education in the United States
Ouanessa Boubsil* — Kayleigh Carabajal**
* University of Maryland University College OBoubsil@umuc.edu
** Central New Mexico Community College kcarabajal@cnm.edu
ABSTRACT. This paper presents a review of the current practice associated with The American- model Higher Education (AHE) overseas with particular focus on expanding Distance Education. The review identifies specific areas of weakness in the practice of AHE overseas.
RÉSUMÉ. Cet article présente une analyse des pratiques actuelles relevant du « Modèle Américain pour l’Enseignement Supérieur (AHE) » à l’étranger avec un accent particulier sur le développement de l’enseignement à distance. L’analyse identifie des points de faiblesse dans la pratique de l’AHE à l’étranger.
KEYWORDS: globalization of higher education, internationalization of higher education, distance education, US higher education, accreditation, online education, borderless education.
MOTS-CLÉS : mondialisation de l’enseignement supérieur, enseignement à distance, enseignement à distance américain, validation, accréditation, enseignement en ligne, enseignement sans frontière.
DOI:10.3166/DS.7.699-711 © Cned/Lavoisier
Introduction
In an era defined by globalization, technological innovations relentlessly compress the world in space and time; economies become rapidly impelled into a state of interdependence, interconnectedness and cultural diversity, and educational institutions across the world are being challenged to follow suit [1]. Thus, educational contexts abound with the rhetoric of globalization.
In American Higher Education (AHE), this globalization is espoused as a method to prepare an informed citizenry for the global world of work as well as to bring about a shared future marked by security, justice, human rights, ecologic and economic sustainability. Underscoring this pervasiveness and pressure, the majority of US research universities mention internationalization, a manifestation of globalization, in their current mission statements, and nearly half in their strategic plans [2].
AHE’s response to this imperative heavily employs a university model based upon transport and building technologies: students and faculty cross borders; study- abroad programs proliferate, and American-model university campuses are built on foreign soil. Indeed, the beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed an unexpected mushrooming of American-model universities ranging from commercial franchises of, existing or non-existing, US-based universities.
This growth is attributable, in part, to the fact that AHE has historically been a very sought after commodity. The hallmarks of US higher education are highly prized by students, parents, educational partners, and governments across the globe.
Governmental, or quasi-governmental, long term investment supports are frequently aimed at placing their respective countries on the global academic "map". Over time, issues with continued implementation of this face-to-face institutional model are steadily growing: finite resources require exquisite attention to cost-effectiveness;
socio-cultural issues impact accreditation, and geo-political barriers surround new branch campus construction, in some notable cases discussed below, these issues precluded successful implementation.
Many US institutions are re-examining the role of distance education in response to the demand for globalization. Distance education takes place where learners and instructors are freed from the constraints of time and place co-location; information and communication technologies bridge the gap between the two components. Rapid advances in the Internet, multimedia and e-learning technologies provide increasing support for the adoption or expansion of distance learning technologies as a delivery method for transnational education. Transnational education (i.e., borderless education) occurs when courses or degree programs offered by an originating institution based in one country are delivered to students in another. The critical emergent question now becomes, how successful will transnational distance education delivery be in maintaining the hallmarks of AHE throughout the world whilst overcoming the obstacles encountered in the current American-model? The goal of this two-part essay is not to provide answers but rather to establish a
foundation for addressing that question. The first section of the paper examines macro level issues in current American style education in response to the pressures of globalization. These include the campus-based model, accreditation, and socio- cultural and funding issues; issues which are likely to hinder further expansion of this model abroad. The second section explores micro level issues in the current distance education operational model and implications at the teaching and learning and curricular level.
Macro level
In the past the decision to establish a presence overseas was motivated in part by prestige. US institutions of higher education wanted to maintain their reputation at home and expand it worldwide. This move also afforded American scholars the opportunity to study abroad and immerse themselves in a different culture while attending a US accredited university. Today, the move is driven by economic factors. In the face of shrinking enrolment figures at home, skyrocketing costs and tightening budgets [3] and heightened competition [4], US institutions of higher education are forced to look abroad for solutions.
