Administrative Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Programs 9781522526452, 9781522526469, 1522526455

Citation preview

Administrative Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Programs Koksal Buyuk Anadolu University, Turkey Serpil Kocdar Anadolu University, Turkey Aras Bozkurt Anadolu University, Turkey

A volume in the Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2018 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Buyuk, Koksal, editor. Title: Administrative leadership in open and distance learning programs / Koksal Buyuk, Serpil Kocdar, and Aras Bozkurt, Editors. Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, [2018] Identifiers: LCCN 2017008484| ISBN 9781522526452 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522526469 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Distance education--Administration. | Open learning--Administration. | Educational leadership--Cross-cultural studies. | Educational technology--Cross-cultural studies. Classification: LCC LC5800 .H363 2018 | DDC 371.35068--dc23 LC record available at https:// lccn.loc.gov/2017008484 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) (ISSN: 2327-1892; eISSN: 2327-1906) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series ISSN:2327-1892 EISSN:2327-1906 Editor-in-Chief: Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos, Universidad de Oviedo, Spain Mission Private and public institutions have made great strides in the fields of mobile and distance learning in recent years, providing greater learning opportunities outside of a traditional classroom setting. While the online learning revolution has allowed for greater learning opportunities, it has also presented numerous challenges for students and educators alike. As research advances, online educational settings can continue to develop and advance the technologies available for learners of all ages. The Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series publishes research encompassing a variety of topics related to all facets of mobile and distance learning. This series aims to be an essential resource for the timeliest research to help advance the development of new educational technologies and pedagogy for use in online classrooms.

Coverage • Student-Teacher Interaction • Snack Learning • Virtual Universities • Course Design • Tablets and Education • Ubiquitous and Pervasive Learning • Student-Student Interaction • Technology Platforms and System Development • Distance learning • Managing Sustainable Learning

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@ igi-global.com or visit: http://www. igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series (ISSN 2327-1892) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-mobile-distance-learning/37162. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2018 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-mobile-distance-learning/37162

Empowering Learners With Mobile Open-Access Learning Initiatives Michael Mills (University of Central Arkansas, USA) and Donna Wake (University of Central Arkasas, USA) Information Science Reference • ©2017 • 357pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522521228) • US $190.00 Handbook of Research on Mobile Devices and Applications in Higher Education Settings Laura Briz-Ponce (University of Salamanca, Spain) Juan Antonio Juanes-Méndez (University of Salamanca, Spain) and Francisco José García-Peñalvo (University of Salamana, Spain) Information Science Reference • ©2016 • 608pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522502562) • US $300.00 Handbook of Research on Mobile Learning in Contemporary Classrooms Dominic Mentor (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA) Information Science Reference • ©2016 • 475pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522502517) • US $300.00 Mobile and Blended Learning Innovations for Improved Learning Outcomes David Parsons (The Mind Lab by Unitec, New Zealand) Information Science Reference • ©2016 • 366pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522503590) • US $185.00 Integrating Touch-Enabled and Mobile Devices into Contemporary Mathematics Education Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris (European University Cyprus, Cyprus) Katerina Mavrou (European University Cyprus, Cyprus) and Efi Paparistodemou (Cyprus Pedagogical Institute, Cyprus) Information Science Reference • ©2015 • 341pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466687141) • US $190.00 Identification, Evaluation, and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts Gulsun Kurubacak (Anadolu University, Turkey) and T. Volkan Yuzer (Anadolu University, Turkey) Information Science Reference • ©2015 • 354pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466681194) • US $195.00

For an enitre list of titles in this series, please visit: http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-mobile-distance-learning/37162

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com

Editorial Advisory Board Cengiz Hakan Aydın, Anadolu University, Turkey Celal Murat Kandemir, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Turkey Gülsün Kurubacak, Anadolu University, Turkey M. Recep Okur, Anadolu University, Turkey Ebba Ossiannilsson, The Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden Ali Ekrem Özkul, Anadolu University, Turkey Ramesh Sharma, Wawasan Open University, Malaysia Chih-Tsing Tu, Northern Arizona University, USA T. Volkan Yüzer, Anadolu University, Turkey

List of Reviewers Murat Ertan Doğan, Alanya HEP University, Turkey Edgar Oliver Cardoso Espinosa, National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico Tülay Görü Doğan, Alanya HEP University, Turkey Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Anadolu University, Turkey Sotco Komba, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania Igor Krevskiy, Penza State University, Russia Vardan Mkrttchian, HHH University, Armenia Nilgün Özdamar Keskin, Anadolu University, Turkey İrfan Süral, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Turkey Hasan Uçar, Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University, Turkey

Table of Contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................. xv Preface................................................................................................................ xvii Acknowledgment................................................................................................. xx Chapter 1 Leadership: In a Time When Learners Take Ownership of Their Learning...........1 Ebba Ossiannilsson, The Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden Chapter 2 Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills................................................................................................34 Hakan Kilinc, Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 3 The Virtual CSU: A Leadership Model for Universities Transitioning to Online, Open, and Distance Delivery...................................................................63 Stephen Marshall, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Jonathan Flutey, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Chapter 4 Open and Distance Learning Administration: The Organizational Models, Cultures, and Structure and the Barriers and Trends in ODL Administration.....84 Gürhan Durak, Balıkesir University, Turkey



Chapter 5 Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials: Within the Scope of Universal Design for Instruction...........................................................................................................117 Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Kilinc, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 6 Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning..............146 Vimbi Petrus Mahlangu, University of South Africa, South Africa Chapter 7 A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning....170 Victor Justice Pitsoe, University of South Africa, South Africa Moeketsi Letseka, University of South Africa, South Africa Chapter 8 National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020: Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and USA...................................................................188 Nilgün Özdamar Keskin, Anadolu University, Turkey Apostolos Koutropoulos, University of Massachusetts – Boston, USA Inge de Waard, Open University, UK David Metcalf, University of Central Florida, USA Michael Gallagher, University of Edinburgh, UK Yayoi Anzai, Kyushu University, Japan Köksal Buyuk, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 9 Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): The Application and Administration of the Motivation Design Model..................................................................................................................213 Hasan Uçar, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey Alper Tolga Kumtepe, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 10 Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities......................................................................................................236 Luka Mathayo Mkonongwa, Dar es Salaam University College of Education, Tanzania Sotco Claudius Komba, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania



Chapter 11 Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey.................................................................................................................263 Uğur Demiray, Anadolu University, Turkey Gülay Ekren, Sinop University, Turkey Chapter 12 Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning: Management of Learning and Human Resources.........................................................................289 Serap Uğur, Anadolu University, Turkey Yusuf Levent Şahin, Anadolu University, Turkey Compilation of References............................................................................... 319 About the Contributors.................................................................................... 367 Index................................................................................................................... 375

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................. xv Preface................................................................................................................ xvii Acknowledgment................................................................................................. xx Chapter 1 Leadership: In a Time When Learners Take Ownership of Their Learning...........1 Ebba Ossiannilsson, The Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden The rapid developments led by the digitization of society have been described as heralding the fourth industrial revolution. Individuals have more learning choices than ever before in both formal and informal settings. A fundamental change is needed in the way we think about education’s role in global development because it has a catalytic impact on the well-being of individuals and the future of our planet. This chapter explores the topics of open online learning, learning spaces, personal learning and learners’ orchestration of their own learning, leadership and the digital transformation and quality related concerns raised by the global digital transformation. Quality related questions are today on student satisfaction, short and long time impact, for individuals, and for the society. Leaders and managers in higher education have to take their responsibilities, and can make a huge difference related to the role of higher education, its offers, services, processes, quality and impact. Chapter 2 Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills................................................................................................34 Hakan Kilinc, Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey



Leadership is one of the 21st century characteristics that everybody involved in distance learning institutions should have. From this point of view, the fact that individuals having a say in the functioning of open and distance learning institutions possess 21st century skills such as leadership and accountability is seen as an important point in order to correctly carry out the missions of such institutions. The fact that the individuals who operate open and distance learning institutions have 21st Century skills such as leadership and accountability will play an important role in achieving the aims of the institution. Therefore, it is important that individuals have the features required by the age in order to reach the goals they aim at. In this study, it has been emphasized that individuals must have 21st century skills in order to maintain the functioning of open and distance learning institutions in a healthy manner and the necessity of possessing leadership feature has been argued. Chapter 3 The Virtual CSU: A Leadership Model for Universities Transitioning to Online, Open, and Distance Delivery...................................................................63 Stephen Marshall, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Jonathan Flutey, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand The Virtual CSU is a model of distributed leadership and team-based consultancy and support which has been implemented at Victoria University of Wellington over the last four years as part of an overall plan transitioning to greater use of online, open and distance provision of higher education. The model uses ideas drawn from industry to create flexible virtual teams that act as internal consulting teams. The resulting teams combine professional and academic staff from a variety of internal units into a semi-formal group focused on specific university projects, operational needs or strategic challenges in a way that avoids the costs of formal restructuring and that provides a mechanism for professional development and facilitation of wider changes in the capability of the university. Chapter 4 Open and Distance Learning Administration: The Organizational Models, Cultures, and Structure and the Barriers and Trends in ODL Administration.....84 Gürhan Durak, Balıkesir University, Turkey This chapter aims at providing a perspective regarding the concept of open and distance learning administration. In this respect, the introduction part of this chapter includes the definition of administration, the understanding of administration in distance education, comparison of the concepts of administrator and leader, and the changing roles of the administrator, while the first heading focuses on types of institutions, organization model and administration cultures. The second heading covers Open and Distance Learning (ODL) administration units and the structure of the organization. This heading also includes those found in administration units



in distance education, their duties as well as the sub-units of academic management and the duties of the these sub-units. The third heading presents the management functions in ODL institutions. At the end of this part, the current barriers and trends related to management in open and distance education were investigated. Chapter 5 Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials: Within the Scope of Universal Design for Instruction...........................................................................................................117 Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Kilinc, Anadolu University, Turkey Principles of the Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) can be applied to open and distance education systems as an approach derived from universal design principles. UDI can be used not only for the disabled learners in open and distance education institutions but also for the creation of accessible learning environments for all learners. Within the scope of this study, the history and features of universal design principles in the field of architecture are explained first; then, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Universal Instructional Design (UID) and UDI concepts, which are educational adaptations of universal design principles, are examined in detail. In the last section, management processes of open and distance education systems, examples of universal design in open and distance education and managerial processes in course design and delivery, are examined. In this way; modern approaches such as UDI principles are studied in terms of their applicability within the framework of design and delivery management in open and distance education environments. Chapter 6 Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning..............146 Vimbi Petrus Mahlangu, University of South Africa, South Africa The purpose of this chapter is to argue that all open and distance learning (ODL) institutions should carry out quality assurance and accreditation processes in order for students and funders to have confidence in them. It also explains in detail what quality assurance and accreditation entails in ODL. This chapter follows a qualitative approach in understanding quality assurance and accreditation in ODL. Data were collected via literature review. During recent decades, the discourse and practices of systematic quality assurance and quality control have spread around the world, resulting to a great extent in market-based models related to the ideology and policy of neo-liberalism and expressed in economic rationalities such as new public management, total quality management, public choice, and human capital. Quality assurance and accreditation in ODL aims to maintain and raise the quality of education and to guarantee the improvement of its standards.



Chapter 7 A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning....170 Victor Justice Pitsoe, University of South Africa, South Africa Moeketsi Letseka, University of South Africa, South Africa Quality assurance has become critical to Open Distance Learning (ODL) worldwide. Yet the ODL environment is marked by cultural hegemony. An elite group of individuals strategically dominate the educational arena in order to advance the supremacy of gender, race and socioeconomic status. This chapter highlights a divide between theory and practice. The e-learning paradigm, known as Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) creates opportunities for practitioners and students with respect to accessibility, flexibility, and cost. But it also creates challenges for quality assurance. Most ODeL texts do not treat quality assurance as discourse, power and cultural hegemony. Policymakers tend to assume that students have similar learning needs. This chapter (1) explores quality assurance; (2) it sketches Unisa’s shift to ODeL; (3) argues a case for quality assurance as a practice of hegemony; (4) critiques quality assurance as an Ideological State Apparatus; and (5) proposes a reengineering of quality assurance within alternative frameworks. Chapter 8 National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020: Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and USA...................................................................188 Nilgün Özdamar Keskin, Anadolu University, Turkey Apostolos Koutropoulos, University of Massachusetts – Boston, USA Inge de Waard, Open University, UK David Metcalf, University of Central Florida, USA Michael Gallagher, University of Edinburgh, UK Yayoi Anzai, Kyushu University, Japan Köksal Buyuk, Anadolu University, Turkey A global agenda (Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action) published in September 2015 by UNESCO provides a roadmap for the next 15 years for education planners and practitioners. The main goal of the agenda is recognized as “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. The Member States develop policies and programs for the provision of quality for open and distance education with sustainable financial and legal framework and use of technology, including the Internet, open educational resources, massive open online courses (MOOCs) and other modalities to improve access in order to reach this goal by 2030. Institutions have realized the full potential of OER and MOOCs and started to develop their own policies with regard to teaching, learning and research resources in the public domain. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to examine national strategies on OER and MOOCs in the leading countries such as USA, UK, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey.



Chapter 9 Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): The Application and Administration of the Motivation Design Model..................................................................................................................213 Hasan Uçar, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey Alper Tolga Kumtepe, Anadolu University, Turkey Massive Open Online Courses, aka MOOCs, have become an indispensable part of the online education routine. Many universities and organizations put a lot of effort into designing, developing, and running such courses. However, it still remains to be an under-researched area. One of the most important issues associated with success in MOOCs is the learner motivation. High dropout and low retention rates have been attributed to learners’ low motivation. A recipe for these motivational challenges in MOOCs is provided by the ARCS-V motivational theory. This motivation design model provides a frame for analyzing the MOOCs learners, learning environment, and the resources. Based on this analysis, the model provides suggestions for assigning motivational tactics and strategies. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to introduce Keller’s ARCS-V motivational design model and discuss it as a potential remedy to motivational issues in MOOCs by administering and delivering motivational strategies based on the model in MOOCs environments. Chapter 10 Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities......................................................................................................236 Luka Mathayo Mkonongwa, Dar es Salaam University College of Education, Tanzania Sotco Claudius Komba, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania This chapter examines literature about distance higher education in Africa, as presented by different scholars. The evolution of distance education has been well explored from the print to the current era of information and communication technology. Challenges and opportunities in the provision of distance higher education have been discussed and better practices for providing quality distance education have been suggested. It is concluded that the provision of distance education must be carefully planned and the technologies employed in its delivery must be reflective of the context in which they are used.



Chapter 11 Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey.................................................................................................................263 Uğur Demiray, Anadolu University, Turkey Gülay Ekren, Sinop University, Turkey This chapter intends to determine the existing status of distance education at higher education level in Turkey. Recently, there are various institutions in Turkey which provide distance education such as distance education research and application centers, information departments, continuing education centers, head of IT departments etc. However, little is known about their administrative related structuring. This chapter provides a qualitative research which aims to answer following issues: (1) to determine the existing distance learning programs and compulsory joint courses being provided in distance mode, (2) to identify varying titles given to the institutions or units which provide compulsory joint courses or programs in higher education, (3) to determine the LMSs used to provide distance education, (4) to determine e-learning activities in distance education institutions, (5) to identify the roles of administrative staff in distance education institutions. Chapter 12 Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning: Management of Learning and Human Resources.........................................................................289 Serap Uğur, Anadolu University, Turkey Yusuf Levent Şahin, Anadolu University, Turkey Many researchers have given priority to the stimulation feature of the games. This concept can be stated to be not only as old as human history but also one of the trend activities. Therefore, many researchers have recently concentrated their attention on the term “gamification”. This term, which includes using the stimulating components of the games out of the game context, has provided items like badges, grading/scoring systems and leadership tables in the work and learning processes. Mostly, it increases stimulation level in the work and learning processes. When the important potential of gamification has been noticed, the number of gamificationintegrated applications has rapidly increased in both work and learning processes of individuals from various age groups. In this regard, this paper aims to review the literature in order to find out how and where gamification could be used in the management processes of open and distance learning systems. Compilation of References............................................................................... 319 About the Contributors.................................................................................... 367 Index................................................................................................................... 375

xv

Foreword

Open and Distance Learning (ODL) has evolved in the past century to newer forms and modes in the present century including e-learning, online learning, open and distance e-learning (ODeL), blended learning, among others. There are tremendous technological developments relating to social technologies and networks, open source technologies and platforms, open education resources (OERs) and MOOCs, and open pedagogies. In this changing context, the diversified out-of-class institutional delivery and transactional strategies available through dual-mode universities, single-mode open universities, distance learning consortia in business and industry, e-universities, networked universities, etc. need to reformulate their mission and vision, planning and budgeting, pedagogies and technologies, and marketing and placement (Panda, 2003, 2009). Two important factors hold the key to effective planning and management: 1) research on the system and operation of these new forms of learning delivery and transaction, and 2) visionary leadership to navigate through the evolving and chaotic changes through innovation, sustainability, productivity, and strategic niche. The present volume, Administrative Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Programs, by Buyuk, Kocdar, and Bozkurt, exactly focuses on these two important concerns of research and administrative leadership. The 12 chapters of the volume focus appropriately on the theme and concerns of the book, and cover a wide range of appropriate themes, ranging from staff development in 21st century skills, through policy, leadership, institutional management, technologies including OERs and MOOCs, to innovation and critical thinking, and accreditation and quality assurance. The authors are celebrated ODL scholars who bring in practical experiences from a variety of sub-systems of ODL to the discourse on the central theme of research and administrative leadership. An appropriate and effective administrative culture is essential to effectiveness in ODL, and democratic and practical leadership contributes to innovations and reforms (Latchem & Hanna, 2001). The crux of this volume is that if innovations in ODL are based on research, and if the administrative leadership can combine this with the personal and team reflections of the staff, ODL can contribute with much more qualitative and productive

Foreword

engagements in education and training. This volume is a significant novel contribution to the scanty literature on Leadership in ODL; and the editors have been successful in roping in innovative practitioners to put up the practicality of the operation of ODL sub-systems appropriately coupled with research evidences. The book should be handy and it is recommended to administrators and leaders, researchers, and practitioners of ODL and campus-based education alike. Professor Santosh Panda Indira Gandhi National Open University, India

REFERENCES Latchem, C., & Hanna, D. (2001). Leadership for 21st century learning: Global perspectives from educational innovators. London: Kogan Page. Panda, S. (Ed.). (2003). Planning and management in distance education. London: Routledge. Panda, S. (2009). Strategic planning in distance education. In T. Evans, M. Haughey, & D. Murphy (Eds.), International handbook of distance education. London: Emerald.

Santosh Panda, a Graduate in Economics and PhD in Education, is a Professor of Distance Education at the Staff Training and Research Institute, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). He has a Certificate in Educational Television from BBC, UK; and a Certificate in Online Teaching from University of Maryland, USA. He started teaching career in a dual-mode university in 1984, and his past professional and administrative experiences include: Director, Association of Indian Universities (1994-1997); Director, Staff Training & Research Institute, IGNOU (1997-2000; 20052008); Founding Director, Inter-University Consortium on for ICT, IGNOU (2004-2007); Director of Distance & Flexible Learning, University of South Pacific, Fiji (2010); Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education (a statutory regulator of Government of India), New Delhi, India (2013-16). He has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar at University of New Mexico, USA; and Visiting Professor at University of London, Manchester Metropolitan University, and Beijing Normal University. Dr Panda has provided consultancy to many organizations including: ADB, British Council, Commonwealth of Learning, Ford Foundation, IDRC, SADC, UNESCO, UNDP, World Bank, and Governments of China, Lesotho, Nepal, and Nigeria; and has presented keynotes, conference papers, pre-conference events, and conducted workshops in 25 countries; and conducted about 400 workshops in India and 30 overseas. He sits on the Editorial Board of 15 refereed international journals; has published and presented internationally: 19 books, 48 papers in refereed journals, 44 book chapters, 34 conference papers, 12 keynotes, 19 research reports. His latest books include: Planning & Management in Distance Education (London: Routledge, 2003) and Economics of Distance & Online Learning (New York: Routledge, 2008). xvi

xvii

Preface

Since the emergence of ODL to date, paradigm shifts were observed which radically impacted the way distance educators design and deliver learning. ODL has always adopted a pragmatist approach to provide effective and efficient learning opportunities by benefiting from developments in the field of education and technology. As a response of these efforts, ODL was widely adopted by learners and then became part of the mainstream education. In such a time when transformation become inevitable, management, administration and leadership issues also adopted themselves according to the changes happening in ODL sphere. A perfect strategy to adopt the changes happening is to map and identify changes and act accordingly. In this regard, this book intends to fill in this gap by addressing management, administration, and leadership issues in open and distance learning. The chapters in this book addresses the topics as followings. The book includes 12 chapters covering various aspects of administrative leadership in open and distance learning programs. Chapter 1, “Leadership: In a Time When Learners Take Ownership of their Learning,” explores the topics of open online learning, learning spaces, personal learning and learners’ orchestration of their own learning, leadership and the digital transformation and quality related concerns raised by the global digital transformation. Chapter 2, “Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills,” discusses leadership in open and distance learning institutions within the scope of 21st century skills. In this study, the importance of having 21st century skills in order to maintain the functioning of open and distance learning institutions in a healthy manner and the necessity of possessing leadership are emphasized. Chapter 3, “The Virtual CSU: A Leadership Model for Universities Transitioning to Online, Open, and Distance Delivery,” focuses on the virtual CSU is a model of distributed leadership and team-based consultancy and support which has been implemented at Victoria University of Wellington over the last four years as part of an overall plan transitioning to greater use of online, open and distance provision of higher education.

Preface

Chapter 4, “Open and Distance Learning Administration: The Organizational Models, Cultures, and Structure and the Barriers and Trends in ODL Administration,” aims at providing a perspective regarding the concept of open and distance learning administration. In this respect, it includes basic terms and definitions regarding the topic, open and distance learning administration units and roles, management functions in open and distance learning institutions, and barriers and trends related to management in open and distance education. Chapter 5, “Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials: Within the Scope of Universal Design for Instruction,” argues that principles of the Universal Design for Instruction can be applied to open and distance education systems as an approach. In the chapter, universal design concepts and use of universal design in management processes of open and distance education systems are discussed. Chapter 6, “Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning,” focuses on the necessity of quality assurance and accreditation processes in open and distance learning institutions. Chapter 7, “A Critical İnvestigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning,” examines quality assurance in open and distance learning form a critical point of view and proposes a reengineering of quality assurance within alternative frameworks. Chapter 8, “National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020: Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and USA,” investigates national strategies on OER and MOOCs in Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and the USA. In the chapter, concerns and priorities of these countries are also addressed. Chapter 9, “Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): The Application and Administration of the Motivation Design Model,” introduces Keller’s ARCS-V motivational design model and discuss it as a potential remedy to motivational issues in MOOCs by administering and delivering motivational strategies based on the model in MOOCs environments. Chapter 10, “Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities,” discusses challenges and opportunities in the provision of distance higher education in Africa and makes suggestions for providing quality distance education. Chapter 11, “Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey,” evaluates distance education institutions in Turkey in terms of administrative aspects, which aims to determine the existing distance learning programs and compulsory joint courses being provided in distance mode, to identify varying titles given to the institutions or units which provide compulsory joint courses or programs in higher education, to determine the LMSs used to provide distance

xviii

Preface

education, to determine e-learning activities in distance education institutions and to identify the roles of administrative staff in distance education institutions. Chapter 12, “Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning: Management of Learning and Human Resources,” aims to investigate the potential use of gamification in management processes of open and distance learning.

xix

xx

Acknowledgment

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincerest gratitude to our families and every single individual who contributed to our personal and professional development. The authors of this book would like to share their deep gratitude to the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) members. We also would like to thank to authors of this book for their contribution to the book and open and distance learning. We would like to take this great opportunity to sincerely thank the reviewers of this book. We sincerely thank the group at IGI Global in Hershey PA, USA, for their great help and excellent support on this project, and providing opportunity to publish this book. We also thank to Courtney Tychinski, who provided guidance and assistance throughout the process. Koksal Buyuk Anadolu University, Turkey Serpil Kocdar Anadolu University, Turkey Aras Bozkurt Anadolu University, Turkey

1

Chapter 1

Leadership:

In a Time When Learners Take Ownership of Their Learning Ebba Ossiannilsson The Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden

ABSTRACT The rapid developments led by the digitization of society have been described as heralding the fourth industrial revolution. Individuals have more learning choices than ever before in both formal and informal settings. A fundamental change is needed in the way we think about education’s role in global development because it has a catalytic impact on the well-being of individuals and the future of our planet. This chapter explores the topics of open online learning, learning spaces, personal learning and learners’ orchestration of their own learning, leadership and the digital transformation and quality related concerns raised by the global digital transformation. Quality related questions are today on student satisfaction, short and long time impact, for individuals, and for the society. Leaders and managers in higher education have to take their responsibilities, and can make a huge difference related to the role of higher education, its offers, services, processes, quality and impact.

INTRODUCTION Individuals have more learning choices than ever before in both formal and informal settings. UNESCO’s education goal for 2030, which was included in the Incheon Declaration (UNESCO, 2015a), is to foster and ensure inclusive, equitable, and DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch001 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Leadership

quality education and to promote global, lifelong, and lifewide learning for all. This goal will be achieved through access, inclusion, equity, gender equality, and lifelong learning opportunities. In the Qingdao Declaration, UNESCO further stated that the transformation in education will be achieved through the promotion of digital opportunities and the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to achieve education targets and new sustainable development goals (UNESCO, 2015 b). Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO (Todays Newspaper, 2016), emphasized that although digitization has affected almost all sectors of society, the education system still lags behind. She has argued that education needs to change fundamentally to keep pace with global development: [A] fundamental change is needed in the way we think about education’s role in global development because it has a catalytic impact on the well-being of individuals and the future of our planet.... Now, more than ever, education has a responsibility to be in gear with 21st-century challenges and aspirations and foster the right types of values and skills that will lead to sustainable and inclusive growth and peaceful living together. UNESCO’s goals for 2030 present fundamental, imminent challenges to the educational sector. All educational sectors, not only higher education, are now operating in increasingly competitive global, regional, and local environments, which have resulted in rapid glocalization. The term glocalization means to act both globally and locally to meet the demands of globalization. These challenges include changing demographics, digitization, the increased focus on individuals and personal learning, as well as collaboration and networking. In addition, the traditional line between formal and informal education has become increasingly blurred. Moreover, because of the unbundling of traditional settings, education and educational offers are urged to adopt new business models. Indeed, according to Pakman (2011), and to Ferreira, Ornelas, and Turner (2015) unbundling has been called the great disruptor. The neologism unbundling refers to the process by which new players provide expertise and methodologies that undermine the classical model of the university as the leading producer and disseminator of knowledge. In this case, unbundling refers to the effects of the ubiquitous use of mobile devices, Internet connectivity, consumer web technologies, social media, and information access in the 21st century on traditional institutions (education, broadcasting, newspapers, games, shopping, etc.). Unbundling separates the packages offered by such institutions and provides particular aspects of them at a scale and cost unmatchable by the old order (Chatfield, 2012; Watters, 2012).

2

Leadership

Educational systems need to ensure that they provide the skills and knowledge that will support the transition to greener industries and the development of new solutions to environmental problems. Hence, education needs to continue beyond traditional settings to the community and the workplace throughout adulthood. Benavot, Director of the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report (Todays Newspaper, 2016), argued that if we want a greener planet and sustainable futures for all, we must ask more from our education systems than only the transfer of knowledge. Schools, universities, and lifelong learning programs must focus on economic, environmental, and social perspectives that nurture empowered, critical, mindful, and competent citizens. The rapid developments led by the digitization of society have been described as heralding the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab, 2016), which has affected three levels: business, organizations, and people. We are now at the beginning of the so-called fourth industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution was the use of water and steam power to mechanize production, the second industrial revolution used electrical power to create mass production, and the third industrial revolution used electronics and information technology to automate production. Building on the latter, the fourth industrial revolution began in the middle of the last century. It is characterized by the fusion of technologies, which blurs the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. Schwab (2016) posited three reasons that today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the third industrial revolution but the arrival of a fourth and distinct revolution: velocity, scope, and systemic impact. The fourth industrial revolution has transformed the daily habits of active citizens. Accordingly, the technological revolution will fundamentally alter the ways in which we live, work, and relate to one another. Because of its scale, scope, and complexity, this transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced (Ossiannailsson, Altinay, & Altinay, in press a) . We cannot predict how this transformation will unfold, but it is clear that the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders in the global polity from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society Schwab (2016). The prompt occurrence of the current breakthroughs has no historical precedent. Compared with the linear evolution of previous industrial revolutions, this fourth revolution is evolving exponentially. Moreover, it is disrupting almost every industry in every country globally. The breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance. The fourth industrial revolution involves cyber-physical systems, robotization, big data, 3D printing, and the circular economy, all of which lead to the need for quadruple helix innovations, that is, the collaboration of governments, the public, academia, industry, and private citizens.

3

Leadership

Other challenges articulated by UNESCO (2015 a b) are equity, gender equality, access, inclusion, lifelong, lifewide, and all day learning. The concepts of lifelong learning and lifewide learning have become a reality, and the digital lecture arena includes a wide variety of learners from widely divergent backgrounds, each having a unique range of experiences and life skills. Consequently, the provision and consumption of education have changed radically in recent years. Learning activities are at the center, and they involve more than content. Hence, innovative active learning spaces need to be provided, and specific contexts need to be considered. Nevertheless, universities still monopolize the awarding of accreditations and degrees although it is questionable whether they will continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, questions are raised regarding whether today’s universities prepare students to participate in the labor market and whether today’s learners seek products or services from the universities. This are to be questioned as a variety of products are globally available for free from elsewhere. When traditional assumptions are challenged, disruptive changes and innovations are required. Further challenges to universities include the role of professors in the unbundling of higher education. At the operational level, digital practices and technologies will support changes to several aspects of higher education institutions, and new players will provide expertise and methodologies that undermine the classical model of the university as the leading producer and disseminator of knowledge. Universities around the world will not only provide content but also will take on new social roles in learning, research, and community involvement. Universities will adopt new business models of education and integrate formal and informal educational offers. They will provide access to free high-level online materials in the form of open educational resources (OER) and massive open online courses (MOOCs) without prerequisites. Such open educational offers have made access to higher education available for anyone, at anytime, from anybody, everywhere, and through any kind of device. The widespread adoption of digital delivery systems has been accelerated by a marked shift in attitudes toward education. The demographics of students and learners have expanded such that the profile of a “typical student” can no longer be described with any degree of certainty. The logical conclusion of the fourth industrial revolution is that the accessibility provided by online education will open the digital lecture theater to a global audience. Open, online, and distance learning in higher education call for innovation, rethinking, systemic changes, new strategies at all levels within an organization (Ossiannilsson, 2015a, 2015b; Ossiannilsson, in press a, Ossiannilsson, Williams, Camilleri, and Brown 2015; The European Commission, 2013, 2016; UNESCO, 2015a, 2015b). At the operational level, digital practices and technologies support the change and transformation of several aspects of higher education institutions. Furthermore, new players provide expertise and methodologies that undermine the classical model of the university. Such major transformations require modern 4

Leadership

governance arrangements and dynamic leadership. Accordingly, the educational sector must focus on new trends in executive leadership, shifting paradigms, innovative approaches to distributed leadership, management practice, continuous improvement in quality, as well as new regional, national, and global partnership models (Ossiannilsson, in press a). The chapter will explore the four following topics: Open online learning, new learning arenas, and learning spaces, Personal learning and learners’ orchestration of their own learning, Leadership and the digital transformation (D-transform), and Quality related concerns raised by the global digital transformation (D-transform).

