include:

• Learning content: Full courses, courseware, content modules, learning objects, collections and journals.

• Tools: Software to support the development, use, reuse and delivery of learning content, learning management systems, content development tools, and online learning communities.

• Implementation resources: Intellectual property licences to promote open publishing of materials, guidelines for online catalogues.

The participation of institutions and individuals in the open education movement and in the production and exchange of OER is very important; therefore, it is necessary to overcome some of the main barriers that prevent this from being achieved. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2007), these barriers are classified as technological, economic, social, and legal.

Open knowledge is a practice within the open education movement and the open educational practices (OEP) framework. In the words of Koseoglu and Borzkut (2018, p. 455), OEP “are a broad range of practices that are informed by open education initiatives and movements and that embody the values and visions of openness.”

Open learning

Furthermore, within the OEP framework, an educational practice called open learning, slightly different from the one related to open universities, emerged. It refers to those strategies and activities that students use to learn something through OER, such as courses, tutorials, conferences, and evaluation. It is this open learning concept that could be addressed by taking into account what Mays (2017, cited in Koseoglu & Bozkurt, 2018, p. 443) referred to as a micro-level use of OER that happen at an individual level. Koseoglu and Bozkurt themselves mentioned open learning to be part of the evolving adaptative educational approaches of OER. Through time, most open learning proposals have met three main characteristics: accessibility, free of charge, and flexibility. In a study on the evolution of open learning from 1990 to 2017, Li (2018) found that these three characteristics were still valid. However, it is that from the strengthening of open education movement that other characteristics such as adaptability, open collaboration, and open assessment were added. Below, we describe in more detail the characteristics of open learning.

• Accessibility: Open learning proposals, as it happens with OER, must be placed in a space with free access, without any type of requirement to consult them.

• Adaptability: In an open learning approach, proposals must make it easier to adapt them in order to respond to the needs of each of the individuals, be it in the curricular design, in the review of contents and materials or even in the evaluation methods.

• Free: As its name indicates, an additional feature that the components of open education have is the one that refers to the elimination of payments. As indicated in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under the principle established by the United Nations of perceiving education as a common good, open education frames the principles of free access to knowledge (United Nations, 1948).

• Flexibility: To define flexible learning, Li et al. (2018) proposed a multidimensional approach, with the dimensions of flexible learning including time (course/module start or end date and time and pace of learning in a course), the content (level of difficulty of module content, sequence in which topics are covered, and topic to be learned), entry requirement (prerequisites for participation in the module/course), delivery (channels for course information and place for learning), the focus of instruction (number of learning activities, language of instruction, modes and structures of presentation, social organization of learning, time and duration of learning, activities and type of learning activities), the assessment (assessment mode, assignment requirement, weighting of assignments and exams for course outcome, exam dates, and assignment deadline), resources and support (number of learning materials, tools, and support; where the learning materials are located and time available for support), and orientation or objective of the course.

• Open collaboration: According to Demacio et al. (2022), cocreation and collaboration are at the heart of the OEP framework. Through these actions, learners prove achieved learning and contribute to the open movement that extends beyond the classroom. It is based on open collaboration to foster teamwork and social interaction to work together through the cocreation or adaptation of OER.

• Open assessment: This practice refers to the transformation of assessment into a more open process in which peer assessment, self-assessment, and co-assessment are common. It relies on digital technologies with a more formative focus, where assessment becomes a moment to learn, not just the space in which the learner is accountable for their learning (Chiappe et al., 2016).

UNAM’s SUA

In 1992, González-Casanova defined the university as a cultural institution dedicated to research, teaching, and dissemination, with the highest possible levels of knowledge and the most advanced technologies. In order to create an open university system, he took up from the general systems theory the definition of an open system with the possibility of a transition toward higher orders of heterogeneity and organization. González-Casanova considered that if the concept of "open education" tends to emphasize that the university is open to new populations, an "open system" should be a research laboratory for school education so that the open system of the university should be able to meet the objectives of all open systems, with the obligation to define and redefine their complexity, organized in such a way that the same final objectives could be achieved from different initial conditions and in different ways, with levels of information that reduce chance, and with feedback from each experience in order to improve pathways toward a better education to a greater number of students.

The SUA was created in 1972 under this framework, considering teaching more students more efficiently as an extraordinary challenge and possibility. In the statement of reasons for the foundation of the SUA, the commitment to offer better education to more people was established, and the system emphasized the role of open education so that those sectors of the population that could not otherwise study could do so under a program commited to high academic rigor and quality in education (González-Casanova, 1972).

The Coordination of the SUA was established in 1972, with the purpose of initiating the implementation of the open modality in several schools: Political and Social Sciences, Accounting and Administration, Law, Philosophy and Literature, Engineering, Medicine and Psychology, Economics and Dentistry. The Coordination gradually designed study plans for the open modality, thus incorporating the first university version of a blended education system, based on self-taught study (Amador-Bautista, 2012).

To achieve its objectives of expanding opportunities for access to high-quality education, the SUA had to be increasingly a self-referential organization of innovation in teaching that did not compete with cloistered teaching but rather combined with it so that, in their integration, both would overcome their limitations (González-Casanova, 1972). For this purpose, specific programs with the participation of scientific and humanistic research institutes were created, so that each of them corresponded to the most advanced levels of knowledge. Among the programs created, the following stand out: formation of groups of excellence to multiply quality teaching, a program to produce didactic material, another of specialized courses on teaching methods to prepare teachers for open teaching systems, and a training program encouraging teachers to become researchers.

In accordance with the definition of “open university,” at the SUA it was considered an important challenge, especially at the level of higher education, to master knowledge building the way it was being enhanced at the time. Hence, the identity of this open system, of its teachers and students, should be expressed in innovation and in the adoption of the most rigorous methods of reflecting and doing (González-Casanova, 1992).

The SUA took into account that open university systems would surely maintain the maximum of general flexibility for specific educational experiences and practices, for diverse and broad groups of students and not just for some with specific characteristics. These groups could either study inside or outside university buildings, combining theorical and practical learning methods. The educational framework should be broad in order to achieve diverse and precise goals, with different methods and materials for face-to-face and non-face-to-face teaching, in various spaces of communication, with rigorous evaluation methods and with duly trained teachers. Likewise, it was considered that open university systems had to be the leading guide for the new university, with an emphasis on extramural teaching, face-to-face and non-face-to-face, and with new methods and concepts on thinking and doing at the highest level. The SUA would mark its identity by its creativity to train a student to know how to learn, read and think, write, organize and synthesize their knowledge, criticize or evaluate themselves, and know how to correct themselves and be aware of their course programs, with their respective learning objectives. As an open system, studying on and outside university campuses would gradually become more similar in terms of learning experiences, making no difference for students who do not attend school at all. González-Casanova (1992, p. 286) projected the SUA not as a second-rate system but as a vanguard system.

In the first decade of the 21st century, UNAM also incorporated the option of pursuing high school and bachelor degrees under a distance education model. Specifically, in 2009, new internal statutes made it possible to formally organize a new system, the Open University and Distance Education System (SUAyED), in such a way that, by including information and communications technology, online education programs would be integrated with content provided through learning management systems or web platforms, for communication between students and teachers (Cervantes-Pérez et al., 2019).

Currently, the training needs that globalization has presented to different disciplines, the incorporation of information and communications technology which have made access and content distribution more flexible, as well as teaching methods, demand that UNAM carry out an evaluation and deep reflection on the validity and updating of SUAyED, as well as the role it plays in the face of the new open education schemes that predominate in the world.

Actual status, problems, and challenges

By 2009, when SUAyED was created, a series of innovations and initiatives in online education that contributed to the rapid strengthening of the new system had already taken place. Among the emerging innovations, it is worth highlighting the following.

Digital libraries

The UNAM Digital Library was formed in 2001, made up of a multidisciplinary team of library science, computer engineering and applied linguistics professionals. It has grown and incorporated digital tools to ease the cataloging, storage and search of materials. Today, the library has more than 1 million resources, including books, magazines, degree theses, old collections, maps, and photographs; the digital library serves more than 350,000 users from the university community (UNAM, n.d.).

B@UNAM

In 2006, UNAM launched an online high school program, especially for Hispanic-speaking people living abroad (https://www.bunam.unam.mx/programa.php). Its formative orientation related to the social function of preparing for life, in order to carry out new studies and develop useful skills and attitudes in any job: responsibility, honesty, and social commitment.

The program considered individual and group knowledge construction with strategies and didactic materials especially designed to ensure adequate understanding of the topics, evaluation activities that assess knowledge and skills as well as self-assessment activities for the student to verify their progress.

MOOCs

In 2012, UNAM joined the Coursera consortium through the-then Open University and Distance Education Coordination (now the Open University, Educative Innovation and Distance Education: CUAIEED). Dr. Zubieta, the coordinator of the coordination at that time, referred to the diversity of modalities found in education and those that would be found in the future stating that, given that UNAM was the most important higher education institution of the country, it was necessary to be prepared to face new challenges through innovating in projects such as MOOCs (Zubieta, 2015). The objectives set by UNAM from the decision to develop MOOCs were to extend the options for academic and professional training updating and to explore new teaching models according to the current world (Enríquez, 2016).