Further, policy makers have long held to the position that international students either here or abroad enrol in American-model institutions to avail themselves of an education with uniquely American features. At a macro level, five such features are noteworthy: Curriculum standardization that supports seamless transfer across institutions; an internationally recognized accreditation system certifying high quality educational experiences and credible degree paths; the ability to innovate, inter alia, the flexibility and capacity to involve other community and nongovernmental institutions; the capacity to combine vocational and technical education rather than treating them as separate streams; and the multi-level educational system (2-year, 4-year and graduate education) that support variable access avenues to learning across the lifetime. Policy makers may well wish to consider parlaying these hallmarks in efforts to address the inevitability and imperative of globalization.
Inevitability of globalization
Globalization is broadly understood as being the removal of barriers to the movement of funds, services, goods and labor around the world. Along with this barrier removal come the introduction of common rules, policies and practices.
It is a human process that has started millennia ago. Today’s communications technology and international cooperation make it happen faster and in a more visible way. Thus, under the present circumstances, globalization is unavoidable. It is a strong wind that “…properly harnessed (can) provide the impetus for achieving the
millennium development goals…” [5] and help in the “…fight to curb hunger…” [6], or may wipe out those who are unprepared [7].
In this paper this inevitability of globalization is taken as a fact. The immediate consequence is that education in general and higher education in particular has become a commodity, treated as any other services, potentially subject to the regulations of the trade organizations. There have been, and there will be further, endless debates as to the origins, impact and side effects of globalization on the various aspects of life.
There have been optimists, who see globalization as innovation [8] and the only way out of the world’s multitude of crises. Others, however, view globalization as an imperial politico-economic design [9] that could lead to catastrophic outcomes [6] and as the latest version of anglobalization. In the US, higher education is one of the country's largest service sector exports, contributing over $15.5 billion to the US economy [10].The World Trade Organization in its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has set out to specify the rules and conditions to liberalize and regulate trade in services, which include education. Negotiations are still ongoing and due to the complexities of the issues on the table and the number of nations involved (140) the possibility of a stalemate is real. What is at stake is the overhaul of all aspects of education as we know it. [11]
The current campus-based model
In response to the demand to open opportunities and widen access to higher education across the globe, AHE implemented a traditional industrial-university paradigm based upon transport and building technologies [12]. Defining characteristics of this model include the movement of students, faculty, and research projects across borders, and/or the establishment of branch campuses in other countries. In either case, the physical classroom continues to provide the foundation of the communication system for the educational experience. Citing the desirability of AHE, many foreign institutions also adopted this model. American-model higher education institutions overseas operate under a variety of structural and organizational models ranging from being regional, for profit or not for profit, public or private, to being an affiliate of an American university with zero to one hundred percent affiliation. Until the end of the last century, overseas-based AHE was represented abroad by notable institutions like the American University of Beirut, the American College of Greece, and the American University of Cairo; to mention a few. Also, there were a few true extensions of US-based universities like those of the Boston University in London and in Brussels. Irrespective of the operational model, the survival of these institutions depends not only on financial factors but also on political ones.
Until recently this approach was quite successful. The US experienced ongoing growth in international student enrolments. Concurrent with this growth was the rapid establishment of branch campuses and American-model institutions occurring
after the mid-1990s. In 2005, the US and Australia shared the distinction of having the largest number of cross-border campuses [13]. Today, the entire globe is dotted with American-model institutions of higher education. Recognizing the inherent benefits of branch campuses in reducing the “brain drain” phenomenon, governments and quasi-governmental agencies in developing countries often provide significant financial incentives to US institutions.
Ample evidence exists that the issues surrounding continued establishments of branch campuses are proving increasingly prohibitive to such ventures. Worth mentioning are two government-supported academic mega projects; the Qatar Foundation Education City in Doha, and the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, KAUST, in Saudi Arabia [14]. Education City is a major academic teaching centre in cooperation with Cornell University, Georgetown University, Carnegie Mellon, and others. KAUST will be a major academic research centre in cooperation with seven international institutions such as Stanford University, and KFUPM of Saudi Arabia. However, success for these projects can only be categorized as “pending”. In two other cases, success did not bloom. At the overseas campus of the George Mason University, GMU, in the UAE emirate of Ras Al Khaimah, the emirate discontinued its cooperation with GMU and soon after established its own university under the name the American University of Ras Al- Khaimah, carrying along the students, faculty and staff of the GMU extension. Johns Hopkins University is yet another example of a failed attempt by a US university to transnationalize via a branch campus [15]. While divergent reasons contributed to the failures, each case highlights the complexities of the issues and barriers associated with the current expansion paradigm.
