Open has proved a popular designation of this type of learning, at least in the UK.

The success of the Open University, from the early sixties onwards, has lead to a string of institutions choosing a similar name: Open Tech, Open College, Open College of the Arts, Open College Network, Open Learning Federation, Open Learning Foundation, the British Association for Open Learning, the Open Learning Centre International, and now the nationwide network of Open Learning Centres.

And open is a "feel-good" word.    As with open-minded or open-armed, open learning sounds as if it is going to be accessible, adaptable, welcoming and friendly.

But like distance learning, open learning is difficult to pin down, let alone define.    Both are variants of open and distance learning, for which ODL QC does attempt a definition (qv).

Indeed, few bother to try to define open learning.    A Google search in 2003 for "definition of distance learning" produced almost 500 entries worldwide.

An equivalent search for open learning gave less than 50, and many of these simply said that there was no reliable definition.

This may be because the word is more common in a UK context than worldwide.    Or perhaps people feel they know intuitively what open learning is, and don't need to define it.

Its meaning is also circumscribed because open is almost always paired with learning.    Distance is paired with education and teaching almost as much as with learning, whilst flexible and online are paired with delivery as much as learning.

So its use is more a matter of fashion than any attempt to convey subtle nuances of meaning.

In Australasia, for example, open learning has never caught on.    Instead, they talk about flexible learning, but use it to cover what would be called open learning in the UK.

Now there are new pretenders - e-Learning and, more especially, blended learning.    All do have slightly different meanings.    Whether one of them will also replace open learning remains to be seen.