OPEN ONLINE LEARNING, NEW LEARNING ARENAS, AND LEARNING SPACES Opening the access to education was introduced in 2008 in statements about advancing teaching and learning by using open content, open technology, and open knowledge. Open education is an umbrella term under which different understandings of open education can be accommodated (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). It goes beyond OER and open research to embrace strategic decisions, teaching methods, collaboration between individuals and institutions, recognition of non-formal learning, and different ways of making content available. Inamorata dos Santos et al. defined open education as a way of carrying out education that often uses digital technologies. The main aim of open education is to widen access to allow universal participation by removing barriers and making learning accessible, abundant, and customizable for everyone. Open education offers multiple ways of teaching and learning, as well as building and sharing knowledge. It also provides a variety of access routes to formal and non-formal education, and it connects the two. The European Commission’s Joint Research Institute (JRC) has developed a framework for open education based on the OpenEdu framework for openness in higher education (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). The framework covers ten dimensions that are important in open education. The term dimension indicates the aspects or features of the various ways in which open education is practiced in educational institutions. The dimensions’ focus on specific areas that interact to shape the practices of open education. The ten dimensions of the framework are divided into two categories: core dimensions and transversal dimensions. The six core dimensions provide the “what” of opening up education: access, content, pedagogy, recognition, collaboration, and research. Although they are not always treated as such, these core dimensions are domains of open education in different institutional contexts where open education is practiced. These dimensions comprise the common practices and perceptions that are associated with open education in higher educational settings. The transversal dimensions are 5

Leadership

leadership, strategy, quality, and technology. They comprise the “how” of opening up educational practices and provide the backbone for the realization of the core dimensions. They constantly interact with and affect the core dimensions and one another. All ten dimensions are interrelated; the core dimensions and the transversal dimensions are equally important. Combined, they enable open education practices to be shaped in different ways in higher institutions (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). In their global research on quality models of open online education, Ossiannilsson et al., (2015) found not only the same dimensions with regard to quality but also the crucial need for a holistic and contextualized approach. The same dimensions of the framework for open education by the JRC (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016) were found in Ossiannilsson et al.’s (2015) research. Although the dimensions were termed differently in the models, their overall meaning was the same. The core dimensions in this framework are similar, and they are commonly found in the practices of open education (Murphy, Walker & Webb, 2013; Ossiannilsson et al., 2015; Uvalić-Trumbić & Daniels, 2014; Weller, 2014; Wiley & Hilton, 2009). In the process of opening up education, the learning spaces change, and physical and online innovative learning spaces are merged. According to Jahnke (2015), the integration of social media in learning environments has led to the emergence of crossaction learning spaces. Interaction and interactivity have long been buzzwords in e-learning and distance education. Moore (1989) distinguished three forms of interactivity: interactions with peers, interaction with the tutor, and interaction with the material. Jahnke (2015) argued that there is a move from interaction to crossaction. She emphasized that, based on the premise that the digital world is a new form of multiple emerging communication spaces with many different layers, the human actions in such a networked world are not only grounded in interactions but also in multiple crossactions within and across communication spaces, that is, crossaction-spaces. Jahnke (2015) and several other researchers argued that these forms of changed forms of learning raise the need for innovative research as well as positons at institutions, such as space design and space designers. Laurillard (2012) argues for teaching as being a design science. The consequences are that education can no longer be organized hierarchically in a linear fashion. Flexible, agile approaches and structures are required to accommodate learners’ demands and needs. Increasingly, learners in all areas will require choice-based education, as well as just-in-time and just-for-me learning, because they have begun to take ownership of their learning (Downes, 2016; Ossiannilsson, 2016b, in press b, 2015a). With the increased digitization of society, open online educational arenas and evolving crossaction learning spaces 21st century skills are required more than they have ever been. The skills required for the 21st century comprise a set of abilities that learners need to develop in order to succeed in the information age. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008) lists three types of skills: learning skills such as critical 6

Leadership

Figure 1. Skills for the 21st century

Adapted from the Partnership for 21st-Century Skills (2008)

thinking, creative thinking, collaborating, and communicating; literacy skills such as information literacy, media literacy, and technology literacy; and life skills such as flexibility, initiative, social skills, productivity, and leadership (Figure 1). These skills have always been important for students, but they are particularly important in the information-based economy. Previously, when most workers held jobs in industry, the key skills included knowing a trade, following directions, getting along with others, working hard, and being professional, that is, being efficient, prompt, honest, and fair. To hold jobs in the information age, however, students also need to think deeply about issues, solve problems, be creative, be entrepreneurial in adapting to changes, work in teams, be innovative, communicate clearly in a variety of media, learn ever-changing technologies, and deal with a flood of information. According to the Partnership for 21st-Century Skills (2008), the rapid changes today and in the future require students to be flexible, take the initiative, assume the lead when necessary, and produce innovative and useful materials. The 21st century skills are summarized as follows (Trilling & Fadel, 2009): • • •

Learning and Innovation Skills: Critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, creativity, and innovation Digital Literacy Skills: Information literacy, media literacy, information and communication technologies (ICT) literacy Career and Life Skills: Flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-direction, social and cross-cultural interaction, productivity, and accountability

One of the main challenges for higher education is to educate students for a future that we do not know much about, and witch can’t even be predicted. Accordingly, the main concerns of higher education should focus on preparing lifelong learners to solve the global challenges today and in the future. Thus, 21st-century skills are crucial for succeeding in not only learning to learn but also acquiring life skills. 7

Leadership

Hence, education should no longer be concerned with key subjects but with life and career skills, learning and innovation skills, entrepreneurial skills, and information, media, and technology skills. Accordingly, we cannot any longer educate today’s students with methods that were used yesterday. Skills for the 21st century demand a high level of digital literacy. According to Belshaw (2011), there are eight essential elements of digital literacy: • • • • • • • •

Cultural elements Cognitive elements Constructive elements Communicative elements Confident elements Creative elements Critical elements Civic elements

He described these elements as essential in the design of digital curricula, course design, learning outcomes, and assessments. Belshaw also argued that institutions should embed digital literacy in order to foster the development of digital curricula. Wheeler (2016) described a digital literacy model with nine dimensions: sharing content, social networking, self-presentation, creating content, trans-literacy, identity management, filtering and selecting content, reusing, remixing, repurposing, and privacy maintenance. He added three further dimensions to this model (Figure 2). He defined it as follows: The social dimension is self-explanatory because the components on the top row are all outward facing. The personal dimension should be equally clear because the components in this column are focused on personal organization of space, digital identity, and personal branding. The left-hand column attends to how knowledge is managed. These components describe how learners organize their content and what they do with it. In Wheeler’s model, the concept of transliteracy refers to the ability to present ones ideas, connect and manage one’s presence equally well regardless of the tools and technologies used. In addition to the new paradigm of crossaction learning spaces, 21st-century skills, and digital literacy there is new technology, which has changed the ways in which we live and learn. The increased use of mobile devices and smartphones has meant that billions of people have access to unlimited unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and knowledge (Ossiannilsson, 2015 a). All these possibilities are multiplied 8

Leadership

Figure 2. The digital literacy model (Wheeler, 2016)

by the emerging technology in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing. Furthermore, this revolution will affect all stakeholders, such as businesses, organizations, and people. The New Media Consortium (NMC) publishes each year an annual report on current trends in open online learning for different sectors, such as K-12, libraries, and higher education (Johnson, Adams Becker, Cummins, Estrada, Freeman, & Hall, 2016). With regard to higher education, the aim is to inform the choices that institutions make about using technology to improve, support, or extend teaching, learning, and creative inquiry in higher education across the globe. The trends predicted for the short term (I to 2 years), mid-term (3 to 5 years), and long term (five or more years) include the adoption of EdTech. EdTech is understood as advancing the culture of innovation and rethinking how institutions work. In addition to these trends in the long-term, mid-term, and short-term, they pointed to three levels of challenges: solvable challenges, difficult challenges, and wicked challenges. Solvable challenges are those that we understand and know how to solve. In this case, they emphasized blending formal and informal learning and improving digital literacy. Difficult challenges refer to those that we understand but for which solutions are elusive. In this case, they emphasized competing models of education and personalized learning. Wicked challenges are those that are complex to define 9

Leadership

and address, such as balancing connected and unconnected lives and maintaining the relevance of education. The NMC also pointed out important developments in educational technology in higher education, which were related to adoption within one year or less. These include “bring your own device” (BYOD), learning analytics, and adaptive learning. In the adoption horizon of two to three years, they foresee augmented and virtual reality, as well as makerspaces. Finally, within four to five years, they foresee the use of affective computing and robotics (Figure 3). Other evolving trends foreseen by NMC are the emerging use of MOOCs, the realization of credits and fees for MOOCs, the importance and greater recognition of informal learning, the use of OER, and open educational practice and culture in institutions and in society. They also predicted that the concept of research will be extended to the use of big data, learning communities will be increasingly influential, education will embrace mobile learning, gamification in learning, micro-learning, tincan application programming interface (API), cloud based e-learning systems, wearable technology training, in-house content authoring, learning management systems (LMS), and the use of next-generation personal learning environments (NGPLE). In addition to NMC, the Open University in the UK (OUUK) has predicted key learning trends and their implications for workplace learning and developments in learning design, delivery, and measurement (Sharples et al., 2016). They emphasized that the trend concerns the usage and affordance of technology, Figure 3. Current trends in open online education (NMC, 2016)

10

Leadership

incidental learning, adaptive teaching, MOOCs, accreditation badges, learning analytics, e-books, and mobile learning. Even more they predict the following trends, which may have implications of leadership in higher education, and how to plan and act for the close future: • • • • • • • • • •

Productive failure Design thinking Formative analytics Learning through social media Teachback Learning through video games Learning for the future Translanguaging Learning from the crowd Blockchain for learning

With regard to opening up education, digital transformation, and quality, Puentedura’s (nd) substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) model, Figure 4 offers a method of predicting how computer technology, and digitization might affect teaching and learning. The model also shows the process that the adopters of educational technology often follow as they progress through teaching and learning with technology. In this model, the important concept is the level of student engagement. The four levels in the model indicate whether technology is used as an enhancement or whether it embeds transformation processes.

Figure 4. The SAMR model (Puentedura, nd)

11

Leadership

This section explored open online learning, new learning arenas, learning spaces, 21st-century skills, digitization, and other new trends. The following section discusses the implications for personal learning of the transformation to open online learning arenas and open learning spaces. Consequently, in the next section, the focus is on learners orchestrating their own learning.

PERSONAL LEARNING AND LEARNERS’ ORCHESTRATION OF THEIR OWN LEARNING Today’s learners, the so-called native digital learners or “millenniums,” have more or less grown up with the Internet, mobile devices, and the digitized society. Consequently, they demand up-to-date working methods and learning environments. These learners are equipped with mobile devices, which they use to manage their daily lives, not only in learning but also in leisure time. In essence, they are digital citizens in the global society. They have grown up presuming that most information is available online, including content, knowledge, and services. Millennial learners are physically mobile, and they travel in unprecedented numbers. Today, more than six billion people have access to a connected mobile device. For every person who accesses the Internet using a computer, two do so using a mobile device. Mobile technology has changed the way we live, and it is beginning to change the way we learn (Ossiannilsson, 2015b). Mobile learning, in general, makes learning more accessible, equitable, and flexible for students everywhere. UNESCO (2013, p. 6) defined mobile learning as follows: Mobile learning involves the use of mobile technology, either alone or in combination with other information and communication technology (ICT), to enable learning anytime and anywhere. Learning can unfold in a variety of ways: people can use mobile devices to access educational resources, connect with others, or create content, both inside and outside classrooms. Mobile learning also encompasses efforts to support broad educational goals, such as the effective administration of school systems and improved communication between schools and families. Mobile technologies are constantly evolving. In 2013, UNESCO reported that the diversity of devices on the market was immense, including mobile phones, tablet computers, e-readers, portable audio players, and hand-held gaming consoles. This is true in 2016, but it will surely swiftly change by tomorrow. To avoid the quicksand of semantic precision, UNESCO chose to embrace a broad definition of mobile devices by simply recognizing that they are digital, easily portable, usually owned and controlled by an individual rather than an institution, can access the 12

Leadership

Internet, have multimedia capabilities, and can facilitate a large number of tasks, particularly those related to communication. Another defining attribute of mobile technology is its ubiquity. Today, learners cannot be categorized. They are used to selecting from the best available range of choices. This generation multitasks and is very concerned about the digital self. They are key contributors to the culture of shared knowledge. Furthermore, they have developed new properties, belonging, and attributes. They have an affinity for technology. In addition, they do not believe in long-term employment. It is used to be said that contemporary learners are demanding and require just-for-me learning and just-in-time learning. The simple truth is that students have changed and their expectations have altered. The current discourse on education includes much debate on personalization. However, both Downes (2016) and Ossiannilsson (2016b) distinguished between personalization and personal learning. Osssiannilsson emphasized that personalization is tailor-made learning in educational organizations, whereas personal learning includes the learner’s choices and decisions, and it is orchestrated by the learner. Personal learning often begins informally on an ad hoc basis. It is driven by the need to complete some task or to achieve some objective. Personal learning is a means to an end, rather than the end in itself. Curricula and pedagogy are selected pragmatically. If the need is short term and urgent, a simple learning resource may be provided. If the person wants to gain a deep understanding of a subject, then a course might be the best option. Downes emphasized that personalized learning is like being served at a restaurant where someone else selects the food and prepares it. There is some customization—you can tell the waiter how you want your meat cooked—but essentially everyone at the restaurant eats the same food. In contrast, personal learning is like shopping at a grocery store. The shopper needs to assemble the ingredients and create a meal. It is harder, but it is a lot cheaper, and an endless variety of meals is possible. One might not get the best meals possible, but because one controls the experience, one can control the outcome. The transfer to self-directed learning approaches in which learners orchestrate their own learning encompasses more than placing the learner at the center of the pedagogy. According to Ossiannilsson (2016b), in self-directed learning, the learners take the lead in their own learning in both process and manner. Self-directed learning allows learners to choose their personal learning journey in its widest interpretation. It also embraces not only pedagogy but also andragogy (adult learning) and heutagogy (self-directed learning). The transfer to self-directed learning has also led to huge opportunities for educational institutions to do what they do best: provide students with the tools they need for the future. In the next section, the digital transformation (D-transform) will be elaborated with specific regard to leadership and management. 13

Leadership

LEADERSHIP AND THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION In the above sections, it was emphasized that education and higher education operate in an increasingly fast-changing and competitive global environment. Furthermore, digitization involves a variety of stakeholders and the need to be fostered and embedded in the macro, meso, and micro levels of an institution. The macro level refers to the entire institution, not only its strategy and mission but also its infrastructure, allocation of resources (costs and time), incentives, and support for students and staff. The meso level refers to the department or faculty, and the same issues need to be considered. Finally, the micro level refers to course offerings, such as curricula, course structure and design, assessment, learning outcomes, and method of delivery (Kirkwood & Price, 2016; Ossiannilsson, 2016 a; Ossiannilsson et al., 2015). This section will discuss leadership and management in the digital transformation process. In general, the concept of leadership includes the concepts of management and governance. It is argued throughout the importance of leadership at all levels for success in the digital transformation, to be a systemic transformation, and not just a systematic change. The nature of higher education has evolved rapidly, led by new educational technologies, innovative forms of educational provision, emerging business models, unbundling, and marketization. However, these changes have not occurred quickly enough. The processes involved in teaching and learning have been subject to a greater degree of revision over the last 20 years than at any other time in history largely because of the flexibility, affordability, and accessibility of the Internet. However, higher education lags behind, and fundamental changes are needed according to Bokova (Today Newspaper, 2016). The European Commission recognized the need for changes in higher education in their agenda for the modernization of higher education (European Commission, 2013, 2016a 2016b). This initiative will influence access, inclusiveness, educational achievements, and employability. At a macro level, it will affect economic development. How can universities respond to the cultural challenges of opening up? Both UNESCO and the European Commission have recognized that unbundling approaches, such as the fourth industrial revolution, and major transformations due to the global e-society require modern governance arrangements and dynamic, proactive leadership and management. Because of the paradigm shift toward open education and increased digitization in all sectors, leadership and executive management at the institutional level are more crucial than ever. Educational leaders must accept that a corresponding shift in the approach to leadership is needed not only to understand but also to act, be proactive, and collaborate with all stakeholders—learners, academics, and middle managers—at micro, meso, and macro levels (Kirkwood & Price, 2016; Ossiannilsson, 2016a). Leaders need to focus on the fundamental strategic aspects of digital innovation in 14

Leadership

higher education and place the learner at the center of the transformation. Leaders are responsible to guide the digital transformation in this era of change. Digital leadership is understood as the strategic use of an organization or company’s digital assets to achieve business goals in and for the 21st century. Consequently, digital leadership must be addressed at both organizational and individual levels. In open education, leadership goes beyond the creation of strategies and activities that are decided at the executive level. According to Inamorato dos Santos (2016), leadership above all concerns the identification of champions at all levels, whether at the bottom or the top, who will lead the institution to develop different strands of open education. According to Ossiannilsson (in press a), leadership also concerns building a working culture that embeds innovations and increases quality, digital scholarship, and open approaches to change. In Inamorato dos Santos et al.’s (2016) framework of open education, leadership is one of the transversal dimensions that affect the core dimensions. It also interacts with and affects all the other dimensions, both the core dimensions and the transversal dimensions. Leadership is a transversal dimension because it supports open education practices at different levels, such as personal motivation, task organization, collaboration and outcomes management. Inamorato dos Santos et al. (2016, p. 29) defined leadership in open education as ... the promotion of sustainable open education activities and initiatives via a transparent approach from both the top-down and the bottom-up. It paves the way to creating more openness by inspiring and empowering people. Because of the ubiquitous access to the Internet and free resources, lifelong, lifewide learning, and all day learning have never ever been as available as they are now, and the distinction between formal and informal learning is increasingly blurred. In the 21st century, education is no longer focused on content because it can be found free of charge through the Internet, anytime, anywhere, anyhow, by anyone, and with any device. Instead, in learning and adapting to 21st-century skills, problem solving, innovation, and entrepreneurship are the primary concerns. These skills also have to be addressed within organizations and therefore should be the mission and responsibility of leaders and management. Accordingly, it is no longer a question of bringing technology and varieties of equipment into the classroom. Instead, it is necessary to embrace digitization, and mobile learning, and its impact on all levels in order to take advantage of its potential for learning. It is not enough to train teachers because digitization affects the entire institution crosses the divisions within an institution. Thus, digitization often fails if only a pedagogical center or an IT center is designated to take the lead in the transformation process. According to Inamorato dos Santos et al. (2016), leadership should promote actions that enable the adoption of open education across a university by all stakeholders, including 15

Leadership

learners. Champions at different levels, both bottom-up and top-down, will lead the institution to adopt open education. Leaders should be empowered to examine their leadership approaches and incorporate the input from colleagues to reformulate the approaches to the digitization of their institutions. Leaders also need to advocate the triangle of marketing, promotion of technology, and quality. They also need to balance the iron triangle described by Daniel, Kanwar, and Uvalic-Trumbic (2009). The iron triangle refers to the three angles of access, cost, and quality: [T]he requirements for a model that could allow higher education to expand rapidly in the developing world are that it can be readily scalable (wide access), academically credible (high quality) and affordable (low cost). In addition to these leadership abilities are the requirements of passion and persistence (personal communication, Belawati November 11, 2016). The following sections will elaborate on crucial domains where leadership in the digital transformation is particularly significant; cultural change, strategy and visions, learners, academics, and staff.

Cultural Change It used to be argued that it is more difficult to change a working environment culture, as it is due to human beings, than to make strategies. But on the other hand a strategy has no value, neither any impact if it is not understood, and implemented by the humans. The human capital for a cultural change, and in this case a digital transformation is crucial, and outmost of importance. It includes ownership, inclusiveness and participation. So, thus let’s take the foundation for this sections in culture, followed by strategies. According to Kumar, MIT (personal communication, November 17, 2016), the question is not the changes required by new or emerging technology, but the questions that new technology enables. Hence, it has to be considered how universities respond to the cultural challenges of opening up. A main question asks how teaching and learning could be advanced by taking full advantage of digitization. New learning cultures are related to the staff of an institution. A new generation of academics is entering universities with different mindsets about teaching and learning related to digitization. The following assumptions have to be considered: •

16

The conservative approach of the university to the new initiatives in the field of educational innovation is mainly rooted in its general attitude

Leadership

• • •

There is a role transfer for the stakeholders involved in education; students, managers, professional users, and developers Does the university tolerate the development and systematic application of e-learning and transformation, rather than just supporting it with resources, organizational tools, and decision-making? Digital capability building is another domain of concern.

A new learning culture is related to content, which applies to breaking the nuts, as well as the rapid diffusion of development over the past decade, the implementation of learning framework systems, as well as the dilemmas of open and closed frames and nets (e.g., MOOCs). Consequently, new approaches to management are required. In order to make decisions, managers need to know about not only pedagogy but also open online learning environments. Decision-making involves not only costs and resources but also human capital and attitudes. Furthermore, there is a need to rethink the pedagogical strategies used in teaching and learning. Constructivism has been predominant in higher education, whereas collaboration and networking based on connectivity (Siemens, 2005), as well as the conversational framework by Laurillard (2012), are more relevant in global learning environments. Today’s educational innovation is dominated by online, 3.0 e-learning, including edutainment, which includes content that is primarily educational but has incidental entertainment value, as well as content that is mostly entertaining but contains educational value. The entire sector of gamification has been among the trends in education because requires self-directed and intrinsic motivational approaches. Others innovations are OERs, MOOCs, and other forms of open content, which has been discussed above in this chapter. OERs and MOOCs play and will play a comprehensive role for continuous professional development, which leaders and mangers must take into consideration, but also to promote (Ossiannilsson, Altiany & Altinay, in press b). It is not sustainable any longer to send staff to courses, neither for costs, nor for organizational development.

Strategy and Visions Strategy is important, but as argued above the culture conditions in organizations are crucial for systemic changes and transformation, and not just on a systematic level, as its impact is due to attitudes, values, performance, skills and capabilities. It is not just to organize or to have strategies, but the visions are crucial for its impact. Because of the increased digitization in the 21st century, education institutions must prepare learners for changes in their professions as well as for adjustments in daily lives as global digital citizens. Thus, higher education institutions have to move toward a disaggregated model of their organizations. 17

Leadership

Through the OpenEdu Project, the JRC recommended that those involved in the strategic planning of higher education institutions should consider taking a holistic approach and strategy to open up education by embracing the ten dimensions of the OpenEdu framework (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). It also recommended that the open education strategy should be integrated into the overall institutional strategy. Implemented as a separate process, open education would be difficult oversee and evaluate. In the strategic development of higher education institutions, there is a need to introduce continuous change management. Unfortunately, changes in organizations are often made to disrupt the status quo as little as possible, which might apply in the case of digital transformation. Thus, it is important to consider the SAMR model discussed above. Is digitization implemented to enhance the status quo or to facilitate, and to transform new working methods, cultures, strategies, and processes? In addition, institutions should promote intra-, inter-, and cross-border institutional collaborations and partnerships in order to achieve the goals of open education. The JRC emphasized the need to revise their practices at all levels, including mission statements and visions, current organizational management structures, day-to-day policies, as well as the institution’s role in the community and in the world. Finally, institutions should explore new practices and welcome changes (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). Accordingly, leadership is crucial at all levels—micro, meso, and macro. Furthermore, both bottom-up and top-down initiatives are required to find champions of the transition at all levels. In particular, middle management is crucial because it includes leaders who allocate money, resources, and contributions. Hence, they play an active role in developing a culture of openness, as argued by UNESCO (2015 a, 2015b), to promote, and facilitate access, equity, equality, lifelong, life wide, and every day learning for all. In traditional institutions, comfort and stability have been important components of leadership. In today’s organizations, in opening up education and unbundling settings and business models, greater flexibility and speed are important and crucial to participate in the global arena. Not even the universities can rest on their laurels. The task of leadership is not only to make improvements in the present but also to probe the evolution from the present to the future. Accordingly, managers who support projects, lead teams, and create the bottom line of any business have urgent responsibilities to be proactive and to act in proactive directions. The potential of digitization extends beyond learning to support and promote interaction, communication, collaboration, digital literacy skills, different pedagogical approaches, creativity and innovation, as well as to connect students beyond their formal learning and develop life skills as global citizens. Digitization has the potential to prepare students for an uncertain future, e-citizenship in a global world, employability opportunities, and the increased importance of technology in society. 18

Leadership

New roles for staff, even new positions and professions, are emerging, such as learning space designers, learning engineers, and others in higher educational institutions. The European Commission’s Agenda for the modernization of higher education (2013, 2016) emphasized that the major bottleneck could be the competence and preparedness of professional staff for the digital transformation. For many years, only operational aspects were considered; unfortunately, no major changes occurred. Because of the fourth industrial revolution, the digital transformation, and the unbundling of packaged learning, there are huge needs for systemic changes in organizations. These changes were proposed by the European Commission in 2013 in their initiative for opening up education (European Commission, 2013). Because of the changes in technology and pedagogy, institutions need to change fundamentally. It is time to change the culture from just scholarship of teaching and learning to a culture of digital scholarship in teaching and learning (Weller, 2014). According to Koh (2012), digital scholarship in teaching and learning encompasses the use of digital evidence, methods of inquiry, research, publication, and preservation to achieve scholarly and research goals. An important issue in digital scholarship is the need to establish digital media and social media as credible, professional, and legitimate means of research and communication (Koh, 2012; Ossiannilsson, in press a). Digital scholarship in teaching and learning encompasses all the sectors of research, teaching, and public engagement. Unbundling has eliminated vertical decision-making, and the disruption has broken the walls levels and units within an organization are interrelated. The structure is not like pipelines, neither as hierarchy longer, but flat, and connected, and it seems more like with shares systems. Due the unbundling there are needs for more agile and rhizomatic approaches (Deleuze & Guatari, 1980; Ossiannilsson in press b). Furthermore, there are many actors and no hierarchy; hence, the infrastructure needs to be scaffolding for that. Institutions that have visions and a strategy for systemic changes often more advanced than others are. What should an institution’s strategy emphasize? It should include policies, plans, and roadmaps. A central cross action unit should take the lead in supporting innovation and the digital transformation. Such strategies should have clear standards of quality and take into account staff incentives and the continuous development of staff competences. The strategy should also include the continuous development, both for staff, but also for the institution as such, and the integration of all levels of the organization. Because of competence marketplaces, such as LinkedIn, the methods of the recruitment of staff have changed, to be open, and online, by recommendations and through peer-reviews. Managers should embed learning analytics (LA) in institutional strategies because they ask four questions, where LA can provide answers: descriptive analytics (e.g., What happened?); diagnostic analytics (e.g., Why did it happen?); predictive analytics (e.g., What will happen?); prescriptive analytics, (e.g. How can we make 19

Leadership

it happen?). Key issues that leaders and managers henceforth should consider in implementing LA include the following: • • • • • • • •

Ethical and legal issues Impact on education Learning analytics can only model what is captured Strategy and rationales Policy and strategy Central unit to support Clear regulations of quality Staff competence

Learners New learning cultures evolve in the landscape of open online learning environments that change and influence teaching and learning. New roles are impending; for example, learners are prosumers, and collaborators, not just consumers. Learners more than ever before, because of the openness, are able to orchestra their own learning and to take ownership. Ownership is argued to have the largest motivation impact, and consequently the largest impact for success. The traditional line between formal and informal learning is increasingly blurred. Because technology has enabled learning to take place in a ubiquitous manner, autonomous learning has increased. In addition, new pathways of learning have opened, and new digital tools have enhanced learning. As learners become increasingly mobile and equipped with mobile devices, there will be a demand for adaptive and situated learning. The ubiquitous use of smart phones challenge the holy trinity of online learning (content/lecture, discussion, and assessment). Wheeler (personal communication, November 15, 2016) has argued that there are new contexts of learning, and that Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) should be implemented. In Vygotsky’s theory, ZPD is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help. Vygotsky stated that a child follows an adult’s example and gradually develops the ability to do certain tasks without help. He believed that the role of education is to give children experiences that are within their zones of proximal development, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning. According to Heik (2012), 21st-century learning is learner centered, media-driven (not only digital media), and personalized or personal, which Downes (2016) and Ossiannilsson (2016b) emphasized. Other characteristics are transfer-by-design, where learners constantly adapt, revise, and synthesize information from old learning in new unfamiliar and meaningful ways that are visibly relevant. This learning promotes personal or social 20

Leadership

change, social collaboration, visible products, projects, artifacts, and natural contexts that are data-rich and adaptable. Furthermore, it is interdependent and diverse. It is likely that a cohort of learners taking the same course will vary in terms of their ages. It is also highly probable that the same group will be comprised of learners from different ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, and religious backgrounds. Learners in the 21st century have to develop 21st-century skills, attitudes, and competencies. In higher education, such skills, attitudes, and competencies need to be integrated in the curricula. If learning outcomes and assessments are used, these 21st-century skills have to be integrated and embedded appropriately. Accordingly, leaders of higher education institutions will be challenged to offer products and services that suit the demands and needs of learners, who most often are on the move, hence mobile learning will be more applied. Consequently, the rise of changes, and paradigm shift will require deep systemic changes, and not just systematic changes.

Academics and Staff The implementation of digitization in an organization is the responsibility of the leadership. Of course, increased digitization has both positive and negative effects. The negative effects predominate if the organization does not prepare or support its staff. The digital transformation goes beyond purchasing, introducing, and implementing technology, devices, hardware, and software (Gulliksen 2016a, 2016b). In the education sector, the adoption of technology, innovation, and change have been slow for several reasons. The lack of proficiency in computer skills, the lack of knowledge and skills in the pedagogical design of e-courses, the lack of openness to changing the educational style, the lack of institutional policy, the lack of recognition, the lack of financial incentives, the lack of competences in ICT integration, copyright issues, underestimation of the efforts necessary for the design of e-learning resources and the management of the transformation is jointly pointed out through research (UNESCO, 2015). The reasons include academics’ reluctance to lose power and their unwillingness to team teach. Traditionally, academics teach behind locked doors and have proprietary views of their classes, their students, their lesson plans, their handouts, and so on. Gulliksen (2016a, 2016b) argues that he lack of institutional strategies is another barrier to change and innovation in higher education. Earlier educational innovation islands with enthusiastic academics and staff at institutions, are growing, becoming larger, and entering the mainstream. In the 21st century, there are needs to come away from development just by enthusiasts, but to implement incentives for staff and all stakeholders involved to go mainstreamed and to scale up. Teaching and learning can be advanced through open content, open technology, and open knowledge. The large concerns according to UNESCO (2015a, 21

Leadership

2015b) The European Commission (2013, 2016a, 2016b), and Gulliksen (2016a, 2016b) are how teaching and learning can be advanced by taking full advances of digitization. There are demands for capacity building and the continuous development of professional staff. Moreover, the shifts in mindset, values, and attitudes require training in quality and the acknowledgment of cultural dimensions. The digital transformation has enormous significance for how we approach the construction, implementation, and execution of a pedagogy, that is, the andragogy and heutagogy that are appropriate to the online learning environment, and cross action learning spaces. As educators entering the digital arena, we can no longer rely solely on the strategies developed over many years in the face-to-face environment. Instead, we need to examine the concepts that have previously underpinned good practice in teaching and consider how we might revise, reinvigorate, and reapply these concepts within the emerging pedagogies of the online provision of educational offers and services (Gulliksen 2016a, 2016b; Stewart, 2016).

QUALITY-RELATED CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GLOBAL DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION In considering the new developments and new challenges for education over the next decades, we need to reconsider the concept and methods of quality assurance. Indeed, we need to rethink the culture of quality as it applies to open, online and technology enhanced learning (TEL). This section will define quality, what is entailed in installing a quality culture, how improved quality will affect the future of open, online, and technology-enhanced learning, and how quality levels can be assured when the learner takes control of his or her learning in a global learning environment. We need to rethink the way we measure and talk about quality in open online learning (Ossiannilsson, 2015 a, 2016c). At present, there are more questions than answers. Some questions are linked to the following issues: • • • •

22

Offering pipeline courses is outdated, and requires modernization because learning is lifelong and life wide. Learners need or want to obtain higher education for different purposes during their lifespan. Digitization needs to be embedded throughout the curricula. Cormier (2014) stated that the society is the curricula, which should deemphasize subjects and emphasize their impact on the global society. Learning outcomes must be redesigned to suit the objective of learning to learn and solving the problems of tomorrow. Because most learners study based on the assessments, assessments must be radically changed regarding their content, format, and delivery.