Accreditation
Carried out within a comprehensive system of over 80 nonprofit, private organizations, US accreditation is undeniably unique and provides a prestigious imprimatur throughout the world. Nestled within this system, US branch campuses enjoy the associated cachet, whereas American-model universities may encounter significant barriers in attaining and maintaining these credentials. While many of the institutions exceed the posed requirements, a large number are no match to US based counterparts in terms of physical and policies infrastructure. Some foreign officials are moving to counter the trend of US accreditation. As an example, the result of recent reviews of 27 accredited business schools by South African officials found that seven did not meet minimum local standards despite the fact that several of those were US accredited. These findings confirm for some foreign officials that cross-border accreditors may lack an adequate understanding of local social, economic, and educational conditions.
While the Council for Higher Education Accreditation principles encourage US accreditors operating abroad to work closely with and seek information and
guidance from local national accrediting agencies, many developing countries lack such an agency. Considering the complication of operating in a foreign educational environment, many US accreditors are reluctant to do so.
The dearth of international accreditation standards presents perhaps the most fundamental of challenges in quality assurance in global education partly because quality and socio-cultural issues converge at the core of this dilemma. The quality benchmarks used by US agencies are based on national curricula and national standards which may or may not be applicable in other contexts. [12] In the absence of global standards, the value of regional and national accreditation will be quite limited in the global context.
Socio-cultural issues
The American dominant role in world affairs, often but erroneously, places American-model overseas educational institutions at “harms way”. In certain, xenophobic cultures and societies, such institutions are viewed as official American presence under cover, and while the institutional objectives are to offer the respective societies a window into the Western World, they are being viewed as a cultural invasion.
Fundamental questions focus on: Will the academic programs of American- model institutions reflect American cultures and values or will they adapt to reflect the local culture? Ancillary to this question is the following one – what does adaptation mean? Where does one draw the line between adaptation and censure?
Who will be allowed to teach what, to whom and with what effect?
There is no quick solution to these issues. Face-to-face programs have to reflect the host county culture, values and customs to be successful. Yet, students and host country governments insist on getting the same programs and content as in the US.
Finding such a balance requires effort and capital outlays that universities may not be ready or willing to embark on and may not be able to explore given current financial constraints.
Funding
Traditionally, in the United States, higher education funding has come from state governments for state universities, from tuition for private universities and from the federal government under research funding programs.
With the weakening economy, the prediction is that all fifty states are expected to face budget deficits by 2013 [16]. This will cause appropriation for higher education to suffer. Tuition has risen at alarming rates and there is a limit to how much higher tuition can rise without serious effects on enrolment. In retrospect, it is
apparent that the higher education sector has weathered previous recessions reasonably well. This was due in part to the fact that higher education enrolment has a tendency to rise when the economy slumps. This time with budget cuts forcing universities to limit the number of students they admit and students reluctant and/or unable to secure loans to finance their education, the surge in enrolment has not materialized [17].
As funding becomes difficult to secure universities are becoming more innovative in seeking, earning as well as spending funds. Branding in the international arena a new university, or even a new program, is a very costly and long term endeavour. The current trends appear to be that elite universities, already enjoying a high level of fame, are entering the Higher Education international markets worldwide. Most such programs are established in the Middle East, China and countries that can afford to pay for them. This trend has not yet reached Africa on any significant scale. Within this context, there is a growing recognition that expanding traditional modes and provision of campus-based transnational education is unsustainable over time.
Demand
Yet, the demand for expansion remains. Undoubtedly, it is in the best interest of the United States to support this trend. Educating people to higher levels increases the prosperity of poorer countries all-the-while addressing the moral imperative of the age in ensuring that all people of the world get a decent education [18]. Higher education further contributes to developing countries political and economic stability. The question, then, is not whether the US should continue with transnational education but rather how can we do so rapidly, in a cost-effective manner and with reasonable internationally accepted quality. Diversifying the current expansion strategy to include the latest evolution of distance education technologies offers significant promise to US institutions in this quest [19].
However, because of the state of education in the developing world, that promise is accompanied by the need to implement significant changes in AHE’s structure and approach to the teaching and learning experience.
State of educational systems in the developing world
For an institution of Higher Education to perform at a high standard and accomplish its mission, several conditions have to be met. There has to be a clear mission statement, strong education programs, a cadre of well qualified faculty, a dedicated and visionary leadership, an optimal number of well prepared and motivated students and a solid infrastructure with ample resources including physical, technological and financial. These conditions are sorely lacking in the developing world.
Although students living in developing countries make up about half the students enrolled in higher education worldwide, it is estimated that these countries’ total expenditures on higher education represent just about one third of the global spending on higher education [20]. When the regional differences are factored in, the picture is even bleaker. This is reflected in the severe deficiencies that characterize higher education institutions in these nations with all the negative consequences such a situation imparts on the quantity and quality of the education that students receive. Daniel, J. et al. [18] list, on page 610, some sobering UNESCO, 2006b statistics:
1. Over 771 million adults worldwide are illiterate and may never have access to a tertiary education
2. More than one third of adults worldwide have no access to printed knowledge or technology that would allow them to improve the quality of their lives 3. 250 million children worldwide don’t receive or complete their basic education
and over 100 million children have no access to school at all.
Any solution whether in the form of multinational mega universities or nationally funded public universities will face challenges based on the numbers alone. Beyond the numbers there are numerous other significant barriers that stand between the provider of knowledge/education and the receiver. The most common barriers are technological, bureaucratic and student readiness to name a few. [21]
Micro level
The export of US higher education through online distance education to locations out of direct control of the originating institution carries impacts beyond the level of governments, agencies, higher education administration, and policy makers. These impacts pose questions about how to create desirable and sustainable curricula while ensuring and maintaining standards of highest quality in the teaching and learning enterprise. Because there is no international framework of quality standards, efforts to assure curriculum that is both culturally respectful and contains contextually relevant content and offer appropriate professional development programs for faculty and support personnel are severely disadvantaged. The continued growth and success of distance education depends on the extent to which the issues covered in this section are addressed.
Distance education organizational structure
Asynchronous internet instruction is still the most used form of course delivery at a distance in AHE. The ‘Mixed mode’, where a teacher selects the course materials, designs the course, instructs and interacts with students using communication technology, is the most common form of distance education [22].
On the other end of the spectrum is the ‘single mode’ model where the institution
‘produces’ the course using specialists. Some universities like the University of Maryland University College have combined the team approach to course design features of the ‘single mode’ model, with the use of instructors feature of the ‘mixed mode’ model. In these institutions, online course development functions most often are centralized and directly under the institution’s Chief Academic Officer. The course development directors face the challenge of dealing with three groups of professionals working for a common goal – the online course – but often having conflicting interests. These are the faculty who define the course content, the instructional designers who package the faculty’s material into modules, and the technology experts who suggest the delivery mode. A significant advantage of this model is that it leads to better designed online courses [22]. It is also efficient in situations where a large number of courses with multiple sections are needed. The drawbacks are the high development costs and the time length required to produce a course. Another disadvantage is the centralization of course development which ignores an crucial factor, the importance of place and location in knowledge [23].
If US universities are to be successful competing on a global scale, then their approach to distance education and their organizational structures will need to change. Twigg posits that technology enabled the unbundling of the instructional process, where it became possible to separate the different components– the place, content, delivery etc. [24] As a result traditional academic functions and the roles associated with them are forever altered.
Curriculum/content
Assuring a high quality approach to curriculum is likely the most important aspect in expanding transnational distance education [25]. In any teaching environment, it is essential for educators to constantly be aware and attend to appropriately matching what is taught to whom it is taught. Creating a balanced match is achieved through curriculum design and development. Curriculum may be regarded as a program of studies, activities, or guidance, whose primary object is to enable learners to come to grips with the environment [26]. Curriculum defines the
‘learning pathway’ and subsumes course design, content, pedagogical methods and strategies, communication, interaction, and learning assessment. Learning itself is a cultural activity and learner’s needs vary according to their culture, region and country. Hofstede defined national culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” [27] (p. 5). Curriculum developed in a particular cultural context or country may not be suited for another country or a different cultural context.
Online distance education substantively expands the modalities for curriculum delivery to include new configurations of the communication system and access to instructional content far beyond the traditional face-to-face learning environment.
While these opportunities offer great potential for quantitatively and qualitatively improving the quality of the learning experience in developing countries, the profound impact of curricular choices generates a host of new challenges.