Today, UNAM offers 123 MOOCs, with the advantage that certification is free for the university community. Between the beginning of the participation in Coursera in 2012 and April 2022, a total of 42,922 students, graduates, professors, and active workers at UNAM have registered, with 245,150 participants in 3,363 courses, achieving 45,082 certificates (Bucio et al., 2022).

University repositories

Although UNAM began to build digital resources repositories at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, as Durán et al. (2022) pointed out, UNAM established an open access policy framework in 2015, which led to the creation of resource repositories for dissemination and disclosure. In addition, 2016 saw the presentation of the UNAM Open Data Portal and the publication of the UNAM Journals portal with the aim of offering free access to university academic journals. Furthermore, the General Office of Universitary Repositories was created and the UNAM Open Access Books portal (http://www.librosoa.unam.mx/) was launched in 2018 (Durán et al., 2022).

University Learning Network

This network (https://rua.unam.mx/portal/) allows the community in general user-friendly access to a collection of online educational content for both baccalaureate and undergraduate degrees. The contents are directly linked to the UNAM’s open courseware established by schools and faculties.

Although SUAyED has been transforming, where does it really fall in terms of openness? In 2019, a study was carried out at UNAM to characterize the university's open education system. There was a special interest in conducting a self-reflective assessment that could help to analyse and characterize SUAyED in terms of openness, flexibility, and its business model, in three distinct periods of time, in order to evaluate the digitalization and transformation that had happened in the system (Cervantes-Pérez et al., 2019).

For this assessment, the open, online, flexible, and technology-enhanced education (OOFAT; Orr et al., 2018) model was used. The OOFAT model was created by researchers at the United Kingdom’s OU in order to identify how higher education institutions from around the world are harnessing technology and digitalisation (Orr et al., 2018). The model focuses on two dimensions: flexibility of provision (in terms of time, place and pace) and openness of provision (in terms of who has access to learning and support and who is involved in the design of learning provision). Three core processes are analyzed under these dimensions: content, delivery, and recognition.

Orr et al. (2018) described six distinct types of practices happening within higher education institutions toward their digital transformation: OOFAT at the center, OOFAT for organizational flexibility, OOFAT for a specific purpose, content-focused OOFAT model, access-focused OOFAT model, and OOFAT for multiple projects. In order to identify the OOFAT model of an institution, a 5-point Likert questionnaire has to be answered by leaders of open and distance education universities, with 1 indicating not open or not flexible and 5 indicating highly open or highly flexible (depending on the dimension evaluated).

The main results obtained for UNAM’s SUA after using the OOFAT model include the following:

• From 1972 to 2005, there was a significant progress in flexibility to distribute educational content and provide support to students.

• There was also progress in providing access and production of educational content.

• There was also significant progress in terms of content personalization.

• There were no changes in terms of the flexibility of the evaluation nor in having nonformal education schemes.

Table 1 (from Cervantes-Pérez et al., 2019, p. 217) shows the results of the evaluation at three specific moments of SUA: when it was created, when the online programs started and when the study was carried out. The score for each item, for each period, is the mean obtained after the evaluation. As it can be seen, in 1972, flexibility and openness at SUA’s programs was very weak. While there was an overall improvement in all items, flexibility and openness in content and support delivery were the items with better results.

Table 1. Results of the historical analysis of the SUAyED, using the OOFAT model (adopted from Cervantes-Pérez et al., 2019, p. 217).

OOFAT dimension	1972: Creation of the Open University System	2005: First distance programs	2018
Content delivery: flexible	1	4	3.5
Content delivery: open	1	3.5	3.8
Support delivery: flexible	1	3	4.2
Support delivery: open	1	3	3.2
Content personalization	1	3	2.2
Content production: open	1	3	3.1
Assessment: flexible	1	1	2.2
Formal recognition: flexible	1	1	2.2
Recognition: open	1	1	1.9
Total	9	22.5	57.8

A general conclusion drawn from the OOFAT analysis is that SUAyED, contrary to educational trends, follows a content-focused approach. Thus, the first challenge facing the system would involve transitioning the system toward a student-centered model. Student-centered teaching, as outlined by Darsih (2018), forces students to adopt an active role regarding their training, as opposed to the more passive role traditionally used where the teacher delivers information and the student consumes it.