Leadership

•

•

• • • • • • •

In the 21st century, leadership will change radically as organizations become agile and rhizomatic. It will also change to accommodate the global agenda for education and meet present and future educational goals with regard to access, equity and lifelong and life wide learning. Pedagogy is crucial because it is basis of education. However, even pedagogy has to move toward self-directed learning (heutagogy), social media, and the use of mobile software applications designed to run on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers (APPs). There is a move toward crossaction pedagogy and padagogy wheel described by Carrington (2016). Roles are changing in a floating organization. Learners and academics are beginning to collaborate, and the global classroom and global and interdisciplinary networking have opened up. Attitudes toward ownership and power are changing. Today, ownership concerns competences and networks, not positions. Employment is also based on competences and short-term projects, and not just degrees or diplomas. There is a shift form content based learning and education towards context based, and situated learning and education Capacity building and is the cultivation of a culture of quality are crucial. Quality and a quality culture are in the interests of everyone. Hence, a key issue for leaders and managers is to allow people to grow, take responsibility, and build trust throughout the organization. Validation and recognition are absolutely crucial to achieve a global education that is sustainable by all learners. The concerns which have been elaborated throughout this chapter the question of systemic or systematic change Other issues related to quality are the following:

• • • • • • • •

Impact, short time impact, long time impact, and personal, social and community impact Student engagement and satisfaction Tracing student activity and achievements Efficacy of learning Interactivity or rather cross activity Knowledge, skills, capability, and competencies as result of learning Faculty’s satisfaction with their conditions of practice Indicators of faculty engagement in academic decision-making

The discourse on quality in open online learning and technology enabled learning includes rethinking quality assurance and examining the impact, efficiency, learners’ 23

Leadership

satisfaction, and engagement with technology enabled learning from both shortand long-term perspectives. The discourse also considers the implications of work and study conditions for learners, who need competencies to participate as global citizens in the 21st century. Higher education offerings need to expand to provide all learners with access to quality education. Increased digitization and modernization not only will affect open online education but also will improve on-campus education and advanced research. Higher education needs to consider of its offerings in the light of the emergence of digital learning online, such as MOOCs and MITx. Higher education also needs to pay attention to emerging trends such as boot camps and micro masters. The new eco system and economics of education, which emphasizes “many-tomany,” not “few-to-many,” through networking, collaboration and scaling up will improve quality because of openness, and peer reviews on a global scale. Hence, it will lead to new structural relationships. Related to the move from knowledgebased education to competence and challenged-based learning and education, may be other considerations of quality. Other trends are the agency of the community (crowd), disaggregation of educational service, and credentials, which will affect quality and how quality is considered. The concept of access has been discussed throughout this chapter. Access may lead to the success of an individual, which in turn may lead to his or her employment and inclusion in society. These perspectives also have an impact, and they will affect quality considerations. Ossiannilsson et al., (2015) question the entire perspectives and processes of quality as well as the roles of quality assurance agencies. For the 21st century it ought to be most valuable with quality enhancement then on quality assurance. In case this is the paradigm shift in quality in and for higher education, then there are needs to even reconsider the entire concept of quality dimensions and processes and more value quality enhancement and impact for the individual, and the society. Below finally assessment will be discussed as a dimension on how quality is elaborated, as there are synergies in the entire chain, from what kind of measurement quality assurance agency are using, the way institutions are measuring quality, down to the way students are assessed. Mostly the indicators are quantitative based, and as the methods for teaching and learning, i.e. they are developed in the past century, to be used for the 21st century.

Assessment To participate in the fourth industrial revolution and achieve the digital transformation, we need to rethink the way we assess learners’ skills, attitudes, knowledge, competences, and performance. First, the key questions concern what we intend to 24

Leadership

assess, and the tools we use to make assessment, and the impact. Second, to access skills, attitudes, values, as well as 21st century skills, requires a different framework. Third assessments are performed for different purposes: diagnostic, formative, and summative (certification accreditation)., Assessment will always develop learning strategies, accordingly alternative assessment models are needed, such as performance based testing, authentic situations, and qualitative assessments. The most important question concerns the goals of assessments and how they relate to Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), but mainly new and alternative innovative methods, especially with the use of social media, based on the padagogy wheel developed by Carrington (2016). In case assessments still are needed, it is important that learners in higher education are assessed not just for their ability to remember, but for their ability to develop life skills, values, and attitudes, to have the chance to learn, and to be prepared for an uncertain future. Therefore, in case of using assessments it is crucial whether academics should use assessments of learning (content based) or assessments for learning (process based). Related to assessments for learning, there are five key strategies: • • • •

Sharing learning expectations Eliciting evidence Feedback Self-assessment

The entire question on assessment, embrace the curricula design, as well as how learning outcomes are designed and described, as in case of any assessment they are related. Consequently, again it is a question of leadership. An upcoming alternative, and trend of assessments are the open badge moment, and that the real assessment is handed over to the labor market, and to the employers. Accordingly, institutions, managers and leaders may be required to enhance their partnership with stakeholders in the global society.

CONCLUSION Open online education is considered a catalyst for higher education reforms because of increased digitization, changing demographics, globalization, personalization, and personal learning, all of which have led to the fourth industrial revolution. It is uncertain whether traditional higher education offers products and services that align with the needs of learners in the 21st century. Most educational offerings are linear and based on the internal organization’s ability to supply services. The opening up educational paradigm enables learners to control and orchestrate their own learning 25

Leadership

pathways. Digitization allows for the access to free open resources, such as OERs and MOOCs, and other open-access content, software, and hardware anywhere, at any time, to anyone, and through any device. Thus, in the digitization era of the 21st century, university offerings should be similarly accessible and provided in the manner of agile or rhizomatic learning. There are also signs that the competences required for the marketplace are evolving because of social media such as LinkedIn. Competence, rather than education, is a hard currency in the labor market. Hence, the labor market increasingly requires people with competences. This is possible to predict with big data and people analytics. Higher value is placed on a profile that highlights competences than on one that emphasizes postsecondary education. Questions are also being raised about the issue of degrees, and some have predicted that they will go the way of debutantes. The returns on investments in higher education are unclear because in its present state it is far too exclusive. Technology has changed the way we live and learn daily. It has begun to influence campus education because it can no longer be regarded as a tool that is used voluntarily by academics and other staff. It has been argued that administrative units and systems have been more advanced in the use of technology, than the teaching and learning as such. However, changes are foreseen in teaching and learning because of the demands of learners who grew to adulthood in the digital era. Because of UNESCO’s education for all, technology will benefit higher education because of its accessibility, affordability, and efficacy. Because the entire system of education has begun to be questioned, there is a move from the traditional faculty-focused model to competency-based learning, in which students and employers focus on competences that should be included in the aims and designs of assessments and curricula. In other words, there is a move from content to context. Because the context is increasingly complex, there are needs for both scalability and simplification, which digitization can provide and support. Hence, it is crucial that leaders at all levels understand, support, and promote agile and rhizomatic learning in the 21st century across the globe. The message of this chapter is about rethinking even leadership, in a time when the learners are taken the ownership of their learning. In the beginning of this chapter it was argued that there are needs for a fundamental change in the way we think about education’s role in global development as it has a catalytic impact on the well-being of individuals and the future of our planet. Education has a responsibility to be in gear with 21st-century challenges and aspirations and foster the right types of values and skills that will lead to sustainable and inclusive growth and peaceful living together. Consequently, leaders and managers can make a difference related to higher education’s offers, services, processes, quality and impact for the individuals and for the global society. 26

Leadership

REFERENCES Belshaw, D. (2011). What is ‘digital literacy’? A pragmatic invesigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University, UK. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Bokova, I. (2016, November 2nd). UNESCO: Education needs to change fundamentally to meet global development goals. Today Newspaper. Carrington, A. (2016). The padagogy wheel. Education Technology. Retrieved from https://www.educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2016/06/padagogy-wheel/ Chatfield, T. (2012, November 23). Can schools survive in the age of the web? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-can-schools-survivethe-web-age Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizomatic learning – The community is the curriculum. P2PU. Retrieved from https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/882/rhizomatic-learning-thecommunity-is-the-curriculum/ Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2009). Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/march-april%20 2009/full-iron-triangle.html De Millo, R. (2015). Unbundling higher education and the Georgia Tech Online MS in Computer Science: A chronicle. In C. Bonk, M. Miyoung Lee, T. Reeves, & T. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 147–156). Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A Thousand Plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Continuum. Downes, S. (2016, February 17). Re: Personal vs Personalized learning [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/65065 European Commission. (2013). Opening up education to boost innovation and digital skills in schools and universities. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/ press-release_IP-13859_en.htm European Commission. (2016). A new skills agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competiteveness. COM (2016) 38/2. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/socail/main.jsp?catID=1223&lngId=en 27

Leadership

Ferreira, D., Ornelas, E., & Turner, J. L. (2015). Unbundling ownership and control. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/jems.12084 Gulliksen, J. (2016a). Det sociala kontraktet i en digital tid. Temarapport 2 [The social contract in a digital time. Theme report 2]. Stockholm: Digitaliseringskommissionen. Retrieved from https://digitaliseringskommissionen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ Temarapport-2-Det-sociala-kontraktet-i-en-digital-tid.pdf Gulliksen, J. (2016b). Den högre utbilningens roll i en digital tid. Temarapport 4 [The higher educations role in a digital time. Theme report 4]. Stockholm: Digitaliseringskommissionen. Retrieved from https://digitaliseringskommissionen. se/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Temarapport-4_Den-högre-utbildningens-roll.pdf Heik, T. (2012, August 31). Re: 9 Characteristics of 21st century learning. Teach thoughts. We grow teachers. Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/thefuture-of-learning/9-characteristics-of-21st-century-learning/ Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). Opening up education: A support framework for higher education institutions (JRC Scientific Policy Report, EUR 27938EN). Retrieved from http://www.eunis.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/09/jrc_2016.pdf Jahnke, I. (2015). Digital didactical designs: Teaching and learning in cross-action spaces. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2016). Technology-enabled learning implementation handbook. Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/ handle/11599/2363/2016_TELI Koh, A. (2012). The challenges of digital scholarship. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronical.com/blogs/profhacker/the-challengesof-digitla-scholarship/38103 Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science. Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659 Murphy, D., Walker, R., & Webb, G. (2013). Online learning and teaching with technology: case studies, experience and practice London. Routledge. 28

Leadership

Ossiannilsson, E. (2015a). Quality enhancement for mobile learning ih higher education. In S. Keengwe (Ed.), Promoting active learning through the integration of mobile and ubiquitous technologies (pp. 167–182). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ossiannilsson, E. (2015b). Opening up education: Quality matters and personalization. In M. T. Restivo, A. Cardoso, & A. Mendes Lopes (Eds.), Online experimentation: Emerging technologies and IoT (pp. 247–260). Barcelona: International Frequency Sensor Association (IFSA) Publishing. Ossiannilsson, E. (2016a). Challenges and opportunities for active and hybrid learning related to UNESCO post-2015. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 333–351). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9680-8.ch017 Ossiannilsson, E. (2016b). Let the Learners Take the Lead for Their Lifelong Learning Journey. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development (pp. 159-180). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ossiannilsson, E. (2016c). Benchmarking: A method for quality assessment and enhancement in higher education. In Learning, design, and technology (pp.1–19). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_52-1 Ossiannilsson, E. (n.d.a). Leadership in global open, online and distance learning. In J. Keengwe & H. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transformative Digital Content and Learning Technologies (pp. 344–373). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. (in press) Ossiannilsson, E. (n.d.b). Quality models for open online learning (OOL), open educational resources (OER) and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Brussels: European Commission ET Working Group on Open and Distance Learning (ODL). (in press) Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (n.d.b). Towards fostering quality in open online education through OER and MOOC practices. In M. Jemni, M. Kinchuk, & K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: From OERs to MOOCs (Lecture Notes in Educational Technology). Springer. Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (n.d.a). Transformation of teaching and learning in higher education towards open learning arenas: A question of quality. In P. Blessinger & T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open education: International perspectives in higher education. Open Book Publishers; doi:10.11647/OBP.0103

29

Leadership

Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe. Oslo: The International Council for Open and Online Education (ICDE). Pakman, D. (2011, April 15). The unbundling of media. Retrieved from http://www. pakman.com/2011/04/15/the-unbundling-of-media/ Puentedura, R. (n.d.). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means, how to respond. World economic forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/ the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., & Wong, L. H. et al. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Simens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Stewart. (2016, September 5). Online learning and the business of education: Part one. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/online-learning-businesseducation-part-one-michael-stewart The European Commission. (2013). Opening up education to boost innovation and digital schools and universities. Retreved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-13-859_en.htm The European Commission. (2016). Public consultation on the modernisation agenda for higher education in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa. eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/consultations/documents/higher-educationconsultation-results_en.pdf The European Commission. (2016). Report to the European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Brussels: High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/reports/ modernisation_en.pdf The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/ storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf

30

Leadership

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. Jossey-Bass. UNESCO. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0021/002196/219641e.pdf UNESCO. (2015a). Transforming lives through education. Retrieved from https:// en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration UNESCO. (2015b). Qingdao Declaration. International conference on ICT and post-2015 education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/ resources/in-focus-articles/qingdao-declaration Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Daniels, J. (2014). A guide to quality in post-traditional online higher education. Mountain View: Academic Partnerships TM. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watters, A. (2012, September 5). Re: Unbundling and unmooring: Technology and the higher ed. tsunami. Retrieved from educause.edu Weller, M. (2014). The Digital Scholar. How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice. Bloomsbury Open Access. doi:10.5040/9781849666275 Wheeler, S. (2016, June 12). Digital literacies in the age of remix [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.steve-wheeler.co.uk/2016/06/digital-literacies-in-ageof-remix.html Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. The International Review of Research in OPen and Distributed Learning, 10(5).

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Choice–Based Learning: Learners of today have almost all opportunities to choose what and where to study, as education is almost free for anyone, from everywhere, at any time and with any device. Cultural Change: When there is s systemic change, which involves stakeholders, not just to knowledge, but also to values, attitudes, and performance, and when the culture is in the heart of everyone involved. It is about ownership, inclusiveness and participation. 31

Leadership

Digital Transformation: Digital transformation is part of larger technological processes, and is the change associated with the application of digital technology in all aspects of human society. Digital transformation embrace both digital competence, literacy, and digital use. The transformation stage means that digital usages inherently enable new types of innovation and creativity in a particular domain, rather than simply enhance and support the traditional methods. Digital Literacy: Digital literacy embrace learning and innovation skills: critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, creativity, and innovation, digital literacy skills: information literacy, media literacy, information and communication technologies (ICT) literacy. And career and life skills: flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-direction, social and cross-cultural interaction, productivity, and accountability. Leadership: Leadership in open education is the promotion of sustainable open education activities and initiatives via a transparent approach from both the topdown and the bottom-up. It paves the way to creating more openness by inspiring and empowering people. Mobile Learning: Mobile learning involves the use of mobile technology, either alone or in combination with other information and communication technology (ICT), to enable learning anytime and anywhere. Learning can unfold in a variety of ways: people can use mobile devices to access educational resources, connect with others, or create content, both inside and outside classrooms. Mobile learning also encompasses efforts to support broad educational goals, such as the effective administration of school systems and improved communication between schools and families. Open Online Learning: Open education is an umbrella term under which different understandings of open education can be accommodated. It goes beyond OER and open research to embrace strategic decisions, teaching methods, collaboration between individuals and institutions, recognition of non-formal learning, and different ways of making content available. Inamorata dos Santos et al. defined open education as a way of carrying out education that often uses digital technologies. The main aim of open education is to widen access to allow universal participation by removing barriers and making learning accessible, abundant, and customizable for everyone. Open education offers multiple ways of teaching and learning, as well as building and sharing knowledge. It also provides a variety of access routes to formal and non-formal education, and it connects the two. Personal Learning: There is a distinction between personalization and personal learning. Ossiannilsson emphasized that personalization is tailor-made learning in educational organizations, whereas personal learning includes the learner’s choices and decisions, and it is orchestrated by the learner. Personal learning often begins informally on an ad hoc basis. It is driven by the need to complete some task or 32

Leadership

to achieve some objective. Personal learning is a means to an end, rather than the end in itself. Quality: In general quality is fitness for purpose, or quality is in the eye of the beholder. In this case of open education and learning it is about passion, ownership, involvement, access, efficacy, impact, availability, accuracy, and excellence. Unbundling: The neologism unbundling refers to the process by which new players provide expertise and methodologies that undermine the classical model of the university as the leading producer and disseminator of knowledge. In this case, unbundling refers to the effects of the ubiquitous use of mobile devices, Internet connectivity, consumer web technologies, social media, and information access in the 21st century on traditional institutions (education, broadcasting, newspapers, games, shopping, etc.).

33

34

Chapter 2

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills Hakan Kilinc Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Altinpulluk Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Leadership is one of the 21st century characteristics that everybody involved in distance learning institutions should have. From this point of view, the fact that individuals having a say in the functioning of open and distance learning institutions possess 21st century skills such as leadership and accountability is seen as an important point in order to correctly carry out the missions of such institutions. The fact that the individuals who operate open and distance learning institutions have 21st Century skills such as leadership and accountability will play an important role in achieving the aims of the institution. Therefore, it is important that individuals have the features required by the age in order to reach the goals they aim at. In this study, it has been emphasized that individuals must have 21st century skills in order to maintain the functioning of open and distance learning institutions in a healthy manner and the necessity of possessing leadership feature has been argued.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch002 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

INTRODUCTION Field experts who have studies on learning environments argue that the traditional roles in the learning process must be broadly reviewed. Issues such as active learning, collaboration, creativity and the use of technology, which can enrich learning, have become a focus of attention with the reviewing of the roles in the learning processes. With the development of information and communication technologies (ICT), the possibilities of joint learning environments have evolved. As an alternative to traditional face-to-face learning systems, open and distance learning systems have come to the fore in parallel with these developments. The necessity of revising the possibilities and roles of learning environments in a broad manner raises the importance of open and distance learning environments. In open and distance learning environments, the active presence of learners is a key factor. The active role of learners in learning processes can be referred to as instruction activities that involve processes in which learners can think and produce something. With the use of ICTs in learning environments, active learning opportunities have been enhanced and learners have been able to cooperate with each other. In this context, it is possible to say that the roles in the learning environment have changed, the learners have moved to the centre, and the teachers are guides on the side. Learners who are at the centre of learning processes are now able to access content whenever and wherever they would like to, through the technology they possess. In this context, learners need to have 21st century skills such as technology literacy and information literacy so that they can fulfil the requirements of the digital environment they are involved in. The reason for this situation is that the digital media is integrated with technology. The fact that learners who are involved in open and distance learning environments that remove the limitations of time and space as a result of the development of ICTs have full knowledge of the skills of the 21st century and are able to communicate and interact with each other can be seen as an important point for the learning process to be fruitful. At the same time, it can be said that such open and distance learning environments should be managed by a good leadership. It is possible to say that with the coming of 2000s, many education institutions have been interested in open and distance learning systems and benefited from these systems. This situation is clearly seen in the graphs of academic studies on open and distance learning institutions according to the years, given in Figure 1. Academic studies were obtained from the Scopus database.

35

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Figure 1. Academic studies on open and distance learning institutions by years

Increasing investments in open and distance learning institutions are also causing concern for the availability of these investments. At this point, it can be said that the individuals in the open and distance learning institutions need to adapt to the age they live in. Therefore, it is expected that the individuals who take part in these institutions are to have the 21st Century skills. In particular, the individuals at the management level and those in the departments where the investments made in these institutions are managed must have these skills. Within the scope of this study, it is underlined that administrators should have 21st Century skills. In addition, this study focuses on the leadership and responsibility skills that are among the 21st Century outcomes. The reason for this is that leadership ability is the most important factor that the administrators who are in charge of the institutions must have (Kılınç, 2002). According to Kılınç (2002), the reason beneath the fact that leadership in institutions takes precedence over management is the change in technology, business administration and markets; and that the pace of innovation has been more than any other times. In another study emphasizing the importance of leadership, Gürol and Turhan (2005, p: 88) used the phrase “The most effective way of influencing which the administrators will use is leadership”. From this point forth, it is essential that the individuals who work in open and distance learning institutions, especially at the management level, have leadership qualities in order to gain return of the investments made.

36

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

BACKGROUND Along with the widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT), dynamic changes and transformations have become common. In the globalizing world where new demands for individuals, societies and educational systems arise, knowledge is constantly increasing. In order for society to be able to cope with these challenges, the education system must be a modern, flexible, innovative structure that responds to changing community needs. Open and distance learning provides the necessary tools to meet the growing learning needs and make learning independent of time and space. Open and distance learning is an interdisciplinary field of study rooted in the end of the 19th century, especially in the last quarter of the 20th century. Throughout its historical development, open and distance learning has passed through four different phases. We can sort these phases as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Postal Education Model Multimedia Model Tele-Learning Model Flexible Learning Model

Postal education model was the first phase that was passed. In this period, correspondence course is a method of instruction conducted by a school or a competent institution via post. Correspondence course provides education in almost every discipline for cultural development and vocational education. Specialized programs have been organized for correspondence courses, ideal for physically handicapped and homebound, as well as for parents of blind and deaf children. Business world, associations and armed forces are institutions that have benefited extensively from correspondence courses. The biggest disadvantage of this model is that it is a model that can cause communication problems. In correspondence courses using the postal system, the principle of equality for the learners can be put away in some cases. Difficulties in postal distribution, losses or delays directly affect the education of learners. Moreover, this model is not a suitable model for the group work of learners. For that reason, with the developing technology, there has been a transition to other phases of education in the field of distance education. The second stage is the multimedia model. Radio and television became the focus of attention in 1919 with the establishment of an educational broadcasting station in the United States, and so far it has been able to continue its validity. It opened a new era in distance education with its features such as being affordable, not being connected to time and space, being suitable for mass broadcasting, and 37

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

easily transferring visual and auditory items. It also makes radio and television an important tool for distance learning because it can easily be recorded, repeatedly viewed and compatible with other systems. Nowadays, radio and television can address many people from various socio-cultural layers. This significantly increases the availability of multimedia tools in distance education. Like every vehicle used in distance education, radio and television have their disadvantages. The first one that comes to mind is one-way interaction. The viewer is given a message but a response cannot be received. This limits the learning of the subject effectively. If we were to give an example from the classical learning environment, let’s consider a classroom environment in which the teacher is the constant speaker and the learners have no intervention. It cannot be said that the learning takes place in a healthy way in such an environment. Another hurdle is the difficulty of broadcasting a radio or television broadcast at a time that everyone can benefit from. This makes it difficult for the educational material to reach the learners. The third generation tele-learning model includes audio conferences, video conferences, visual text-based conferences, and live television and radio broadcasts. The synchronous model, which is a general name for two-way audio, two-way audio with video and video conferencing applications, is also known as the tele-learning model. Video conferencing is an interactive teleconferencing technology that enables simultaneous voice and video transfer in two or more regions. Video conferencing allows people in different places to communicate face to face, wherever they live. In the fourth phase, there is the flexible learning model. Interactive multi-media, reaching web-based resources via the internet, making the communication internetbased and using automated response systems, creating virtual campus environments are included in the flexible distance education model. When we compare distance education technologies, we can say that new technologies are more effective than old technologies in terms of learning. It is possible to say that new technologies provide flexibility to learners in the sense of time and space. Flexible learning offered by this education model has led many universities to switch to this system. These changes that open and distance learning underwent, along with the improvements in technology, have made the diversification of learning environments possible. Education specialists argue that traditional roles in the learning process must be revised in a broader way (Richardson and Swan, 2003; Pérez-Mateo, Maina, Romero and Guitert, 2011). This situation has brought forward topics which can enrich learning such as active learning, cooperation, creativity and technology use (Perez-Mateo, Maina, Guitert and Romero, 2011). Lazda-Cazers (2010) who stated that learning environments should be diversified indicated that the needs in learning environments increase together with the technological progress and traditional learning environments are not enough. At this point, it can be said that with the including of

38

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

ICTs in learning environments, open and distance learning environments, which can also be called as simultaneously or asynchronously accessible digital environments, have gained importance.

Open and Distance Learning When open and distance learning is conceptually examined, it can simply be identified as the instructor and learner’s being physically away from each other. Among the most accepted definitions is the “institution-based learning processes, where the learners and instructors are separated, where electronic environments and technologies are used to establish two-way communication and where mostly individual learning takes place” by Keegan (1986). In addition, UNESCO (2002) defined open and distance learning as approaches focusing on opening (facilitating) access to education and training opportunities, rescuing learners from time and space limitations, and providing flexible learning opportunities for individuals. According to Moore, Dickson-Deane and Galyen (2011), open and distance learning is a planned learning process which requires specific administrative and organizational arrangements, private lesson designs and instruction techniques, communication through various technologies and which generally take place in a different place than instruction. The most up-to-date definition can be found in the Open and Distance Learning Dictionary, which has been put into service on the internet basis within the Anadolu University, Faculty of Open Education. According to this definition, open and distance learning is an innovative educational system that is institution- based on the self-learning of the individual, aiming at eliminating pre-conditions and limitations, providing time and space flexibility with support of communication technologies. It can be argued that out of the definitions made, there are four necessities for open and distance learning (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright and Zvacek 2000). The first of these is the necessity of the realization of it by institutional structure regulation and supervision. It can also be said that the management of open and distance learning institutions which will be mentioned in the following sections is also an important point. The second necessity is that learners and instructors must be far from each other. This distance might mean geographical distance, temporal distance, and even intellectual distance. Another important point is that communication between the learners and the guide is provided by using communication technologies. These communication technologies can be telephone, video, internet etc. In addition, the fourth necessity is that the learning environment and materials (video, audio, interactive video, etc.) have been standardized and proven effective. In open and distance learning, learner uses pre-prepared learning materials under the guidance of the course instructor. A certificate is required at the end of the process. In addition, 39

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

looking at the definitions; the characteristics that are common to the open and distance learning can be listed as follows: • • •

Open and distance learning systems follow an efficient method of reaching information sources and delivering their learners to these sources. Open and distance learning systems make the most of technology in the execution of educational services. In the open and distance learning process, learners and instructors are independent of time and space.

Open and Distance Learning Components Open and distance learning has evolved as a facilitating learning strategy that allows learners to work independently and at their own pace. This learning strategy is based on certain components. These components can be explained as follows (Verduin & Clark, 1991): • • • •

The absence of the obligation of the instructor and learner to be in the same place in the learning process, Learning process involving the condition of assessment of learners, The use of information and communication technologies by instructors and learners involved in learning processes, Providing two-way interactive communication between learners and instructors

Differences Between Open and Distance Learning and Face-to-Face Learning In order for the definitions of open and distance learning to be fully matured, different features of open and distance learning from face-to-face learning must be revealed. Open and distance learning differs from face-to-face learning in the following ways (Kaya, 2002). • •

40

During the learning period, the learners and the instructors are generally separated from one another in the physical sense, The difference between open and distance learning in terms of planning and preparation of learning tools, provision and arrangement of learner support services,

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

• • • •

Making use of communication tools, computer and audio-visual tools, in bringing together learner and instructor and presenting the course content, Making use of technology specifically for open and distance learning Because of the intermittent or continuous separation in the learning process, people often receive education individually, Whether learners can access the learning content simultaneously or in an asynchronous manner,

These differences between open and distance learning and face-to-face learning reveal that open and distance learning gives learners the opportunity to learn on their own. It is also possible to say that open and distance learning is more flexible than face-to-face learning and that learning at individual speed is more convenient. Moreover, the fact that the individuals who are away from learning and cannot access these opportunities are provided with learning opportunities via open and distance learning is one of these differences. In other words, such obstacles like the obligation for the learners to be at a certain age, level of learning and in specific centres in order to be included in learning processes are abolished through open and distance learning systems.

Benefits and Limitations of Open and Distance Learning According to Paulsen (1995), the benefits of open and distance learning include these four basic principles: learner-instructor interaction (learning strategies), learnercontent interaction (group discussion and case studies), learner-learner interaction (role playing and discussion), and learner-technology interaction (Synchronous and asynchronous interaction). It is possible to say that open and distance learning can have the following benefits: • • • • • • • • •

Creating an alternative to face-to-face learning, Providing learners with environments enriched with technology Providing learners with flexible learning opportunities, Enriching learning outcomes, Facilitating mass learning, Ensuring equal opportunities in learning processes, Reducing the costs of learning processes, Ensuring independent learning, Providing learning responsibility,

It is also possible to say that there are some limitations of open and distance learning besides its benefits. We can summarize these limitations as follows: 41

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

• • • • •

Difficulty of face to face communication with the learner, Individuals without independent learning habits will be challenged in open and distance learning environments, Inability to benefit from some application-oriented learning processes or the obligation of coming to a place where application takes place, Dependence on information and communication technologies, In the open and distance learning systems, the learning processes correspond to the resting time of the individuals who work in a certain job,

However, these limitations can be regarded as situations that can be overcome with the development of technology and the techniques used in open and distance learning. Open and distance learning processes that evolve and continue to evolve as an alternative to the traditional face-to-face education in learning processes require an institutional structure in the sense of practice and reaching learners. In other words, open and distance learning is realized with institutions that will carry out this learning system. In this context, it is important for open and distance learning institutions to keep up with current technology and learning approaches, in order to provide learners with high-quality opportunities for open and distance learning. At this point, open and distance learning institutions need to be well managed. Therefore, it can be said that management function is a very important element in open and distance learning institutions. Well-managed open and distance learning institutions are essential for the accessibility to open and distance learning.

The Concept of Management and the Importance of Management in Open and Distance Learning Systems Management is the period in which the tasks to be done are carried out effectively and efficiently with other individuals in the institution (Rumble, 1992). This process is a functioning process in all institutions. In other words, management processes are the whole process of taking and enforcing decisions which will ensure that the elements that exist in institutions are used in a way that is compatible, efficient and effective with each other. These elements can be listed as follows: • • • • • • 42

Human resources, Financial Resources, Technologies used, Hardware, Fixtures and Raw materials,

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

In institutions, administrative functions at the stages of organizing, planning, leading and controlling processes can be good or bad. It is possible to say that resources will be wasted if the administrative functions take place in a bad way. This situation can be regarded as a factor that leads to the weakening of the institutions and the loss of their functioning. Good management functions will keep the institutions running and ensure that they give efficient service. In this context, it can be concluded that the administrative functions are of vital importance for the institutions. The education management issue has a vital importance in terms of efficiency of education (e.g., management to reduce the source costs of inputs and outputs in the education process) and effectiveness (e.g., achieving the intended objectives) (Rumble, 1992). Recognition of the concepts of management and administration as a discipline in the field of education shows the importance of administrative processes in educational institutions. In open and distance learning systems emerging as an alternative to traditional face-to-face education, administrative processes can face challenges that are not found in traditional class-based face-to-face systems. At this point, since the systems are different, required management processes and management skills are expected to be different. It can be said that there are very few studies especially on the management of open and distance learning systems in literature. This situation is partially revealed in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Figure 2 shows the search made via the Scopus database. During this search, the following Key words are searched as “Article Title”: • • • • • •

“management of distance education”, “management of distance education systems”, “management of distance learning”, “management of distance learning systems”, “management of open and distance education”, “management of open and distance education systems”,

Distance education, distance education systems, distance learning and distance learning systems which are frequently used in the open and distance learning field are also used on the Scopus database. The results are between 1980 and 2016. Through these years, ten studies on the field of the management of open and distance learning have been found in the Scopus database. This number, which is reached in thirty-six years, can be considered to be very few. The fact that this number has been reached on the Scopus database might mean ignoring other databases, but there are still very few studies in thirty-six years on a large database like the Scopus database. According to the data shown in Figure 3; three of the ten studies reached are articles and three are conference reports. At the same time, the areas of studies are respectively social sciences, computer science and engineering fields. 43

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Figure 2. Scopus document search

Figure 3. Shows the details of the studies reached

44

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Today, there are a lot of learners who are involved in open and distance learning systems. In addition, many institutions from many countries also implement learning processes with open and distance learning strategies. This reflects the magnitude of the amount spent on open and distance learning. The effective and efficient use of these resources is crucial in reaching the intended goals of open and distance learning systems. The efficient management and administration of open and distance learning institutions and making good use of resources are required to get moneys’ worth. The further development of this interest shown in the field of open and distance learning emerging as a contemporary learning strategy and getting the moneys’ worth spent in this area for enriching the learning outputs depend on well-managed institutions and the leadership in these institutions.

MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING INSTITUTIONS The national needs, the social structure of society, the features of existing practices and cultural traditions influence how open and distance learning institutions are managed and how they are established (Kaya, 2002). These factors are considered as factors affecting the administrative structure of the applications implemented in the open and distance learning institutions. The issues that concern the organization and management of distance learning institutions such as planning and organizing the learning process in open and distance learning institutions, coordination of studies, providing communication between units, decision making process have importance for the success of importance of open and distance learning institutions. The increasing demand for distance education and the emergence of different forms of presentation based on this have brought forward the need for institutionalization (Gürol & Turhan, 2005). Nevertheless, the objectives aimed and the technologies used in the open and distance learning processes have brought about different organizational structures. It can be argued that new organizational structures are needed to create a high-quality open and distance learning system (Hitt & Hartman, 2002). In this context, each unit functioning in the institution should have a systematic approach. Gellman-Danley and Fetzner (1998) collect the elements that determine the open and distance learning policy and that form the basis of the decisions to be made under seven headings. These are: academic, financial, geographical, management, labour management, legal infrastructure, learner support systems. King et al. (2000) collected these elements simply into three headings. These topics are: the faculty (continuing education and development of co-operation), learners, management and organization.

45

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

These elements which determine the policy of open and distance learning institutions need to move towards the same goal in a coordinated manner with units in different roles that operate connected with the management. In this sense, it can be said that success can be achieved in an institutional sense. The roles distributed in open and distance learning institutions can be listed as follows (Williams, 2000): • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Administrator Instructor/ facilitator Instruction designer Technology expert Site facilitator Support the staff Librarian Technician Evaluation expert Graphic designer Trainer Media publisher/ editor Leader/ exchange agent

Good management of the units acting in these roles will make it possible to achieve the intended objectives. At this point, the concept of management must come into play. Management is defined as the sum of the processes of making and implementing decisions in order to ensure that all facilities (human resources, material resources, fixtures, etc.) owned by the institutions at the point of attaining the targeted purposes are used in an effective, efficient and compatible manner with each other (Eren, 1998). In all of the management functions, the elements of understanding, agreeing and explaining are taken into account (Keskin, Büyük & Koç, 2013). The need for individuals to form organizations to achieve specific goals and the necessity to manage these organizational efforts has brought out the concept of management. Management in open and distance learning institutions has three principal focuses which are decision-making, planning and communication (Gürol & Turhan, 2005). According to Gürol and Turhan (2005), the decision process in open and distance learning systems is used to make a change in the organization, to prevent or solve a conflict, to influence the members of the organization. Decision is the core of management and the axis of other processes. The organization depends on the correctness of the decisions taken (Büyük, 2010). The ability of the administrator to make correct and productive decisions requires, above all, knowledge of decision models and stages. These stages are the understanding of the problem, the collection 46

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

of information about the problem, the analysis and interpretation of information, the formulation of solutions, the selection of the most efficient solution, the application and evaluation (Bursalıoğlu, 1994). Again, according to Gürol and Turhan (2005), planning in open and distance learning processes are defined as the selection or detection of the means and tools and opportunities to reach the aims. First of all, the plan is the expression of a decided movement. Accordingly, an objective for the plan must be established in the beginning. Once the purpose is determined, it is seen that there are different ways to achieve this aim. A survey is made among the options about which one is best, and a preference is made in this direction. After such a preference, the order of things to be done, the duration, who will be responsible for what and the policies to be followed for this purpose are determined (Ertürk, 2001). Planning in distance education institutions is the assessment of the institution’s today and what it wants to be in the future. In addition, planning in distance education institutions includes the following topics (Killfoil, 2003). • • • • • •

Mission statement, Potential learner market, Probable courses or programs, Appropriate technology and tools, Planning factors in selecting the tools, Cost.

From this point of view, the planning process in distance education follows the following steps (Gürol & Turhan, 2005): • • • • • • •

Temporary identification of educational needs and targets based on them (characteristics of the target group, educational needs, etc.) Existing educational opportunities and detecting the situation (existing programs and courses, proficiency level etc.) Expressing goals in distance education systematically, Determining what to do (faculty, educator, technical facilities, material development) to reach the specified goals, Implementing the plan, Assessment at each stage of implementation, Taking necessary precautions and arranging plans according to evaluation results.

Communication, which is the third most important component of management, is defined as the process of transferring and communicating orders, information, 47

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

thoughts, explanations and questions between individuals and between groups. Communication is the way to interact with individuals. Communication can be seen as the most basic necessity of reaching an organization’s goals. Thanks to communication skills, all units in an institution can be directed towards the same target. In an organization where communication is sufficient, it is expected that the aims of the organization are understood and grasped correctly, and that the members of the organization should be inclined to act in coordination and cooperation in order to realize these common goals (Aydın, 2000). We can talk about two-dimensional communication as the service process offered in open and distance learning institutions and the institution’s management process. It is necessary to use communication effectively in terms of two dimensions. There are features that need to be known in order to better understand the management that is considered as a process to achieve the goals. These features can be listed as follows (Özalp, 1992): • • • • • • • • • • • •

It is an activity aimed at purpose. It is an activity based on human relations. It is a group activity. It has democratic aspects. It is a collaboration activity. It is a division of labour and specialization activity. It is a coordination event. It has a step feature. It is a two-way process. It has rationality. It has a universal character. It has an artistic aspect as well as a scientific aspect.

In order to realize more effectively the objectives of learning organizations formed to realize learning processes and to provide the individuals in the society with education, the field of educational management emerged with the necessity of effective management of materials and human resources. Educational management can be defined as providing human and material resources and effective use of them in order to achieve the aims of educational organizations and to apply the determined policies and decisions taken (Taymaz, 1995). Particularly in the 20th century, the increase in the demand for education of the people led to the emergence of sub-fields in the field of education management, which emerged as a sub-science field in management science (Kaya, 2002). As the reason for this situation, the difficulty of the similar management of educational organizations having different purposes and characteristics can be shown (Ağaoğlu, 48

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Altınkurt, Yılmaz & Karaöse, 2012). Educational institutions with different purposes and characteristics offer different levels of education. The nature of these educations, presented individually, also shapes the future of that country. Education ensures the future of societies and ensures the continuity of societies. In this context, good management of educational institutions has a critical importance. Institutions providing education at the top level in a country are higher education institutions. Higher education institutions are institutions with high academic goals. In this context, in the higher education institutions that provide open and distance learning services, the concern of raising qualified personnel is on the front line in reaching these high targets. The place of management activities is crucial in training qualified staff offering learning services to them. These institutions should act on the basis of co-ordination together with all sub management branches. As institutions differ in terms of management, their management processes and functions also differ. These differentiations have also brought along sub management branches. The formation of sub-branches such as school management and class management can be shown as an example. Management of schools considered as the most effective of the sub-systems within the education system requires different competences from educational management (Açıkalın, 1995). The school administrator has some legal powers in managing the school. In addition to the legal power, the administrator must have social, technical, cultural and charismatic strengths that originate from personal structure (Battal & Sahan, 2002). The school administrator should be equipped with technical knowledge that necessitates expertise about management, must be competent in human relations, and must have the ability to continue cultural development and to influence people with his charisma through the use of symbolic items (Şişman, 1999). Therefore, having the skills of 21st Century which is frequently emphasized in this study is a necessary feature for institution administrators. Administrators who possess these characteristics will also fully fulfil their leadership roles in the organization.

Management in Open and Distance Learning Institutions The task of the school administration, which is defined as the application of the education administration to a limited area (Erdoğan, 2000), and in other words the task of administration of the open and distance learning institution, is to effectively use all the human and material resources in the institution in order to sustain the open and distance learning institution in accordance with its aims (Kaya, 2002). Education administrator of the information society is the school administrators (Nurluöz, Birol & Silman, 2010). School administrators are innovators who are aware of the need for continuous improvement and who develop and apply selfimprovement, researching new and different thoughts, and taking every action that 49

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

takes the school forward further (Can, 2002). In this context, administrators in open and distance learning institutions must fulfil the school administration requirement. Open and distance learning institutions continue to operate in the same direction as traditional schools, colleges and universities. These can be summarized as: enrolling learners, organizing learning activities, submitting support services to learners, and ensuring the development of learners. The activities of the administrator, defined in many ways up to now, have been formed in three dimensions, technical, human and conceptual, to get a job done through others, to get others do a job, to achieve work through others and to achieve goals (Nurluöz, Birol & Silman, 2010). These dimensions are explained in the research conducted by Nurluöz, Birol and Silman (2010) as follows. The dimension that represents the administrator’s functional expertise is the technical dimension (marketing, finance, research and development etc.). The dimension related to the human element is the human dimension. Especially as the levels get higher, each administrator tries to solve the problems by taking responsibility and coordinating them in the planning of the activities of others, rather than solving them with the technical knowledge they have. The third dimension, the conceptual dimension, refers to the ability of the administrator to see the whole of the organization as a whole and to work in a holistic manner. As a human being, the administrator creates a unique behavioural model (like management style, leadership style) under the influence of various factors. Therefore while administrators control and supervise their own behaviours, they also learn that they must have the understanding and knowledge of their subordinates’ behaviour and that they must improve themselves (Koçel, 1999). The development, production, distribution and use, planning, organizing and controlling of various forms of media come to the forefront as tasks that administrators face among the operational dimensions of administrators in open and distance learning institutions. In open and distance learning institutions, unlike traditional face-to-face learning institutions, learners are physically separate from their instructors, as well as from open and distance learning institutions. In this context, there is no way for learners to physically communicate with these institutions during any transaction (learning, registration, etc.). Administrators face important tasks in the design and organization of operations to be performed. Having learners physically dispersed can reveal difficulties in conducting exams. In addition, learners in many places may want to interact face-to-face with the instructors. In such cases, face-to-face academic counselling services may be provided. In addition to these situations, open and distance learning institutions require a separate management skill in the provision of technology used in learning processes and in the control of these tools also by administrator. Planning and organizing these events is another major challenge for the administrators in open and distance learning institutions. In this context, the problem case of this study is whether the open and distance learning 50

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

institutions, which are being invested increasingly, can be well- managed and the individuals who can provide such management are able to do so. In this study, the managerial processes and managerial qualities required to manage open and distance learning institutions in a good way have been tried to be revealed. In this context, it is thought that individuals in management level in open and distance learning institutions should adapt to the current age. In other words, it can be said that the individuals who carry out the management processes should have 21st century skills.

21st Century Skills The 21st century skills that make up the theoretical sub-structure of working are important elements in the sense that individuals have the ability to adapt to the environments and conditions they are in and to have the necessary skills. In terms of the management of open and distance learning institutions, it is also necessary for individuals to have these skills in order to ensure that institutions achieve their intended objectives. Leadership and responsibility skills, especially among the skills of the 21st Century, can be seen as one of the critical skills that administrators must possess. The 21st century skills are based on the following themes (Framework For 21st Century Learning-P21, 2015): 1. Learning and Renovation Skills 2. Information, Media (Media), and Technology Skills 3. Life and Professional Skills “Learning and Renovation Skills”, the first of the main themes, can be seen as one of the important features that individuals in open and distance learning institutions should possess. Under this main theme are (1) creativity and innovation, (2) critical thinking and problem solving, and (3) communication and collaboration (Framework for 21st Century Learning - P21, 2015). Within the scope of these sub-themes, it is possible to say that administrators will be able to reach new and creative ideas as a result of using brain storming methods among the employees of the institution. Also, administrators’ looking at the events from a critical point of view and putting the solution proposals into application after evaluating them logically can be considered as one of the factors that will enable them to succeed in problem-solving. In addition to these, it is considered as an important necessity to be in constant communication and cooperation with the employees of the institution to be able to identify the problems experienced in the institution on the spot and solve it more easily.

51

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

It can be said that the second main theme, “Information, Media (Media) and Technology Skills” has been an important competence since the 2000s, with the intense increase of information and the rapid change of technological tools. Under this main theme are (1) information literacy, (2) media literacy, (3) media fluency, and (4) technology literacy sub-themes (Framework for 21st Century Learning - P21, 2015). In this respect, it can be seen as a necessary point for information literacy that the administrators evaluate the information obtained, reach information efficiently in terms of time, and use the information obtained correctly and creatively. At the point of media literacy and media fluency, it is seen as an important factor that administrators know how a media tool is structured for what purpose and administrators benefit from these media tools effectively. At the point of technology literacy, using technology in researching, organizing, evaluating and information-communication processes as a tool is necessary. In addition, the use of digital technologies such as computers, mobile phones, tablets are important in enabling interaction and producing information through internet networks by providing access and management. Administrators must dominate these technologies in order for the functioning carried out healthily in open and distance learning institutions where technology is used intensively. Especially in order to provide services to learners in physically diverse environments, administrators need to master information and communication technologies. In this way, it is possible to make the services to be provided to the learners more organized. The third main theme, “Life and Professional Skills” are seen as skills that must be possessed by administrators in order to succeed in complex life and working environments in a global competitive information age and have sub-themes such as (1) flexibility and harmony, (2) entrepreneurship and self-management, (3) social and intercultural skills, (4) productivity and responsibility, (5) leadership and responsibility (Framework For 21st Century Learning-P21, 2015). In this context, in order for administrators to be successful both in their lives and professions, they must have the abilities to adapt themselves to changing characteristics and roles with a flexible structure, to work independently, to communicate and interact effectively with the employees of the company, to carry out the projects they carry out and to produce products, and to able to manage the group being responsible of the other employees in the institution. In the light of this information, the skills of the 21st Century, which are thought to be necessary for administrators in open and distance learning institutions to be successful, can be summarized as: 1. Learning and Renovation skills a. Creativity and Renovation b. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving c. Communication and Cooperation 52

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

2. Information, Media and Technology Skills a. Information Literacy b. Media Literacy c. Media Fluency d. Technology Literacy 3. Life and Professional Skills a. Flexibility and Harmony b. Entrepreneurship and self-management c. Social and intercultural skills d. Productivity and responsibility e. Leadership and responsibility In addition, the 21st century output and support systems framed by Framework for 21st Century Learning-P21 (2015) are also shown in Figure 4. In Figure 4, while the 21st century output is expressed on the rainbow, support systems are expressed in the lower pool. In another study on the skills of the 21st century, Günüç et al. (2013) received opinions from prospective teachers on how they describe 21st century skills. As a result of the study, four main themes, (1) personal skills, (2) research and information skills, (3) creativity, innovation and career, (4) technology skills and 10 sub-themes emerged. Based on the defined themes, it can be said that in the 21st Century, the administrators need to constantly improve themselves. Figure 4. 21st century output and support systems

53

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the scope of this study, it is underlined that administrators should have 21st Century skills. However, this study focuses on the leadership and responsibility skills in the 21st Century outcomes. The reason for this is that leadership is the most important element that must be found in the administrators in the institutions (Kılınç, 2002). According to Kılınç (2002), the reason why leadership in institutions surpasses management is that the change and innovation in technology, business, and markets are speedier than at all times. In the same study, it is also mentioned that today’s institutions are not able to sustain their existence for a long time in the environment of change by means of “management” approach aiming to maintain the existing system by merely minimizing the risk without having effective leadership. In this context, the leadership abilities of administrators in open and distance learning institutions are of great importance for the success of these institutions. In another study emphasizing the importance of leadership, Gürol and Turhan (2005, p: 88) used the phrase “the most valid way of influencing that will be used by the administrators is leadership “. Leadership can also be used to provide the institution’s success by using the potential of individuals in an organization (Kesim, 2015). So leadership is an inevitable element for an organization to be successful (Baysal and Tekarslan, 1998). Leadership is needed to help build a vision of what institutions can do and to make a difference towards that vision (Terry, 1996). These four elements are in all leadership definitions (Başaran, 2004): • • • •

Objective: To create a cluster, people need to have a common goal to achieve, necessities to satisfy and problems to solve. Leader: The elements of a cluster gather around a leader. There cannot be a cluster (team) without a leader. Followers: The members of the cluster become the followers of the leader when they adopt the effect the leader has done on them. Environment: Leadership emerges only when the environment is sufficient for achieving the goals of the cluster. The adequacy of the followers, the conditions within the cluster, the attainability of goals, the motivation of followers to goals, the willingness and the competence to perform tasks constitute the environment of leadership.

In legal institutions, leaders have five power sources. These forces are the following (Ateş, 2002):

54

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

• • • • •

Legal Power, Rewarding Power, Compelling Power, Expertise Power, Charismatic Power.

According to Şahin, Temizel and Örseli (2004), the basic leadership qualities that should be in a leader in the modern age are listed as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Leader should know himself / herself and listen to others. He/she should be an expert in business and simplify work. He/she should know group members well and trust them. He/she should determine the aims, goals and standards. He/she should make correct and quick decisions. He/she should be democratic, involve group members in decisions and invite opposing views. Leader must be able to see the future, be constantly vigilant and make prudent plans against the problems that the future will bring. He/she should resist with patience, determination, and patience for the purposes He/she should not be desperate, should keep the morale high by constantly giving confidence to his/her surroundings even in the toughest conditions. He/she should be a designer, test assumptions and disclose them. He/she should be honest, accessible and humble. He/she should keep employees’ morale high, encourage teamwork and togetherness. He/she should take risks whenever it is necessary, not over-check and use the time well. He/she should not be afraid of criticism and check the results.

Based on this information, it can be said that the leading administrators who are in charge of the institutions play a critical role in the success of the institution. Management at the top of social structure therefore the concept of leader comes to the forefront In all the instructions that investigate what the conditions that bring individuals together are and how a system should be that will provide living together. Because individuals are social quality living beings, they need leaders to manage and to lead towards targets as well as their groups (Eren 1993). A definition based on leadership was made by Ünüsan (1997, p: 82), which is, “Leadership is the ability to persuade people to lead to specific goals in general, and leader is the one who gathers group members and motivates them towards group targets”. In this context, 55

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

leadership can be summarized as the art of getting a work done by motivating and influencing others. When assessed from the standpoint of open and distance learning institutions, the nature of leadership is technology and individual development-focused. Leaders who will influence people in open and distance learning institutions which use advanced technology intensively must be able to use the technology in the best way, to define attractive aims for the members of the organization, to encourage super leadership (for the employees to be self-leader), to integrate individual and organizational goals, to know and apply information management techniques, to develop the organizational commitment and emphasize personal development (Pahal, 1999). In this context, it can be seen as an essential element that individuals who manage in open and distance learning institutions have 21st Century skills, especially leadership skill. The fact that open and distance learning institutions cover different places physically also affects the leadership administrators in this institution. Leading individuals in different places brings with it certain requirements. Most importantly, ensuring an effective communication flow is important. The communication that administrators with the leadership feature have with other units can be considered as an element that will give a sense of belonging to all employees and units. Participation of people in different locations should be encouraged. In this way, the disadvantages of not having all the individuals under the same roof in open and distance learning can be turned into advantages.

Leadership and Management Leadership and management are not alternatives to each other, but they are two completely different concepts and they complement each other (Greenberg and Baron, 2000). Leadership and management can be described as internal concepts integrated with each other. However, leadership is one of the functions that an administrator needs to do. If he does not fulfil this function, he is still an administrator, but one who cannot lead. Management is a right and authority that is provided by the possession of a position. Leadership, on the other hand, is the ability to use some of the forces that arise from one’s own self, and does not require the possession of an authority (Can, Tuncer and Ayhan, 1999). Another study which emphasized that management and leadership are different was by Saruhan and Yildiz (2009: 232): “Management is basically taking development into account. Development is an effort to capture the best and most perfect within the pre-determined and customary boundaries. In the centre of leadership, past-present-future process and change are taking place “. Therefore, it is possible to say that management is a profession, and leadership is an art of influencing and activating individuals. At the same time it is not necessary to be in a legal institution for leadership. 56

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

The administrator is the person who directs a group of minions in harmony and cooperation to reach a certain purpose. Hence, the administrator is able to achieve certain objectives by using the knowledge and powers of others (Dinçer and Fidan, 1995). Leadership is about making the necessary innovations and regulations to adapt the organization to changes and giving the organization a new vision. (Koçel, 2003). In other words, administrators are the ones who keep the institutions running. However, the administrators with leadership ability can run the other sub units of the institution in the same direction synchronously, as expected from them. Therefore, it should be emphasized in this study that the administrators of the institutions should have the leadership characteristic. As can be understood from these explanations, the leader and the administrator are two concepts with different meanings. It is not a necessity for every administrator in the organization to have leadership qualities. Likewise, it is also true that there are leaders who have great influence over other employees even they are not at any level of management within the organization. It is not necessary for a person to be an administrator in order to be a leader, while a person must have a position and status to be an administrator. In this context, it is important that individuals who have a say in open and distance learning institutions have 21st Century skills such as the leadership qualities for the power of the institution.

CONCLUSION It is possible to say that the need for leaders to direct the employees in the institutions and to bring them together in order to attain the goals has increased day by day. While others express that leadership is innate, a group of researchers claim that there can be no one born as a leader, that leadership can be learned, and that it can develop over time. To say that leadership is related to some inherited genetic traits, but it is shaped with some acquired skills, the state and circumstances the person in and the person’s characteristics, is a result of looking at leadership with a wider perspective. The presence of leaders in organizations is influential in the motivation of employees, their work with higher performance and their increased commitment to work. For this reason, there is a need for leaders in organizations who support and guide individuals. It is not important to try to reach the goals by making the employees work with orders and instructions. What is important is to get them work with high motivation and desire and get them together. This is where the leaders are becoming important. Given the investments made in open and distance learning institutions, the success of these institutions will mean getting the rewards for the labour that is spent on

57

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

learning processes. Therefore, flexible learning conditions that open and distance learning institutions offer to learners will show continuity. When components of open and distance learning institutions such as examinations organization, academic advising, and material distribution are taken into consideration, it is seen that these components cannot be physically gathered in the same place, just as the learners included cannot be. In this context, it will be possible to combine these components, which are far from each other, under one roof and to be guided towards the same aim with a real leadership feature. These spatial divisions are inevitable when considering the functioning of open and distance learning institutions, which serve to learners who are located in different locations and who are generally unable to meet in the learning process. Therefore, it can be said that the individuals who manage this structure and those who work in this structure should possess the 21st Century skills so that they can master the functioning of the institution and continue its functioning in an uninterrupted manner. The necessity of coordinating all employees of the institution for the same purpose lies beneath emphasizing the leadership skill in 21st century skills which are a necessity of the age we are in.

REFERENCES Açıkalın, A. (1995). Toplumsal Kurumsal ve Teknik Yönleriyle Okul Yöneticiliği. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları. Ağaoğlu, E., Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K., & Karaöse, T. (2012). Okul yöneticilerinin yeterliklerine ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri (Kütahya İli). Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164). Ateş, M. F. (2002). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Ve Örgütsel Adaletin Örgütsel Özdeşleşmeye Etkisinde Örgütsel Güvenin Aracılık Rolü. Bildiriler Kitabı, 647. Aydın, M. (2000). Eğitim Yönetimi. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi. Başaran, İ. E. (2004). Yönetimde İnsan İlişkileri. (3.Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Battal, N., & Sahan, H. (2002). Balıkesir Üniversitesi Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesinde düzenlenen yönetici eğitimi kursunun değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(7), 22–33. Baysal, C., & Tekarslan, E. (1998). Davranış Bilimleri. İstanbul: Dönence Basım ve Yayın Hizmetleri. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1994). Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. 58

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Büyük, K. (2010). Stratejik Performans Yönetiminin Unsuru Olarak Örgüt Kültürünü Ölçümleme Üzerine Kavramsal Bir Çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 219–235. Can, H., Tuncer, D., & Ayhan, D.Y. (1999). Genel İşletmecilik Bilgileri. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Can, N. (2002). Değişim sürecinde eğitim yönetimi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 155-156. Dinçer, Ö., & Fidan, Y. (1995). İşletme Yönetimine Giriş. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık. Erdoğan, İ. (2000). Okul Yönetimi ve Liderliği. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık. Eren, E. (1993). Yönetim Psikolojisi. Beta Basım Yayın A.S. İstanbul. Eren, E. (1998). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, 5. İstanbul: Baskı, Beta Yayıncılık. Ertürk, M. (2001). İşletme Biliminin Temel İlkeleri. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları Framework For 21st Century Learning-P21. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org Gellman-Danley, B., & Fetzner, M. J. (1998). Asking the really tough questions: Policy issues for distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1), 2. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R.A. (2000). Behavior In Organizations:Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2013). 21. Yüzyıl Öğrenci Özelliklerinin Öğretmen Adayları Tarafından Tanımlanması: Bir Twitter Uygulaması/The Defining Characterıstıcs of Students of The 21st Century By Student Teachers: A Twitter Activity. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(4), 436-455. Gürol, M., & Turhan, A. G. M. (2005). Yönetim Fonksiyonları Bağlamındauzaktan Eğitim Yönetimi. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2). Hitt, J. C., & Hartman, J. L. (2002). Distributed Learning: New Challenges and Opportunities for Institutional Leadership. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan eğitim. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.

59

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Kesim, E. (2015). The Importance of Distance Education Experts in the Organizational Development Process of Distance Education Institutions: A Theoretical Evaluation. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 73–88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch006 Keskin, U., Büyük, K., & Koç, U. (2013). Yönetsel ve Örgütsel Açıdan Retorik. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 27–40. Kılıç, G. (2006). Eğitim Kurumlarında liderlik tarzları ve örgüt kültürünün performans üzerindeki etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Kılınç, T. (2002). Liderlik üzerine bir analiz. Hastane Dergisi, 3, 84–88. Killfoil, W. R. (2003). Strategic Planning in Distance Education. Washington, DC: Distance Education Training Council. King, J. W., Nugent, G. C., Russell, E. B., Eich, J., & Lacy, D. (2000). Policy frameworks for distance education: Implications for decision makers. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2), 5. Koçel, T. (1999). İşletme yöneticiliği, yönetim ve organizasyon, organizasyonlarda davranış klasik - modern- çağdaş yaklaşımlar. 7. baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Koçel, T. (2003). İşletme Yöneticiliği: Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Organizasyonlarda Davranış, Klasik-Modern-Çağdaş ve Güncel Yaklaşımlar. (9.baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş. Lazda-Cazers, R. (2010). A Course Wiki: Challenges in Facilitating and Assesing Student-Generated Learning Content for the Humanities Classroom. The Journal of General Education, 59(4), 193–222. doi:10.1353/jge.2010.0023 Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001 Nurluöz, Ö., Birol, C., & Silman, F. (2010). Üniversitelerde Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yöneticilik Davranışlarının Öğretim Elemanı ve Öğrenci Görüşlerine Göre İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 16(4), 579–601. Özalp, İ. (1992). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. (Cilt 1). Eskişehir. Pahal, D. L. (1999). Effective Leadership--An IT Perspective. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(2).

60

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Paulsen, M. F. (1995). The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for Computer. Mediated Communication. Available: http://nettskolen.com/forskning/19/cmcped. html Pérez-Mateo, M., Maina, M. F., Guitert, M. & Romero, M. (2011). Learner Generated Content: Quality Criteria in online Collaborative Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 14(2). Pérez-Mateo, M., Maina, M. F., & Romero, M., ve Guitert, M. (2011). Learner Generated Content: quality from students’ point of view. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (1), 2520-2529. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68–88. Rumble, G. (1992). The Management of Distance Learning Systems. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 43. UNESCO. Şahin, A., Temizel, H., & Örselli, E. (2004). Bankacılık Sektöründe Çalışan Yöneticilerin Kendi Liderlik Tazrlarını Algılayış Biçimleri ile Çalışanların Yöneticilerinin Liderlik Tarzlarını Algılayış Biçimlerine Yönelik Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, 657-665. Saruhan, C. Ş., & Yıldız, L.M. (2009). Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimi. Istanbul: Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Şişman, M. (1999). Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş, I. Basım. Ankara: Pegem A. Taymaz, H. (1995). Okul Yönetimi. Ankara: Saypa Yayınları. Terry, P. M. (1996). Empowering Teachers as Leaders. University of Memphis. UNESCO. (2002). Open and distance learning, trends, policy and strategy considerations. division of higher education. Paris: UNESCO. Ünüsan, Ç. (1997). Günümüz işletmelerinde Lider ve Güç Kavramının Pazarlama Dağıtım Kanalı Yönetimi Açısından Önemi, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi İ.İB.F. Dergisi, 13(1-2), 81–87. Verduin, J. R., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

61

Leadership in Open and Distance Learning Institutions Within the Scope of 21st Century Skills

Williams, P. (2000). Making Informed Decisions about Staffing and Training: Roles and Competencies for Distance Education Programs in Higher Education. Distance Learning Administration Conference.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 21st Century Skills: They are the skills individuals must possess in order to adapt to the age in 21st century. Administrator: The administrator is the person who directs a group of minions in harmony and cooperation to reach a certain purpose. Distance Learning Environments: They are the learning content and tools that take place on the internet via Web servers. Information and Communication Technology (ICT): ICT is an umbrella term that includes any communication device or application, encompassing: radio, television, cellular phones, computer and network hardware and software, satellite systems and so on, as well as the various services and applications associated with them, such as videoconferencing and distance learning. Leadership: It is a necessary feature to help develop a vision for institutions and to make a change in the direction of that vision. Management: It is the period in which the work to be done is carried out effectively and efficiently together with other individuals in the institution. Open and Distance Learning: It is an innovative education system that has an institutional structure based on the self-learning of the individual, aiming to eliminate the preconditions and limitations, providing time and space flexibility with the support of communication technologies.

62

63

Chapter 3

The Virtual CSU:

A Leadership Model for Universities Transitioning to Online, Open, and Distance Delivery Stephen Marshall Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Jonathan Flutey Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

ABSTRACT The Virtual CSU is a model of distributed leadership and team-based consultancy and support which has been implemented at Victoria University of Wellington over the last four years as part of an overall plan transitioning to greater use of online, open and distance provision of higher education. The model uses ideas drawn from industry to create flexible virtual teams that act as internal consulting teams. The resulting teams combine professional and academic staff from a variety of internal units into a semi-formal group focused on specific university projects, operational needs or strategic challenges in a way that avoids the costs of formal restructuring and that provides a mechanism for professional development and facilitation of wider changes in the capability of the university.

INTRODUCTION Universities are typically characterised as unchanging places. The stereotypical university is a place of quiet scholarship disconnected from the frenetic pace of DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch003 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Virtual CSU

change that characterises the commercial world. A moments consideration of the range of universities, from small liberal arts colleges teaching two-year associate degrees, through to large élite research universities such as Harvard and Oxford, to the various open universities with hundreds of thousands of students shows that the university is in reality a more diverse place than suggested by the stereotype. The university is also strongly connected to society and heavily influenced over time by wider changes in the environment (Cunningham et al., 1997; Sporn, 1999; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Shattock, 2003; Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2009; Wissema, 2009). The increasing challenge of funding higher education at both the individual and national level is widely recognised. Other, interrelated, forces acting on the university include the scale and scope of education; the competing influences of a diverse group of stakeholders; the changing role and significance of qualifications; and, most visibly the impact of rapid and ongoing technological development. Sociologist Martin Trow is widely recognised as providing a useful model that explains the underlying sociological forces responsible for elements of these forces acting on the university (Trow, 1973). Trow identified that the growth in the scale of education drove the creation of three archetypical forms of education – élite, mass and universal. Élite education reflects a focus on “shaping the mind and character of a ruling class” (Trow, 2006, p. 243) as well as reflecting the “level of intensity and complexity at which the subject is pursued” (Trow, 1976, p. 355). As the scale of higher education grows to encompass a wider proportion of the population, the emphasis shifts to a focus on efficiency and impact on society most typically through employment and economic growth (Trow, 2006, p. 243). Initiatives such as the European Bologna process (Bergen, 2005; Bologna Declaration, 1999) and the alignment of national qualification frameworks to the European Qualifications Framework (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015) reflect the action of mass education. The final phase, universal education, is starting to become apparent in the development of open education resources and providers (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2012) and the exploration of the MOOC and other forms of distance or online education by many established universities (Business, Innovation and Skills, 2013). The universal model refocuses on the individual student and reflects their needs, interests and energy: “attendance at emerging institutions of higher education designed for universal access is merely another kind of experience not quantitatively different from any other experiences in modern society that give one resources for coping with the problems of contemporary life” (Trow, 2006, p. 255). The forces for change identified above can be explained and positioned by understanding the mix of these three modes operating simultaneously within a single institution, across a national system of provision or globally. Mass education drives 64

The Virtual CSU

a dramatic rise in the cost of education and its importance to national economies (Archibald & Feldman, 2010; Blöndal, Field & Girouard, 2002) and consequently engagement from a widening group of stakeholders (Amaral & Magalhães, 2002; Watty, 2002; Jongbloed, Enders & Salerno, 2008). Qualification systems, as evidenced by Bologna, reflect important tools enabling the integration of national systems of mass education, but already possession of degrees is becoming routine and commonplace and they are losing value generally (United States Department of Education, 2014; Yeom, 2015). The shift to universal models in line with the need to demonstrate directly applicable skills and knowledge and to rapidly learn new things is also starting to be recognised by some employers as more useful than formal qualifications (Ernst & Young, 2015). Technology is often identified as the dominant force changing education, but reflection on these wider forces illustrates that more typically technology acts a catalyst, speeding up the processes of change rather than defining the nature of the change itself. Although MOOCs are clearly enabled by technology, they also reflect strong desires to improve access to education, reduce costs, and explore different structures for study that are better suited to new ways of work and of managing organizations (Belleflamme & Jacqmin, 2015). The cost of higher education is a particular challenge with public funding in decline in many countries (Bell, 2013; Browne, 2010; Dearden, Fitzsimons, Goodman & Kaplan, 2008) even as demand and operational costs continue to rise (Bowen, 2012; Martin, 2011). Over the last decade tuition fees in US universities have risen 52% in inflation-adjusted dollars (Baum & Ma, 2012) while in the United Kingdom students now pay annual fees of up to UK£9000 in many universities (Sedghi & Shepherd, 2011; Willets, 2010), a dramatic increase in the fees charged prior to 2011. The social consequences of these rising costs are increasingly leading to pressure for significant change (Archibald & Feldman, 2010). The challenge for universities is making the necessary changes while simultaneously coping with real reductions in their revenue (Bolton, 2013). New ways of working and wider shifts in the economic structure of commercial activities are evident throughout the global economy, not just in education. The extensive partnerships with commercial organizations and disaggregation of the university apparent in the changes to the California State system (Bates, 2012) are paralleled in many other industries. The description of some universities as entrepreneurial and engaged directly with local businesses (Fayolle & Redford, 2014) is almost out-dated, overtaken by ideas of scholars as independent actors collaborating in a dynamic new economy (Lanier, 2013) and by ideas of a networked (Standaert, 2012) or ecological university (Barnett, 2011). Navigating an organisation through this complex space requires flexible models of leadership and engagement that act to dissolve the internal structures of a university 65

The Virtual CSU

currently enforcing rigid thinking and opposing the development of a collective agility and flexibility capable of supporting ongoing growth and success. The Virtual CSU model is an evolving approach to this challenge that has been implemented over five years and that attempts to implement a new model of distributed leadership within a traditionally oriented and structured research university.

SHIFTING PATTERNS OF LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION Historically leadership in universities has been a reflection of the underlying élite model and its focus on a collegial community of like-minded scholars. Leadership in this context is a tool for replicating and sustaining the shared culture and is built on a strong set of shared values and a high level of trust (Trow, 2006, 259). Conceptions of leadership in this model are typically framed around the leadership practice of academics and are defined by seniority and preservation of collegial work practices (Ramsden, 1998). Consequently, much of the older literature on academic leadership has been framed around academic management concerns with a focus on collegial decision making and communication processes (Bryman, 2007). The shift to mass education has seen significant changes to this model of leadership. Barnett (1992, p. 5) noted the changes that were already clearly apparent in UK higher education, and which are now evident in many other countries, as: 1. A shift from a system enjoyed by the few to a system in which a large proportion of the population participates and in which an even larger proportion of the population now feels it has claims (so giving rise to talk of ‘accountability’). 2. A shift from a higher education which has been essentially part of the cultural apparatus of society to a higher education which is much more part of the economic apparatus of society, so relegating its finishing-school aspects as it has become a force of production in its own right. 3. A shift from higher education being a personal and positional good to being more of a wider social good, having general societal value. 4. A shift from higher education being valued for its intrinsic properties to its being an instrumental good, especially for economic survival amidst expanding world markets. 5. A shift from a culture characterised by the formation of personal life-world projects to one dominated by the formation of public and strategic policies, so displacing what we might term the educational project of higher education. These shifts, and the associated rise in the importance of external stakeholders such as governments, accrediting agencies and employers have driven the appointment 66

The Virtual CSU

of managers and leaders that can engage effectively in the now commercially framed environment. The need to demonstrate accountability and the adoption of commercial tools and systems aimed at quality and efficiency improvement has seen the informal trust networks of élite education replaced with systems of rights embedded in formal management and accountability structures. This model of strong central and executive control has been described as the ‘Enterprise University’ (Marginson & Considine, 2000). Marginson and Considine (2000, pp. 9-11) identify five features that define governance under the Enterprise University and which demonstrate its close correspondence to Trow’s predictions of mass higher education: •

•

• • •

Executive power exercised by managers that construct their roles using generic management principles and systems to manage external forces and to implement changes internally with “a will to manage and, in some cases, a freedom to act greater than was once the case.” Structural innovations resulting in “the remaking or replacement of collegial or democratic forms of governance with structures that operationalise executive power and create selective mechanisms for participation, consultation, and internal market research.” “An enhanced flexibility of personnel and resources, of means of communication, and of the very location of power or authority.” “A discernable decline in the role of the academic disciplines in governance.” The use of devolved models of management linked with explicit performance targets and top-down transferal of responsibility for outcomes to specific managers. “Targets are powerful constraints which hem in the devolved manager, restraining her/his capacity to innovate or resist.”

A particular problem with the shift to the enterprise model has been the breakdown in trust between managers and academics, and an erosion of the informal trust networks which sustain the desirable qualities of the university (Shapiro, 1987). In its extreme form this leads to the arguments of Martin (2011, p. 83) who positions academics as untrustworthy in their influence over higher education. Marginson and Considine note “without exception the university leaders in our study saw collegial forms of decision-making as an obstacle to managerial rationalities” (Marginson & Considine, 2000, p. 11). More generally academics are described as impediments to effective management (Meek & Wood, 1997). This negative characterisation is further exacerbated by the disengagement of many academics from any responsibility for managerial roles (Locke & Bennion, 2013) invariably leading to greater numbers of professional managers being employed with less experience of and sympathy for the culture and values of the modern university. 67

The Virtual CSU

Elements of the model of enterprise university leadership are now widely apparent in many countries, reflecting the global nature of the shift to mass education. Despite the positioning of this model of leadership as one of commercial pragmatism, theories of leadership drawn from the commercial world increasingly suggest a more complex array of approaches are needed as the global economy continues to grow and evolve into highly interconnected web of services enabled by flexible organisational structures. Universities are not immune from these wider shifts, and are increasingly aware of the need to operate in the environment that Marginson & Rhoades (2002) describe as “glonacal” with multilayered ties to society (Kosmützky & Ewen, 2016). This shift is entirely consistent with Trow’s predictions of the impact of the transition to universal education and the shift away from education as a mass product to an individually tailored and configured experience. These changes are challenging for university leaders and managers operating within the enterprise model and using systems designed to operate efficient mass education programmes supported by tools such as traditional restructuring and quality frameworks defined for an increasingly out-dated organisational paradigm. The scale and complexity of the changes needed mean that university leaders need to develop mental models that provide purpose and direction to an increasingly distributed organisation (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1990). The distributed nature of the new models mean that this understanding needs to be shared through the provision of leadership development throughout the university (Marshall, 2006). This development needs to recognise the importance of distributed leadership and management skills that derive authority and impact from personal behaviours and skills rather than through positional authority. Gill (2002) identifies four major dimensions of leadership capability from theory: • • • •

Intellectual/Cognitive Requirements: Informing the development of visions and strategies for change; Spiritual Requirements: Supporting the engagement with others in the development of a shared sense of meaning and worth; Behavioural Requirements: Supporting effective communication and engagement through a variety of channels; and Emotional Requirements: Reflecting the use of personal understanding, self-control and self-confidence to support the exercise of personal power rather than positional authority.

This latter dimension is particularly important with Trow (1985) observing that university leaders need to weave together a complex set of interrelating activities without visibly being seen to take direct action through the exercise of authority. This preference for leadership mechanisms that avoid appeals to authority is not 68

The Virtual CSU

purely a respect for academic freedom (although it certainly needs to embody this if the university is to maintain its place as an institution of society), but also reflects the need under universal models of provision to move away from unrealistic heroic leadership models (Bennett & Hempsall, 2010) to a more agile and responsive form of distributed leadership enacted through teams (Bennis, 1999; Jones, Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012) Teams are increasingly seen as more than merely a unit of managerial convenience, providing a mechanism for rapidly and flexibly responding to a dynamic environment by combining a variety of key organisational capabilities tailored towards particular challenges. They also provide a means for developing distributed leadership and organisational capability by exposing staff to colleagues across the organisation in ways that facilitate and encourage transfer of knowledge and skills. A variety of models have been used to describe this new flexible approach to organisational teams. Gattorna (2010) describes the concept of “speed clusters” or teams of staff drawn from across the organisation in order to address a specific need. This approach has the advantage of typically creating minimal disruption to the structures and systems of the organisation as it generally operates within the traditional managerial systems. More ambitiously Kniberg and Ivarsson (2012) describe the approach used at Internet media company Spotify where staff are described as operating in tribes, squads, chapters and guilds: • • • •

Tribes: Groups of staff working towards a common goal (e.g. Information Technology Services) Squads: People in a tribe working towards a tribal goal (e.g. learning management system support) Chapters: A group of staff in a tribe who create a community of practice (e,g, all technology trainers) Guilds: A collection of staff from across the organisation who have expertise or who want to know more about an area of the organisation (e.g. online/ distance delivery of courses)

As well as changing the structural setting for staff, there is the shift in mental models that occurs when staff are asked to move from a support or functional view of their role to one defined as a consultancy (Schumacher & Scherzinger, 2016). This shift in positioning enables staff to recognise the leadership contribution they can make as influencers and is compatible with the recognition of expertise present in universities both in the academic and professional workforces. Adopting a consultancy model for teams allows them to take an active role in change processes and projects, using their knowledge of the university, personal relationships and long term involvement to sustain changes over time so that they become embedded into the 69

The Virtual CSU

university as normal (Scott & Barnes, 2011). A particular twist on the consultancy model is the way that it can be used to positively engage with academics, treating them as internal consultants participating in these teams rather than as clients or customers, or worse still impediments.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT FOR THE VICTORIA EXPERIENCE New Zealand has eight universities funded substantially by the Government through the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), which has the role of funding tertiary organizations in order to meet the social and economic needs of the country. Enrolments in universities are controlled by the TEC through a process of negotiation that sets specific targets for particular qualifications and also for designated student groups such as Māori and school-leavers (New Zealand Government, 2014). Fees are also constrained by the Government in order to manage the level of student debt funded through student loans. Although the universities are self-accrediting and operate an independent quality assurance body, the Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (AQA), the operation of this funding environment and Government influence over the governing councils (Elder, 2014) mean that strategic options for change, particularly that enabled by technology, are constrained (Marshall, 2014). University performance in New Zealand is measured by the Government in three primary ways operated by the TEC. Research is assessed through a system called the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) which measures individual academic research output as well as institutional activities (Tertiary Education Commission, n.d.). Teaching is measured though a series of educational performance indicators that are framed primarily by retention and completion of students in courses and programmes and not well aligned to online provision (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2015). The impact of qualifications on subsequent employment and earnings is now also being reported (Tertiary Education Commission, 2016). Particular attention is also paid by university leaders and the Government to the rankings of the New Zealand universities in various international lists dominated by research performance (Joyce, 2016). The limitations of these systems in enabling innovation, growth and evolution of higher education in a rapidly changing world have been identified (New Zealand Productivity Commission, 2016) but as yet there is no Government education policy or strategy explicitly aimed at addressing these issues. The vision for change and the resulting strategies needed for this environment necessarily depend on the ability of the university to balance the needs of the Government and the national system of education with mechanisms that enable the organisation to evolve without depending on dramatic growth or high risk and capital intensive investment. Clark (2004) talks about the idea of ‘volition,’ the 70

The Virtual CSU

acts of collective organisational and leadership willpower, the intention to define an organisational identity and to enact that identity despite the pressure from the external forces. A volition is ‘an emergent act of will’, in the form of a decision to pursue a certain path of development. It is a judgment that produces commitment. It is a social act: a volition is made in the context of a social setting; what is decided is done in a network of existing impositions and facilitating structures. Especially within institutions - universities in our case - volitions and social conditions interact. And especially in such organised settings, volitions are collective decisions producing collective commitment. (Clark, 2004, p. 93) Shattock describes the ability to engage in volition behaviours as inherent to nature of successful universities: Successful universities ... have a ‘self directed’ autonomy which enables them to establish goals intrinsic to their own ambitions, to establish resource allocation criteria to fit their own aspirations, to resist the automatic bidding culture, to accommodate accountability rules within academic structures that grow out of the management of academic disciplines, modes of teaching, and research environments and to merge state and non-state income streams to match the needs of the institution. (Shattock, 2003, p. 181) Victoria University of Wellington has engaged in volition behaviors by framing the role of technology and it’s influence on the future identity of the University within The Vision and Strategy for Digital Learning and Teaching at Victoria (Victoria University, 2012). This vision arose out of an extensive scenario-based analysis process that included a range of trial activities aimed at addressing operational challenges facing staff using and supporting technology for research and education (Marshall & Flutey, 2014). The current Vision and Strategy includes an action plan outlining specific operational objectives supporting and promoting the use of technology to support learning and teaching framed by a vision that bridges the traditional campus experience to the online environment without devaluing either: Technology is a fundamental contributor to modern life and key to a challenging and stimulating educational experiences for students in the 21st Century. Victoria students will experience a professional, supportive and enabling digital learning technology environment aimed at ensuring our students succeed in the modern world. This environment will enhance and extend student learning experiences through 71

The Virtual CSU

participation in a lively, innovative and scholarly community, both physically and online. (Victoria University, 2012, p. 1) This vision is framed by a combination of goals that reflect the interrelated priorities for an educational and organisation shift to realise the vision. Technology will be used to facilitate the engagement of students through their experience of: 1. Programmes of study designed to maximise the positive impact of technology on students’ critical engagement, motivation and creativity. Innovative digital technologies extending the impact of formally scheduled face to face contact by preparing, informing and framing the student’s learning and enquiry, enabled and enhanced in partnership with staff and other students; and 2. An efficient, seamless and professional service, administration and learning environment designed to support individual student’s engagement with their studies and ensure that students are able to focus their energy and attention on learning. (Victoria University, 2012, p. 1) The challenge has been to find a way of enabling these goals, in the context of a university system that has been assessed as generally lacking the experience and capabilities needed for significant change (Marshall, 2010), and in a funding environment that prevents significant direct investment in new initiatives – arguing against traditionally expensive approaches such as business process reengineering and restructuring. The solution has been to create a new model of university leadership and support for online and technology enhanced education that we describe as the “Virtual CSU” that implements a dynamic and distributed form of leadership within the broader frame of internal systemic consulting.

THE VIRTUAL CSU MODEL The Virtual CSU model of distributed leadership and team-based consultancy and support is built on a recognition that Victoria needed to shift from a focus on operational delivery framed by functional organisational units to one framed by cohesive outcomes aligned to the wider strategic goals of the university. This included a shift to greater digital support for learning & teaching, research and the student experience on campus and online (Figure 1). For teaching and learning services this has led to a change in delivery model from a generic support and training model to a consultancy model with teams including academics as individuals and a focus on creating knowledge disciplinary teams (Flutey, Smith & Marshall, in press). 72

The Virtual CSU

Figure 1. Shift from operational to strategic service model

As with most research universities, teaching and research are the responsibility of faculties and schools organised into disciplinary groups. Academics are responsible for the pedagogical structures and content of all courses and for the quality of the resulting qualifications. They are however influenced directly and indirectly by the infrastructure of the University both in terms of physical campus facilities and the online tools and services provided for staff and students. All technologies licensed by the University have associated business and technical ownership clearly identified. Key educational systems such as Blackboard, Lecture Capture and Turnitin are overseen by an academic development group, the Centre for Academic Development (CAD), with the central Information Technology Services (ITS) taking responsibility for license maintenance and technical operation. A wide range of other technologies are used by staff with the majority being general tools licensed by the University through ITS and offered either as local installations or through cloud services. Other service units include Campus Services, responsible for physical buildings and associated services, Student Learning, responsible for supporting students with learning services, and the Library. Expert staff in each of the service units provide high levels of leadership reflecting their specific unit priorities, and support the work of support staff deployed to the academic faculties and schools and to the University administration (Figure 2). As an example, a virtual CSU focused on online course delivery includes academic members drawn from CAD with expertise in e-learning pedagogies, professional staff from ITS with expertise in a range of learning technologies and developing staff capability in their use, professional staff from the Student Learning group experienced in meeting the learning support needs of a our diverse student 73

The Virtual CSU

Figure 2. Virtual CSU support and leadership model

population, and librarians experienced in online content identification, management and delivery. A group of senior staff from these areas form a semi-formal oversight group and other teams containing a mix of senior and less-experienced staff as well as the disciplinary academics and school-based administration staff form the team that works on specific courses or qualifications to introduce new models of delivery incorporating technology into a revised pedagogical structure. The flexibility of the model is that these teams can form and reform as needed with minimal formality addressing the management of staff workloads. One unexpected advantage of the Virtual CSU model has been the participation in professional development and knowledge sharing opportunities drawing on expertise outside of staff’s home support unit or discipline. This has included ITS staff gaining academic teaching qualifications and Student Learning gaining more knowledge in the technical delivery of learning systems. Although it is not core to the operational outcomes of their units discipline, new cross disciplinary knowledge has been critical in the development of an organizational learning hub and aids in informed decision making. This model is based on a high trust and engagement model of work that is not formalised into operational processes, but is clearly apparent, particularly in the operational coordination between the various service units. Operational efficiancies developed under this model include the development of a shared organizational level calendar for training and development, consultation in the development of new and 74

The Virtual CSU

updated teaching spaces, and provision of direct technology support and training to academic and other staff (Flutey, Smith & Marshall, in press). The leadership role of the staff involved is key to the success of the Virtual CSU as the model depends on a shared recognition of the value of a collaborative and consultative service to the University. An important feature of the Virtual CSU is that the dynamic nature of the teams means that in reality there is a multitude of Virtual CSUs created in response to different organisational support needs. One Virtual CSU functions in the general support of technology for learning and teaching by staff planning, developing and teaching courses and programmes. Another is framed by the ongoing programme of planning, consulting, designing, building and maintaining a diverse set of physical spaces supporting formal and informal learning on the various University sites. The staff involved in each Virtual CSU will often overlap depending on the mix of skills needed and the availability of the individual staff, the main difference is one of role, with different Virtual CSUs requiring greater leadership from one or other areas of expertise. Leadership is also necessary to enable the Virtual CSUs to operate within a wider organisational context that is still largely defined by traditional structures and management systems. The senior leadership of the University and the various line managers for the different service units need to constantly reaffirm their confidence in the model for it to continue to function effectively, particularly with staff not directly involved. Participants in the Virtual CSU also need to be able to share leadership responsibilities with others, including when it speaks to areas that have traditionally been controlled within silos. The Virtual CSU embodies responses to Gill’s four leadership dimensions. The intellectual dimension is reflected in the shared engagement with the values and goals of the overall strategy, and is reiterated by constant collaborative debriefs and planning sessions. The spiritual dimension is addressed by the explicit articulation of the model itself as a guide for encouraging effective interaction across the University and involvement in Virtual CSU activities that draw on shared strengths. Research universities are acknowledged as being strongly values driven and the employment of support staff with experience as graduate students helps ensure they understand the core values and focus of the University. Behavioral aspects are developed through the collaboration inherent to Virtual CSU activities, and this is reinforced by frequent meetings undertaken with the sole purpose of sharing current issues, challenges and priorities across the entire team. Finally, emotional requirements are addressed through the flat structure of the Virtual CSU and the minimal use of structured roles in assigning authority. Individual staff are encouraged to share their expertise and interests freely and to explore areas that help expand their knowledge

75

The Virtual CSU

and capability drawing on the expertise of others in the Virtual CSU including the teaching academics involved in specific activities. A particular feature of the Virtual CSU is that the teams include staff employed in academic roles as well as those in traditional service and professional appointments. This provides an important mechanism facilitating relationships with the wider academic community of the University and helping to build trust networks. It also helps build greater awareness within the service units and the academic groups of the needs and concerns of each other, helping to dispel various unhelpful stereotypes and myths that weaken trust. The engagement of academic staff in a dynamic organisational environment is also useful in providing them with experience of the type of workplace culture their students are increasingly entering, with the need for our students to be highly resilient and adaptive now widely recognised (Araujo, Wilson & Clarke, 2015). Inevitably, there are breakdowns in the smooth functioning of the Virtual CSU teams. The need for constant communication and a high level of trust across the University may well be recognised as a success factor for high functioning organizations, but it is still a challenging task to build and maintain systems that sustain it. Leadership here is important, particularly in the form of personal leadership from individuals who end up responsible for the outcomes of specific Virtual CSUs, without any explicit authority in the traditional management sense. Influence, personal accountability, self-confidence and integrity form the core skill set needed to sustain this model over time. One measure of the success of the model has been the inclusion of explicit goals relating to the ongoing operation and development of the Virtual CSU in the performance expectations for managers including the senior leadership role responsible for all learning and teaching at the University.

CONCLUSION The Virtual CSU is itself an artifact of a dynamic and rapidly changing environment. Created and sustained in the context of highly constrained resources it has evolved to deliver a mechanism that offers a variety of important operational services while simultaneously helping to shape its environment and support the staff and the University in developing new ways of working. A key feature of the model has been the high level of trust between various managers who have supported the staff operating in the Virtual CSU teams and the level of collective decision making the teams have been trusted to make. The result has been a substantial reduction in the siloed and defensive culture that characterises the engagement with online and technology enhanced provision in many universities.

76

The Virtual CSU

The long-term trend of constrained and reducing funding for higher education is widely recognised. Students and societies are increasingly conscious of the unsustainable level of student indebtedness arising from the high costs of traditional university education. A major contributor to these costs has been identified as the administrative overhead of universities. The Virtual CSU provides a mechanism for growing organisational capability without substantial investment in additional overheads. By focusing on development and collaboration and supporting the growth of distributed leadership it has enabled a culture of locally supported and enabled agility and flexibility that continues to stimulate change and evolution at Victoria.

REFERENCES Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/trends-global-higher-education2009-world-conference-en.pdf Amaral, A., & Magalhaes, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1 Araujo, N., Wilson, R., & Clarke, B. (2015). Student engagement for employability: A Belonging Project case study. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA 2015), (pp. 1-14). Melbourne, Australia: Academic Press. Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2010). Why does college cost so much? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744503.001.0001 Barnett, R. (2011). The coming of the ecological university. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 439–455. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.595550 Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138–145. PMID:10106795 Bates, T. (2012). California State University partners with Pearson for systemwide online program. Retrieved February 14, 2013 from http://www.tonybates. ca/2012/08/22/california-state-university-partners-with-pearson-for-system-wideonline-program/ Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2012). Trends in college pricing. New York, NY: College Board. 77

The Virtual CSU

Bell, D. (2013). Funding higher education in the great recession: An international perspective. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in academia: Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 184–196). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. doi:10.4337/9781781001820.00019 Belleflamme, P., & Jacqmin, J. (2015). An economic appraisal of MOOC platforms: Business models and impacts on higher education. CESifo Economic Studies Advance Access, 2015, 1–22. doi:10.1093/cesifo/ifv016 Bennett, L., & Hempsall, K. (2010). A report on the ‘leading excellence – application of the engaging leadership framework (ELF) to new higher education sites and contexts’ project. Sydney: Australian and Learning Teaching Council. Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 27(1), 71–79. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80008-X Bergen. (2005). The European higher education area - achieving the goals: Communiqué of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www. ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/050520_Bergen_ Communique1.pdf Blöndal, S., Field, S., & Girouard, N. (2002). Investment in human capital through post-compulsory education and training: Selected efficiency and equity aspects. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economics Department Working Paper No. 333. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Bologna Declaration. (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF Bolton, P. (2013). HE in England from 2012: Funding and finance. London, UK: House of Commons Library. Bowen, W. G. (2012). The ‘cost disease’ in higher education: Is technology the answer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding & student finance. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.independent.gov.uk/browne-report Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. doi:10.1080/03075070701685114

78

The Virtual CSU

Business, Innovation, and Skills. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning. Business, Innovation, and Skills Research Paper Number 130. London, UK: Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K., & Flew, T. (1997). New media and borderless education: A review of the convergence between global media networks and higher education provision. Canberra: DETYA. Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., & Kaplan, G. (2008). Higher education funding reforms in England: The distributional effects and the shifting balance of costs. The Economic Journal, 118(526), F100–F125. doi:10.1111/j.14680297.2007.02118.x Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytical findings and implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 PMID:12184567 Elder, V. (2014). Uni behind foreign student 8 ball: Joyce. Otago Daily Times. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/299734/ uni-behind-foreign-student-8-ball-joyce Ernst and Young. (2015). EY transforms its recruitment selection process for graduates, undergraduates and school leavers. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Newsroom/News-releases/15-08-03---EY-transformsits-recruitment-selection-process-for-graduates-undergraduates-and-school-leavers Fayolle, A., & Redford, D. T. (2014). Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9781781007020 Flutey, J., Smith, B., & Marshall, S. (In Press). The virtual CSU approach to organisational support and staff development. In C. Bossu & N. Brown (Eds.), Professional and Support Staff in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. Gattorna, J. (2010). Dynamic supply chains: How to design, build and manage people-centric value networks. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Gill, R. (2002). Change management – or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307–318. doi:10.1080/714023845 Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78. do i:10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334 79

The Virtual CSU

Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2 Joyce, S. (2016). NZ universities excel in world rankings. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-universities-excel-world-rankings Klaussner, S. (2012). Trust and leadership: Toward an interactive perspective. Journal of Change Management, 12(4), 417–439. doi:10.1080/14697017.2012.728766 Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling agile@ Spotify. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://wordpress.com/2012/11/113617905-scaling-Agile-spotify-11.pdf Kosmützky, A., & Ewen, A. (2016). Global, national and local? The multilayered spatial ties of universities to society. In D.M. Hoffman & J. Välimaa (Eds.), ReBecoming Universities? Higher Education Institutions in Networked Knowledge Societies (pp. 223-245). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-0177369-0_9 Lanier, J. (2013). Who owns the future. London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd. Locke, W., & Bennion, A. (2013). Satisfaction in stages: The academic profession in the United Kingdom and the British commonwealth. In P. J. Bentley, H. Coates, I. R. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure, & V. L. Meek (Eds.), Job satisfaction around the academic world (pp. 223–238). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5434-8_12 Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 42(3), 281–309. doi:10.1023/A:1014699605875 Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organisational change? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.529107 Marshall, S. (2014). Technological innovation of higher education in New Zealand, a wicked problem? Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927849 Marshall, S., & Flutey, J. (2014). Turning a digital vision into reality. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 190–200). Academic Press.

80

The Virtual CSU

Marshall, S. J. (2006). Issues in the development of leadership for learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.olt. gov.au/resource-issues-development-leadership-learning-macquarie-2008 Marshall, S. J., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., & Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and managing learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 87–103. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.512631 Martin, R. E. (2011). The college cost disease: Higher cost and lower quality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9781849806176 Meek, V. L., & Wood, F. Q. (1997). Higher education governance and management, an Australian study. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training. New Zealand Government. (2014). Tertiary education strategy 2014-2019. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment and the Ministry of Education. New Zealand Productivity Commission. (2016). New models of tertiary education: Draft Report. Wellington, New Zealand: The Productivity Commission. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2015). Report of external evaluation and review: The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand trading as Open Polytechnic. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/bin/providers/download/ provider-reports/6022.pdf Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. doi:10.4324/9780203278116 Schumacher, T., & Scherzinger, M. (2016). Systemic in-house consulting: An answer to building change capacities in complex organizations. Journal of Change Management, 16(4), 297–316. doi:10.1080/14697017.2016.1230932 Scott, B., & Barnes, B. K. (2011). Consulting on the inside: A practical guide for internal consultants. Danvers, MA: American Society for Training and Development. Sedghi, A., & Shepherd, J. (2011). Tuition fees 2012: What are the universities charging? Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/ datablog/2011/mar/25/higher-education-universityfunding Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623–658. doi:10.1086/228791 Shattock, M. (2003). Managing successful universities. Maidenhead, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. 81

The Virtual CSU

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environments of US and European universities. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. Standaert, N. (2012). Towards a networked university. In R. Barnett (Ed.), The future university: Ideas and possibilities (pp. 87–100). London, UK: Routledge. Tertiary Education Commission. (2016). The key information set – helping learners make tertiary enrolment choices. Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://www.tec.govt. nz/Learners-Organisations/Learners/About-the-key-information-set-/ Tertiary Education Commission. (n.d.). Performance based research fund. Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-BasedResearch-Fund-PBRF-/ Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from élite to mass higher education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Trow, M. (1976). Élite higher education: An endangered species? Minerva, 14(3), 355–376. doi:10.1007/BF01096277 Trow, M. (1985). Comparative reflections on leadership in higher education. European Journal of Education, 20(2/3), 143–1598. doi:10.2307/1502944 Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the transition from élite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 243–280). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_13 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012). UNESCO world congress releases 2012 Paris OER declaration. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Global inventory of regional and national qualifications frameworks: volume i: thematic chapters. Hamburg, Germany: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Lifelong Learning. United States Department of Education. (2014). Obama administration takes action to protect Americans from predatory, poor-performing career colleges. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obamaadministration-takes-action-protect-americans-predatory-poor-performing-careercolleges

82

The Virtual CSU

Victoria University. (2012). Vision and strategy for digital learning and teaching at Victoria 2012–2017. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/ learning-teaching/academic-development/digital-vision/DigitalVisionStrategy.pdf Watty, K. (2002). Quality in higher education: The missing academic perspective. Paper presented at the 2002 Australasian Association for Institutional Research Forum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Willets, D. (2010). Statement on higher education funding and student finance. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ statement-on-higher-education-funding-and-student-finance--2 Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. doi:10.4337/9781848446182 Yeom, M.-H. (2015). Critical reflection on the massification of higher education in Korea: Consequences for graduate employment and policy issues. Journal of Education and Work, 29(1), 48–63. doi:10.1080/13639080.2015.1049026

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Capability: Organisation chracteristics that enable and sustain the achievement of organisational activities aligned with its stated purposes and goals. Distributed Leadership: A model of organisational leadership and engagement where power is allocated and exercised individually and without the requirement of formal roles and authority. Élite Education: A mode of education which is aimed at sustaining specific groups defined by class or other characteristics such as intellectual focus and intensity. Mass Education: A mode of education aimed at meeting the needs of the majority of the population. Universal Education: A mode of education defined by complete access and availability to all members of a population. Virtual CSU: A team of staff within an organisation drawn together by a common focus and able to act semi-autonomously and collaboratively. Volition: An organisational characteristic capturing the extent to which leadership actions are taken other than to maintain the status-quo.

