Welcome to the first issue of 2026. Open and distance education (ODE) continues to be reshaped by the maturation of digital technologies, changing learner expectations and renewed commitments to inclusive educational provision. The seven articles in this issue examine these developments from complementary perspectives. They consider the historical development of open pedagogy, institutional strategies for technology-rich distance higher education, the redesign of instructional design models and applied uses of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and virtual reality (VR). Just as importantly, they keep the learner at the centre, reminding us that innovation in ODE should be judged not by technological novelty alone, but by the extent to which it expands meaningful, equitable and high-quality learning opportunities.To understand current possibilities, it is useful to begin with the development of the field itself. Dang et al. (2026) provide a bibliometric and qualitative account of open pedagogy in higher education from 1988 to 2024. Their analysis traces major phases in the literature, identifies influential contributors and maps key thematic clusters. The article offers a valuable overview of how open pedagogy has moved from early links with distance education towards more developed theoretical and pedagogical concerns. Its significance also lies in identifying the continuing concentration of research in Western contexts, thereby highlighting the need for more geographically diverse scholarship if open education is to be understood as a genuinely global movement.Alfarizi et al. (2026) turn attention from pedagogical foundations to institutional futures. Through an integrated bibliometric and systematic literature review of Industry 5.0 technologies in distance higher education, they identify strategic directions involving human-centred AI, immersive learning environments, decentralised digital infrastructures and ethical governance. Their proposed conceptual models, including AI–human pedagogical synergy, immersive–reflexive learning architecture and technological–ethical equilibrium, provide a useful language for institutions seeking to align technological development with educational purpose. The article is particularly useful in broadening the idea of a ‘world-class’ online university beyond prestige and scale, towards flexibility, connectivity, personalisation and trustworthy governance.As institutional ambitions become more technologically sophisticated, instructional design frameworks also require reconsideration. Mohamad Noor (2026) addresses this need through FLEX-ADDIE, a conceptual adaptation of the traditional ADDIE model for Generation Alpha learners. The model integrates human–computer integration and explainable AI across the phases of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, offering a structured approach to learning design that is adaptive, transparent and responsive to digitally fluent learners. Its contribution is appropriately forward-looking: it does not claim to provide a fully validated model, but it offers a coherent framework for future empirical testing and practical implementation in open, distance and lifelong learning contexts.Two articles then examine the educational use of GenAI in applied settings. Suwardika et al. (2026) investigate digital literacy development through three instructional conditions: conventional tutorials, flipped classroom design thinking and an AI-supported flipped classroom design thinking model. Their repeated-measures study in an open and distance learning environment suggests a clear progression in students' digital literacy outcomes, with the AI-supported condition associated with stronger digital production and more reflective engagement. The study is valuable because it presents a practical pedagogical model in which GenAI is embedded within structured learning activities, rather than treated as an isolated tool.Wong et al. (2026) make an important empirical contribution by comparing the adoption of GenAI and emerging technologies among in-service distance learners and pre-service full-time early childhood education teachers in Hong Kong. Their findings show that professional context matters: in-service distance learners used GenAI in more pragmatic and intensive ways for immediate workplace needs, whereas pre-service teachers tended to engage with technologies more broadly and exploratory. The article is especially valuable because it moves beyond general discussions of technology acceptance and demonstrates how learner status, professional responsibilities and pedagogical beliefs shape meaningful technology use. It also provides persuasive evidence for differentiated, flexible and needs-based professional development, particularly for working teachers studying through ODE. In doing so, Wong et al. (2026) position ODE not simply as an alternative delivery mode, but as a productive environment for practice-oriented technological innovation.While GenAI is receiving considerable attention, immersive technologies remain important for widening participation, especially in practice-oriented fields. Mahande et al. (2026) examine hybrid-flexible virtual reality (HyFlex-VR) in vocational education settings where digital infrastructure is limited. Their mixed-methods study indicates that well-designed HyFlex-VR can support engagement, satisfaction and perceived inclusivity when accompanied by flexible participation options and careful pedagogical management. The value of this article lies in positioning VR not as a technological novelty but as part of a multimodal participation model that may help learners remain engaged in contexts shaped by digital inequality.Finally, Ucar et al. (2026) return us to the human purposes of ODE through a phenomenological study of 953 learner narratives. The themes identified, namely lifelong learning, turning dreams into reality, starting a new career and overcoming disabling conditions, show how flexible educational provision can affect learners' personal, professional and social lives. This article is a timely reminder that the significance of ODE lies not only in systems, platforms or delivery modes but also in its capacity to create educational routes for learners whose circumstances may have made conventional higher education difficult to access.Taken together, the seven articles offer a thoughtful account of a field in transition. They do not present a single prescription for the future of ODE. Rather, they provide a set of evidence-informed and conceptually grounded perspectives on how ODE can respond to technological change while maintaining its core commitments to access, inclusion, learner agency and educational quality. I invite readers to engage closely with these contributions and to consider how their insights might inform future research, policy and practice in the continuing development of ODE.
Li et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: