The Development of New Organizational Arrangements in

Virtual Learning

By

Peter J. Dirr, Ph.D.

(Written for Farrell, Glen.  The Changing Faces of Virtual Education.  The Commonwealth of Learning.  2001)

Abstract

This chapter examines new organizational arrangements for “technology-enhanced virtual education” that have been created in recent years.As virtual education has expanded, new universities have been opened in all parts of the world, new virtual high schools have been developed, and for-profit distance universities have appeared on the scene.With the proliferation of virtual education programs, the components of the education process have become “unbundled” and often “outsourced” by educational institutions.New alliances with businesses and governmental agencies have become common.The chapter closes with a look at issues that these developments raise for various stakeholders in the process.

Contents

New Virtual Education Institutions

New Virtual Universities

New For-Profit University Initiatives

New Virtual High Schools

New Support Arrangements

Consortia of Institutions

Commercial Initiatives

Corporate Universities

University-Business Alliances

For-Profit University Subsidiaries

Government-Education Alliances

Issues Related to New Organizational Arrangements

Conclusion

References

 

Introduction
 

An overriding theme of much of today’s literature on distance education is the extent to which alliances among colleges, between colleges and high schools, and between colleges and commercial interests are playing leading roles in the development and delivery of distance and open education, especially when that education is delivered through information and communication technologies (ICTs).(The term “virtual education” is used in this chapter as inclusive of such educational programs, which others might refer to as distance education, open education, distributed education, flexible learning, or other similar terms.)These trends are clear in North America and are beginning to be seen elsewhere.While this chapter cites several examples of developments in virtual education in North America, those examples are intended to help policy and education leaders in developing countries envision how new organizational arrangements using ICT might benefit the people of their countries.

 

Sidebar:Several factors in the US have converged to provide an environment that is conducive to the development of virtual education programs.Those factors include:

·A culture that places a high value on learning

·“Market-size” that all but guarantees enough learners for multiple programs

·Strong existing systems of public and private education at all levels

·Strong technological infrastructure that reaches throughout the country

·An affluent population that can afford to pay for education

·A tradition of employer-supported workforce education

·A culture of philanthropy and multiple foundations with billions in assets

Not all of those factors exist in other parts of the world.The absence of one or more of the factors will affect how well US models will work in other cultures and settings.

 

In part, the trend toward partnerships and alliances in virtual education reflects a larger trend in society, especially in the business sector.Corporate partnerships and alliances dominated business news headlines at the end of the 20^th Century.The partnerships were often driven by the need to expand business by building new sources of customers, something referred to as increasing “market size.”In order to support existing infrastructures and ever-increasing costs of doing business, corporations were driven to increase their revenues by increasing the size of their customer base.It was no different for institutions of higher education.In the US, for example, while US enrollments in higher education were growing steadily, and tuition income along with them, the increased enrollments by themselves could not provide sufficient fuel for expansion, leading some institutions to look for new markets.In some cases, they looked abroad.This became apparent in news accounts of the expansion.

 

In “Hong Kong’s Boom in Distance Education May Be a Sign of What’s to Come in Asia,” Cohen (July 14, 2000) reports on the attraction of Asia as a new market for US higher education, because of its size alone.It is estimated that 500 million people in Asia need higher education.In many places, large percentages of the population live in isolated areas and cannot afford to leave those areas to pursue higher education.In Hong Kong, the world’s second most densely populated urban center, the issue is not distance but rather space to accommodate additional learners.Cohen notes that more than 100,000 students have studied at the Open University of Hong Kong (http://www.ouhk.edu.hk) during its first 11 years of operation, about 10% of them earning degrees so far.Those numbers are very attractive to US institutions looking to export their distance learning programs to new student populations.

 

Another huge market is India.According to Overland (October 27, 2000), Carnegie Mellon has set up a new distance education program in conjunction with the Indian Internet service provider, Sterling Infotech Ltd.The program will lead to a certificate in computer programming.Carnegie Mellon, with a total US enrollment of fewer than 8,000 students, hopes to enroll 15,000 students in India in online courses in 2001, growing to 100,000 in a couple of years.According to Sanjiv Kataria, senior vice president of NIIT, one of the largest computer-education companies in India, "There are one billion Indians to be trained in computers.”

 

The size of the potential market for distance education, both in the US and abroad, is attracting large investments by businesses and venture capitalists.Writing in Syllabus, Von Holzen (November, 2000) estimated that more than $4 billion would be invested in for-profit educational companies in 2000, growing to $15 billion by 2002.He predicts that much of that funding will find its way to distance education programs.
 

Many of the new distance education programs are Internet-based.Businesses see the Internet as facilitating education opportunities for persons who have not had access to such opportunities in the past.They have been willing to invest in that potential, at least until the stock market pull-back in the middle of 2000.Investment in online education companies is just a small part of the enormous investment made in Internet-based companies in general in the late 1990s.According to an annual study by Andrew Whinston of more than 3,000 businesses that receive at least part of their income from the Internet, the Internet economy grew by 62% from 1998 to 1999, producing $524 billion in revenue.(Mangan, October 20, 2000)And, according to International Data Corporation (Evans, May 15, 2000), which follows more than 200 electronic-learning companies, the e-learning market will grow from $550 million in 1998 to $11.4 billion in 2003.

 

(It should be noted that none of these predictions can be made with exact precision.In the very least, the predictions are subject to revision periodically, especially in view of the economic downturn that began just as these authors were conducting their studies and writing their articles.)

 

Much of the new investment in virtual education involves the development of new institutions as well as the creation of new partnerships and alliances among existing institutions and companies.The types of new institutions and alliances are plentiful.Some have been well-documented in stories in The Chronicle of Higher Education.Others are less well-known.

 

New Virtual Education Institutions
 

Most countries have opened at least one open and distance university since the British Open University (http://www.open.ac.uk) rolled out its successful model in 1970.By 1997 John Daniel, Vice Chancellor of the British Open University, in Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media, identified eleven mega-universities in the world that provide distance education:

 

Institution	Country	Enrollment
Anadolu University	Turkey	578,000
China TV University	China	530,000
Universitas Terbuka	Indonesia	353,000
Indira Gandhi National Open University	India	242,000
Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University	Thailand	217,000
Korean National Open University	Korea	211,000
NationalCenter for Distance Learning	France	185,000
The Open University	Britain	157,000
University of South Africa	South Africa	130,000
Payame Noor University	Iran	117,000
NationalCenter for Distance Learning	Spain	110,000

While Turkey’s place as the largest enrollment of all distance education institutions in the world is undisputed (MacWilliams 2000), new institutions continue to be opened in both developed and developing countries.

 

New Virtual Universities

Perhaps the most ambitious venture in recent years that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) to deliver distance education has been the AfricanVirtualUniversity (AVU – http://www.avu.org).Recognizing the close tie between education and economic growth and prosperity, and with higher education in sub-Sahara Africa in a crisis, in mid-1997 the World Bank provided initial support to develop a prototype phase of the AfricanVirtualUniversity, a “lifeline from cyberspace” for the sub-Sahara African countries.AVU would use satellite television, the Internet, and printed materials to help overcome the many financial and physical barriers that prevent students in the participating African countries from gaining access to quality higher education.The University was seen as particularly relevant in the emerging economies of African countries whose work forces lacked vital technical skills.Initial courses would focus on science, engineering, and business.The plan was for AVU to evolve over a three or four-year period, and to be self-financing at the end of that period.
 
Others joined the World Bank to provide start-up funds for the AfricanVirtualUniversity.The World Bank contributed several million US dollars.The Africa Region Development Fund provided $1.165 million; the Canadian Trust Fund donated $1.5 million Canadian; the Irish Trust Fund contributed 200,000 Irish Pounds; the European Commission pledged 1.0 million ECU; and Portugal pledged funds to develop Portuguese language programs.(World Bank, 1998/1999)Since July 2000, KenyattaUniversity in Kenya has been the host institution for the AVU headquarters.

A pilot phase was launched in April 1998.Twelve universities in six English-speaking countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania,  Uganda, and Zimbabwe) were connected through AVU to universities in the United States and Europe.Just a few months later, the pilot had grown to include 25 African universities, including some in the Francophone countries of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire,Mauritania, Niger,Rwanda, Senegal, and Togo.Supporting universities had grown to include the University of Massachusetts and the New Jersey Institute of Technology in the United States and the University College Galway in Ireland.During this pilot phase, there were no exclusive VirtualUniversity students; selected students enrolled in existing courses at participating universities received instruction and took exams via the technology.

A second phase, begun in January 1999, offered complete curricula for full-fledged undergraduate degree programs.

 

By mid 2000, AVU had expanded to include 25 learning centers spread across eight Anglophone and seven Francophone countries.(Okoko, 2000)More than 5,000 students had completed semester-long courses in the sciences and over 2,000 had taken part in seminars on topics such as e-commerce.(Europe Information Service, 2000)Over 30 academic institutions, including those from Africa, Europe, Ireland,Canada, and theUnited States, provided course material.

 

Some are skeptical about the impact the AfricanVirtualUniversity might have on the educational needs of Africa.Akim Okuni (2000), a lecturer at the Islamic University of Uganda, notes that there are difficulties inherent in education through the Internet in Africa.While enrollments in secondary schools have increased in recent years, increased poverty has reduced many individuals’ ability to pursue higher education.That raises the question of whether AVU will be less likely to benefit a significant proportion of the African population because of their inability to pay.Furthermore, AVU’s success will greatly depend on the telecommunications infrastructures of the participating African countries.In those countries, the telecommunications systems suffer from “unstable and insufficient power supplies, unreliable and congested telephone links, and unaffordable cost.”In short, telecommunications systems in the participating countries are far too expensive for the intended students of AVU, according to Okuni.He suggests that the ambitions of AVU “might perhaps seem rather too optimistic at this moment in time….Africa is currently not up to the challenge.”

 

Okuni’s skepticism is shared somewhat by Darkwa and Mazibuko (2000).They cite several potential barriers to success:

·the technological challenges (“even though Africa has about 12% of the world’s population, it includes only 2% of the global telephone network with over half of the lines in cities”)

·the lack of trained professionals to support the implementation of distance education

·the absence of clearly defined national distance education policies

·the lack of connectivity

·the high cost of tuition and Internet services, and,

·the general poverty of the region.

However, they also note that the University of South Africa enrolled over 130,000 persons in its distance education program in 1995, over one-third of all university enrollments in South Africa in that year.Although skeptical, Darwa and Mazibuko see partnerships with businesses and industries, the government, and foreign partners as potential ways to overcome the deficits that are challenging distance education in the region.
 

Sidebar:Quite separate from involvement in the AfricanVirtualUniversity,Ghana has committed to using distance education to meet the education needs of identified sectors of the Ghanaian population.With financial assistance from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and support from SimonFraserUniversity, four Ghanaian tertiary institutions have initiated the Ghana Distance Education Development Project.(Centre for Distance Education, n.d.)Over a five-year period (1995 to 2000), the University of Ghana, University of Cape Coast,University of Science and Technology, and University College of Education of Winneba developed a distance education system to address the educational, social, and economic needs of the country.The mission of the consortium is to make education more relevant to Ghanaian needs, provide greater access to education, and prepare the workforce toward the attainment of middle-income status by the year 2020.
 

While the AfricanVirtualUniversity might be confronting challenges that are unique, it is not the only new, large-scale open and distance institution created in recent years.The University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU – http://www.uplb.edu.ph/upou) was established in 1995 to provide quality education to a growing population distributed over 7,000 islands.It was seen as playing a critical strategic role in the country’s economic, socio-cultural, and political development and progress.(International Centre for Distance Learning, 2000)The University is mandated to:

·increase access to education

·sustain professional growth, and,

·promote lifelong learning throughout the country.

Collaborative arrangements and institutional agreements are built into the University’s mandate.The University uses print, audio, video, and online resources to deliver course materials to distance learners and backs them up with once-a-month tutorials in learning centers.As of the 1999-2000 school year, UPOU had 1,068 graduates, and a current enrollment of 1,209 students, which it expected to almost double the following year.
 

Although not as new as AfricanVirtualUniversity and the University of the Philippines Open University, the Taipei National Open University (established in 1986 – http://www.nou.edu.tw) has received new recognition in Chinese Taipei.Distance education has been identified by the government as a key tool and a fundamental instrument for re-developing vocational and technical skills throughout the country to keep the workforce competitive and to sustain economic development.(Huang, 1997)Through 1996, the National Open University (NOU) had graduated 12,000 adult students and countless others had learned informally from the educational programs broadcast by the university.The University’s demographics are illustrative of how an open and distance learning institution can provide access to underserved populations: 70% of the NOU students are female; 65% are 25 to 39 years old.Typically, NOU students are married, middle class, and with incomes slightly below the average.NOU represents an opportunity for them to improve their standard of living.

 

The AfricanVirtualUniversity, the University of the Philippines Open University, and the Taipei National Open University are examples of large institutions that serve large populations of potential students.There have also been smaller, more targeted and specialized distance education institutions established.In 1999, two small US institutions, Berean University and ICI University merged to form the Global University of the Assemblies of God (http://www.globaluniversity.edu), a distance education institution that provides ministerial training, undergraduate and graduate education, and curriculum materials to the Christian community worldwide.(General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1999)Delivery systems include print, Internet, CD-ROM, and video conferencing.The combined institutions have an enrollment of about 10,000 students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees and ministerial certification.

 

Not all new activities in virtual education involved new institutions.In 1996, the British Open University established Open University Worldwide (OUWO -- http://www.open.ac.uk/ collaborate/contact.htm) to export its courses and services globally.By the end of 1999, OUWO has overseas enrollments of more than 20,000, and that number was growing.(Carty, 1999)

 

About the same time, the Monterrey Institute of Technology (ITESM – http://www.sistema.itesm.mx) was expanding its distance education programs beyond the borders of Mexico and into many of the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America.Their system of one-way satellite and Internet-based communications has 1,302 receiving sites in Mexico and 127 in other countries in Latin America.Among the Institute’s 15 distance education degree programs (in business, engineering, technology, and education) is an MBA program developed and offered with the Arizona-based Thunderbird School of International Management and a certificate program in educational technology developed and offered collaboratively with the University of British Columbia.(Carty, 1999)

 

In India, the Indira Ghandi National Open University (IGNOU) has for years used multi-media kits and broadcast radio programs to deliver courses to students at a distance.In July 2000, IGNOU began also to use online delivery.The Virtual Campus Initiative started with courses in Information Technology Management.(Sharma, 2001)Established in 1985, IGNOU offers an extensive array of print and multi-media based courses and serves as a resource center for nine other State Open Universities.IGNOU operates 700 study centers throughout the country and is one of the chief resources in India for those who wish to improve their qualifications and sharpen their academic skills.

 

The Virtual Campus Initiative is only the most recent innovation in distance education that IGNOU has introduced to India.In 1998, IGNOU sought to remove “three types of tyrannies” that often confront distance education programs: the tyrannies of space, time, and a fixed curriculum.IGNOU’s goal was to transform itself into a global virtual university serving “anyone, anytime, anywhere.”The current development of the Virtual Campus Initiative is still in the early stages of development.Currently, only 10% of all IGNOU students are involved with online education as compared to other formats.But clearly, the leaders of IGNOU see the Virtual Campus Initiative as a promising direction for the future.
 

Developed as well as developing countries continued to create new distance universities.The following is just a smattering of examples:

·France’s Prime Minister unveiled plans to create an Internet university in Marseilles that would offer graduate engineering degrees.(One study reported that France will be short 60,000 engineers by the year 2005 given the current productivity of its tertiary institutions.)The new university will build on the resources of existing universities.This was seen as a key component in France’s efforts to remain competitive with the United States and Canada in Internet research and education.(Giudice, 2000)

·In the United States, the Arizona (state) Board of Regents plans to create the ArizonaRegentsUniversity by combining distance education courses from the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and NorthernArizonaUniversity.The plan is backed by elected officials.(Carnevale, September 12, 2000)

·The state of South Dakota created the Electronic University Consortium of
South Dakota based on distance education and training courses available from six public universities.(Electronic University Consortium, 2000)The Consortium offers courses for working adults, employees seeking career development skills, persons with disabilities, and others.

·The US Native American community is working to form a Distance Education Institute that will provide culturally sensitive curricula (high school and college) for the dispersed Native American population using electronic technologies.(Craig, 1999)

·A partnership agreement between CapilanoCollege and AthabascaUniversity (Alberta,Canada) created a program to provide degree completion opportunities.CapilanoCollege graduates will be admitted to Athabasca’s Bachelor degree program with advanced standing and will study entirely at a distance through home study.(Longworth, 1999)

·A partnership between the Ford Motor Company andDeakinUniversity (Australia) allows Ford employees to complete a Vehicle Industry Certificate course and a Supervisory course by distance education as well as Bachelor degrees in Technology Management and Manufacturing.(Forster and Mitchell 1995)

·NationalExtensionCollege and the University of Bradford Management Centre offer the FrontLine degree program for junior merchandisers at Coca Cola Cadbury and Schweppes Beverages Limited.Research showed that the program challenged some of the “vernacular theories” of traditional academics about how teaching and learning best occur.“The distance education methods, with an emphasis on learning and student centredness, bring into question the power of the academic to control the process.”(Lentell, 2000)

·In the 1980s, the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York established RegentsCollege to develop exams to accredit learning that adult students acquired on their own.The College would have no full-time faculty and would offer no formal program of instruction.Rather, the College would refer interested adult students to learning resources that they might use for independent study.RegentsCollege, renamed ExcelsiorCollege in 2000 (http://www.excelsior.edu), grades the exams and “banks” the credit as the student progresses toward a degree.Excelsior also uses a CAEL-like approach to assess and accredit other non-formal student learning.In fact, the motto on which Excelsior was founded is, “What you know is more important than where or how you learned it.”Excelsior recognizes that there are many valid sources of learning that can mean credit toward a degree.Excelsior provides its students with study resources, including an online library provided by JohnsHopkinsUniversity.

 

Perhaps one of the most promising new organizational arrangements with potential to serve students in developing countries is still somewhat tenuous.In March 2000, Michael J. Saylor, the billionaire founder and Chief Executive Officer of MicroStrategy, a US company that sells e-commerce software and services, announced that he planned to use $100 million of his fortune to create an online university that would charge no tuition. (Carr, March 17, 2000)“It’s one thing to give a scholarship to three or four or five or 50 people,” Mr. Saylor said.“It’s another thing to make tuition free for everyone forever.”

 
The new university would broadcast courses taught by “famous people” all over the world through streaming video.The courses would be produced in a “cyber studio” in Washington, where academics, artists, and politicians could record lectures that would be broadcast on the Internet.“My idea is to create all this content and make it available to 100 million people who have no chance of going to Harvard,” said Mr. Saylor.At the time of the announcement, Mr. Saylor had not pinned down many of the specifics, including the content of courses or the feasibility of such a service for learners in developing countries.

 

Not more than three months after his announcement, Mr. Saylor’s company experienced financial difficulties that resulted in the value of its stock falling almost 95%.(Carr, June 22, 2000)  Mr. Saylor, a major shareholder, personally lost about $11 billion.Nevertheless, he did not abandon the idea of founding the university.In February 2001, he announced that he would sell 15,000 shares of MicroStrategy stock every day for two years to keep his promise to create the university.Mr. Saylor believes that the project might be a 10-year plan, but he is committed to seeing it through to completion.

New For-Profit University Initiatives

The presence of for-profit universities is not new, at least on the landscape of American higher education.However, the rapid expansion of the distance education offerings of some for-profit institutions has been dramatic over the past couple of years, and it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future assuming that the institutions are able to tap into new lucrative markets for continuing education of adults.

 

In the late 1980s, cable television operator Glenn Jones created a for-profit subsidiary to offer college-level telecourses over cable.MindExtensionUniversity not only broadcast the courses but also distributed textbooks, referred students to colleges that offered the courses for credit, and generally facilitated student learning.By the late 1990s, Jones had expanded his ambitions in education.He embraced Internet technologies as well as cable and created a free-standing virtual university, Jones International University (www.jonesinternational.edu).It became the first electronic university in the United States to receive accreditation, being so recognized in March 1999 by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
 

Jones International offers a Bachelors degree in Business Communication, a Masters in Business Communication, a Masters of Education in e-learning, and a Masters in Business Administration (in English and Spanish), with specializations in e-commerce, information technology management, global enterprise management, entrepreneurship, conflict management, and health care management.It also offers professional certificate programs in Public Relations and Marketing, Global Communication, and Leadership.All Jones courses are a blend of theory and practice.Besides its standard courses, Jones has a Corporate Partnership Program, through which it will customize courses for workers of companies that contract with Jones.

 

In addition to providing courses, Jones offers its students with a variety of support services online, including: electronic library (through e-global Library), bookstore, academic advising, technology support, and student profiles.All of these courses and support services are available to students anywhere in the world.
 

In August 2000, the largest for-profit university in the United States, the University of Phoenix (http://www.phoenix.edu), announced a new plan for foreign expansion.(Blumenstyk,August 11 2000)Already serving 75,000 students in the US, the Apollo Group (the company that owns the University of Phoenix) announced its intention to develop, acquire, or create partnerships with institutions in Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and several other countries in Latin America and Europe.Within 10 years, the plan is to have the overseas operation the same size as the US institution.Investors in the new company, Apollo International, include Kaplan Ventures, Chase Capital Partners, and some of Apollo’s executives.The company had raised $40 million for the venture and expected to raise a similar amount in secondary funding.It is likely that this type of vision could only be possible for a for-profit institution since most public institutions would not have the flexibility to raise funds for expansion like this.
 

The Apollo Group is driven by their view of the size of potential markets – 2.1 million college students in Brazil today will grow to 5.1 million by 2008; in Mexico the number of college students is expected to grow from 1.8 million today to 4 million by the end of the decade; in China, 21 out of 22 high-school students have no place to go for higher education.
 

That market potential is also leading one of the University of Phoenix’s competitors, Sylvan Learning, to expand its overseas operations.Other competitors such as DeVry Inc., Harcourt Higher Education, and the 30 colleges formerly owned by Quest Education, recently acquired by Kaplan, Inc., are expected to pursue overseas markets soon.
 

By October 2000, the University of Phoenix had raised an additional $70 million on Wall Street by selling a tracking stock.In issuing the stock, the University noted that its online program is growing twice as fast as the on-the-ground program.Students in the online program come from 25 countries, according to John Sperling, Chairman of the Apollo Group.(Blumenstyk, October 13, 2000)
 

A major US publisher entered the higher education distance education market at the close of the 20^th Century. (Blumenstyk, September 8, 2000)Harcourt received approval from the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to operate its VirtualCollege in the state and announced that it would seek accreditation from the regional accreditation agency, New England Association of Schools and Colleges.It planned to offer degree programs in business, health science, and information technology and hoped to enroll 50,000 to 100,000 students within five years, a growth rate unheard of in traditional higher education in the US. It was not clear what proportion if its students Harcourt Virtual expected to come from overseas.It planned to charge about $900 per course, making it competitive with many traditional institutions.
 

Harcourt’s plans were thrown into question only two months later when it sold its interest in HarcourtVirtualCollege, along with other assets, to Toronto-based Thomson Publishing for $2.06 billion.(Blumenstyk, November 10, 2000)Thomson would not say if it would continue HarcourtVirtualCollege, although Robert S. Christie, president and chief executive officer of Thomson Learning shed doubts on the College’s future when he said, “… degree-granting responsibilities belong to the experts in that area.”

New Virtual High Schools

The use of ICT is not new at the secondary school level.As early as 1968, Mexico introduced Telesecundaria (http://www.sep.gob.mx/csoc/comunica/19991222_000759.htm) as a tool to help classroom teachers improve the quality of education throughout the country.Telesecundaria’s model has been to produce and broadcast 20-minute lessons (on public television channels).By 1993, the service was being used in 9,000 schools throughout Mexico, serving 600,000 students (15% of the secondary school population).By 1999, the use had grown to more than 900,000 students.The lessons are correlated to Mexico’s Study Plans and Programs curriculum.Since 1994, the programs have been broadcast on 6 channels of EDUSAT.Telesecundaria’s leaders credit its success to the involvement of four groups: educational content providers, video producers, broadcasters, and the users (teachers, students, families, and work center coordinators).
 

More recently, the Open Learning Agency in Canada introduced a similar service, using a combination of broadcast and videos for some courses and totally online delivery for others.OpenSchool (http://www.openschool.bc.ca) promises “education anywhere anytime” by providing courses and resources that support educators of students in grades K-12 “in the Province of British Columbia, across Canada, and around the world.”OpenSchool provides a full range of course offerings that meet all the curriculum requirements of British Columbia.The resources can be used by teachers and home instructors in their entirety or can be adjusted to meet the needs and learning styles or other circumstances of the students.Parents are also encouraged to use the resources to encourage independent study and collaborative class work.Students can access resources they might not otherwise have available.
 

InIndia, a commercial venture, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., plans to use ICTs to expand the reach of education, enhance the learning process, and catalyze continuing education through non-formal and vocational processes. (IRC, January 23, 2001)Schoolnet India (http://www.schoolnetindia.com) is developing learning programs for grades K-10 to supplement the current educational system by aiding teachers in their pedagogy.Benchmarked to international standards and delivered over the Internet, the learning programs will consist of banks of lesson plans, multi-media resource kits, links to other educational resources, and programs of teacher training.There is a six-year plan for full integration of Schoolnet India into the school system.
 

Another Schoolnet project is being explored for Africa.(IRC, January 22, 2001)On that continent, the “digital divide” is more severe than anywhere else on earth.In 1999, there were only about 100,000 dial-up Internet accounts in all of Africa for a population of about 700 million.Schoolnet Africa hopes to lessen the divide and stop the marginalization of the people of Africa in today’s knowledge-based global society.The plan is to establish local Schoolnets in more than half of all African countries by 2005 and to connect all schools in Africaby 2020.
 

This continent-wide initiative will compliment the nascent efforts already underway in a few countries in Africa.Namibia has a Kids-on-the-Block program to teach computer skills to youth who, in turn, provide support to Schoolnet schools.This program is partially supported by a local pizza store.Tunisia has created EDUNET, which connects 350 secondary schools (87% of the total), 50 technical schools, and 500 primary schools to the Internet.In Namibia, the National Museum of Namibia has joined with 51 corporate sponsors with a goal of connecting all schools to the Internet by 2004.Nigeria instituted an Education Tax Fund that imposes a 2% tax on individuals.The Fund, some part of which will go toward ICT education projects, supports the development of quality education.
 

In the US state ofFlorida, the Department of Education launched The Florida Online High School (http://www.fhs.net) in 1997.Using the motto, “any time, any place; any path, any pace,” the school provides students in grades 9 to 12 with high quality technology-based educational opportunities.The school’s courses are tied to Florida’s “Sunshine Standards,” the state’s academic standards.They are provided free of charge to any high-school age Florida resident.The student is responsible for the cost of a computer and Internet access, but the school will lend the student the textbooks and any specialized software that might be required for the courses.Currently, students enroll in the OnlineHigh School through their local school districts and receive their diplomas from the local districts.The school has applied for accreditation from the Commission on International and Trans-Regional Accreditation (CITA -- http://www.sacs.org/ pub/CITA/intro.html), and will also be accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (http://www.sacs.org) as soon as it receives CITA accreditation, which is expected in June 2001.
 

Development of the FloridaOnlineHigh School has been swift.By the 2000 to 2001 school year, the school was offering 56 courses online to 6,000 students.About half the students took the courses in their homes and half in computer labs provided by local school districts.The school expects to add about ten new courses each year over the next few years.A cause of major concern in the first year, a 50% course dropout rate, has been addressed with some success, resulting in a 30% dropout rate during the second year.
 

In recent years, some tertiary institutions in the US have formed virtual high schools.Toward the end of 1999, two US universities started diploma-granting virtual high schools.(Carr, December 10, 1999)The University of Missouri and IndianaUniversity had been offering correspondence courses to high school students for decades.Now, with accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, they serve students online who have not succeeded in traditional high schools, do not want to go to traditional high schools, or are being home-schooled.Financially independent of their founding universities, IndianaUniversityHigh School (http://indiana.edu/~iuhs) and the University of Missouri at ColumbiaHigh School (http://indepstudy.ext.missouri.edu/ MUHighSchool/Hshome.htm) will support themselves through tuition -- $85 per semester course at Indiana and $90 at Missouri.The courses are designed by the universities’ course developers.
 

In launching these virtual high schools, Indiana and Missouri join the University of Nebraska, which formed a for-profit company, Class.com, to sell high school courses over the Internet.Through Class.com (www.class.com) high school students can take individual courses or work to complete a high school diploma.The fully accredited courses are offered through the Independent Study High School (ISHS).Almost 50 courses are offered online and another 130 through correspondence.In addition to courses, class.com offers a full suite of teacher support and technical support to help students get the most out of their learning experience.
 

A nationwide consortium of US school districts, with partial support from commercial companies such as 3Com, Compaq, and Lotus, has developed the Virtual High School Project (http://vhs.concord.org/home.htm).VHS does not itself grant diplomas, relying on the participating schools for that.In exchange for contributing a small amount of teaching time, a high school (grades 9 to 12) in the collaborative can offer its students NetCourses from other participating schools.The courses range from advanced academic courses to technical and specialized courses.Each school can enroll up to 20 students for each course a teacher contributes. Quality of teaching is maintained by requiring each teacher to successfully complete The Teachers Learning Conference, a graduate-level NetCourse designed to give participants exposure to the best educational strategies and technologies for NetCourse teaching.
 

Early in 2000, Bob Jones University (http://www.bju.edu) announced that it would offer satellite-delivered courses to Christian high schools and home-schooled students.(Carr, March 10, 2000)Schools quickly responded, with 41 purchasing the mathematics and science courses.Most of the participating schools are small institutions that can’t find or afford enough teachers to offer a full curriculum.The schools pay $11,900 per year for a package of up to six courses.

New Support Arrangements

One characteristic of distance and flexible education is a renewed focus on the student and an orientation to providing appropriate instruction for varying student learning styles and circumstances.Since this topic is dealt with in another chapter of this book, only one aspect of student support will be addressed here because it has given rise to one new organization and new programs in existing institutions.Because some adult learners have accumulated significant learning through their careers and independent study, distance educators have begun to develop ways to recognize and accredit that learning.
 

In the US, the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) (http://www.cael.org) has a highly regarded history of helping tertiary institutions establish procedures and policies that provide credit-equivalents for student prior learning. Through Prior Learning Assessment, CAEL provides a means for students to:

·validate the worth of learning they have achieved on their own

·understand what they need to learn in order to achieve their personal, career, or academic goals

·shorten the time necessary to earn a college credential

·save money by reducing the number of courses they need to take

·enhance their pride and self-esteem for what they have accomplished as learners

·become aware that learning is a lifelong process

CAEL now offers an online certificate in Prior Learning Assessment in conjunction with DePaulUniversity.In Canada, the Open Learning Agency (http://www.ola.bc.ca/pla) provides a similar service to learners and also offers an online certification program for Prior Learning Assessors.
 

A variation on helping students obtain credit for their prior learning is the College Level Equivalent Program (CLEP – http://www.collegeboard.org/clep).CLEP exams are recognized by almost 3,000 of the 4,000 tertiary institutions in the US.They are particularly used by military members in the US to obtain university credit for learning they have obtained through military training programs.
 

It is doubtful that any of these institutions or programs would exist absent distance education.

 

Consortia of Institutions
 

The neural nature of the World Wide Web might lead one to assume that the Web would lend itself nicely to consortia efforts among educational institutions.Such has often not been the case.Many attempts to create consortia for distance education projects have ended in failure.(Cf. California Virtual University, below.)In some cases, the non-equal status of the parties has been a problem.If one party is the “provider” and the other is the “beneficiary” of new services, it is difficult for the parties to form a consortium as equal participants.In other cases, it might be difficult for all the stakeholders to agree on the terms of the project since they approach the need from different points of views.In yet other cases, the parties might not share values on the topic.(Cf. the disintegration of the draft agreement between News Corp. and various universities for the establishment of Universitas 21, below.)
 

Nevertheless, there are examples of successful consortia of tertiary institutions for distance education.Some successes go un-reported in the literature.They might consist of two neighboring institutions agreeing to cross-enroll students in distance education courses and then agreeing on which courses each would offer.Others might be “mature” arrangements that have existed for several years and no longer make the “news,” such as the Public Broadcasting Service’s Going The Distance Project.   

More than 200 community colleges have joined with 67 public television stations in 41 states to offer Associate degree programs through distance education telecourses under the Going The Distance (GTD) Project. (http://www.pbs.org/als/gtd/project/index.html) The program is aimed at expanding career opportunities for working adults who could not otherwise attend college, and increasing workforce competitiveness through adult education services. PBS has offered telecourses through PBS stations and local colleges since 1981, but students could not complete degree requirements until the GTD Project was started in 1994.Enrollment in PBS telecourses has grown from 55,000 in 1981 to 400,000 in 1996.(NCES, 1997)
 

In a story of inter-institutional collaboration for distance education in the US, Carnavale (May 19, 2000) compares the models of distance education developed by the Western Governors University (WGU – http://www.wgu.edu) and the Southern Regional Education Board’s (SREB) Electronic Campus (http://www.sreb.org).Both institutions span huge geographic regions but their approaches and records differ.Each evolved from existing groups of institutions and a regional organization with years of history of encouraging cooperation among the institutions.The Western Governors University evolved from the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE, http://www.wiche.edu) an organization founded in 1953 to facilitate policy development and cooperation among the tertiary institutions in 15 states in Western US.The Southern Region Education Board, founded in 1948, facilitates policy development and cooperation among the tertiary institutions in 16 states in Southern US.
 

Western Governors University (WGU) draws heavily from the course offerings of its participating universities.It has promised to introduce systemic change in higher education by offering degrees and certificates “based completely on competencies,” for which the University has developed a new competency-based testing system.WGU would compete with programs offered by existing colleges but gears its academic programs especially for “people whose experience and expertise has (sic) outpaced their education.”WGU offers Associate degrees in Business and Information Technology, a Bachelor degree in Business-Information Technology, and a Masters degree in Learning and Technology.The University provides online library services and refers students to Amazon.com for bookstore services.
 

The Southern Regional Education Board (www.sreb.org) aims to give students easy access to online courses offered by its participating colleges through its Electronic Campus (www.electroniccampus.org).Through the Electronic Campuses, more than 300 colleges are offering over 3,500 courses per year, leading to about 150 degree programs.Online library services are provided by GALILEO (Georgia Library Learning Online).The Electronic Campus has started an Academic Common Market Initiative to establish a single tuition rate for students no matter where they take their online courses within the Electronic Campus.The Campus also hopes to form a “regional learning network,” a single gateway to all online tertiary education in the region.
 

According to Carnevale (May 19, 2000), so far Western Governors is falling short of its targets and is running a deficit, having enrolled only 200 degree-seeking students, while SREB has more than 20,000 students taking online courses at its member institutions.Those same numbers were projected for WGU earlier in the year Carr (January 14, 2000).WGU organizers had projected 500 students in degree programs at that point, 3,000 students in certificate programs, and 10,000 taking courses at other institutions through WGU.Those numbers did not materialize, and the success of WGU remains to be seen.
 

Sidebar:One virtual university effort that was started about the same time as WesternGovernorsUniversity and was seen as a potential competitor to WGU has already ceased operations.CaliforniaVirtualUniversity (www.california.edu) started with plans to become a degree-granting entity, but failed to obtain sufficient funding.It had been hoped that each of the founding partners (the three California public university systems and the state’s association of independent colleges) would contribute $1 million per year for three years to cover operating expenses.When those funds failed to materialize, plans to develop the University were scrapped.All that remains is a searchable database of distance education courses offered by over one hundred California institutions.(Hutton 1999)
 

Four-year public institutions are not the only tertiary institutions forming consortia to offer distance education courses and programs.McMurtie (May 12, 2000) reports that 24 of the 28 Jesuit institutions in the US had joined forces to offer online courses through a new network, Jesuit-NET.They planned to translate the Jesuit-style of education, which emphasizes personal instruction and attention to ethical issues, to cyberspace.The Network would not offer courses itself, but would act as a “portal” for participating colleges to market their online programs.Initial focus of Jesuit-NET would be on graduate level courses.

 

The state of Kentucky has taken a unique approach to encouraging faculty members to develop creative approaches to distance education.It could lead to consortia arrangements among institutions or cooperative courses among faculty.In Fall 2000, the state announced that through KentuckyVirtualUniversity (KVU – http://www.kcvu.org) it would set up a $1.5 million fund to jump-start online learning programs by giving interest-free loans to professors starting online projects.(Young, November 24, 2000)Loans could range from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars.Unlike grants from a foundation, KVU will work closely with loan recipients to help them succeed.

 

A very ambitious multi-university distance education venture has been launched in the United Kingdom.The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (February 20, 2001) commissioned the consulting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers to design a model that would allow all the universities in the UK, in partnership with the private sector, to create a repository of quality distance education (online) courses and course components.The “e-University” (http://www.hefce.ac.uk) will be owned by the higher education sector and will draw content and services from existing higher education institutions (HEIs).An operating company will be formed to run the e-University.Initial response from the HEIs was strong, with three-quarters expressing their general support for the model.Response from the private sector was equally strong, with 91 companies responding to an initial advertisement for partners.The Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that the government had provided 62 million British pounds over a three-year period to launch the project.The extensive report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (October 2000), also supported by the government, will provide the roadmap for the launch of e-University.That report encourages the participating institutions to “be willing to explore new paradigms of teaching and learning that make full use of the technology …” anticipating that this “… will fundamentally change the approaches to teaching and learning.”(Annex 3, pg. 7)

 

Another distance education venture in the UK was launched to meet the needs of a more narrowly targeted audience.The University for Industry (later re-named “learndirect”) will provide workforce training in targeted skills areas and for particular industries.Aimed at secondary school graduates who finished school least well equipped for the workforce, learndirect (http://www.learndirect.co.uk) will deliver most of its services (employment information, advice, and training) online.However, since most of its target audience has neither computers nor Internet connections at home, learndirect will create many hundreds of computer-equipped learning centers in friendly places such as pubs and shopping centers.Learndirect is seen as complementary to e-University.

 

Commercial Initiatives
 

Distance education, once the stepchild of higher education, has suddenly become an attractive area financially.The expectation is that distance education programs can be not only self-supporting but can generate additional funds to support other departments at a traditional institution or can generate a profit for a commercial company.Recent years have seen several companies create corporate universities, mainly to educate their own workers.(Meister, February 9, 2001)Other commercial companies have developed distance education ventures.Some provide services to support distance education and training programs operated by traditional institutions.Others form partnerships and alliances with traditional universities.And, on occasion, some traditional universities form their own commercial subdivisions to offer distance education courses and programs.

Corporate Universities

 

Many large, multi-national corporations have created their own “universities.”Often started as a vehicle for managing the training of employees and/or customers, the corporate universities are sometimes larger and better funded than traditional universities.For example, MotorolaUniversity has a staff of 700 and an annual budget of $150 million.(Cunningham et al., 2000)It provides 40 to 120 hours per year of work-related training to every employee of the company.(Engineers and management receive 120 hours; salaried employees receive 40 hours.)Arthur Anderson Professional Learning operates with an annual budget of $382 million and a staff of 180, providing an average of 133 hours per year of training per employee.The goal of their training is to improve the business capacities of all staff.McDonald’s University spends about 8% of the company’s total payroll each year to train the workforce to provide consistency of product and service in an industry that experiences a 40% turnover of employees each year.Sun Microsystems Educational Services has a staff of 77 and spends $280 million per year on 92 hours of training per employee.

 

There is little doubt that some corporate universities are becoming competition to traditional higher education institutions, siphoning off students who might otherwise take college courses in management, production techniques, finance, marketing, and other business-related subjects.Often, the students choose the “convenience” of the corporate courses over the “brand prestige” of the traditional university courses.This is causing some traditional institutions to re-assess how they organize, deliver, and market their courses.Sometimes the re-assessment reaches to the very core of the university, raising questions of the institution’s goals (e.g., to educate the “whole person” vs. to provide more “targeted” instruction), the institution’s governance (e.g., strong administration that is able to implement change quickly vs. the more collegial approach of most traditional institutions), and the role of the faculty (e.g., sage on the stage vs. guide at the side, full-time vs. part-time).

 

Most of the corporate universities use a combination of pedagogical approaches.Face-to-face instruction remains an important component, although it is increasingly accompanied by ICT-enhanced instruction, especially in the case of corporations that have staff scattered throughout the world.Face-to-face instruction is especially used for courses that require “team” activities such as management courses designed to encourage collaboration among managers.None of the corporate universities uses ICT-delivered instruction alone.Printed workbooks, audiotapes, and video remain the primary means for non-instructor-led training in most corporate universities.

 

The literature indicates that many corporations are turning to ICT enhancement of their courses as a vehicle for saving money.Although they spend substantial amounts to create ICT course materials, for example ranging from $100,000 for an eight hour course at MichiganVirtualUniversity to $4 million per 45-hour course at Arthur Anderson Professional Learning, the amount saved in travel and “lost opportunity costs” more than offsets the cost of developing the materials.

 

One example of a corporate university might be particularly relevant for developing countries.In the early 1990s, Ford realized that it needed to upgrade its workforce to enable it to deal with the increasingly computerized nature of its cars.The workforce of 350,000 persons is scattered throughout 200 countries.The company found that the literacy skills of the workforce were not up to the requirements of print-based training, and its independent dealership network was averse to training.

 

Ford decided to overcome these barriers by video training that would “piggy- back” on an existing but under-used satellite network that was used for data transmission to the dealerships.Ford invested $100 million to create FORDSTAR, its educational arm.That did not include the cost of curriculum development or the $7,000 each dealer had to invest in a satellite receive dish and recording equipment.Unlike most universities, Ford was in a position to compel training of its employees and dealers.Today, FORDSTAR operates on $440 million per year (2.5% of its payroll) to train its engineers, repair technicians, managers, and sales staff in the dealerships.

 

Why might this example be important for developing countries?Few, if any, will have funds to match the resources that Ford had.The important part of the Ford story is that it set up its training by piggy-backing on an existing resource, the satellite network that was already in place.It leveraged the satellite investment to provide a value-added service.Developing countries might ask: What resources exist on which a virtual education program might piggyback?Do any multi-national companies have unused delivery capacity that they might contribute to the cause?Are there training resources that might be expanded to become a backbone of a virtual education program?Are there other existing resources that could be leveraged to give the virtual education program a boost?

University-Business Alliances

A very common phenomenon in recent years, which is expected to continue into the future, at least in North America, is the development of alliances between tertiary institutions and businesses to develop and deliver distance education courses.In some cases, this involves new relationships between an existing institution and an existing business.In other cases, it involves the development of new companies.
 

One of the biggest stories of distance education partnerships worldwide has been a venture of Universitas 21 (http://www.universitas.edu.au), a network of 18 prestigious universities in 10 countries.(Maslen, June 2, 2000; Shecter, November 23, 2000; Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000)

 
Universities participating in Universitas 21 include: Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Fudan University, Lund University, McGill University, National University of Singapore, University of Auckland, University of Birmingham, University of British Columbia, University of Edinburgh, University of Glasgow, University of Hong Kong, University of Melbourne, University of Michigan, University of New South Wales, University of Nottingham, University of Peking, University of Queensland, and University of Toronto.
 
In June 2000, the Universitas 21 group announced that it was joining forces with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation to capture a major share of the growing global market for online higher education.Aimed at college graduates, the online courses would lead to advanced degrees awarded by the Universitas 21 institutions.The institutions would provide quality assurance, assess student performance, and award degrees.News Corporation would use its global distribution platforms, advanced technologies, and marketing skills to distribute the courses.The new joint venture was expected to begin offering courses in mid-2001.
 
Toward the end of 2000, that agreement fell apart and the Universitas 21 group announced that it would be working with Thomson Learning (http://www.thomsonlearning.com) to develop online learning materials.The publisher would be responsible for course design, testing, student assessment, and student database management.The universities would award the degrees.However, within days of that announcement, the University of Toronto, one of the Universitas 21 participating members, began to distance itself from the joint venture.The reasons were not entirely clear but a University spokesperson said the action was being taken by the University to “protect the integrity of its brand.”
 
By early 2001, the path for Universitas 21 had become even rockier.On March 2, Maslen wrote that five faculty unions from around the world had called on the universities in Universitas 21 to hold off establishing the arrangement with Thomson until all academic and employment issues were resolved.A week later, the Chronicle of Higher Education (March 9,2001) reported that students at Australian colleges had attacked the plan to create Universitas 21, charging that the reputations of the participating universities involved would be threatened.The National Union of Students backed protesters who demonstrated outside QueenslandUniversity's governing-council.Nevertheless, a couple of weeks later the participating institutions were preparing to make substantial financial commitments to the new consortium.(Illing, March 21, 2001)
 
Whatever the outcome of the Universitas 21 partnership agreements, they reflect the condition of distance education at the tertiary level at the start of the 21^st Century.Institutions are anxious to form new partnerships to reach new populations.Businesses see the universities as sources of intellectual assets needed to develop distance education offerings.Universities recognize that the businesses are experienced in developing, distributing, and marketing products to mass markets.Both sides are struggling to devise relationships that would draw on the strengths of each to create and deliver new products to meet the perceived needs of vast populations of adult learners.
 

There are other examples of university-business partnerships or alliances that hope to achieve results similar to the Universitas 21 group.For example, in an article entitled “How a Publishing Empire is Changing Higher Education,” Blumenstyk (September 8, 2000b) reports that London-based Pearson PLC (http://www.pearson.com/overview/learn.htm), perhaps the world’s largest educational publisher, has developed high-profile relationships and deals with many prestigious universities, including Cambridge, Regents College (now Excelsior), and the University of Michigan, as well as other educational businesses such as America Online and Blackboard.Part of Pearson’s plan is to create a giant online venture called the Learning Network, which it will house with its corporate education assets and other distance education assets in a subsidiary known as FTKnowledge.That subsidiary already generates $110 million a year in revenues for Pearson, and is pegged to grow to $300 million to $500 million in 3 to 5 years.
 

Blumenstyk observes that the Pearson program reflects the fact that “higher education is now a hot commodity in business circles.”She speculates that this program and others from Pearson competitors Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Thomson, Harcourt, and John Wiley, might force universities to choose between joining these corporations in joint ventures and trying to fight them.If they choose to fight, universities might find themselves focusing on less lucrative liberal arts programs while the businesses capitalize on more lucrative adult education markets.
 

Simultaneously, another major commercial provider of higher education, DeVry Institutes (http://www.devry.edu), received accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools for online versions of its bachelor’s degree programs in business and information technology.These programs are aimed at adult students who must be at least 21 years old and have completed 24 credits at a traditional institution.DeVry plans to charge $330 per credit hour for its online courses compared to $235 per credit hour it charges for classroom-based courses.Although online students need only 124 credits for degree completion compared to 132 needed for classroom-based programs, the online degree will cost about one-third more than a classroom-based degree.
 

Some of the commercial distance education ventures undertaken by tertiary institutions have been narrowly targeted at specific populations.For example, PaceUniversity joined with the National Advisory Coalition for Telecommunications Education and Learning (NACTEL) to create and offer an Associate’s degree in Telecommunications (http://csis.pace.edu/nactel) aimed at workers who want to fill Network Technician jobs in industry.(Virtual Gazette, August 1999)The courses are offered exclusively via the Internet from PaceUniversity.The specially designed curriculum meets academic standards and reflects state-of-the-art practices in the industry.NACTEL is a consortium of four communications companies (Bell Atlantic/Verizon, GTE, SBC, and US West) and two communications unions (CWA and IBEW) that together have over 350,000 telecommunications workers.The degree program is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and administered by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).
 

Another example of a university-business partnership that is narrowly focused is the OpenTech project (http://www.ola.bc.ca) of the Open Learning Agency in Canada.With sponsorship from Oracle Corporation, Cisco, Microsoft, and others, OpenTech offers students a combination Information Technology certificate plus college credit.
 

Not all the partnerships are focused on for-credit distance education courses.A consortium of six medical schools, known as the University Pathology Consortium (http://info.upcmd.com), created a new Internet service in 2000 to help health-care professionals diagnose and test for a variety of diseases.(Mangan, September 22, 2000)The consortium contracts with 150 professionals around the country to review and update the information it places on its Web site.The service is marketed to physicians and other health-care professionals for an annual subscription fee of $199.
 

If one doubts the extent to which commercial interests view distance education as a large potential market, one need only pick up any issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education and study the display ads.Consistently throughout 2000, at least half of the display ads in each issue were touting distance education-related products or services from commercial companies.JonesKnowledge.com normally had one to three pages of ads promoting its integrated campus software for distance learning.Blackboard and WebCT could be depended on for one or two pages each to tout their integrated online systems.Jenzabar often took a full-page ad to promote its integrated online campus software.Harcourt e-Learning promoted its online courses with full-page ads.Other distance education service providers such as Datatel (“Campus Cruiser”), PeopleSoft (student records and support software), Mascot Network (student online centers to foster communication), and Academic Systems (online courses) periodically took out full-page ads.Still other companies that support distance education, such as Macromedia (Web design software and tools), DigitalLearningInteractive (online textbooks), XanEdu (online resources for faculty and students), and Prometric (online testing) often took out large but less than full-page ads to promote their services.It should be clear from this that colleges are experiencing significant competition for functions that used to be exclusively theirs.On the other hand, the proliferation of such delivery and support platforms provide colleges with the opportunity to unbundle and outsource various components of the educational process.This is a trend that began to emerge in the late 1990s.
 

Not all university-business partnerships have gone well.The online-course company Global Education Network (GEN – http://www.gen.com) approached 15 elite liberal arts colleges about collaborating to sell online courses.(Carr, August 18, 2000a)Wellesley signed a contract, but none of the others followed.Brown University and Williams University allowed individual faculty members to create courses for the company, and Brown and Duke universities were still considering some sort of an institutional arrangement with GEN, but Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and the other institutions were unlikely to enter into any agreement with GEN.
 

History was even harsher on Bigwords.com.Only four months after announcing its commencement, with $30 million infusion of venture capital, this online college bookseller quietly exited the business.(Chronicle of Higher Education, November 17, 2000)Although Bigwords.com attracted 800,000 users a day to its Web site, that did not translate into sales or profits.VarsityBooks.com, another online college bookseller, was also struggling to stay alive.By the end of 2000, it had laid off two-thirds of its employees, including a Group Vice President.(Irwin, December 19, 2000)These “reversals” for highly visible dot-com companies might lead some colleges and universities to be especially cautious about how fast they plan to grow their online offerings and the companies with which they partner to develop and deliver their courses and support services.
 

Some university-business arrangements were less direct than others.For example, Swarthmore sold its Web site, MathForum.com, to WebCT early in 2000.(Carnavale, April 28, 2000)Started in 1996 by Swarthmore math professor Gene Klotz with $3 million funding from the National Science Foundation, MathForum (http://www.mathforum.com) had become one of the most popular math sites on the Web.Using “Ask Dr. Math,” students could learn how to multiply fractions, solve differential equations, and other math functions.WebCT will use the MathForum model to develop other forums in subjects such as biology, history, and English.
 

Another example of subtle alliances is the phenomenon of colleges and universities paying commercial Web sites to list their online course offerings.(Carr, April 14, 2000)Portals such as Hungry Minds (http://www.hungryminds.com), where potential students are likely to search for information about available courses, charge the universities a fixed fee or referral fee of 10% to 20% of the tuition collected from referred students.Institutions such as the University of Maryland and the University of California at Berkeley have already signed on.As an alternative to arrangements such as this, some groups of universities such as WesternGovernorsUniversity and the Southern Regional Education Board’s Electronic Campus, are forming their own portals.Skeptics are waiting to see if the portals can prove their value by delivering students.The jury is still out at this early stage of the evolution of these Web sites.
 

For-Profit University Subsidiaries

Not all of the new commercial ventures undertaken by tertiary institutions for distance education involve alliances with businesses.Some originate and remain within the universities themselves.Administrators at CornellUniversity, for example, saw a sizeable market for high-level courses taught at a distance through e-mail, discussion boards, and CD-ROMS.(Manjoo, 2000)The University formed a for-profit entity named e-Cornell (http://www.ecornell.com).And, taking a cue from the business world, Cornell decided to motivate e-Cornell’s leadership to capture the market by giving them a share in the profits of the company.
 

The story of e-Cornell, however, illustrates a difficulty of grafting new e-commerce onto the academic trunk of an existing tertiary institution.One catch in the e-Cornell planning was that the university’s administration created the new company without consulting the faculty.When they learned of the new company and the plans for it, some of the faculty rebelled.They claimed that they were not against distance education but they wanted to discuss how it could fit into Cornell’s academic culture.Citing competition from peer institutions and private businesses, the administration pressed forward in spite of faculty objections.Most of thefaculty seem resigned to co-exist with the new company, sharing the common belief that if it is not e-Cornell, some distance education program will be started soon by the university.
 

Other tertiary institutions have also created for-profit subsidiaries to develop and market distance education courses.In December 1999, TempleUniversity created VirtualTemple to market online courses to reach more rapidly and efficiently the adult market.(Carr, December 17, 1999)VirtualTemple would contract with faculty from TempleUniversity and other universities to use their courses.This follows a pattern set months earlier by New YorkUniversity and Columbia University. Interestingly, as with e-Cornell, some faculty members at Temple complained that the university’s administration had failed to consult with the faculty in developing the plan for VirtualTemple.One concern of the faculty is that the new corporation might “take jobs away from Ph.D.s and put them into the hands of business executives and poorly paid part-timers.”
 