83

84

Chapter 4

Open and Distance Learning Administration:

The Organizational Models, Cultures, and Structure and the Barriers and Trends in ODL Administration Gürhan Durak Balıkesir University, Turkey

ABSTRACT This chapter aims at providing a perspective regarding the concept of open and distance learning administration. In this respect, the introduction part of this chapter includes the definition of administration, the understanding of administration in distance education, comparison of the concepts of administrator and leader, and the changing roles of the administrator, while the first heading focuses on types of institutions, organization model and administration cultures. The second heading covers Open and Distance Learning (ODL) administration units and the structure of the organization. This heading also includes those found in administration units in distance education, their duties as well as the sub-units of academic management and the duties of the these sub-units. The third heading presents the management functions in ODL institutions. At the end of this part, the current barriers and trends related to management in open and distance education were investigated.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch004 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Open and Distance Learning Administration

INTRODUCTION Management is the process of making effective decisions and putting these decisions into practice in a way to use the time and sources (human, money, machines, materials, information and so on) appropriately and productively for the purpose of achieving the previously set goals and objectives (Eren, 2011). In another saying, management is the art of transforming plans into reality. It is also a process which includes doing the jobs productively, making effective decisions on when and how to do things and eventually checking what has been done (Rumble, 1992). The fact that institutions being managed have different goals has resulted in various definitions of management. The administration of ODL is a bit more complex when compared to other types of management for several reasons. For instance, in distance education, learning materials can be produced in different ways in terms of their quantity and distributed to numerous students from a large geographical region. On the other hand, face-to-face and regular interaction cannot be achieved between learners and instructional sources. This situation has necessitated management systems different from those valid and effective in traditional systems. Management systems could vary from one country to another as well as between different institutions even in the same country (Parhar, 2003). It is possible for institutions to achieve successful management if they can apply management functions effectively and productively by gathering current sources to achieve the previously-set goals. Even if management of distance education institutions is parallel to the traditional understanding of management to a certain extent, it may differ with respect to management and sources.

MANAGEMENT While there are different definitions of management provided in related literature, they also share some common features. According to Genç (2007), the following common features come into prominence when the definitions of management are examined: • •

Goal: For the maintenance of an organization, it should have certain goals. Labor Division: After determining the goals of the organization, among the employees, those who will achieve these goals should be selected. The current things to do are distributed to the employees in accordance with their fields of specialization.

85

Open and Distance Learning Administration

• • • • •

Creativity: Motivated employees’ creativity will be revealed, and productivity will increase. Hierarchy: There are superior-subordinate relationships in managements. Being Democratic: While carrying out management goals, it is important for employees to take part in the processes of decision making, application and auditing. Group Characteristics: Group activities constitute the basis of management activities. Communication: Good-quality communication helps solve the problems between employees more easily in an organization and create a more productive working environment.

MANAGER VS. LEADER It is seen that the concepts of manager and leader are used interchangeably. These two concepts could be regarded as similar concepts in terms of their characteristics and the jobs they do. However, it is a well-known fact that there are distinctive differences between these two concepts. The manager can be defined as the person who has the power of management to achieve the goals of his or her corporate. According to Eren (2011), the manager is a person who does things with the help of others and reaches success. In order to achieve the goals determined by their corporates, managers try to increase their employees’ attachment to the corporate and help them love their jobs. While doing so, managers should be able to motivate their employees, establish trouble-free communication, know their employees well, recognize their employees’ skills and capabilities and direct them towards related jobs (Paşaoğlu, 2013). In relation to managers’ duties, Mintzberg (1990) determined and gathered 10 roles for managers under three main headings (Carpenter et al., 2012; Paşaoğlu, 2013): interpersonal, informational and decisional. In literature, the leader is defined as a person whose ideas, thoughts and principles are adopted by the organization staff and who can lead people in line with a certain goal (Avcı and Topaloğlu, 2009). Regarding the difference between the manager and the leader, Zaleznik (1997) claims that leaders and managers contribute considerably to an organization yet in different ways. For instance, leaders support change and new approaches; on the other hand, managers adopt stability and the status quo. In addition, leaders focus more on understanding people’s beliefs and gaining their commitment, while managers carry out responsibilities, use their authority and consider how things get accomplished. As summarized by Peter F. Drucker: “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things”. Based on Kotter’s work on the differences between management and leadership, Ryan (2007) 86

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Figure 1. Demonstrates the traditional and contemporary understanding regarding the concept of management (Carpenter, Bauer & Erdogan, 2012)

Table 1. Manager’s roles and related categories Category

Roles

Activity

Interpersonal

     • Figurehead      • Leader      • Liaison

     • Carry out social and legal duties, behave as a symbolic leader      • Direct and motivate subordinates, select and train employees      • Establish and maintain contacts within and outside the organization

Informational

     • Monitor      • Disseminator      • Spokesperson

     • Search for and obtain work-related information      • Communicate/ disseminate information to others within the organization      • Communicate/transmit information to outsiders

     • Entrepreneur      • Disturbance Handler      • Resource Allocator      • Negotiator

     • Identify new ideas and initiate improvement projects      • Handles disputes or problems and takes corrective measures      • Decide where to apply resources      • Defends business interests

Decisional

Adapted by Mintzberg (1990)

87

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Table 2. Differences between management and leadership Management

Leadership

Direction

Planning and budgeting Keeping an eye on the bottom line

Creating vision and strategy Keeping an eye on the horizon

Alignment

Organizing and staffing Directing and controlling Creating boundaries

Creating shared culture and values Helping others grow Reduce boundaries

Relationships

Focusing on objects – producing/selling goods and services Based on a position of power Acting as boss

Focusing on people – inspiring and motivating followers Based on personal power Acting as coach, facilitator, servant

Personal Qualities

Emotional distance Expert mind Talking Conformity Insight into organization

Emotional connections (Heart) Open Mind (Mindfulness) Listening (Communication) Non-conformity (Courage) Insight into self (Integrity)

Outcomes

Maintain stability

Creates change, often radical change

(Ryan (2007) based on Kotter’s work

compared the concepts of management and leadership in five dimensions. Table 2 presents the differences between management and leadership.

TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATION MODELS, AND MANAGEMENT TYPES This section will present information under such headings as types of institutions, organization models and management cultures in distance education.

Types of Institutions in Distance Education According to Weimin (1999), institutions in distance education can be examined in three groups: Single mode institutions, Dual mode institutions and Mixed mode institutions. Besides this classification, two other types of institutions, Consultation model and Consortia, are mentioned in related literature (Farnes, 2000).

Single Mode Institution Single mode institutions offer all their courses using only distance education methods (Moore, 2002). In these institutions, learners work mostly by themselves outside a campus, and their direct contact with the system like working with tutors and visiting 88

Open and Distance Learning Administration

study centers occupies just a small fraction of the yearly workload (Trindade, Carmo and Bidarra, 2000). According to Farnes (2000), institutions as well as open universities fitting this model give only distance teaching generally for part-time students. In order to design the curriculum, which the media used to teach, student support and accreditation, an integrated approach is used for distance education students. All the staff serve these distance students and do not discriminate between on-campus and off-campus students. The staff are willing to develop and improve distance education methods as well, and they do not have to deal with the demands of face-to-face teaching. They are free to design programmes for new target populations and to investigate the potential of new teaching methods. Usually, there is no activity for campus students, yet there could be certain study centers for students and tutors to come together. The setting-up costs of these institutions are mostly high, and all the costs belong to their distance teaching operation. Generally, their unit costs are nor higher than for individual students attending traditional universities. According to Weimin (1999), in single mode institutions, the teaching and learning processes are conducted in the following ways: • • • •

In writing (via correspondences) Voiced (one-way or two-way radio, cassettes, phone and voiced conferences) Visual (one-way or two-way television, cassettes and video conferences) via computers (computer-based education, e-mail and WEB)

Examples: Many mega universities in the world are examples of such institutions: Indira Gandhi (IGNOU), Universitas Terbuka, Sukhothai Thammathirat (STOU) and United Kingdom Open University (UKOU). As can be seen from these case studies, all of these institutions are classified as single mode institutions, yet their roles and functions are not the same.

Dual Mode Institution Institutions regarded as dual mode universities generally teach both types of students: full-time students on campus and part-time students at a distance. The same syllabus is applied to these two types of students, and they take the same examinations (Farnes, 2000). In this respect, all the students could be said to be exposed to equal applications. On-campus students may make use of the teaching materials developed for distance learners. Teachers are liable to face-to-face teaching, and they are likely to have a wider range of jobs to do than in a single mode institution, which generally requires more specialization. In distance education, services are generally handled in a special, separate unit by the staff who have the more responsibility of teaching at a 89

Open and Distance Learning Administration

distance (Farnes, 2000). To sum up, it could be stated that in dual mode institutions, distance education is given within the structure of a traditional university, yet dual mode universities often include specialist distance educational administration and student support systems. Dual mode institutions have a small-scale structure when compared to single mode institutions, and resources are mostly reserved for face-to-face teaching programmes. In this way, it is possible to cope with course development costs. Examples: Anadolu University in Turkey, The University of New England in Australia and the University of Waterloo in Canada can be given as two examples of dual mode institutions.

Mixed Mode Institution ‘Mixed mode’ is used to describe a variety of different teaching methods applied by one institution. One method is ‘integrated’, in which on-campus students use distance learning materials as part of their courses, while another method is ‘parallel’, in which students take both on-campus and distance learning courses simultaneously. There is still another method, ‘sequential’, in which students first take on-campus courses and then distance learning courses (or vice versa). There are other possibilities as well: offering occasional lectures or tutorials to distance learning students, or providing on-campus learners with independent ICT materials. Typically, the staff in mixed-mode institutions teach both on- and off-campus students (Farnes, 2000). Examples: Massey University in New Zealand, Deakin University and Murdoch University could be given as three examples of a mixed mode institution. In mixed mode institutions, learners can be provided with a wide range of modes of study: independent, group-based, face-to-face, mediated, or some combination, and the flexibility of place and pace of study is maximized. Also, mixed mode institutions could be said to involve the convergence of face-to-face and distance modes of study (Weimin, 1999): •

90

Consultation Model: Within this system, part-time students study at home and attend consultation sessions which allow them to meet the faculty staff. These students spend about three months a year in full time study at a university. Usually, these institutions give education to full time, oncampus students and part time students as well as to consultation students. No component of correspondence exists, and generally, few specially-produced

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Table 3. Differences between single-mode and dual-mode systems Single-Mode System

Dual-Mode System

Industrialized teaching

Experimental or tailor made

Large scale

Small scale

Focus on course development and production

Focus on research

Highly reliant on technology

Little use of technology

Technology used for delivery

Unusual to use technology for delivery

Most of the information is given in course work

Teachers carry most of the information

Adapted by Khakhar (2011)

•

learning materials are provided. Also, in this system, traditional textbooks are used (Farnes, 2000). Consortia Model: In this model, distance learning materials or functions are shared by two or more institutions. For instance, one institution is responsible for the development of materials and the other takes the responsibility for tutor support or accreditation. Universities (traditional, single or dual mode) or university departments, government agencies, business partners, radio, TV or media production companies could constitute the partners. Each of the consortium members maintains its own management structure, yet it might be compulsory to abandon some of its own autonomy if the consortium will work democratically (Farnes, 2000).

Examples: National Technological University in the USA, NETTUNO and CUD in Italy and the Open Learning Agency and Contact North/Contact Nord in Canada. •

Single Mode vs. Dual Mode: Dual mode is claimed to have certain advantages. To illustrate, Academics teaching both on- and off-campus students make use of the chance to pass on to both kinds of student. However, according to the supporters of the single mode model, off-campus students might be regarded as second-class students and thus thought to have disadvantages (Farnes, 2000).

Organization Models in Distance Education Institutions giving distance education could be considered to be regular institutions in terms of their organization models or management styles. In related literature, 91

Open and Distance Learning Administration

some researchers who conducted studies on organization models provided three classifications, while some provided four. This section was based on the four-model classification put forward by Birnbaum (1988) and Paul (1990). According to this classification, the organization models of institutions include Bureaucrative model, Collegium model, Political model and Anarchic model.

Bureaucrative Model In bureaucratic organizations, power refers to formal authority acquired in the leader’s office. The task-structure dimension shows the extent to which the group’s work is programmed as opposed to vague and ambiguous. Therefore, with respect to directing and controlling the groups, the situation is more favorable for the leader if the task is more structured. In formal bureaucratic structure, individuals are in charge of specific areas. Each of these areas within its organization takes the responsibility for the next larger domain. Also, an orderly, reasonable structure is necessary. Lastly, relationships within the bureaucratic structure are supposed to be defined well (Xu, 1991).

Collegium Model According to this view, the faculty directs the institutions and acts as peers who all conceive their common goals (Chaffe, 1983). The idea that academic decision making should not be similar to the hierarchical process in a bureaucracy constitutes the basis of the collegium model. Instead of this, full participation of the academic community, especially the faculty, is expected. Under this concept, the faculty and staff will administer its own affairs, and there will be little influence of bureaucratic administrators (Xu, 1991).

Political Model The premise that complex organizations could be studied as miniature political systems forms basis of the political model. The focus of this model is on policymaking processes since major policies help define the goals and determine the strategies to reach these goals. Policy decisions are considered to be critical as they have a great effect on the future of an organization (Xu, 1991).

Anarchic Model The American college or university could be cited as an example of a prototypic organized anarchy. It is not really aware of what it is doing. It has either indefinite 92

Open and Distance Learning Administration

or controversial goals. It uses a familiar technology, but not comprehensible. Its major participants do not have any specific goals in relation to the organization. Depending on all these factors, one cannot regard a university as a bad organization; however, these factors undoubtedly lead to a problem that cannot be described or understood (Cohen & March, 1986).

The Institutional Cultures in Distance Education According to Davies (1996), there are four types of institutional cultures in management: Corporation Culture, Enterprise Culture, Bureaucracy Culture and Collegium Culture.

Corporation Model In this model, the focus is on Senior Management Group leadership, top-down planning, and objectives that can be monitored through performance indicators.

Enterprise Culture In this type of culture, one can witness a strong policy frame yet a remarkable freedom for units to interact with the market, and based on the market success, the process of allocation of the resources is determined. Also, income/business generators across the University dominate the university culture. The most favorable style of operation is project management.

Bureaucracy Culture This is marked by a low strategic profile dominated by rules and precedent. One observes a drive for stability and uniformity of treatment and the dominance of administration and committees. Wide-spread management type of this culture can be seen in Hong Kong, India and Indonesia.

Collegium Culture This type of culture supports an aspect for individual autonomy, the dominance of professors and academic committees, peer review, loose procedures. Also, collegium culture is characterized by considerable devolution.

93

Open and Distance Learning Administration

MANAGEMENT UNITS IN DISTANCE EDUCATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE This section presents information about management units, management of subsystems and organizational structures in open and distance education.

Management Units In open and distance education, management units could be said to have a simple structure when compared to traditional universities. According to Powar (2003), there are mainly three management units of open and distance education universities: the planning board, the board of management and Academic Council: 1. The planning board is basically responsible for the planning of activities regarding development and administrative norms. 2. The board of management is the unit for making decisions and for the application of these decisions. 3. The academic council is concerned with such academic issues as initiating the programs, shaping the curriculum, determining the equivalence of graduation degrees and recognizing institutions.

Managing the Subsystems In related literature, there are different approaches to the sub-systems of Open and Distance Learning institutions. Ojo and Olakulein (2006) examined sub-systems under the following headings: Learner Support Services, Materials Design and Production sub-system, Copyright and Intellectual Property sub-system, Media & Public Relations sub-system, Instructional Delivery and Academic Planning subsystem, Information and Communications Technologies sub-system, Finance & Supplies sub-systems, Research and Staff Development sub-system, Assessment, Evaluation & Quality Assurance sub-system and Administrative sub-system. Another classification put forward by Rumble (1986) mentions these sub-systems under four headings: Materials, student, logistical and regulatory. Similarly, Powar (2003) classifies sub-systems under four headings: Administrative divisions, academic units, production and distribution units and student support services. The headings in all these classifications could be said to match one another. Besides the classification put forward by Powar (2003), this section examines the headings of personnel management, measurement & evaluation and finance management:

94

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Figure 2. Demonstrates the diagram of student support systems

1. Administrative Divisions: This heading covers the following duties: general administration, campus maintenance and development services, student registration and financial affairs. 2. Academic Units: This unit includes faculties, centers and units responsible for the development of teaching and learning materials, curricula and academic programs. 3. Production and Distribution Units: These units are concerned with the production, storage and distribution of teaching materials. 4. Student Support Services (SSS): According to Sharma (2002), SSSs are evaluated in three main categories: (1) Administrative, (2) Academic and (3) Information Collection. 1. Personnel Management: This heading covers the following duties: Category of Personnel, Job Analyses and Job Description, Staff Recruitment, Staff Development, Types of Training Programmes and Planning and Managing Staff Development. 2. Measurement & Evaluation: Designing and conducting the Assessment System, Assessing, Results / Certification and Recognition. 3. Finance Management: Finance department has the following duties (Training Toolkit, 1999): organizes the collection of information about the budget, producing the overall institutional budget, preparing reports, providing details to measure the performance of the academic personnel, helping managers with the analysis of the information, keeping the historical accounting records, 95

Open and Distance Learning Administration

arranging the cash payments and receipts, making short-term investments, developing and maintaining financial information systems, conducting costbenefit analyses, and organizing short- or long-term financing.

Organizational Structure The organizational structure in an institution distributes the duties between the upper and lower positions and prepares a scheme showing which unit is responsible for another. These are structures which may vary depending on the management understanding of universities and which are generally specific to the related university. Govindarajan and Natarajan (2005) report that an organizational structure has four basic features: a) It leads to division of labor, b) it helps in coordination, c) it leads to accomplishment of goals, and d) authority responsibility structure. In literature, it is seen that there are certain types of organizational structures. Aquinas (2007) classifies these types under four headings: line organization, line and staff organization, functional organization and committee organization. 1. Line Organization (Traditional Organization): The line organization is a representation of the structure in a direct vertical relationship via which the authority flows. Here, the flow of the line of authority is vertically downward from the top to the bottom within the organization. At the top, the quantum of authority is highest, and it decreases at each successive level down the hierarchy. Among the advantages of this type is that it is easy to understand. 2. Line and Staff Organization: In line and staff organization, the line authority does not change, and it remains the same in the line organization as well. The flow of authority flows is from the top to the bottom. The basic difference is that specialists are dependent on line managers and the former advises the latter in relation to important matters. These specialists are always ready in terms of their specialization to serve line mangers as and when there is a need for their services, to obtain information and to provide help which will allow the line officials to carry out their activities better. Advantages of this type include providing expert views about the problems and thus helping line managers make better decisions. 3. Functional Organization: The duty of management and direction of subordinates should be divided depending on the type of work involved. Also, the work of the organization is divided into different functional departments, and different specialists are in charge of these different functional departments. There are such advantages of this type as helping with mass production through standardization and specialization.

96

Open and Distance Learning Administration

4. Committee Organization: As a method of managerial control, committee organization does not much practical importance since it is managed only by a senior member of the committee. Among the goals of committees is coordinating

Figure 3. Presents the line organization scheme of Open University

Figure 4. Demonstrates the IGNOU organizational structure as an example of “Committee organizations”

97

Open and Distance Learning Administration

the functioning of different departments and individuals by leading to the unity of directions. For a successful organizational culture, Denison and Mishra (1995) emphasize the importance of the following four important headings: Adaptability, involvement, clear mission and consistency. • • • •

Adaptability: This refers to the ability to notice and respond to changes in the environment of an organization. Involvement: In cultures promoting higher levels of employment in decision making, employees have a greater sense of ownership and responsibility. Clear Mission: Mission is a company’s purpose of or reason for existence. In organizational cultures with a clear organizational vision, the strategic purpose and direction of the organization are open to everyone in the company. Consistency: In consistent organizational cultures, the company has an active role in defining and teaching organizational values, beliefs and attitudes. Also, consistent organizational cultures are known as strong cultures as the core beliefs are shared widely and held strongly.

Figure 5. The POLC Framework

Adapted by Carpenter et al., 2012

98

Open and Distance Learning Administration

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING INSTITUTIONS This section examines the management functions in open and distance learning institutions. Although these management functions are basically consistent with the structure in traditional education institutions, these functions could be said to be adapted to open and distance learning institutions with respect to the definitions of their missions. In literature, Henri Fayol mentions four main duties in relation to management functions (James, et al, 2000; Rumble, 2002; Schraeder, et al, 2015): Planning, organizing, leading (Directing) and controlling. In addition, these basic duties are also referred to as POLC framework.

Planning Planning is the function of management in which the direction of the organization is established via various activities such as the development of goals (Leung & Kleiner, 2004). In addition, planning is also a process which seeks answers to the questions of what, why, when, whom, and how (Tokgöz, 2010). This function of management includes levels of decision making. Providing employees with the opportunity to take part in making these decisions could produce additional ideas which lead to valuable insights (Leung & Kleiner, 2004). Govindarajan and Natarajan (2005) point out that the planning function of management is important in terms of such issues as avoiding uncertainty, helping with control and coordination, concentrating on goals and increasing organizational effectiveness. According to Eze (2013), the planning process is made up of three phases: 1) Gathering evidence, 2) decision making and Figure 6. Classification of planning by time, usage and level Source: Mirze (2010)

99

Open and Distance Learning Administration

3) implementation. The researcher states that each of these phases is necessary for comprehensive planning and that they are not enough alone, though. The features of the plans necessary for institutions to achieve their goals can be summarized as follows: (Dinçer and Fidan, 1996): • • •

Planning is the process of conscious selection and preference. Planning is a comprehensive process of conducting activities and making decisions. Therefore, it requires a certain period of time. Planning is the whole of activities that include a number of decisions to be made for future.

When planning duties are accomplished, the next process should be organizing. Organizing has the role of a structure for the plans to achieve the previously determined goals. In literature, there are various classifications put forward for planning. Mirze (2010) suggests three types of classification of planning: Time, usage and level. Besides these three types, Tortop and colleagues (2007) adds one more: by shape. Figure 6 presents the classification suggested by Mirze (2010).

Organizing The organizing function of management includes a number of activities directly or indirectly associated with the allocation of resources in ways to support the achievement of goals and plans developed in the planning function (Leung & Kleiner, 2004). In this function, tasks are distributed to each departments or unit (Eze, 2013). In other words, organizing function is based on the structuring of the corporate in line with the goals and on the plans and strategies determined. Plans and strategies refer to ‘what’ should be done, while organizing explains the structure necessary for this (Mirze, 2010). It should be noted that this structure is to be formed by managers. When organizing is examined as a process, it could be stated that there are three phases (Efil, 1999): • • •

Determining and grouping the things planned to be done Determining and appointing the related staff as appropriate to the tasks Determining the place, tools and methods.

Leading (Directing) The institutional management initiated with planning and strengthened with organizing goes on with leading. Although principals learn what to do via planning and how to do it via organizing, principals will know via leading why the staff 100

Open and Distance Learning Administration

member should want to do it. Recently, the function of leading is also known as facilitating, collaborating or actuating. Whatever it is called, leading involves guiding and influencing people (Northouse, 2010). Leading also includes the process of assigning tasks to the staff of an organization. In addition, it is a process of giving instructions to the staff regarding what to do (Eze, 2013). For effective leading, it could be stated that communication, motivation, leadership and power (Tokgöz, 2013) should be fulfilled in a way to serve the goals. The goal of leading should be achieved in a way to allow institutions make the most of the plans. For the function of leading to be effective, or for institutions to achieve their goals, the way of giving commands is of great importance (Özalp, 2010). In the organizational context, many problems occur due to managers’ failure to understand the people, their aspirations, attitudes, and behavior as individuals and in groups. If the manager cannot lead people to a better performance, any amount of planning and organizing might not help the organization not matter how effective they are (Management Concepts, 2013).

Controlling The process of controlling is the last of management function. The management process which starts with the planning process to determine the goals of institutions, which then goes with the organizing process to determine the authorities and responsibilities and which continues with the process of leading to direct people towards the tasks determined ends with the controlling process. In this respect, the controlling process could be defined as investigating whether the goals have been achieved or the extent to which these goals have been achieved and as taking the required precautions if necessary (Tokgöz, 2013). The managerial function of control allows comparing the actual performance with the planned performance in order to reveal whether things are going well in line with the plans, and if not, to find out the reasons for the failure (Aquinas, 2007). The controlling process could be said to include four phases: determining the standards and the current practices, measuring and comparing actual results with respect to the standards, and taking corrective actions (Aquinas, 2007; Efil, 1999). When the types of controlling process are examined, it could be stated that there are three types of controlling: past-oriented, future oriented and simultaneous controlling (Ergun and Polatoğlu, 1988; Tokgöz, 2013).

101

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Figure 7. The four layers of management Source: Nigavekar (1994)

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS) Planning, controlling, evaluation and promotional activities all necessitate a steady flow of data and other information from various units in an institution as well as from external sources. In the case of distance education institutions, the absolutely essential data are associated with admission and registration of students, evaluation, dispatch and delivery of learning materials, stocks of learning materials, paper, income and expenditure against various heads, activities at regional centers and counselling centers and so on. All the information has to be integrated, analyzed and interpreted. For all these reasons, in open and distance learning institutions, there should be effective and computer-based management information systems (MIS) (Powar, 2003). MIS aims at providing managers with accurate, relevant and timely information at different levels and in different functional areas throughout the organization for decision-making purposes (ICAI, 2014). There are three components of MISs: Management, Information and System. Management is related to the planning, control, and administration of the operations of a concern. Information, in MIS, refers to the processed data which help the management with the planning, controlling and operations. The data are processed into information via a system (Mis, 2014). When considered with respect to management, according to Nigavekar (1994), it could be stated that there is a structure of four layers. Figure 7 presents this structure. Existence of a harmony in the relationships between the whole staff in open and distance learning institutions is important to achieve an effective coordination between different sub-systems. According to Verma (as cited in Powar, 2003), in such institutions, interpersonal relationships could be examined in three dimensions:

102

Open and Distance Learning Administration

• • •

Intra-institutional relationships concern the central administration, the production units, the academic divisions and the support services; Human relationships concern the members of the decision-making bodies, the academic fraternity, the administrative and production staff and the members of the community; Academic relationships concern the basic academic activities, namely teaching, research, material development and production and student support.

In open and distance learning institutions, in order to establish an intra-institutional interaction, it is necessary to strengthen interpersonal relationships. According to Verma (as cited in Powar, 2003), for this purpose, the following points should be taken into account: • •

• • • •

Involvement: It is important to involve the participants in the decision making phases in terms of productivity. Dialogue: It is important for managers of institutions to establish effective dialogues with student representatives, instructors and other staff within the institution before making any decision in order to avoid any negative results by making unilateral decisions. Equality: The main norms and rules must not change depending on the categories of employees. Freedom of Expression: All stakeholders must be free in terms of expressing their views in a disciplined manner and must have the right to be heard. Cooperation: All members of a unit should be in cooperation. Friendly talks and encouragement increase the desire to participate. Motivation: In order to make the staff most productive, motivation is a must. Motivation could be increased by assigning the tasks they like, informing them about what has been done, giving importance to their views, appreciating good views and encouraging and awarding them.

The Administrative Barriers to Open and Distance Learning In order to for a healthy management of ODL, there are several points to consider as necessitated by the system. According to Williams (2003), the following skills are “very important” to support distance education implementation: leadership, change agent abilities, interpersonal skills, communication skills, managerial skills, budgeting skills, marketing skills, strategic planning skills, policy-making skills, and knowledge of education theory. Preferably, a distance education administrator is supposed to be knowledgeable in all of these areas. It could be stated that without one

103

Open and Distance Learning Administration

or more of these features, certain problems will be experienced with the execution of the system. It is a well-known fact that the problems experienced within the scope of Open and Distance Learning are examined from a wide perspective. In literature, the main barriers were generally examined under three headings: student barriers, faculty/instructor barriers and administrative/organizational barriers (Dabaj, 2011; Galusha, 1998). Another frequent classification gathers these barriers under 10 headings: administrative structure, organizational change, technical expertise, social interaction and quality, faculty compensation and time, threat of technology, legal issues, evaluation/effectiveness, access, and student support services (Muilenburg & Berge, 2001). The elements in both classifications could be said to be interrelated. In addition, all the current problems could be thought to concern the management factor directly or indirectly. Berge and Muilenburg (2000) applied the barriers survey - used in one of their related previous studies – on managers and administrators and consequently listed five most-ranked barriers as follows: Organizational resistance to change, lack of shared vision for distance education in the organization, lack of strategic planning for distance education, slow pace of implementation, and difficulty in keeping up with technological changes. According to the researchers, these five barriers point to obstacles which are related directly to rapid changes in organizational culture and challenge administrators to tailor those changes into the operations of the organization. Mukerji and Tripathi (2003), in their “e-Distance Education Management Model”, examined these problems under the headings of information management, services management and academic management. In one study carried out with 130 workers in 26 centers of Open University of Nigeria, such barriers as appointment of non-experts as directors, autocratic leadership style, staff disobedience, lack of facilitators, accommodation problem and lack of supervisor were found to be prominent (Obioha & Ndidi, 2011). In another study conducted by El Turk & Cherney (2016) to examine the administrator and faculty barriers, the researchers gathered these barriers under three headings: (a) the cultural barriers, (b) the structural barriers and (c) the epistemological barriers. In the study, some of the barriers revealed were as follows Lack of governmental policy, lack of control over student, lack of awareness about online education, lack of administrative and technical support, lack of knowledge in the utilization of OL systems, Inadequate infrastructure, personal anxiety with technology and OL, lack of personal relationship, increased workload and faculty coordination costs. In another study (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), it was found that the barriers related to management of institutions included leadership, culture, structure, related organizational factors and organizational capabilities. Independently of the results of all these studies, such dimensions found among the components of distance education as learner, instructor, learning environment, 104

Open and Distance Learning Administration

methodology, technology, support services and evaluation could all be said to be related to the factor of management. In other words, management of all these dimensions generally formed the framework of ODL management. Considering the results of the studies reported in related literature, it will be possible to group the problems (barriers) related to ODL management as follows: •

•

•

Problems Related to the Institutional Functioning: This group generally includes administrative structure, organizational change (Muilenburg & Berge, 2001), organizational resistance to change, lack of shared vision for distance education in the organization, lack of strategic planning for distance education, slow pace of implementation (Berge & Muilenburg, 2000), accommodation problem (Obioha & Ndidi, 2011), lack of governmental policy, lack of administrative support (El Turk & Cherney, 2016), lack of coordination between units (Mukerji & Tripathi, 2003), inadequate infrastructure, increased workload (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011; El Turk & Cherney, 2016) and organizational culture (Cho & Berge, 2002; Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011). Problems Related to Administrators: The problems related to administrators can be associated with such themes as understanding of leadership, characteristics of administrators and communication. When the related literature is examined, the problems could be listed as follows: poor leadership, poor implementation planning, fear of failure (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), conservatism and authoritarian management, communication (Cho& Berge, 2002; Werkman, 2009), autocratic leadership style, lack of supervisor, staff disobedience and non-specialists administrators (Obioha & Ndidi, 2011). Staff-Related Problems: Here, the heading of staff refers to instructors found in an Open and Distance Learning system as well as to all other staff involved in the system. The barriers under this heading could be listed as follows: lack of faculty with online experience (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Galusha, 1998), increased workload (El Turk & Cherney 2016; Lloyd, Byrne & McCoy, 2012; Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), lack of experience with online teaching (Panda &Mishra, 2007) and communication problems between faculty (Lee & Busch, 2005). When viewed from the instructional perspective, the barriers include inadequate time for grading and feedback, lack of social interaction within the class, inadequate instructor training and lack of personal relationship with students (Lloyd, Byrne & McCoy, 2012). Among all these barriers, lack of staff training (Galusha, 1998) could be said to be prominent. In addition, the problems experienced in transition to new instructional tasks (mentor, tutor and facilitator) (Galusha, 1998) could be placed under this heading.

105

Open and Distance Learning Administration

•

•

Problems Related to Support Services: The heading of support services covers all the support services besides the student support services, which constitute the main cause of failure to get the desired results in distance education systems. According to Minnaar (2013), support systems can be examined under the following headings: call center, examination administration, graduation ceremony, bureau of student counselling and career development, student financial aid bureau, bureau of learning development, safety services, and student support and library services. In this respect, each item under this heading could be said to be a support services barrier. Studies in related literature report the following barriers under the heading of support services: scheduling/registration assistance and library services (Cho & Berge, 2002; Galusha, 1998). In addition, these are mentioned as non-instructional areas (Zirkle, 2004). Besides these barriers, technical support (Berge, 2002, El Turk & Cherney 2016; Watkins & Kaufman, 2003) is another support services barrier frequently reported in related literature. According to Minnaar (2013), technology services include wiring, networking, connections, computers, software, and licensing, technological support for staff and students and staff development. In this respect, it is seen that technology services are not provided just for learners. It is a well-known fact that one of the barriers institutions are expected to cope with is the difficulty keeping up with technological changes (Berge & Muilenburg, 2000). It could be stated that most of the statements under this heading are related to student support services and that well-developed student support services will play an important role in the success of online education considering the fact that the learner constitutes the basis of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) systems. Financial Problems: In order for ODL institutions to make effective and productive use of their systems, they are supposed to meet the financial costs of such services as equipment, software and maintenance. This heading mentions the financial barriers in relation to management of ODL institutions. According to Zirkle (2004), institutions have financial barriers such as marketing, financing new technologies and program costs. Regarding institutional management, it could be stated that focusing on financial barriers is important in terms of healthy and productive functioning of institutions.

Administrative Trends to Open and Distance Learning When studies in related literature are examined, it is seen that the trends towards ODL were generally concerned with the dimension of administration. In addition, it is obvious that the related trends have changed in line with the development of the 106

Open and Distance Learning Administration

concept of ODL. This change could be said to result from a number of parameters such as social change, learners’ changing expectations, technological facilities and financial state. Learners’ changing expectations were mentioned in OET (2016) as follows: online students’ expectations include flexibility, affordability and a high-quality education. Since the time when the concept of ODL started to spread, a number of trends have appeared, and some of them have been replaced by other developments despite the approval and spread of some others. In this part, the trends are examined under two headings: Trends related to the functioning of institutions and trends related to support services.

Trends Related to Functioning of Institutions This heading covers management of institutions, institutional staff, functioning of instruction and technological developments. •

•

•

Collaboration / Partnership: One of the most important trends related to functioning of institutions is the partnership and collaboration between institutions. In literature, a number of studies (Boltuc, 2008; Diki, 2013; Salmi, 2009) emphasized the importance of collaboration in terms of ODL institutions. According to Primrose, Paul and Chrispen (2013), there are important benefits of this with respect to reputation building of the institution, meeting various stakeholder demands, provision of suitable curricula training and development of staff, resource mobilization relationship building and quality improvement, among others. Changing Methods of Delivery: One of the problems experienced in ODL institutions could be said to be the instinctive effort to maintain the traditional education. According to a report by Hanover Research (2016) regarding the application of new methods in education, such concepts as flipped classroom and gamification will take an active role. Besides these, it is seen that the number of simulation applications is gradually increasing. Mobile: Today, such systems of ODL institutions as advertisement, course contents, support services and automation should now inevitably work on mobile devices. According to a report by Hanover Research (2016), institutions are expected to update all their systems in a way to allow these systems run on mobile devices considering the fact that half of Internet users throughout the world preferably use mobile devices while surfing on the Internet. In another report, Educause (2016) points out that mobile applications are widely used in institutional applications. Another point mentioned in the report was related to incorporation of mobile devices in teaching and learning (Grajek, 2016).

107

Open and Distance Learning Administration

•

•

•

Social Media: Considering the fact that social media is a concept which has increasingly spread in every area of life, ODL institutions are expected to use social media applications more. It is now important for ODL institutions to carry out many of their activities such as advertisements via social media tools so that they can increase their popularity. Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI applications have gradually spread in education. According to Woolf and colleagues (2013), AI-based instructional software now routinely directs learning towards individual needs, connects learners together, allows accessing digital materials, supports decentralized learning and engages students in meaningful ways. Today, educational institutions frequently prefer to design online scenarios supported by artificial intelligence and to apply them in different courses or educational activities so that they can improve teaching and learning experiences (Kose and Arslan, 2015). Branding and Marketing: This concept, which has started to spread in almost every area of life, especially among companies, throughout the world, could now be said to gain importance in education as well. In a report by JWT Education (2006), it is pointed out that a brand’s image depends on all of those things influential on peoples’ perceptions of an organization including: Products and services, Organization performance, Personality, Promotional material, Identity/logo, Reputation and Experience. Brand and image have an important place for an institution in terms of its advertisement, respect and future steps. In global world, these two elements play a determinant role in people’s preferences. Increasing and maintaining the quality of interaction with students and distribution of materials represents the brand and image of an institution (Burnett, 2002). In ODL institutions, branding is of great importance in terms of all these activities.

Trends Related to Support Services •

•

108

Increase Training and Support for Faculty: It is important to train the staff in ODL institutions in relation to new technologies, new methods and the new functioning of the institution. In this way, the functioning of the institution will be improved, and more successful results will be obtained. Virtual Orientation Services: This system allows students to discover the campus whenever and wherever they want. Thanks to the necessary software, the feeling of visiting a real campus could be created. With the help of such interactive applications, students can receive orientation services provided in traditional education. Since this method, which could also be applied for the introduction of the library and various other services, can be used

Open and Distance Learning Administration

•

independently of time and place, it is among the trends concerning the future (Thompson & Hills, 2005). Intelligent Support Services – Artificial Intelligence Applications: Designing support service tools of ODL institutions, especially their websites, in a way to provide intelligent support services will bring out great facilities for users and the system staff. As a result, students will be able to reach the necessary intelligent support services via the system without any difficulty, and the staff will not have to waste their time.

CONCLUSION Although the basis of the concept of management dates back to quite an old time, it could be said to be a live system that can change and renew itself depending on various parameters. In the process of this change, one of the biggest actors is the technology. In addition, the changing structure of the society has played an active role in people’s expectations and preferences. Though ODL institutions are similar to commercial corporates in many respects, their understanding of management provides specific structures in several aspects. While expectation of financial benefits is among the prominent goals of companies, providing good-quality educational services has priority in ODL institutions. With this difference in mind, it is also seen that ODL institutions have adopted certain management understandings to provide good-quality educational services. Some of these understandings are traditional, and some are relatively innovative. Some ODL institutions are managed in total bureaucracy, while some have adopted the corporate model. There are still some others which have established cooperation with other institutions. Though management of ODL institutions is similar to other educational institutions, it may differ in terms of its sub-components as it is basically based on distance education. In this respect, the technological sub-structure and support services become prominent. Successful ODL institutions could be said to have attentively planned and wellmanaged support services. The barriers and trends related to management of ODL institutions mentioned in this part were compiled from the results of several studies reported in related literature. It is thought that ODL institutions should take the barriers determined into account, which will then lead to a healthier management understanding. In addition, considering the fact that some of the current trends related to ODL institutions are applied by several ODL institutions, these trends could be said to be adopted more in future.

109

Open and Distance Learning Administration

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey. com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf Aquinas, P. G. (2008). Organization Structure and Design: Applications and Challenges. New Delhi, India: Excel Books. Avcı, U., & Topaloğlu, C. (2009). Hiyerarşik Kademelere Göre Liderlik Davranışlarını Algılama Farklılıkları: Otel Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. KMU İİBF Dergisi, 11(16), 1–20. Berge, Z., & Muilenburg, L. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers and administrators: Results of a survey. In M. Clay (Ed.), Distance learning administration annual. Academic Press. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boltuc, P. (2008). Global learning through collaboration. Formamente, Rivista Internationale di Ricerca sul Futuro Digitale GUIDE Association. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://formamente.unimarconi.it/extra/09_Boltuc.pdf Burnett, D. J. (2002). Innovation in Student Services: Best Practices and Process Innovation Models and Trends. In D. J. Burnett & D. Oblinger (Eds.), Innovation in Student Services: Planning for Models Blending High Touch/High Tech. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning. Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Management Principles (V. 1.1). Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/ Chaffee, E. E. (1983). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98. Cho, S. K., & Berge, Z. L. (2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dabaj, F. (2011). Analysis of Communication and Media Technologies. A Review Study. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6, 1–15.

110

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Davies, J. L. (1996). Higher Education Management Training and Development Quality Indicators. UNESCO. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0010/001057/105737E.pdf Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204 Diki, D. (2013). International collaboration of distance learning universities for online learning in Indonesia. A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University, 2(1), 1–8. Dinçer, Ö., & Fidan, Y. (1996). İşletme Yönetimi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. Education, J. W. T. (2006). Global Branding and its Relevance to Universities. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/ events/ac21/lm_bojamm_global_branding.pdf Educause. (2016). Higher Education’s Top 10 Strategic Technologies for 2016. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/1/higher-educations-top10-strategic-technologies-for-2016 Efil, İ. (1999). İşletmelerde Yönetim ve Organizasyon (6. Baskı). İstanbul: Alfa Yayın. El Turk, S., & Cherney, I. (2016). Perceived online education barriers of administrators and faculty at a U.S. university in Lebanon. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2(1), 5–31. doi:10.17062/cjil.v2i1.30 Eren, E. (2011). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. Ergun, T., & Polatoğlu, A. (1988). Kamu Yönetimine Giriş. Ankara: T.O.D.A.İ. Yayınları. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.todaie.edu.tr/resimler/ ekler/2bcb5159bd9bc9c_ek.pdf Eze, A. A. (2013). Management practice in an organization. Retrieved November 17, from http://www.aiu.edu/applications Farnes, N. C. (2000). Distance Education for the Information Society: Policies, pedagogy and professional development. Analytical Survey. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://kenya-seminar.iite.ru/docs/Analyt_Survey.pdf Galusha, J. M. (1988). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3), 6–14. Genç, N. (2007). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. 111

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Govindaraja, M., & Natarajan, S. (2005). Principles of Management. New Delhi: Published by Prentice Hall Limited. Grajek, S. (2016). Trend Watch 2016: Which IT Trends Is Higher Education Responding To? EDUCAUSE. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.geckolabs.co.uk/ higher-educations-top-10-strategic-technologies-for-2016/ Hanover Research. (2016). 2016 Trends In Higher Education Marketing, Enrollment and Technology. Retrieved November 5, 2016,from http://www.hanoverresearch.com/ media/Trends-in-Higher-Education-Marketing-Recruitment-and-Technology-2.pdf ICAI. (2014). Operations management & Information system. The Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI). Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://icmai.in/upload/ Students/Syllabus-2012/Study_Material_New/Inter-Paper9.pdf James, A. F., Freeman, R. E., & Dawel, R. G., Jr. (2000). Management (6th ed.). Prentice Hall of India. Khakhar, D. (2011). A framework for open distance learning- organization and management. Retrieved on October 13, 2016, from http/www.potlandpress.com / pp/books/online/vu- ch3.pdf Kose, U., Arslan, A. (2015). E-learning experience with artificial intelligence supported software: an international application on English language courses. GLOKALde, 1(3). Lee, J. A., & Busch, P. E. (2005). Factors related to instructors willingness to participate in distance education. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 109–115. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.2.109-115 Leung, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2004). Effective management in the food industry. Management Research News, 27(4/5), 72–81. doi:10.1108/01409170410784491 Lloyd, S.M., Byrne, M.M., & McCoy, T.S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1). Management Concepts. (2013). Management Concepts & Organisational Behaviour. Pondicherry University: Paper Code: MBAC 1001. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.pondiuni.edu.in/sites/default/files/MANAGEMENT%20 CONCEPTS%20%26%20ORGANISATIONAL%20BEHAVIOUR.pdf Minnaar, A. (2013). Challenges for successful planning of open and distance learning (ODL): A template analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 81–108. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1387

112

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Mintzberg, H. (1990). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 68, 163–176. Mirze, S. K. (2010). İşletme. İstanbul: Literatür yayıncılık. Mis. (2014). Management Information System-Introduction. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from https://www.tutorialspoint.com/management_information_system/ pdf/management_information_system.pdf Moore, M. G. (2000). Information and communication technologies in distance education. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://iite.unesco.org/img/upload/Distance_Education.pdf Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7–22. doi:10.1080/08923640109527081 Mukerji, S., Tripathi, P. (2003). e-distance education management: A transformed perspective. Delhi Business Review, 4(1). Nigavekar, A. S. (1994). Management information system for university administration: concept, structure and development. In K. B. Powar & S. K. Panda (Eds.), University Administration and Management (pp. 49–63). New Delhi: AIU. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Obioha, M. F., & Ndidi, U. B. (2011). Administrative Problems of Open Distance Education in Nigeria: A Case Study of National Open University of Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(5), 89–97. OET. (2016). 2016 Online Education Trends. BestColleges.com: Tracking the innovations and issues changing higher education. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.bestcolleges.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-trends-in-onlineeducation.pdf Ojo, O. D., & Olakulein, F. K. (2006). The Place of Multiple Intelligence in Achieving the Objectives and Goals of Open and Distance Learning Institutions: A Critical Analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 19–27. Panda, S., & Mishra, S. (2007). E-Learning in a mega open university: Faculty attitude, barriers and motivators. Educational Media International, 44(4), 323–338. doi:10.1080/09523980701680854

113

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Parhar, M. (2003). Trends in Contemporary Research in Open and Distance Education. Media and Technology for Human Resource Development, 14(3&4), 87–101. Paşaoğlu, D. (2010). Yönetim ve Yöneticilik. In Yönetim ve Organizasyon (pp. 22-49). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2944, Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayını No:1900, 1. Baskı, Eskişehir. Powar, K. B. (2003). Management of institutions. In S. Panda (Ed.), Planning and Management in Distance Education (pp. 22–49). London: Routledge. Primrose, K., Paul, M., & Chrispen, C. (2013). Unmasking the role of collaboration and partnerships in open and distance learning systems. World Journal of Management and Behavioral Studies IDOSI Publications, 1(2), 36–43. Rosenberg, S., & Mosca, J. (2011). Breaking Down the Barriers to Organizational Change. International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15(3), 139–146. Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. London: Croom Helm. Rumble, G. (1992). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities. Open Learning, 7(2), 31–45. doi:10.1080/0268051920070205 Rumble, G. (2002). The management of distance learning systems. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved October 15, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000947/094701e. pdf Ryan, R. (2007). Leadership Development: A Guide for HR and Training Professionals. Burlington, MA: Routledge. Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://portal.unesco.org/ education/en/files/55825/12017990845Salmi.pdf/Salmi.pdf Schraeder, M., Self, D., Jordan, M., & Portıs, R. (2015). The functions of management as mechanisms for fostering interpersonal trust. Advances in Business Research, 5(1), 50–62. Sharma, H. (2002). Student Support Services In Distance Learning System A Case Of DDE, Maharshi Dayanand University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(4).

114

Open and Distance Learning Administration

Thompson, J., & Hills, J. (2005). Online learning support services for distance education students: Responding to and maintaining the momentum. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Tokgöz, N. (2010). Yönetim Fonksiyonları. In Yönetim ve Organizasyon (pp. 2249). T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2944, Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayını No:1900, 1. Baskı, Eskişehir. Tortop, N., İşbir, E. G., & Aykaç, B. (2010). Yönetim Bilimi. İstanbul: Nobel Yayınları. Training Toolkit (1999). Planning & Management of Open and Distance Learning. The Commonwealth of Learning and Asian Development Bank. Watkins, R., & Kaufman, R. (2003). Strategic planning in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 507–792). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Werkman, R. A. (2009). Understanding Failure to Change: A Pluralistic Approach and Five Patterns. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(7), 664–684. doi:10.1108/01437730910991673 Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from http://www. leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_4?cookieSet=1 Woolf, P. B., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI Grand Challenges for Education. AI Magazine, 34(4). Xu, Z. L. (1991). The Relationship Between Leadership Behavior of Academic Deans in Public Universities and Job Satisfaction of Department Chairpersons. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2999. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2999 Zaleznik, A. (1997). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67–78. PMID:14723179 Zirkle, C. (2004). Access barriers experienced by adults in distance education courses and programs: A review of the research literature. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from http://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/bitstream/1805/273/1/Zirkle.pdf

115

Open and Distance Learning Administration

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Artificial Intelligence (AI): It is an area of computer science that emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans. Bureaucrative: Excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators. Dual Mode İnstitution: An organization that delivers some courses on-site and some courses off-site using distance delivery methods. Hierarchy: Pyramid-like ranking of ideas, individuals, items, etc., where every level (except the top and the bottom ones) has one higher and one lower neighbor. Higher level means greater authority, importance, and influence. Leader: A person or thing that holds a dominant or superior position within its field, and is able to exercise a high degree of control or influence over others. Manager: An individual who is in charge of a certain group of tasks, or a certain subset of a company or organisation. Management Information System (MIS): It is a computerized database of financial information organized and programmed in such a way that it produces regular reports on operations for every level of management in a company or organisation. Mixed Mode İnstitution: Institution that offers learners a wide choice ofmodes of study, including independent, group-based, face-to-face, and mediated or some combination. Single Mode İnstitution: All teaching and administrative activities and all funds are devoted exclusively to distance education.

116

117

Chapter 5

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials: Within the Scope of Universal Design for Instruction Hakan Altinpulluk Anadolu University, Turkey Hakan Kilinc Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Principles of the Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) can be applied to open and distance education systems as an approach derived from universal design principles. UDI can be used not only for the disabled learners in open and distance education institutions but also for the creation of accessible learning environments for all learners. Within the scope of this study, the history and features of universal design principles in the field of architecture are explained first; then, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Universal Instructional Design (UID) and UDI concepts, which are educational adaptations of universal design principles, are examined in detail. In the last section, management processes of open and distance education systems, examples of universal design in open and distance education and managerial processes in course design and delivery, are examined. In this way; modern approaches such as UDI principles are studied in terms of their applicability within the framework of design and delivery management in open and distance education environments. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch005 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

INTRODUCTION Field of education has also been affected by the great advancements in information and communication technologies and gone into the process of reshaping itself. Old fashioned, worn out, slow and cumbersome systems have given way to modern, stronger and richer environments. Field of open and distance learning is also a prime field that gets affected by technological revolutions. In this system, in which learners are at different locations from each other and learning resources, telecommunication technologies are of great importance. As a result of these developments in the information and communications technologies the course materials in open and distance learning systems reached a great variety. Particularly with the developments in internet technologies e-learning mediums were enriched and learners were allowed to create their own unique learning mediums benefitting from very different sources. In open and distance learning mediums it is possible to use many different course materials from printed books to learning management systems and from social networks to three dimensional applications. Analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation stages of these materials are also comprised of processes different from one another. In the design and delivery of these course materials there exist some administrative factors, too. The approach, which is expected to serve as a guide within the scope of determining administrative factors in design and delivery of open and distance learning course materials is the universal design for instruction principles. Being different from universal design principles, this approach, which was adopted for education and teaching systems has nine principles. Two more principles have been added to seven universal design principles, which are peculiar to field of architecture, and nine principles have been formed. In an order, these principles are: Equitable use, Flexibility in use, Simple and intuitive, Perceptible information, Tolerance for error, Low physical effort, Size and space for approach and use, A community of learners, and Instructional climate (Burgstahler, 2001; McGuire, Scott, & Shaw 2003). With the universal design for instruction (UDI), the basic objective is to provide courses accessible by everybody, regardless of their ethnicity, age, gender, race, status, disability and different learning styles (Burgstahler, 2007). The applicable and meaningful design of learning processes is important not only for the disabled but for all individuals. “Creating awareness to maximize functional capacity of each individual”, which is in universal design principles, is valid for UDI, as well. As new technologies are shaping open and distance education methods, there is an increasing need for new approaches such as UDI. Within the scope of this paper and under the guidance of UDI principles, the studies on design and delivery processes

118

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

in open and distance education environments were analyzed and the applicability of UDI as an administration approach was discussed in the conclusion section.

BACKGROUND The History and Definition of Universal Design Principles The idea of Universal Design first appeared in Europe, Japan and the USA in 1950s. The idea matured in 1970s and gained political power. It was stated that; when environmental obstacles were eliminated, universal design could become an approach that would maximize an individual’s functional capacity by creating awareness (Rose & Meyer, 2002). In 1950s, the principles of Universal Design were mainly based on the elimination of physical and environmental obstacles for the disabled people. On 1970s, the common view changed to cover all individuals (Roberts, Park, Brown, & Cook, 2011). The principles of Universal Design gained speed in 1970s, when the disability rights movement came out, and in 1980s and 1990s it started to create much more impression (Davies, Schelly, & Spooner, 2013). In 1990s, universal design principles-based practices became effective when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prescribed ramps, lifts and wider doorways for the wheelchairs (Zhong, 2012). When the Universal Design term was used for the first time in architecture, Mace, Hardy and Place (1991) argued that this was not a new science but an approach which was based on needs and awareness, which could be used not only by the disabled but by all individuals and which could be applied to several sectors. Later, in 1997, a group of architects, designers and engineers created a comprehensive set of design principles, including environmental arrangements, production and communication processes and identified the seven principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997). Universal design is a set of principles that aim for applicability of products and environment by all individuals without the need for any adaptation or a customized design (Connell et al., 1997). Within the “social model of disability”, it focuses on making environmental changes, not personal (Barnes, 2012). Universal design can also be used together with concepts such as “design for all” and “barrier-free design” (Uslu & Shakouri, 2014). In literature, the concept of Human Centered Design is also used in similar meaning with universal design (Smith & Buchannan, 2012). As well as accessibility, universal design aims for the provision of environments, spaces, structures, equipment and products that can be used by a large population. Therefore; universal design requires knowledge, understanding and consideration of human skills and needs in every phase of life (Hacıhasanoğlu, 2003).

119

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Cavington and Hannah (1997) identify 6 different criteria for universal design. These are summarized as follows. Universal design: 1. Provides the highest number of users respectability and independence, 2. Adapts to specific needs of the user without jeopardizing the integrity of the product, 3. Is aesthetically successful, 4. Performs at optimum requirement level, 5. Informs the consumer, 6. Is sustainable. Universal design is a good alternative for accessible design. Low cost designs provide significant opportunities for economic growth. Universal design products that can be used anywhere provide economic conveniences for their manufacturers. This is also reflected on the economies of the country and region (Hacıhasanoğlu, 2003). Designers are conventionally trained to make designs for a group of “average” people. However; the idea to make designs for a group of “average” people is a prejudiced attitude which brings discrimination of certain groups of society. It should be kept in mind that, every individual is unique and the human kind has various groups (Akıncı, 2006). Each individual has a different age, height, weight, skills and abilities and each individual has different social values. It is necessary to understand the variety of people’s characteristics in order to make effective designs. It is also necessary to understand how people’s abilities change depending on age, disability, environment and other factors in order to apply the principles of universal design efficiently. Universal design includes individuals from every level of society such as the disabled, elderly and kids, in the design process. They also include short, tall, thin, overweight people, pregnant women, lefties, porters, families with prams, sick or tired people and people who are foreigners in a place. That is why one needs to know about the people and their skills when designing (Gurses Ates, 2013). In summary, the philosophy of universal design rejects “discrimination” and embraces the concept of “everyone”. The word “universal” in its name literally indicates to which target group this design is intended for. As universal design is particularly interested in the conditions of the disadvantaged and disabled people, there are many people who think of it as a ‘design for the disabled’. Products created in conformity with universal design criteria are observed to be mainly for disabled people. However; in universal design, there is no situation or practice specific only to disabilities or insufficiencies, indeed. On the contrary, universal design ideologically and politically opposes to all unnecessary and customized discriminatory solutions intended for disabled people or other groups of 120

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

the society (Akyol, 2009). Although it does not choose disabled people as its only target group, its products are accepted and approved by the whole society including the disabled. Furthermore; each individual benefits from these designs. Being a popular concept today, universal design has been adapted to many disciplines. The reasons for the increase in interest in universal design are; the increase in the number of people who have to live with their disabilities, extension of the lifetime, the increase in the purchasing power of the disabled people, the recognition of the inadequacies of assistive technologies and the fact that the products and environment are not designed to meet the needs of the elderly (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012). Universal design consists of seven principles which are listed as follows (Connell et al., 1997): 1. Equitable Use: The design must be useful for and marketable to people with different skills. a. Provide similar (if possible equivalent) tools for all users. b. Avoid discriminating or labeling any user. c. Define privacy and security equally for all users. d. Make the design appealing for all users. 2. Flexibility in Use: The design must adapt to personal preferences and skills in a wide range. a. Choose the most appropriate method. b. Make access convenient for both the right and the left-handed. c. Ensure proper and precise use. d. Adjust to the speed of the user. 3. Simple and Intuitive Use: The design must be easy to understand regardless of the experience, knowledge, linguistic skill or concentration level of the user. a. Eliminate unnecessary complication. b. Adapt to user expectations and intuitions. c. Ensure compatibility of literacy and linguistic skills. d. Include important and consistent information. e. Provide efficient instruction and feedback during the performance and after the completion of the duties. 4. Perceptible Information: The design must efficiently provide the user with necessary information regardless of the circumstantial conditions or the sensual skills of the user. a. Use various tools (illustrative, oral and tactual) when delivering necessary information. b. Ensure sufficient contrast between basic information and the environment. c. Maximize the “readability” of basic information. 121

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

d. Distinguish the components for description (in other words; make it easier to instruct). e. Ensure compatibility with various techniques and devices used by people with sensual disabilities. 5. Tolerance for Error: The design must minimize dangerous situations, accidents or undesirable actions. a. Take necessary measures to minimize dangers and errors. b. Give warnings against possible dangers and errors. c. Eliminate unsafe features. d. Avoid ignorant behavior when performing duties that require alertness. 6. Low Physical Effort: The design must be efficient and easy to use with minimum physical effort. a. Allow the user to preserve a neutral posture. b. Use reasonable operating forces. c. Minimize repetitive actions. d. Minimize continuous physical effort. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: The design must provide appropriate size and space for approach, access and use regardless of the size, posture or mobility of the user. a. Offer clear vision for any user sitting or standing. b. Offer easy access to all components for any user sitting or standing. c. Develop techniques that adapt to differences in the size of hands and grasping ability. d. Provide necessary space for the use of assistive devices or persons. The universal design must be assumed as an inspiring element, not a barrier for a good design. The designs produced show that, universal design is a manageable, valuable and encouraging initiative (Akıncı, 2006).

UNIVERSAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES IN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS The principles intended for educational use of universal design came out in mid-1980s. These principles have been shaped through the perspectives of different researchers until today and have been integrated to certain educational practices. Arranging educational environments with the help of technology requires that these principles are updated and adjusted to new educational practices. Today, universal design principles can be considered as an opportunity to provide flexible learning environments for individuals with different backgrounds, skills, intelligence, and abilities. 122

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Universal design principles can be used in instructional environments, services, information technologies and physical spaces (Burgstahler, 2012). Its educational use is described in detail in the following sections of the study. Therefore, under this heading, the use of universal design principles in “services”, “information technologies” and “physical spaces” will be discussed. According to Burgstahler (2012), the use of universal design principles in services requires the fulfillment of the following: • • • • • • •

Using service counters at heights accessible from both sitting and standing positions. Training staff aware of the resources and procedure regarding disabilities. Using pictures including a variety of people in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, skills and interests in publications and on web-sites. Making explanations to people who ask for help regarding publications for the disabled. Designing learner services web-sites that conform to accessibility standards. Enabling easy access to printed materials. Issuing printed publications in different formats (such as; electronic, large print, Braille).

Educational use of universal design principles includes the aspect of information technologies, as well. The following can be listed among the important factors in this context; captioned videos, text to speech for visually impaired users, procurement policies and procedures that encourage the purchase of accessible products, conformance to standards for accessible and user-friendly design of websites, accessibility and user-friendly design of computers both for the left and right handed people, the use of software compatible with assistive technology, and the use of computers in height-adjustable tables (Burgstahler, 2012). Universal design principles can also be used in physical spaces. Burgstahler (2012) lists the educational principles to be used in physical spaces as follows: • • • • •

Use of large, high contrast, legible directional signs. Installation of physically accessible toilets, classrooms and other facilities for wheelchair or escalator users. Use of height-adjustable furniture and fixtures in classrooms that allow for arrangements for different learning activities. Placement of clear, visible emergency instructions that meet the needs of individuals with sensory and movement disorders. Preparation of non-slip surfaces.

123

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Figure 1. Relationship between UD, UDE, UDL, UID

Adapted from: (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; Stolarchuk et al., 2013)

Universal design principles have been adapted to different situations in educational systems with different expressions. Among these are; Universal Design in Education (UDE), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Universal Instructional Design (UID), and Universal Design for Instruction (UDI). Although these expressions have similar meanings, they slightly differ in some points. But the common point of all of them is that, they are derived from universal design principles. When examining the universal design and other approaches derived from it, as shown in Figure 1, it is seen that the largest and most comprehensive set is universal design (UD). Universal design in education (UDE) includes UDL, UDI, and UID. Figure 1, which is shown below, is adapted from the studies of (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; Stolarchuk, Baker, & Cobb, 2013). The principles of UDL, UID and UDI, which are common in literature, are discussed in the sub-headings.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Universal design for learning (UDL) dates back as much as the universal design. UDL is one of the most popular and the most widely used adaptations of universal design in education. UDL was developed and expanded in 1984 by the work of Anne Meyer and David Rose, the founders of CAST (the Center for Applied Special Technology) (CAST, 2015). The goal of the non-profit organization at the beginning was to make use of the new resources of the computer age in order to create new digital environments for disabled learners with special needs who were restricted with printed books (Quaglia, 2016). In 1990s, education of the disabled was prioritized, 124

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

the barrier-free school concept was used to emphasize that the curriculum should be more flexible and accessible. It is observed that; UDL was applied in several educational institutions in the following years, it was included in the curriculum, it was awarded at the end of several successful practices and books on this area were published (CAST, 2015). The main focus of UDL is making education accessible to each individual. Learners with disabilities such as visual impairments, autism, attention deficit / hyperactivity disorders or learning difficulties need to receive education from primary school to university in order to continue their careers and to take part in the business cycle of society. UDL strategies address inequalities in order to create accessible and learner-centered learning environments. It aims to enrich learning for all learners, whether disabled or not (Izzo & Bauer, 2015). In this context; UDL is defined as a framework for establishing school and classroom-learning communities where each learner without discrimination is a part of the social and academic life and has the opportunity to develop a positive self-concept and sense of belonging (Katz, 2015). UDL basically aims to expand equal opportunity in education to all segments of society. UDL is a way of conceptualizing learning, accessing information and accommodating to these (Beneke & Ostrosky, 2013) and provides a framework for improving and optimizing instruction and learning for all people based on scientific knowledge on how people learn (CAST, 2011). In summary, it provides the most appropriate form by offering multiple ways to learners to meet their learning preferences (Webb & Hoover, 2015). There is no single standard criterion for UDL. UDL is a flexible approach which can be shaped according to circumstances. By offering multiple options, it tries to find the instruction method that best suits the individual needs. UDL acts as a guide in making decisions about curriculum design, instruction practices and assessment strategies. Curriculums target the average learner group and offer a specific type of content. The objective in implementing UDL to any curriculum is to maximize accessibility and create meaningful learning outcomes for learners. One of the common benefits of the implementation of UDL principles is to provide the children with knowledge and skills to be used in the creation of appealing learning contexts (Blum & Parette, 2015; Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming, 2008). UDL doesn’t aim to lower the standards but to maximize them and to keep these standards dynamic. This flexible framework offers alternative instruction methods, delivery of instruction and universal curriculum. UDL has the potential to improve quality instruction which takes into consideration the needs of all learners when designing, applying and evaluating the framework of a curriculum (Harris, 2015). UDL strengthens and enriches motivation, persistence, self-regulation, personalized learning and community involvement when integrated into learning environments 125

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

(Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Actually, it does not cover a new pedagogical technical approach; instead, it organizes, synthesizes, and expands the practices that are utilized by experienced instructors (Quaglia, 2015). According to U.S. Department of Education, UDL; • •

Provides flexibility in the presentation of information, use of knowledge and skills by the learners and engagement of the learners, Minimizes the barriers in education, provides eligible accommodation and support. It creates expectations for high success for all learners.