Residing at the nexus of many of the barriers discussed previously these challenges include the following:
1. Linguistic plurality: English is the predominant language in current online learning platforms. The disadvantages of learning in another language in online courses are clear. Further, it is unlikely that English-language curriculum can alone satisfy the unmet demand for higher education throughout the developing world.
More importantly, learning in a foreign language carries added social and cultural implications. Instructional examples, idioms, and writing style, to name a few, do not easily transfer across cultures [28].
2. Innovations in pedagogical methods: Research indicates there appears to be major differences between ethnic groups in their willingness to participate in online forums, discussions, and instructional strategies such as debate and critical questioning of the instructor. To what extent should online curriculum continue to impose ‘Western” approaches to learning on students coming from other cultures for whom such collaboration and discussion may prove alien and difficult [28, 29].
3. Localized cultural character of online programs: To what extent does the curriculum fit regional needs, beliefs and values? To what extent does the curriculum encourage local initiatives, which value local culture and promote national beliefs, skills and knowledge [30]?
4. Relevant content: Closely aligned to cultural character, does the content of online courses fit local needs in terms of applicability and job-related skills?
Preparing learners in the developing world with skills for the 21st century may well require alternative skill sets foreign to curriculum developers.
Curriculum articulates who will teach what to whom and with what effect in cultural paradigms that may be in conflict. Failure of learning as a result of inattention to these five issues means that human preparedness will not be fully developed and the people in developing countries are limited in their capacity to in dealing with issues they face [31]. It is likely that these issues will shape the dialogue of transnational curriculum delivery in an era when cultural-linguistic plurality could well become a hallmark for transnational distance education curriculum in the future.
Teaching and learning
Today, universities are challenged to perform and to demonstrate the quality of their services. For online universities the question is: How effective is distance online learning? To answer this question, research efforts focused predominantly on comparing face to face and online education (the no significant difference trend).
The evidence is overwhelming that online education tends to be as effective as the
traditional face to face method [32]. Some argue though that the no-significant difference fails to ‘measure the indicators that are relevant to e-learning’ and as such will always prevail [12].
In the absence of standards to evaluate effectiveness of online education several framework have been proposed. The Sloan-C framework with the five pillars of quality in online education – [33] and the seven principle of best practice of undergraduate education are the most well known. The seven principles (encouraging contacts between students and faculty, developing reciprocity and cooperation among students, using active learning techniques, giving prompt feedback, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectations and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning) can help frame the quality dimension for the online global education. Chickering and Ehrmann [34] suggest ways that technology can mitigate implementation of the principles for the online environment. They contend that with email and computer conferencing
‘participation and contributions from diverse students become equitable and widespread’. Similarly Swan reported that online courses may be more supportive of
‘divergent thinking, complex understanding, and reflection because they allow students to explore multiple perspectives in a less intimidating environment’ [35].
While it is generally believed that good online teaching practices are fundamentally identical to good traditional teaching practices [36], online education requires new ways of thinking about teaching and learning [37], especially in a global environment [21]. Faculty in particular must alter their course design and teaching approach to take into consideration students diverse learning styles and achieve a high level of interaction which leads to the building of knowledge communities [38] with the particular characteristic of being global knowledge communities.
Conclusion
The impact of globalization on education, while inevitable, is nonetheless stunning. US institutions formerly motivated to expand abroad to support prestigious reputations and the enriched experiences afforded the academic community are now driven to do so by economic factors. Irrespective of motivation, the Internet allows education to cross borders, boundaries and distances – geographic, social, linguistic and cultural – on a hitherto unforeseen scale. Fuelled by technological developments, online distance education is changing the traditional face and form of higher education in developed and developing countries alike. This capacity creates new multi-level challenges for government agencies, policy makers, administrators, faculty, and staff. The issues presented in this article all affect the quality of learning experiences for students served in developing countries. Because distance education contains promises for a better life, these are the issues in which we must all engage.
References
1. Stromquist N.P., Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments Higher Education 2007. 57: p. 81-105.
2. Siaya L.a.F.H., Mapping internationalization on US Campuses. 2003, Washington, DC American Council on Education.
3. Skiba K., States Eyeing Education Cuts Amid Budget Shortfalls, in USNEWS. 2008.
4. Morrison J.L., U.S. Higher Education in Transition. On the Horizon, 2003.
5. International Labour Organization, World leaders call for fair globalization to achieve millennium development goals, 2004
6. UN News Center, Globalization must be harnessed in fight to curb hunger, 2006 7. Roach Stephen S. Unprepared for Globalization, Morgan Stanley Global Economic
Forum, 2007.