The University of Maryland University College (UMUC) also created a wholly-owned for-profit arm to market its online courses.(Carnavale, December 17, 1999)UMUC OnLine (http://www.umuconline.com) will not create new courses but rather will market UMUC courses globally to extend the reach of the college’s online courses.UMUC already offers 430 online courses, serving more than 20,000 students.UMUC OnLine.com will seek corporate partners, especially those who can bring innovative approaches for the delivery of the courses.

In an editorial column in The American Journal of Distance Education,Moore (2000) writes about the competition that for-profit companies are beginning to give colleges and universities in delivering programs of higher education.He specifically mentions Harcourt Learning Direct, Hungry Minds, SmartPlanet, eHigherEducation, SmartForce, Jones International University and the University of Phoenix.He also notes that 1,000 companies have set up their own in-house training programs, doing for themselves something they at times turned to universities to do in the past.Moore goes on to identify public institutions that have entered the for-profit field themselves – New York University (NYU OnLine), the University of Nebraska (http://www.class.com), and Columbia University (partnering with Unext to build a new Ivy League Internet business degree according to Carlson(December 1, 2000)).Such developments, suggests Moore, raise concerns that the proliferation of new institutions might lead to price wars between traditional tertiary institutions and for-profit universities, with the for-profit institutions picking the “low hanging fruit” and leaving the less lucrative courses to the traditional institutions.
 

One phenomenon that has spurred some alliances between universities with distance education programs and businesses is the trend to “unbundle” components of the education process, sometimes referred to as “disaggregation.” Until recently, the education process within the university was a self-contained process, with the faculty member responsible for most of the process.Curriculum development, creation of course materials, delivery of instruction, student advising, testing, grading, and accreditation would be done by the faculty member on behalf of the university.Other university personnel handled the rest of the process, including such functions as registration, bookstore, library, counseling, housing, food services, etc.
 

Some years ago, traditional higher education institutions began to unbundle and outsource some peripheral components such as food services and bookstore functions.The advent of distance education has led some institutions to question whether other components of the educational process could be unbundled.This opened up opportunities for businesses to provide some of those services, theoretically more efficiently and economically than the university could.It was not long before businesses started to provide library and bookstore services for distance learners.Companies such as Real Education (now e-College) soon offered to develop courses online and deliver the core parts of the courses to distance learners.Others such as Prometric began to market testing services.Yet other companies such as Blackboard and WebCT began to develop and market integrated educational packages that brought together almost all of the components of the educational process (course materials, tutorials, student-to-student contact, assessment, library resources, bookstore services, and other student services) into a single platform.Finally, companies such as Smarthinking began to offer the final pieces, tutoring and counseling services.
 

It is not clear where all of this will lead distance education.By no means have all institutions jumped on the “unbundling” bandwagon.Yet it seems clear that the genie is out of the bottle and increasingly institutions will be asking which of the components they can “outsource” to others, while still maintaining the quality of their educational programs.
 

Government-Education Alliances
 

The federal government has rather suddenly become a major potential player in distance education in the US.Educational opportunities are seen as a key incentive for attracting and retaining recruits to voluntary military service.While the US military has for years funded access for its members to traditional and non-traditional education opportunities, in 2000 several new programs were launched by the Department of Defense and one or more of the branches of the Armed Services.
 

US service members have the option of choosing from many forms of education.Tuition is paid by the US government.One concern of the Pentagon is that various colleges and universities use different software applications and technology platforms for their online courses.With funding from the Defense Department’s Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (http://www.adlnet.org), several public universities in Wisconsin are compiling a set of voluntary technical standards for companies that make and sell software and platforms for online courses.(Carr, March 3, 2000)For example, the standards might call for Web pages to use authoring language XML rather than HTML.The goal of this project is to make it easier to migrate courses from one platform (e.g., Blackboard) to another (e.g., WebCT).
 

In August 2000, the US Army announced what might be the largest distance education program ever undertaken, planning to spend $600 million over six years to enable any interested service member to take distance education courses on the Internet, at little or no cost, wherever they are stationed.(Carr, August 18, 2000).Through a Request For Proposals (RFP), the Army would contract with a single “Integrator” who would set up the technology to deliver the courses and would subcontract with colleges and universities that agree to use the system to offer their courses to service members.Eventually, the system could enroll a million students, solidifying the Army as the largest broker and customer of distance learning in the US, and probably in the world.
 

By November 2000, colleges and companies had teamed up to vie for a role in the Army program.(Carr, November 17, 2000)At least six teams of corporations and colleges (the team being a requirement of the Request For Proposals) submitted bids for the program.For example, one team was headed by IBM and included GeorgiaVirtualTechnicalCollege, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, TexasA&MUniversity, the University of Maryland, and the University of Oklahoma.
 

In the final days of 2000, the Army announced its selection, picking PricewaterhouseCoopers as “Integrator” for a $453 million six-year project to deliver distance education courses to soldiers all over the world.(Carnevale, January 5, 2001)The project is named Army University Access Online.PricewaterhouseCoopers lined up a team of ten companies and 29 colleges to work together on the initial offerings.The project was scheduledto begin operation early in 2001, and to enroll about 15,000 students within a year.PricewaterhouseCoopers’ bid came in below the Army’s projected cost of $600 million, and beat out other companies such as IBM, NCS Pearson, Arthur Andersen, Computer Sciences Corporation, Electronic Data Systems, and Science Applications International Corporation.Companies cooperating with PricewaterhouseCoopers include Blackboard, Compaq, Fiberlink, PeopleSoft, Intel Online, and Smarthinking.Colleges spanned the spectrum from large universities such as PennState, the University of Texas, and FloridaStateUniversity to two-year colleges such as NorthernVirginiaCommunity College,RioSaladoCollege, and AnneArundelCommunity College, to private colleges such as NovaSoutheasternUniversity, St. Leo University (FL), and St. Joseph’s College (ME).Other companies and colleges will be added as the project progresses.
 

Meanwhile, the US Navy had announced a program to provide distance education college courses to its service members all over the world, again as a way to recruit and retain sailors.(Carr, November 17, 2000a)Unlike the Army’s RFP, the Navy’s did not require a single Integrator.Instead, the Navy chose 16 colleges and universities and plans to work closely with each, more like a partner than a contractor.Fifty-two institutions had applied to participate in the program.

 
The Navy program is significant in at least two ways.First, only colleges offering complete degree programs at a distance were eligible for consideration.Second, because many sailors are isolated on ships, the courses had to be available without Internet access; the Navy was not interested in programs that offer only online courses.Colleges chosen for a pilot program include: Dallas County Community College District, GeorgeWashingtonUniversity, and University of Maryland University College.Other institutions that will eventually work with the Navy on the program include: Pikes Peak Community College (CO), City University in Renton (WA), Coastline Community College (CA), Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (FL), Empire State University (NY), Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FL), Florida State University (FL), Fort Hays State University (KS), Old Dominion University (VA), Rogers State University (OK), Thomas Edison State College (NJ), Troy State University (AL), and Vincennes University (IN).

Issues Related to New Organizational Arrangements
 

The preceding sections of this chapter have described several examples of new organizational arrangements for ICT-enhanced virtual education.Some of the examples build on existing educational infrastructures; others create alternative structures.Some have been developed by existing educational institutions; others by players who are new to education, such as corporations.Some are seen as complementing existing educational offerings; others are intended to compete with what exists.
 

Some of the examples cited are from developing countries but the majority are from the developed world.This perhaps stems from the fact that developed countries are more likely to have the educational and technological infrastructures and financial resources needed to build ICT-enhanced virtual education.It might also stem in part from a more robust history of philanthropy in some parts of the developed world, especially the US.In many cases, foundation grants have allowed higher education institutions to explore and develop the potential of technology-enhanced virtual education.
 

It is this author’s hope that even the examples from developed countries will benefit leaders and planners from developing countries by sparking in their imaginations visions of the possibilities that ICT-enhanced virtual education holds for their countries.
 

Embedded in the experiences of the described efforts are several forces that propel the development of new virtual education programs and others that inhibit the development of new virtual education programs and arrangements.The same force that propels development in one environment might inhibit development in another environment.In designing a “vision of the possible,” these forces must be kept in mind.Each force is explored in the form of questions:
 

·Societal and Institutional Needs – Many of the new virtual education organizational arrangements reflect strongly-felt needs in a society or an institution.For example, the AfricanVirtualUniversity is being developed to address the lack of adequate tertiary opportunities in the participating countries.NYU Online is being developed to capitalize on the human resources (i.e., faculty talent) of the institution, using the technologies to reach and teach additional students.Often, the identified needs can best be met through partnerships or affiliations of two or more institutions.

oWhat are the needs of a society that might propel the creation of a new virtual education organization (e.g., to provide equal access to higher education opportunities for all high school graduates of the country; need for new vocational and technical skills to strengthen the middle class population, as Taiwan has done; need to upgrade the workforce skills of the population in general; need to train today’s professionals such as engineers and computer specialists to use new tools and procedures while they remain in the workplace, as France and Canada have done; to overcome the “tyrannies of space, time, and fixed curriculum” [IGNOU] by offering flexible, anytime-anywhere learning; desire to encourage lifelong learning)?Can those needs best be met through the development of a new institution?If so, can that institution best function independent of all other institutions (as in the case of NYU Online) or might it benefit from working with one or more other institutions (as in the case of African Virtual University)?

oWhat are the needs of an institution that might propel the creation of a new virtual education organization or program (e.g., the imperative to expand its student population; a desire to extend its influence in one academic area such as the social sciences; a determination to use its resources, including personnel, more effectively; a quest for increasing “profit,” especially in the case of for-profit institutions; a decision to capitalize on the institution’s existing “brand” name)?

oWhat are the needs of a society or an institution that might inhibit the development of a new virtual education organization (e.g., a desire to maintain the status quo; faculty resistance to a new mode of instruction; lack of sufficient capital and/or human resources; a population that does not have the prerequisite skills to study independently; copyright laws that discourage the use of resources in distance education; a concern that the virtual education program might dilute the value of the institution’s strong “brand” name)?

oAre any of the identified needs being met by other institutions?If so, are the other institutions potential partners for the new institution?Potential competitors?

·Learner Needs – In many cases, learner needs have played a major role in creating and/or molding new organizational arrangements.In developing countries, for example, although the term “distance education” is used often many of the students live no more than 20 miles or less from a tertiary institution.In their cases, “convenience” is a more important consideration than “distance.”Learner needs are also affecting the nature of the courses provided.Because many of the learners are adults who are in the workforce, they are demanding that the courses be practical and contain information and skills that they can put to work immediately in their jobs.

oWho are the learners who will be served by the virtual education program or institution?Are they adults?Are they in the workforce?What are their expectations and educational needs?What study experiences and skills do they bring to their classes?What value do they place on learning?

oWho will pay for their education?Their employers?The government?If so, how much expendable income does the average student have?

oHow can the new program provide the learners with the flexibility (anytime, anyplace) and quality they seek?

oWhat information and communications technologies (ICTs) do most of the students have access to?If the virtual education program uses ICTs for delivery, how will that impact access and equity of opportunity?

oAre there community resources (e.g., committed employers, local libraries, educated retirees) that the virtual education program can draw on to support the learners?

·Available Academic Resources – It is important for societies and/or institutions contemplating the creation of a new virtual education organization to assess what resources they have available that could be committed to the creation of a new organization or program.Presence of academic resources might propel the development of a new institution or program, absence of such resources might inhibit development.

oIs there a cadre of qualified and highly regarded faculty who could develop and teach the virtual education courses?Is the faculty supportive of or resistant to virtual education?

oIs there an existing body of courses that are appropriate for the target students that could be adapted to ICT delivery?

oIs there a trained population of course developers and producers who can work with the academics to develop new courses?Is that population familiar with recent developments in instructional design and delivery?

oAre there policies in place regarding copyright and ownership of courses and course materials that would be developed for the virtual education program?

oAre there existing institutions that might become partners or otherwise affiliated with the new organization?Does it make sense to affiliate with others to spread the risk and attract new capital?

oIs there any role for existing secondary institutions to play in the new organizational arrangement?

·Available Technology Infrastructure – An honest assessment of the existing technology infrastructure is essential.The virtual organization will not be in a position to develop the technology infrastructure.It must ride on whatever exists.A strong infrastructure might propel new virtual education organizational arrangements, especially if there is unused capacity within the infrastructure.A weak infrastructure might inhibit new virtual education programs, even if the need is great.

oWhat technology infrastructures exist (including hardware, software, and support systems)?Is there a strong postal system?Nationwide radio broadcast system?Nationwide television broadcast system?Does the telephone system reach into most communities?Most places of business?Most homes?

oAre the technologies affordable by most of the population?If not, and if the new organizational arrangement is developed to address a national need, can special policies (e.g., new rate tariff) be created to make them available to the primary targets of the virtual education program?

oAre there support services for the new technologies?Assuming that the technologies will be new to many of the target population, what will be done to assure that the infrastructure is usable and does not become a barrier?

oAre there infrastructure resources with unused capacity (e.g., the satellite that Ford used to create its FORDSTAR training network – see pg. 17 above)?

·Unbundling The Educational Process – In the past, every educational institution was expected to provide a comprehensive set of services to its students. Each faculty member was responsible for a major portion of those services, including course development, course offering, student support, academic counseling, assessment, and certification.Other functionaries of the institution provided additional services, such as registration, financial aid, bookstore, library, sports facilities, food services, and lodging.In recent years, institutions have begun to “unbundled” the package of services and contract some services to outside vendors.Any virtual institution created today must determine which services it will offer directly and which services others might provide more efficiently and/or more effectively.The ability to contract some services to outside vendors might propel the creation of new organizational arrangements for virtual education.

oDo virtual education students require the full range of services normally provided by traditional institutions?If not, which services are not required (e.g., sports facilities, food services, lodging)?

oMust the new organization provide all the services itself?If not, which might it contract to outside vendors (e.g., bookstore, online library, registration, financial aid assistance)?

oMust the faculty of a virtual education program be responsible for the same set of services as the faculty of a traditional institution?If not, which services might be provided by others (e.g., course development by a team rather than a single faculty member, assessment by a third-party measuring student skills and knowledge, student support by trained support desk personnel)?

·Quality Issues – Establishing and maintaining qualitative integrity is critical to all the stakeholders of a new virtual education organization: the funders, the administrators, the faculty, the students, and the regulators.

oHow will quality of instruction and support services be monitored?Who will have responsibility?Will monitoring be on-going or periodic (e.g., every five years)?What criteria will be used?

oWhat service areas will the quality control monitoring cover?As virtual education programs cross geo-political borders, including national borders, how far will the quality control monitoring extend?If the world is the service area of the new institution, will quality control be world-wide?If so, will the standards vary to reflect different expectations in various parts of the world?

oHow will the results of quality control monitoring be conveyed to the stakeholders?

·Targets Of Opportunity – Sometimes new virtual education arrangements will lead to special targets of opportunity, providing occasions for developing new programs or serving new populations.Such targets of opportunity can propel further development of the new organization.

oHaving established a new organization or program, is it now possible to serve additional groups of learners?If so, who are those learners and what are their needs?

oCan the new organization or program develop new academic programs to meet emerging needs of the society?

oAs new technologies become more widely available, do they permit the development of new programs of study or reaching new groups of learners?

oCan the efforts of the new organization or program be used in other ways to serve the needs of the society (e.g., through the publication of a journal that shares new pedagogical approaches with other institutions or periodic research symposia to enable other institutions to benefit from what the new institution is discovering about learner support services)?

oHow might the new organization create a research and evaluation structure that is appropriate for its place in the overall educational system of the society?

 

Conclusion
 

There is a great deal of “churn” in virtual education today.This parallels the churn found in technology industries world-wide.That is not likely to change over the next few years.We can expect to see many new institutions and initiatives in virtual education.Some will survive; others will not.What seems certain is that virtual education will continue to grow and to change.Those changes that are tied closely to technology will require venture capital.The amount needed will usually exceed early estimates.
 

Many of the developments we can expect to see in virtual education over the next few years will involve partnerships and alliances of institutions, both within countries and across national borders.Those partnerships and alliances will allow the participating institutions to disperse costs and draw on each others’ strengths.
 

To what extent the developments in technology-enhanced virtual education programs benefit developing countries will depend, in large part, on the “vision of the possible” that leaders of those countries have and how they muster the resources of their countries to make their vision become a reality.It is the hope of this author that at least one example cited in this chapter has sparked the imagination of each reader and that the references provided will allow the reader to follow up with educators who have already invested their time and talents to create virtual education programs that can be the precursors to the programs created in the developing countries.
 

References

American Council on Education.(March 2000) Developing a Distance Education Policy for 21^st Century Learning.Washington, DC.American Council on Education.

Blumenstyk, G.(August 11, 2000)“Company That Owns the U. of Phoenix Plans for a Major Foreign Expansion.The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A44.
 

Blumenstyk, G. (September 8, 2000)“DeVry Receives Accreditation to Offer Bachelor’s Degrees Online.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A61.
 

Blumenstyk, G. (September 8, 2000a)“Harcourt’s Virtual College Readies Launch.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A59.

 

Blumenstyk, G.(September 8, 2000b)“How a Publishing Empire Is Changing Higher Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A43.
 

Blumenstyk, G.(November 10, 2000)“In Publishing Deal, Thomson and Reed Elsevier Will Buy Harcourt.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A37.
 

Carlson, S.(October 27, 2000)“Campus Survey Finds That Adding Technology to Teaching Is a Top Issue.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A46.
 

Carlson, S.(December 1, 2000)“Web Company Founded by ColumbiaU. Opens a Beta Version of Its Site.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A42.
 

Carnavale, D.(October 29, 1999)“Colleges Strive to Give Disabled Students Access to On-Line Courses.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A69.
 

Carnavale, D.(December 17,1999)“U. of Maryland University College Creates For-Profit Arm to Market Its On-Line Courses.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A49.
 

Carnavale, D.(February 18, 2000)“Assessing the Quality of Online Courses Remains a Challenge, Educators Agree.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A59.
 

Carnavale, D.(April 28, 2000)“SwarthmoreCollege Sells Its Popular Mathematics Site to WebCT.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A51.
 

Carnavale, D.(May 12, 2000)“A College’s Detailed Policy on Distance Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A49.
 

Carnavale, D.(May 19, 2000)“2 Models for Collaboration in Distance Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A53.
 

Carnavale, D.(September 8, 2000)“Accrediting Bodies Consider New Standards For Distance-Education Programs.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A35.
 

Carnavale, D.(September 12, 2000)“Arizona’s Regents Plan an Online Institution That Would Offer Degrees.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A29.
 

Carnavale, D.(January 5, 2001)“Army Picks Consulting Group to Run Distance-Education Effort.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A46.
 

Carnavale, D. and Young, J.R.(December 17, 1999)“Who Owns On-Line Courses?Colleges and Professors Start To Sort It Out.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A45.
 

Carr, S.(December 10, 1999)“Two More Universities Start Diploma-Granting Virtual High Schools.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A49.
 

Carr, S.(December 17, 1999)“For-Profit Venture to Market Distance-Education Courses Stirs Concerns at Temple.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A46.
 

Carr, S.(January 14, 2000)“Enrollment Growth Remains Slow at WesternGovernorsUniversity.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A49.
 

Carr, S.(March 3, 2000)“Wisconsin Joins Pentagon Project to Ease Transfer of Software for Online Courses.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A43.
 

Carr, S.(March 10, 2000)“Bob Jones U. Offers Its Controversial Curriculum to High School Students Online.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A47.
 

Carr, S.(March 17, 2000)“With $100-Million Donation, Software Magnate Aims to Create a University.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.
 

Carr, S.(April 14, 2000)“Online Learning’s ‘Yellow Pages’ Are Bracing for a Shakeout.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A57.
 

Carr, S.(April 14, 2000a)“For-Profit Web Venture Seeks to Replicate the University Experience Online.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A59.
 

Carr, S.(June 22, 2000)“Stock’s Free Fall Slows Software Magnate’s Plan for OnlineUniversity.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.
 

Carr, S.(July 7, 2000)“Many Professors Are Optimistic on Distance Learning, Study Finds.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A35.
 

Carr, S.(August 18, 2000)“Army Bombshell Rocks Distance Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A35.
 

Carr, S.(August 18, 2000a)“Online-Course Company Makes Only a Few Inroads in Working Elite Colleges.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A37.
 

Carr, S.(November 17, 2000)“Colleges and Companies Team Up to Vie for Role in Army Program.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A60.
 

Carr, S.(November 17, 2000a)“Navy Picks Institutions for Online-Learning Effort.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A60.
 

Carr, S.(January 5, 2001)“Commission Says Federal Rules on Distance Education Must Be Updated.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A46.
 

Carr, S.(February 16, 2001)“Is Anyone Making Money on Distance Education?”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A41.
 

Carty, W.(1999)“New Markets for Meeting Old Needs: US Distance Education and Developing Countries.”EDUCAUSE 1999 Published Proceedings.Available:http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/edu9918/edu9918.html.(January 12, 2001)
 

Centre for Distance Education (n.d.)“The Ghana Distance Education Development Project.”Vancouver, Canada:SimonFraserUniversity.Available: http://www.sfu.ca/cde/intl/ghana.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Chronicle of Higher Education (March 2, 2001)“Instructional Technology.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A39.
 

Chronicle of Higher Education(November 17, 2000)“Online.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A57.
 

Chronicle of Higher Education (December 15, 2000)“Online.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A47.
 

Chronicle of Higher Education(February 23, 2001)“Give & Take.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A34.
 