However, this is not the only challenge that SUAyED faces, and even less so if what is wanted is a transformation toward an open learning scheme such as the one mentioned above, a model in which learning spaces offer flexible and open experiences, that integrate learning communities and educational networks, libraries, and open repositories as well as open educational tools. From this perspective, the SUAyED model can undertake a change that, in terms of Chiappe and Adame (2018), must offer a set of experiences that include free and open learning communities, educational networks, teaching materials, free and open textbooks, open data, and open source educational tools.

Table 2 shows some proposals that we consider would contribute to improving the openness of SUAyED, especially in terms of access and flexibility, specifically in the institutional context and related to global issues. The proposals are classified according to three dimensions that make up the SUAyED: academic, administrative, and technological.

Table 2. Proposals for flexibility and openness for the SUAyED.

Dimension	Challenges	Description
Academic	Curricular	Curricular flexibility not only means that in the study plan of a program, specific blocks of training can be chosen, but also that the credits of the plans can be complemented, with subjects offered by other institutions or organizations. The adaptability of the curricular program considers the participation and decision of the student.
	Didactic	The didactic challenge lies in strengthening the use, adaptability and development of OER. It also considers the co-creation of the resources itself, either jointly between groups of professors, between professors and students, or with participants outside the institution.
	Management	Courses with automated procedures and didactic activities, with OER as didactic material, ideally generated with open software and taught with learning management systems.
	Assessment	It is a training practice that considers a process of verification and feedback of learning. It is carried out collaboratively, mediated by free access tools, in which teachers produce or adapt assessment resources and students adapt and remix these resources in order to generate for themselves an evaluation that responds to their personal needs and context (Chiappe, 2016).
	Non-curricular activities (languages, culture)	Any SUAyED higher education program considers that students must also cover a series of extra-curricular requirements which should also be available in open, flexible and distance formats.
Administrative	Management	Automation of procedures generated with open software oriented to integrate systems and with multiplatform operation for school administration.
	Certification	Making certification models more flexible implies considering lateral exits throughout a study program in such a way that, when a student completes a certain set of subjects, they can obtain a lower grade certificate than the one that involves the entire program; that is, it can be a diploma, a specialty or a technical career.
	Internationalization	Although UNAM is part of ECOESAD (Common Space for Distance Higher Education), there is a need to strengthen and expand the possibilities for student mobility to provide them opportunities to take courses from other institutions.
	Outreach	Most of the linking activities carried out by the university with society occur in face-to-face schemes, in rigid work schedules. It is important to consider programs with flexible and distance proposals, which provide opportunities for SUAyED students to participate in such linking activities.
	Services	As is the case with linking activities, better technological solutions are required to allow a better systematization of administrative processes that make it easier for SUAyED students to carry out various school procedures online.
	Normative	SUAyED is governed by a statute and regulations, which have been modified to respond to institutional updating needs; however, there are still important challenges to include, such as making possible mobility between the various modalities offered by the university more flexible.
Technological	Systems administration	The proper functioning of SUAyED implies the use of various systems to perform different functions. To the extent that communication between the different systems is facilitated, processes can be strengthened and tasks optimized. In addition, the incorporation of standards and good practices in the configuration and administration of software will ease the integration and updating of systems and tools, as well as communication with external systems and those of other institutions for the construction of joint networks and digital heritage.
	Security	The protection of personal data and the exchange of information should be a priority because of ethical issues, they strengthen the confidence of users in the use of the different learning spaces offered by the institution.
	Storage	The security of data, learning resources and repositories, and digital libraries also implies guaranteeing that they work with robust servers that integrate current technologies and are compatible with open access schemes.

As expected, the academic dimension refers to those proposals that directly impact the spaces in which the didactic process occurs, such as the classroom or the virtual classroom and therefore influences the training of students. On the other hand, the administrative dimension involves proposals that would optimize school procedures and paperwork carried out by both the institution and the students; while the technological dimension refers to the proposals on issues of technological standards and policies to manage data and information as well as to facilitate communication between the various systems and applications within the university.

Reflections and suggestions

Based on the challenges identified, we believe that SUAyED can transition toward an open learning scheme, with different levels of flexibility and openness. Table 3 presents three proposals aimed at building three open learning approaches that gradually offer possibilities for exercising greater or lesser autonomy in the student, both for the choice and design of curricula and for the learning process itself. The whole proposal is called MyUNAM and is integrated with three different approaches: MySUAyED, which is designed in a directed-open learning approach; Co-SUAyED, which is a semi-directed-open learning approach; and Open UNAM, which is built under a self-directed open learning approach.

Table 3. Proposals for open learning approaches for the SUAyED.

MyUNAM
	MySUAyED	Co-SUAyED	Open UNAM
Approach	Directed open learning	Semi-directed open learning	Self-directed open learning
Solution	There is a determined course program but with different ways to go through it, according to the student’s previous knowledge and the performance they show.	Based on a determined program but, with personal considerations due to the student's prior knowledge and specific professional interests. It is agreed in the company of an adviser, including dates, assessment activities and content.	The contents of the courses are released so that people interested in the subjects can consult them and even follow a personalized path.
Objective	Offer a formal training program that responds to the aptitudes and difficulties of each student.	Offer a formal, personalized training program that responds to the aptitudes and interests of each student; giving the possibility of generating and venturing into interdisciplinary programs that do not yet exist.	Offer, through open online courses and materials, access to training and updating schemes that respond to the interests and demands of the general public.
Teacher’s role	Guide the student and give him/her feedback in relation to the activities developed and the specific courses he/she takes, based on the performance and achievements he/she is obtaining. Support the student in aspects of self-regulation, planning and evaluation of learning.	Guide the student and provide feedback in relation to the design of a learning trajectory. Link the student with different knowledge; with experts from other disciplines and with learning communities. Support the student in aspects of self-regulation, planning and evaluation of learning.	There is no teacher.
Student’s role	The student consults and solves the content that the adviser and the system suggest; asks questions and attends to the activities of the program.	The student, together with the adviser, defines their learning trajectory. The student is responsible for regulating his/her activities, communicating with the adviser the progress on the different subjects and together they assess the progress and possible adjustments.	The student is fully responsible for learning; they define the subjects that he/she will take, the period of time in which they will be completed and even if they want to obtain or not any accreditation or certification for these studies.
Technologies	An open learning management system platform is used with a broad collection of digital content for the main topics and concepts of the program. The adviser, with the help of self-assessment tools and a chatbot, identifies individual and group needs and suggests specific OER to students.	An open digital tool, such as Trello, is used in order to organise and plan a personal learning trajectory that helps students self regulate their learning. The dashboard is shared with the adviser in order to receive comments, supportive material an information about events and contacts with other people.	An open platform such as RUA.UNAM is connected with a personal learning environment that keeps track of students’ achievements. The system, with the help of technology such as ChatGPT, suggests activities and exams in order to prepare students for a certification. Open badges are also available.

In addition to interventions in teaching, an important practice that is essential to integrate into SUAyED is research. Promoting open research as the main way of generating knowledge in educational institutions, establishing strategies so that this knowledge can be transferred to teaching practices implies establishing and directing teacher training programs on open education toward the generation of a teacher-researcher who seeks and finds solutions to the problems that occur in spaces in which their teaching practice occurs to generate open learning.

Conclusions

In the evolution of UNAM’s SUA, the integration of different pedagogical, technological, and management trends can be observed. Over 50 years of history, change has been a constant but slow process. The preservation of educational openness has often been a central focus for UNAM’s SUA, leading to resistance. However, the institution has embarked on initiatives such as the establishment of open resource repository networks, the development of MOOCs, and the implementation of teacher training programs with the purpose of linking research, teaching, and learning with an open learning approach. We believe that this last concern is what SUAyED should focus on, to build a renewed proposal, according to current needs and problems; the kind of renewal that universities must consider in order to continue fulfilling the mission of training citizens and professionals for the context in which they live and will live. Even before the global health emergency experienced at the end of 2019, universities such as the University of British Columbia in Canada and the Higher School of Economics in Russia had begun strategic activities to shift their educational offerings toward hybrid models (University of British Columbia, 2014) and flexible models using MOOCs on curricular programs (Kulik & Kidimova, 2017). These models aim to minimize face-to-face meetings while integrating customization enhances learning experience. Today, more than ever, it is crucial to consider open models for higher education that prioritize flexibility, personalization, and openness. While MyUNAM presents a diverse proposal for higher education access, it is still an offer to train professionals. Open science should also be an issue to address at SUAyED in order to build a stronger open education system that blends with the work done at UNAM’s research institutes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was declared by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Larisa Enríquez-Vázquez

Larisa Enríquez-Vázquez has a Master in Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She is a full-time researcher at the Coordination of Open University, Educational Innovation and Distance Education of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and current coordinator of the Department Autonomous and Adaptive Learning.

Myrna Hernández-Gutiérrez

Myrna Hernández-Gutiérrez has a PhD in pedagogy from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where she is an academic and director of Digital Transformation Projects for Education. She collaborates in research projects on collaborative learning in virtual environments.