8. Gorodnichenko Y., Svejnar J. and Terrell K., Globalization and Innovation in Emerging Markets. IZA 2008. DP No. 3299.
9. O’Sullivan Terrence. Globalization, SARS and Other Catastrophic Disease Risks:
The Liberal Economic System as an International Security Threat, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004 http://www.allacademic. com/
meta/p73646_index.html
10. Open Doorsonline, Report on international educational exchange. 2008 http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org/
11. World Trade Organization, GATS fact and fiction. [cited; Available from:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gats_factfiction_e.htm
12. Rajasingham L., Breaking Boundaries: Quality E-Learning for Global Knowledge Society, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 2008, 4, no. 1:
58-65.
13. Lien D., Economic analysis of transnational education, Education Economics, 2008. 16(2), p. 149-166.
14. Technology K.A.U.o.S.a. [cited; Available from: www.kaust.edu.sa
15. Sidhu, R., The ‘brand name’ research university goes global. Higher Education, 2009. 57 p. 125-140.
16. WALTERS, A.K., All states will face budget shortfalls by 2013, hurting spending on higher education, report says. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006.
17. Breneman, D., Pusser, B. and Turner, S. , Earnings From Learning: The Rise Of For-profit Universities, New York: State University Of New York Press.
18. Daniel, J., Mackintosh, W. & Diehl, W., The Mega-University Response to the Moral challenge of Our Age in Handbook of Distance Education, 2nd ed., M.G. Moore, Editor. 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey.
19. Caswell T., Shelley Henson, Marion Jensen, and David Wiley “Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education”, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2008. 9(1.): p. 1-11.
20. World Bank and UNESCO, Higher Education in Developing Countries: Perils and Promise, 2000. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION /Resources/ 278 200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/peril_promise_en.pdf
21. Mason R., “Internationalizing Education”, Handbook of Distance Education, 2nd ed., M.G. Moore, Editor. 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers:
Mahwah, New Jersey. p. 583-91.
22. Moore M.G. Distance Learning–Trends in the U.S., Articles on Flexible Learning
& Distance Education, F.J.U. 1999
23. Duguid J.S.B.a.P., The Social Life of Information, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
24. Twigg C., Quality Assurance For Whom? Providers and consumers in today distributed learning environment, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2000.
25. Visser J., Learning in a Global Society in Handbook of Distance Education, 2nd ed., M.G. Moore, Editor. 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey. p. 635-48.
26. Patil, V.T., University curricula vis-à-vis National Needs and Global Trends: The Indian Experience, University News, 40 (10): p. 17-20, 2002.
27. Hofstede G., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 1991, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
28. Bates T., “Cultural and ethical issues in international distance education”, UBC?
CREAD conference, Vancouver, Canada, 1999.
29. Mhehe E., “Confronting barriers to distance study in Tanzania”, Using learning technologies; International perspectives on practice E.J.B.a.M. Haughley, Editor.
2003, RoutledgeFalmer: New York.
30. Braimoh, D., The effectiveness of distance education delivery methods in continuing education programs in Lesotho. in Evans, T. (ed.) (2002) Research in distance education 5. Fifth Research in distance education conference, Deakin University, Australia, 2000, pp.97-111
31. Maeroff, G., A classroom of one, New York Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
32. Dutton, J., Dutton, M. & Perry, J., “How do online students differ for lecture students?”, Journal of asynchronous learning networks, (6)1, 2002.
33. Moore J.C., The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars. Sloan Consortium, 2003.
34. Chickering, A.a.S.C.E., Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever, AAHE Bulletin, p. 3-6, 1996.
35. Swan K., “Learning Effectiveness: What the Research Tells Us”, Elements of Quality Online Education, J.C. Moore, Editor. 2003.
36. Wilkes C.W.a.B., B. R., “Adult learner motivation and electronics distance education”, The American Journal of Distance Education, 5 (1): p. 43-50, 1991.
37. Bates A.W.x., Managing Technological Change: Strategies for college and university leaders, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000.
38. Garrison D.R., Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, ed. J.B.a.J.C.M. (eds.), MA Sloan-C:
Needham, 47-58, 2003.