Cohen, D.(July 14, 2000)“Hong Kong’s Boom in Distance Education May Be a Sign of What’s to Come in Asia.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A50.
 

Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions.(September 2000).Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Draft).Denver, CO.Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. Available: http://www.wiche.edu/Telecom/ resources/publications/Guidelines.PDF.(March 28, 2001)
 

Craig, E.(February 26, 1999)“The Native American Distance Education Community: On the Road to Forming an Indigenous Distance Education Institute.”Albuqueque, NM.Native American Distance Education Community Web. Available: http://www.arc.unm.edu/Alliance/ Tribal/Vision/IndigenousDistanceEdInst.html.(January 12, 2001)
 

Cunningham, S., et al.(2000)The Business of Borderless Education.Canberra, Australia.Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
 

Daniel, J.(1998)Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Strategies for Higher Education.London.Kogan Page.
 

Darkwa, O. and Mazibuko, F.(2000)“Creating Virtual Learning Communities in Africa: Challenges and Prospects.”First Monday (Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet.)Vol. 5 No. 5.Available: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/darkwa.(January 12, 2001)
 

Dirr, Peter J.(1999)“Distance and Virtual Learning in the United States.”In G. Farrell, The Development of Virtual Education: A Global Perspective.Vancouver, Canada.Commonwealth of Learning.Available: http://www.col.org/virtualed.(December 22, 2000)
 

Dirr, Peter J.(1999a)Putting Principles Into Practice: Promoting Effective Support Services For Students In Distance Learning Programs (A Report On The Findings Of A Survey).Denver, CO.Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications.Available: http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/projects/studentservices/Survey%20Report.pdf.(December 22, 2000)
 

Electronic University Consortium(August 18, 2000)“Electronic University Consortium of South Dakota.”Available:http://www.hpcnet.olrg/euc.(January 12, 2001)
 

Evans, S.(May 15, 2000)“Net-Based Training Goes the Distance: Employers Find E-Learning Saves Costs, Time.”The Washington Post, Washington Business.Pg. 20.
 

Europe Information Service (June 1, 2000)“Development: Commission Joins African Virtual University Project.”European Report.Available:http://www.findarticles.com/m0WXI/ 2000_June_1/62503427/pl/article.jhtml.(January 12, 2001).
 

Farrell, G.(1999)The Development of Virtual Education: A Global Perspective.Vancouver, Canada.Commonwealth of Learning.Available: http://www.col.org/virtualed.(December 22, 2000)
 

Figler, A.(March 26, 2001)“VOD’s Sloooow Motion Rollout: Integration Issues Keep Service on Launch Pad.”Cable World.Pg. 10.
 

Forster, A. and Mitchell, J.(May 1995)“Survey of Telematics for Education and Training: United States, Canada & Australia.”European Association of Distance Teaching Universities. Available: http://www.ethoseurope.org/ethos/survey/vol4.(January 12, 2001)
 

General Council of the Assemblies of God(1999)“Global University prepares for worldwide operations in 2000.”The Council Today Online.Available:http://www.ag.org/counciltoday/ 8_10/8_10_global_university.cfm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Giudice, B.(May 17, 2000)“France Plans to Create an Internet University.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A35. Available: http://chronicle.com/free/2000/05/2000051702t.htm.(January 16, 2001)
 

Grebb, M.(May 8, 2000)“Video Streaming: The Copyright Question.”Cablevision.Pg. 98.
 

Hara, N. and Kling, R.(1999)“Students’ Frustration with a Web-Based Distance Education Course.”First Monday (Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet.)Vol. 4 No. 12.Available: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/hara.(December 22, 2000)
 

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)(February 20, 2001)“E-University project attracts support from public and private sectors.”Press Release.Available: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ News/hefce/2001/euniv.htm.(March 2, 2001)
 

Huang, J.(1997)“Distance Education: A Key Strategy for Lifelong Learning in Chinese Taipei.”Taipei: Department of Research and Development, National Open University.Available:http://www.apec-hurdit.org/huang.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Hutton, L.(1999)“Distance Education: Players and Changes.”The Advising Quarterly. Summer. Available: http://www.amideast.org/publications/aq/Back_Issues/1999/Su99-html/Su99Players.htm(January 17, 2001)
 

Illing, D.(March 21, 2001)“Online deal with cost unis millions.”The Australian.Pg. 37.Available: http://highered.theoz.com.au.(March 28, 2001)
 

International Centre for Distance Learning.(2000)University of the Philippines Open University.United Kingdom: The Open University.Available:http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/icdl/database/asia/philippi/univphil/inst.(January 12, 2001)
 

IRC – General News.(January 23, 2001)“Neworking learning, courtesy Schoolnet.”Available:http://www.ciol.com.(February 2, 2001)
 

IRC – General News.(January 22, 2001)“Schoolnet – Building tomorrow’s digital generation.” Available: http://www.ciol.com.(February 2, 2001)
 

Irwin, N.(December 19, 2000)“Varsity Cuts Dozens in Latest Wave Of Layoffs.The Washington Post.Pg. E5.
 

Johnstone, S. M.(September 2000)“Distance Learning: Unbundling Faculty Roles.”Syllabus.Pg. 26.
 

Jones, G. R.(Letter to the Editor, December 1, 2000).“The Future of International Accreditation.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. B20.
 

Krauth, B. and Carbajal, J.(1999)Guide to Developing Online Student Services.Denver, CO.Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications.Available:http://www.wiche.edu/ Telecom/resources/publications/guide/guide.htm(March 22, 2001)
 

Lentell, H.(2000)“The Conflict within the Collaboration: Distance Education Partnership Reality.”The University of South Australia.Available:http://www.com.unisa.edu.au/ cccc/papers/refereed/paper27/Paper27-1.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Lipinski, T.(1999)“An Argument for the Application of Copyright Law to Distance Education.”The American Journal of Distance Education.Vol. 13.No. 3, Pg. 7.
 

Longworth, R.(March 22, 1999)“Distance education partnership allows College graduates to obtain a university degree without leaving home.”North Vancouver, Canada.Capilano College.Available: http://www.capcollege.bc.ca/admin/Formedia/1999releases/athabas.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

MacWilliams, B.(September 22, 2000)“Turkey’s Old-Fashioned Distance Education Draws the Largest Student Body on Earth.”The Chronicle of Higher Education. Pg. A41.
 

Mangan, K.S.(September 22, 2000)“Medical Schools Collaborate on a New Web Site for Doctors.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A42.
 

Mangan, K. S.(October 20, 2000)“Andrew Whinston: Measuring the Internet Economy.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A15.
 

Manjoo, F.(2000)“Virtual U.”Cornell Magazine On/Line.Vol. 103 No. 1Available: http://Cornell-magazine.cornell.edu/Archive/July2000/JulyVirtualU.html.(December 22, 2000)
 

Maslen, G.(March 2, 2001)“5 Unions Caution On Universitas 21’s Venture With Thomson.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A40.
 

Maslen, G.(June 2, 2000)“Rupert Murdoch’s Company Joins With 18 Universities in Distance-Education Venture.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A47.

McMurtie, B.(May 12, 2000)“Jesuit Colleges Try to Bring Their Values to Online Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A45.
 

Meister, J.(February 9, 2001) “The Brave New World of Corporate Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. B10.
 

Moore, M.(2000)“Welcome to the For-Profit Providers – But with Some Concern.”TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education.Vol. 14 No. 2.Pg. 1.
 

Moore, M.(2000a)“Is Distance Teaching More Work or Less?”The American Journal of Distance Education.Vol. 14 No. 3.Pg. 1.
 

NCES (1997)Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions.Washington, DC.US Department of Education: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.Available:http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/distance/index.html.(December 22, 2000)
 

Okoko, T.(July 18, 2000)“African Virtual University Headquarters Inaugurated.”Sao Tome Online 2000.Available: http://www.saotomeonline.com/wwwboard/ messages/97.html.(January 12, 2001)
 

Okuni, A.(March 2000)“Higher Education through the Internet: Expectations, Reality and Challenges of the African Virtual University.”D+C Development and Cooperation.Vol. 2.Pg. 23.Available:http://www.dse.de/zeitschr/de200-4.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Overland, M. A.(October 27, 2000)“CarnegieMellonU.Will Offer Online Programming Classes in India.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A47.
 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (October 2000)Modeling and Launching the e-University.Higher Education Funding Council for England.Available: http://www.hefce.ac.uk.(March 2, 2001)
 

Reisberg, L.(November 17, 2000)“Are Students Actually Learning?”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A67.
 

Rockwell, K., Furgason, J., and Marx, D.(2000)“Research and Evaluation Needs for Distance Education: A Delphi Study.”Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.Vol. III No. III.Available:http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ fall33/rockwell33.html.(December 22, 2000)
 

Rose, E.(2000)“An Evaluation of Online Distance Education Course Databases.”DEOSNEWS.Vol. 10, No. 11.
 

Sharma, R.(2001)“Online Delivery of Programmes: A Case Study of IGNOU.”International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.Vol. 1 No. 2.Available:http://www.irrodl.org.(March 2, 2001)
 

Shecter, B.(November 23, 2000)“U of T pulls back from Thomson link.”The National Post. (Toronto)
 

Smith, P. and Dillon, C. L.(1999)“Comparing Distance Learning and Classroom Learning: Conceptual Considerations.”The American Journal of Distance Education.Vol. 13 No. 2.Pg. 6.
 

Swales, C.(2000)Copyright & Distance Education: Trainer’s Toolkit.Vancouver, BC.Commonwealth of Learning.
 

Twigg, C.(2000)Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials?Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment.The Pew (Foundation) Learning and Technology Program.Available: http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono2.html.(January 12, 2001)
 

Virtual Gazette.(August 1999)“NACTELPaceUniversity – Associate Telecommunications.”Virtual University Gazette.Pg. 2.Available:http://www.geteducated.com/vugaz.htm.(March 28, 2001)
 

Von Holzen, R.(November 2000)“A Look at the Future of Higher Education.”Syllabus.Pg. 56.
 

Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications.(1997)Principles of Good Practice in Electronically Offered Academic Degree and Certificate Programs.Denver, CO.Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. Available: http://www.wiche.edu/Telecom/ projects/balancing/principles.htm.(March 28, 2001)
 

World Bank (1998/99)“Knowledge for Africa: The African Virtual University.”World Development Report 1998/99 Background Papers.Available:http://www.worldbank.org/wdr/ wdr98/africa/bpafr9.htm.(January 12, 2001)
 

Young, J. R.(January 14, 2,000)“Monograph Reassures Scholars Wary of Online Teaching.”The Chronicle of Higher Education. Pg. A51.
 

Young, J.R.(September 29, 2000)“Officials From 30 Nations Seek Global Coordination in Distance Education.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A46.
 

Young, J. R.(November 24, 2000)“Kentucky’s Virtual University Creates Fund to Spur Other Online-Education Programs.”The Chronicle of Higher Education.Pg. A54.