As noted in the previous sections, one of the very first objectives for UDL to come out first was the provision of accessible learning opportunities, particularly for the disabled and disadvantaged individuals, through the use of developing information and communication technologies. According to Parette, Blum and Quesenberry (2013), today’s technologies are defined as “flexible, digital, shared, dynamic, and interactive” and these technologies are fully compatible with UDL principles. When the features of UDL and personalized technologies are combined, the non-interactive ways that were previously limited to the curriculum become enriched. UDL is a guide that is compatible with information and communication technologies. The concept of the variety of learners is important within the framework of UDL. Learners have various skills, preferences, cultures, languages ​​and experiences. All these affect their learning (Hartmann, 2015; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). With a growing population of diverse learner populations in cultural and academic terms, UDL has the potential to improve the quality of education for all learners (Winter, 2016). From this point of view, the UDL is also designed to overcome cultural barriers. It is necessary to consider both global and local contexts when using UDL (Blum & Parette, 2015). UDL consists of 3 basic principles based on neuroscience researches as a versatile and sophisticated theoretical learning framework that guides researches in the fields of neuroscience, education and technology (Hartmann, 2015). The first of these principles is the “Multiple Means of Representation” principle. This principle is based on the question “What do we learn?” and it focuses on the aspects of perception, language, expressions, symbols and understanding. It deals with how we acquire and classify the things we see, hear and read. It is based on the identification of the letters and words. The second principle is “Multiple Means of Action and Expression”. This principle asks the question “How do we learn?” and it includes physical actions, expressions, communicational and administrative functions. It deals with how we plan actions, organize the ideas and express them. Writing an essay or solving a mathematical problem is a strategic task. The third principle is “Multiple Means of Engagement”. This principle asks the question, “Why do we 126

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Table 1. UDL options for the three aspects of learning Means of presentation

Means of engagement

Means of action and expression

Lecture

1. Listen in class 2. Watch Powerpoint presentations

1. Lecture note 2. Clicker

Textbook

1. Printed 2. eText 3. MindTap ReadSpeaker

1. MindTap flashcard 2. MindTap dictionary 3. MindTap notebook

1. Before lecture assignments 2.Fill-in-blank excercise 3. Quizzes 4.After lecture assignments

(Dean et al., 2016)

learn?” and it includes the collection of the areas of interest, sustainability of the effort and the self-organization aspects. It tries to find the ways to keep the learners interested, eager and motivated (CAST, 2011). For example, the “Multiple Means of Representation” principle recommends describing through videos for the understanding of a topic in the course-book. Audio descriptions and instructions are necessary for a visually impaired learner to benefit from it. Or, subtitled videos should be presented to people with hearing disorders. So, the UDL alone cannot meet all needs. However, some problems can be solved by combining UDL with other universal design derivatives (Fichten et al., 2016). This again proves that UDL has a unique, adaptable and changeable structure instead of a single, rigid and standardized framework. UDL principles are known to have areas of use in traditional face-to-face classrooms or in open and distance education environments. In this respect, different technologies and instruction materials are utilized in various situations which make use of UDL. For example, the components that can be used in “lecture” and “textbook” contexts within the scope of the “means of presentation”, “means of engagement” and “means of action and expression” are shown in below Table 1 quoted from Dean, Lee-Post and Hapke (2016). These techniques, which can be utilized in traditional classes, can be applied to all learning systems in which UDL is integrated. UDL covers a variety of strategies such as “multimodal instruction, different instruction, cooperative learning, self-monitoring, embedded assessment, relevant context and learning through multimedia”. In addition, UDL integrates accessible technology to the instruction and learning process. Thus, a number of technological innovations such as YouTube, podcasts, iPads and electronic voting machines are utilized. UDL encourages a learner-centered approach and thus, the learning environment empowers the independency of all learners (Izzo & Bauer, 2015).

127

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Universal Instructional Design (UID) Universal design principles appeared in the area of architecture first. Features such as ramps, lifts and widened doorways brought by the universal design, are useful not only for the disabled, but for all individuals, indeed. Likewise; universal instructional design (UID) principles came out from the idea that, all these features considered for the disabled would meet the needs of and be useful for all learners (Higbee & Goff, 2008). UID principles are based on the works of Chickering and Gamson (1987). UID principles are listed as follows: • • • • • • • •

Offering a welcoming classroom environment, Defining the basic components of a course, Explaining the expectations of a course in a clear way, Providing useful feedbacks, Creating opportunities for all learners to discover education assistants such as technology, Designing instruction methods which consider different learning styles, skills, ways of knowledge and background knowledge, Creating multiple ways to show the learners what they know, Promoting interaction between instructors and learners (Fox, Hatfield, & Collins, 2003; Higbee & Goff, 2008).

The concept of “universal” in UID means universal accessibility, not “one size fits all” (Higbee & Goff, 2008). According to Berger and Van Thanh (2004), UID ensures equality among learners, encourages the involvement of disabled learners in learning systems and it prioritizes respect for diversities. One of the most remarkable works related to Universal Instructional Design (UID), combining Universal Design principles and learning processes, was carried out by Silver, Bourke and Strehorn (1998). According to these authors who claim that accessibility is the basic component in all educational planning, if UID becomes a part of the institution’s instruction methodology, the disabled learners in universities will be able to concentrate on learning rather than on the assistance services. The rationale behind the creation of UID and UDI is very similar; these are the two types of universal design in education. In relevant literature, UID and UDI principles have been used interchangeably in many studies. This is why UDI principles are addressed more.

128

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) McGuire, Scott and Shaw (2003) created Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) by adding two principles, “a community of learners” and “instructional climate” to the already available 7 principles of universal design. UID is similar to UDI in that, it aims education to be designed in such a way that it is accessible to all learners. UDI first appeared for the post-secondary learners. In literature, the studies of Burgstahler (2001), McGuire, Scott and Shaw (2003) on the creation of UDI principles are the most important. Within the scope of this paper, the works of Burgstahler (2001), McGuire, Scott and Shaw (2003) and Barile, Nguyen, Havel and Fichten (2012) were taken as basis and a table was created, accordingly. Table 2, which is adapted from these studies, is shown below. Sheryl Burgstahler is one of the researchers who intensely work on Universal Design for Instruction (UDI). According to Burgstahler (2012), the main objective in UDI is to provide courses accessible to all, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, status, disability and different learning styles, while the courses in traditional instruction institutions are limited to the average learner level. Accordingly, universal design can be applied in four ways in education (Burgstahler, 2013): •

•

•

In Instruction ◦◦ Class climate ◦◦ Interaction ◦◦ Physical environments and products ◦◦ Delivery methods ◦◦ Information resources and technology ◦◦ Feedback ◦◦ Assessment ◦◦ Accommodation In Services ◦◦ Planning, policies, and evaluation ◦◦ Physical environments and products ◦◦ Staff ◦◦ Information resources and technology ◦◦ Events In Information Technology ◦◦ Procurement and development policies ◦◦ Physical environments and products ◦◦ Information ◦◦ Input and control 129

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Table 2. UDI Principles, definitions and suggestions for use Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) Principles

Definitions

Examples

Equitable Use

The design must be useful for and marketable to people with different skills. Similar tools must be provided for all learners.

• Use different methods for presenting content (lectures, peer instruction, etc.). • Send lecture notes online prior to each class.

Flexibility in Use

The design must adapt to personal preferences and skills in a wide range. The most appropriate method must be chosen.

• Provide different assessment options (term work, oral presentations, portfolios, etc.).

Simple and Intuitive

The design must be easy to understand regardless of the experience, knowledge, linguistic skill or concentration level of the user. Unnecessary complication must be eliminated.

• Enrich the instructions with visual illustrations such as diagrams. • Choose course-books that include summaries and key words at every section.

Perceptible Information

The design must efficiently provide the user with necessary information regardless of the circumstantial conditions or the sensual skills of the user.

• Use big font size and a good color contrast for slight presentations. • Provide audio-visual content for the whole course (printed copies of the slight presentations where the contents of visuals are described). • Make sure that the videos have subtitles.

Tolerance for Error

The design must minimize negative results of dangerous situations, accidents or undesirable actions. The instruction method must provide multiple solutions that fit to the learning speeds and skills of learners.

• In online examinations, enable the learners to go back and fix their mistakes. • Make applied examinations online. • Enable the learners to use computers in classrooms to perform written studies so that they can make changes or corrections without the need to erase and rewrite the texts.

Low Physical Effort

The design must be efficient and easy to use with minimum physical effort. If the basic course content does not include physical effort, there is no need for the application of this principle.

• Allow the learners to submit their assignments via e-mail. • Prefer a few short examinations instead of a single long examination.

Size and Space for Approach and Use

The design must provide appropriate size and space for approach, access and use regardless of the size, posture or mobility of the user.

•.Provide sufficient space for sign language interpreters. • Take care not to block the vision of learners during classroom demonstrations.

A Community of Learners

The learning environment must promote interaction and promotion among the learners and between the learners and instructors.

• Use a variety of ways to promote involvement of all learners in discussion groups (classroom team work, discussion forums, Facebook etc.).

Instructional Climate

The learning environment must be welcoming and comprehensive. There are high expectations for all learners.

Organize the classroom environment to improve learning and communication. Keep communication channels of learners open for their special needs while retaining high expectations.

(Barile et al., 2012; Burgstahler, 2001; McGuire, Scott & Shaw, 2003)

130

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

•

◦◦ Output ◦◦ Manipulations ◦◦ Safety ◦◦ Compatibility with assistive technology In Physical Spaces ◦◦ Planning, policies, and evaluation ◦◦ Appearance ◦◦ Entrances and routes of travel ◦◦ Fixtures and furniture ◦◦ Information resources and technology ◦◦ Safety ◦◦ Accommodation

The eight principles defined in the title “In Instruction”, are explained by Burgstahler (2007). These principles can also be evaluated within the framework of UDI. The details of these principles are as follows: • • • • • • • •

Class Climate: Adopt instruction practices with a high level of variety, both in terms of diversity and inclusiveness. Interaction: Encourage regular and effective interactions between learners and instructors, and ensure that communication methods are accessible to all participants. Physical Environments and Products: Make sure that physical facilities and products are accessible and available to all learners and that all measures are taken against possible security problems. Delivery Methods: Use instruction methods accessible to all learners. Information Resources and Technology: Make sure that the course materials, notes, and other sources of information are interesting, flexible, and accessible to all learners. Feedback: Provide regular feedback. Assessment: Evaluate learner progress regularly by making use of accessible multiple methods and tools. Accommodation: Plan for accommodations for learners whose needs are not met by the instructional design.

131

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

DETERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATION FACTORS IN DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING COURSE MATERIALS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR INSTRUCTION In recent years, academic institutions have been making efforts to develop a new perspective in management processes, in order to be able to perform the responsibilities expected of them by the community, in an efficient manner (Kesim, 2015). Successful management of academic institutions depends on detailed planning, timely and appropriate decisions, and successful coordination of activities. The management of open and distance education systems has a complex and polycentric structure consisting of multiple subsystems with different functions and requirements. The role and leadership skills of the manager, the models of organization utilized (the bureaucratic model, collegiate model, political model and anarchic model) (Paul, 1990), working culture (corporate culture, enterprise culture, bureaucratic culture, collegial culture, educational culture and industrial culture) (Davies, 1996), management of information systems, interpersonal communication and management of the financial dimension are important in the management of institutions. The management of distance education subsystems (academic divisions, academic units, production and distribution units, learner support services) with different functions and duties must be also evaluated in itself. When all these are taken into consideration, it can be seen that; the management of open and distance education institutions is complicated and difficult (Powar, 2003). Furthermore; how the distance education institutions are established and managed also depend on national requirements, social structure, characteristics of the practice and cultural traditions. All of these affect the management structure of distance education practices (Kaya, 2002). Management science cannot be evaluated independently from people (Keskin, Buyuk, & Koc, 2013). The most important factor in the management of open and distance education systems is people. Many individuals such as learners, instructors, managers, editors, producers and distributors are influential in the success or failure of these systems. For example, teamwork and close cooperation between “academics, producers and editors” must be provided in the management of media production. In this way, the decision-making processes related to “delivery method”, “final product” and “distribution of product” can function in a more efficient way (Panda & Chaudhary, 2003). Open and distance education institutions are a system and they consist of subsystems. According to Kaya (2002), as a system, open and distance education institutions consist of subsystems such as learners, instructors, educational materials, support services, support institutions, training centers, face-to-face instruction practices, learner files, examinations and evaluation, communication, settlement, 132

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

population, politics, education, economy, society, science and technology, traditions and customs. Just as any other system, distance education institutions receive certain inputs from their environment in order to maintain their existence and to successfully fulfill their assigned tasks. They process these, according to pre-determined methods and principles and give outputs to their environment (Kaya, 2002). Distance education institutions require several services in order to fulfill their functions. The services required in distance education institutions are the following (Kaya, 2002): 1. Designing, producing, choosing or purchasing courses for distance education and assistant mass media, making audio-visual recording of printed material and opportunities for the works of the managers, 2. Storage possibilities, 3. Distribution of course materials, 4. Bidirectional communication between learners and instructors, 5. Information and presentation about the working opportunities offered, 6. Counseling, 7. Course evaluation. In most cases, these services are also required for one or more of the following activities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Library services, Audio and video recording, Laboratory work for the development of prototypes of experimental setups, Supportive face-to-face communication between instructors / counselors and among the learners, Communication among learners, Providing scholarships and financial support management to learners, Giving course certifications, Managing examinations and grading, Evaluating the systems concerning distance education conditions and methods, and researches.

All these services can be identified as a sub component in the management of open and distance education institutions. In distance education institutions, “Academic faculty” can be indicated as the basic unit and “specialists from external institutions” can be indicated as the subunit in the management of the design and development of the materials. The basic unit should be “Production and distribution division” and the sub-unit should be 133

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

“Academic faculty, printing press” in the management of the production and storing of materials (Khan & Garg, 2003). Bates (1990) suggested that, media to be utilized in distance education should be simple, deliverable to learners’ houses, cheap to produce, easy to design, interactive, and can be integrated with other types of media. In this context, it can be concluded that; the choice of the media is as important as its production. Learners in distance education systems usually live in different geographical regions separated physically from each other, from institutions and instructors. Moreover, there may be differences in their personal abilities, technical skills and online connectivity levels. Other than these, they may have disabilities or their qualifications may vary (Elias, 2010). Learners and instructors may also have barriers that can affect their involvement in distance education activities such as mobility, vision, hearing, speaking and learning. Simple design decisions that can be taken during the design of a distance education course may be useful for offering accessible courses to learners and instructors with various disabilities (Burgstahler, 2002). Besides the traditional face-to-face education, universal design principles can be used in varying amounts in open and distance education. Universal design principles form a plain approach that can be used in the context of realizing the idea of “design for all” for learners with different personalities, diversities or disabilities that are distant from each other and from educational resources. It can serve as a guide in the design and delivery of courses for the identification of administration principles. According to Newby (2005), UDI provides flexibility in delivery and management of instruction and offers creative suggestions. It also allows learners to focus on their strengths when acquiring knowledge. As a framework that can be used in designing instruction (Basham & Marino, 2013), UDI offers a structure that utilizes an administrative perspective for the management of courses, the course objectives, curriculum, instruction practices and evaluations (Ok, Rao, Bryant, & McDougall, 2016). Izzo and Bauer (2015) emphasize that, particularly the web-sites and support services of universities should be welcoming and accessible for the integration of universal design to administrative structures of universities. The second important point is defined as the need for implementation of projects and internships to enable learners gain work experience. According to Burgstahler (2007), it is necessary to provide accessible environments for all learners by making use of multiple instruction methods. The “delivery methods” identified in this context are as follows: • • • • 134

Choose a flexible curriculum, Include purpose-based elements in the content, Provide cognitive support, Offer multiple ways for acquiring knowledge,

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

• • •

Present the instructions clearly in multiple ways, Make each education method accessible to all learners, Use visuals and tactile aids widely.

In addition, different methods should be used when sharing content with learners (courses, electronic and audio documents, podcasts, etc.). Thus, learners can choose the one that best suits their personal learning styles and conditions. Online support groups and teams should be created as real-time chats will encourage discussion and involvement. Lecture notes should be provided before each class in order to have the learners become ready for class (Barile et al., 2012; Fichten et al, 2011). There are many studies where universal design is used in open and distance learning systems. Burgstahler (2002) names the open and distance education environments where universal design can be used as “(1) On-site instruction, (2) Electronic Communication, (3) Web Pages, (4) Printed Materials (5) Videotapes, Video Clips, Televised Video and Interactive Video (6) Audio-conferencing.” As these environments represent the open and distance learning environments used in 2002, it can be said that there is a need for up-to-date studies on how universal design can be used in open and distance learning environments enriched with contemporary educational technologies. Elias (2010) discussed the design of the learning management system called “Moodle” in his work and adapted the principles of universal design principles to open and distance education in order to improve the accessibility of the course. In his approach, he covered learners with various abilities, obstacles and needs in online learning environment and he added a principle called “Instructional climate” to the seven principles of universal design and replaced the seventh principle with a new principle called “Community of learners and support”. The eight principles Elias (2010) adapted to distance education are listed as follows: 1. Equitable Use: The design must be accessible for each individual in different places and with different abilities. 2. Flexible Use: Education shall be designed considering individual differences, preferences, academic calendar and level of dependence and the learners must be provided with the opportunity to choose the method they prefer. 3. Simple and Intuitive: The design of interface for online course must be easy to understand and must be independent from user’s experience, knowledge, linguistic skills, technical abilities and current level of concentration. Unnecessary complication must be avoided. 4. Perceptible Information: The design must deliver the most useful information in an efficient way and it must be independent from the circumstantial conditions and the sensual abilities of the learner. 135

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

5. Tolerance for Error: The design must minimize the dangers against the learner, accidents and undesirable actions. 6. Low Physical and Technical Effort: The design must minimize physical and mental effort for the learner. 7. Community of Learners and Support: The interaction in educational environment must be promoted; the communication among the learners, between learner-faculty and learner-management services must be enriched, as well. 8. Instructional Climate: The comments and feedbacks of the instructor must be positive and encouraging and in such a way that the learners feel the instructors have high expectations on them. The UDI Online Project (2009) carried out at Connecticut University lists the examples for utilization of UDI principles. Examples that can be used for 9 UDI principles in online and blended courses are given in Table 3. Rao and Tanners (2011) used UID and UDL principles to map the components of online course. In this context, they used • • • •

“Syllabus, text book, additional readings and web based instructional modules” as course material; “Assignments and final project” as instruction strategy; “Elluminate Live Sessions” as synchronous instruction material; and “Course Management System, Voice thread (a discussion forum) and e-mail” as asynchronous instruction material; and evaluated these based on UID and UDL principles.

This study is one of the most intriguing studies on the utilization of universal design principles in online courses of open and distance education environments. He (2014) used the UDL principles for the design of online courses for use in instructor training and developed a rubric. He defined a component in this rubric as “instructional design and delivery”. The principles he created under this heading “instructional design and delivery” are as follows: • • •

136

Multiple interactions must be provided, including synchronous sessions, asynchronous discussions, weekly email announcements, learner group collaboration, individual e-mail and Skype sessions. Learning activities must be clearly adapted to course objectives. The course must offer multiple audio, visual and written activity options to enhance the learners’ learning and accessibility.

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Table 3. Examples of UDI online and blended courses Examples of UDI in Online and Blended Courses UDI Principles

Examples

Equitable use

Providing learners with multiple options for explaining or demonstrating the significant points of a subject (web design, presentations, research papers); Using alternative resources for defining complicated concepts (easier reading levels).

Flexibility in Use

Making use of various instruction methods to offer different methods for learning and experiencing (mind/concept maps, group activities, outlines).

Simple and Intuitive

Offering rating rubrics that clearly define expectations concerning examination performance or projects; Creating a curriculum that is related to reading materials; Adding animated icons to course web sites to remind the learners of deadlines.

Perceptible Information

Using reading materials and other educational aids on web sites that are accessible through screen readers.

Tolerance for Error

Logging the discussions performed by the learners throughout the term; Providing the option to return to multiple drafts of an assignment in order to monitor a learner’s learning process and progress; Making use of “applied” exercises and tests.

Low Physical Effort

Breaking down a construct into multiple pages with headings to enable efficient use of the screen and web-site for efficient learning.

Size and Space for Approach and Use

Taking various communication tools into consideration in design when adding examples and graphics (for example, combining a text with visuals).

A Community of Learners

Creating work groups, discussion groups, project groups, chat rooms to promote in-class and outside-class communication of learners; Communicating personally with the learners through video conferencing software such as Skype or Adobe Connect.

Instructional Climate

Encouraging the learners of a class to respect and tolerate diversities; Emphasizing various philosophers who have contributed much to the area; Giving direct feedback about the innovative approaches developed by the learners of a class.

(UDI Online Project, 2009)

•

Course projects must improve learners’ critical thinking and problem solving skills (He, 2014).

The development of accessibility policies in distance education is very important. According to Burgstahler (2002), institutions offering open and distance education services must develop policies and procedures to ensure that disabled people have access as legally required. Steps should be taken to ensure that libraries, university departments, museums and other course materials are accessible in open and distance learning institutions. Although it is difficult to develop policies in open and distance education due to the frequent technological advancements, Burgstahler (2002) made 137

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

some suggestions about this. Simplified adaptation of the suggestions on the use of UDI in terms of management especially in open and distance learning systems is as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

Make sure that all shareholders, including disabled instructors and potential learners, are represented in terms of accessibility policies and procedures. Develop policies that promise to make the organization accessible to disabled people in terms of programs, services and resources. Describe the challenges that potential disabled participants may face in terms of the programs, services, resources, and tools used in delivery of these. Consult legal professionals to fully understand program, information and service accessibility and other regulatory requirements related to your organization. Develop guidelines for all media, tools, and strategies used in distance education courses. Assign a person or department to be responsible for updating program access policies and guidelines related to the disabled individuals and enabling harmony within the organization. Publish accessibility policy, guidelines and procedures within the organization. Provide regular training and support on accessibility issues. Evaluate improvements in accessibility regularly. As well as taking proactive steps to achieve accessibility, develop procedures to immediately respond to the requests for accommodations for the disability (Burgstahler, 2002).

CONCLUSION Open and distance education is a system that covers many individuals with different levels of knowledge, skills and abilities. Universal design principles support “universal access” claiming that diversities create substantiality. Open and distance education require that; the design is “for everyone” independent of disabled learners, average learners or learners with superior intelligence. As an administrative process, course design and delivery in open and distance learning systems requires the use of multiple sources, efficient use of time, good planning, analysis of needs and a professional team. Several administrative principles can be used in the design and delivery processes. In this paper, the works which used UDI principles in administrative processes were studied; and their applicability in open and distance education institutions were analyzed.

138

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

UDI principles form a simple approach that can be used in the context of the idea of ​​“design for all” for learners with different personalities, diversities or disabilities, which are located away from each other and from learning resources. Whether disabled or not, all learners should be integrated into society, encouraged, and assessed for their potentials. In this respect, design and delivery of accessible course materials can be done using UDI principles. All environments designed for the disabled can be used for all distance education leaners. At this point, the basic approach of UDI “accessibility” comes to the forefront. It can be argued that, UDI provides functional frameworks in general and includes principles that fit to both synchronous and asynchronous courses particularly in open and distance education environments. However, there might also be UDI-based unsuccessful practices. It is possible to correct deficiencies observed in unsuccessful practices. In this respect, it is possible to modify and amend UDI policies which offer a flexible framework and to adapt these to new practices. Furthermore; universal design derivatives such as UDL and UID can be used to introduce new principles in further studies. Literature review shows that, while there are significant works on the management of open and distance education systems, the administrative models used, processes related to course design and production are observed to focus on the previous technologies of 2000s such as audio cassettes, CDs, radio and television. It is seen that; educational environments that are developed and enriched with the internet do not take much place in administrative processes and that deficiency needs to be eliminated by conducting up-to-date administrative works. In future researches some of the UDI principles can be revised and principles compatible with new educational theories and developing educational technologies can be created. In conclusion, it can be stated that; UDI includes significant principles that are used in the administrative processes of open and distance education system and that can be used in the future, as well. However, it is clear that more work is needed about this issue. In literature, there is not enough work on this subject. UDI principles can be a good administrative guide in the design and delivery of educational environments that respect the different personal characteristics of today’s distance learners. The use of theoretical frameworks consisting of comprehensive principles such as UDI, in the design and delivery processes of course materials and dissemination of applications compatible with new technologies can be anticipated as one of the prominent future topics related to open and distance education institutions.

139

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

REFERENCES Akıncı, G. M. (2006). Evrensel tasarım yaklaşımı: Bayburt üniversitesi örneği. Tasarım+Kuram Dergisi, 10(17), 16-26. Akyol, E. (2009). Endustriyel tasarım eğitiminde evrensel tasarım algısı (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskisehir. Aydın, C. H. (2011). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme: öğrenci adaylarının bakış açısı. Ankara: İşkur Matbaacılık. Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., Havel, A., & Fichten, C. S. (2012). Universal design of instruction: A winwin situation! Pédagogie Collégiale, 25(4), 20–22. Retrieved from http://www.adaptech.org/sites/default/files/Barile-Vol_25-4(eng).pdf Barnes, C. (2012). Understanding the social model of disability. In Routledge handbook of disability studies. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15. doi:10.1177/004005991304500401 Bates, A. W. (1990). Audio cassettes in the British Open University. In Media and Technology in European Distance Education. EADTU. Beneke, S. J., & Ostrosky, M. (2013). The potential of the project approach to support diverse learners. Young Children, 68(3), 23–28. Berger, J., & Van Thanh, D. (2004). Leading organizations for universal design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 124–134. doi:10.1080/10665680490453959 Blum, C., & Parette, H. P. (2015). Universal design for learning and technology in the early childhood classroom. In Young Children and Families in the Information Age (pp. 165–182). Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9184-7_10 Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal design of instruction. Retrieved from http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468709.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning: Universal design, universal access. Educational Technology Review, 10(1), 32–61. Burgstahler, S. (2007). Universal design in education: principles and applications. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ Universal-Design-Education-Principles-Applications.pdf

140

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Burgstahler, S. (2007). Equal access: Universal design of instruction. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/ default/files/atoms/files/Equal-Access-Universal-Design-of-Instruction.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2012). Universal design in education: principles and applications. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ Universal-Design-Education-Principles-Applications.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2013). Introduction to universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: Promising practices. Seattle, WA: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington. edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Universal%20Design%20in%20Higher%20 Education_Promising%20Practices.pdf Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#. WCm_E_mLSUl CAST. (2015). CAST Timeline. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www. cast.org/about/timeline.html#.WC66N_mLSUk Cavington, G. A., & Hannah, B. (1997). Access by design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., . . . Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from http:// www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Davies, J. L. (1996). Higher education management, training and development quality indicators. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001057/105737E. pdf Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning ıntervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220. Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2016). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 1–12.

141

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Elias, T. (2010). Universal instructional design principles for Moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 110–124. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v11i2.869 Eren, E. (1988). Yönetim ve organizasyon. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A. Ş. Fichten, C. S., Heiman, T., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., & King, L. (2016). Sustainability of disability-related services in Canada and Israel: Will the real universal design please stand up? Exceptionality Education International, 26(1), 19–35. Fox, J. A., Hatfield, J. P., & Collins, T. C. (2003). Developing the curriculum transformation and disability workshop model. Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education, 23-39. Gurses Ates, F. (2013). Evrensel tasarım ilkelerine bağlı halk otobüsü seçimi: Bulanık vikor yöntemi ile bir uygulama (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Hacıhasanoğlu, I. (2003). Evrensel tasarım. Tasarım+ Kuram Dergisi, 2(3), 93-101. Harris, K. I. (2015). Developmentally universal practice: Visioning innovative early childhood pedagogy for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11-12), 1880–1893. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.10 28395 Hartmann, E. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) and learners with severe support needs. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11(1), 54–67. He, Y. (2014). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283. Higbee, J. L., & Goff, E. (2008). Pedagogy and Student Services for Institutional Transformation: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education. Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. Izzo, M. V., & Bauer, W. M. (2015). Universal design for learning: Enhancing achievement and employment of STEM students with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 17–27. doi:10.1007/s10209-013-0332-1 Katz, J. (2015). Implementing the three block model of universal design for learning: Effects on teachers self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K-12. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/136 03116.2014.881569

142

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. Kesim, E. (2015). The importance of distance education experts in the organizational development process of distance education institutions: A theoretical evaluation. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 73–88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch006 Keskin, U., Büyük, K., & Koç, U. (2013). Yönetsel ve örgütsel açıdan retorik. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 27–40. Khan, A. R., & Garg, S. (2003). Material production and distribution, and operations management (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access to the general education curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities: Childrens school success. Exceptionality, 16(1), 18–32. doi:10.1080/09362830701796776 Mace, R., Hardy, G., & Place, K. (1991). Accessible environments: Towards universal design. In W. E. Preiser, J. C. Visher, & E. T. White (Eds.), Design interventions towards a more humane architecture (pp. 155–176). New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11–21. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Newby, W. (2005). Voices from the classroom. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 120, 598–602. Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2016). Universal design for learning in pre-k to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 1–24. Panda, S., & Chaudhary, S. (2003). Management of media development and production (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Parette, H. P., Blum, C., & Quesenberry, A. C. (2013). The role of technology for young children in the 21st century. Instructional Technology in Early Childhood, 1-28. Paul, R. H. (1990). Open learning and open management: Leadership and integrity in distance education. London: Kogan Page.

143

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Powar, K. B. (2003). Management of institutions (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Quaglia, B. W. (2015). Planning for student variability: Universal design for learning in the music theory classroom and curriculum. Music Theory Online, 21(1). Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211–229. Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5–15. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47–51. doi:10.1080/1066568980310206 Smith, R. E., & Buchannan, T. (2012). Community collaboration, use of universal design in the classroom. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 259–265. Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons. Stolarchuk, L., Baker, N., & Cobb, C. (2013). Universal design for instruction and teaching strategies. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi ?article=1001&context=ctlpres UDI Online Project. (2009). Examples of UDI in online and blended courses. Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Retrieved from http://udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/examples-udi-onlineand-blended-courses U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315. pdf Uslu, A., & Shakouri, N. (2014). Kentsel peyzajda engelli/yaşlı birey için bağımsız hareket olanağı ve evrensel tasarım kavramı. Journal of Forestry Faculty of Kastamonu University, 14(1).

144

Administrative Factors in Design and Delivery of Open and Distance Learning Course Materials

Webb, K. K., & Hoover, J. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library: A methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 537–553. doi:10.5860/ crl.76.4.537 Winter, G. A. (2016). Examining teachers’ lesson plans following universal design for learning training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University. Zhong, Y. (2012). Universal design for learning (UDL) in library instruction. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19(1), 33–45. doi:10.1080/10691316.2012.652549

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Accessibility: Any product, facility, service, technology, or environment is accessible and available to everyone, including the disabled and elderly. Administration: The whole of the processes that includes making and applying decisions to use the financial resources, equipment, fixtures, raw materials, utilities and time in a coherent, efficient and effective manner to reach at certain objectives (Eren, 1988). Open and Distance Learning: The learning process in which the communication among the learners who are physically distant from learning sources in terms of time and / or space or their communication with educational resources are realized based on remote communication technologies (Aydın, 2011). Universal Design: Principles aimed at designing products and environment in such a way that they are accessible to all users regardless of their age or disability without the need for any adaptation or customized design. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Theoretical framework which intends to provide equal opportunities to all individuals in educational environments, which is based on neuroscience and includes three principles: (1) “Multiple Means of Representation”, (2) “Multiple Means of Action and Expression”, and (3) “Multiple Means of Engagement”. Universal Design for Instruction (UDI): Principles that aim to have education accessible to all learners and which is formed by adding two principles “community of learners” and “instructional climate” to the 7 principles of the universal design. Universal Instructional Design (UID): Adaptation of universal design which consists of 8 elements and aims at ensuring equality between learners, promoting involvement of disabled learners in education systems and respect to diversities.

145

146

Chapter 6

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning Vimbi Petrus Mahlangu University of South Africa, South Africa

ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to argue that all open and distance learning (ODL) institutions should carry out quality assurance and accreditation processes in order for students and funders to have confidence in them. It also explains in detail what quality assurance and accreditation entails in ODL. This chapter follows a qualitative approach in understanding quality assurance and accreditation in ODL. Data were collected via literature review. During recent decades, the discourse and practices of systematic quality assurance and quality control have spread around the world, resulting to a great extent in market-based models related to the ideology and policy of neo-liberalism and expressed in economic rationalities such as new public management, total quality management, public choice, and human capital. Quality assurance and accreditation in ODL aims to maintain and raise the quality of education and to guarantee the improvement of its standards.

INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on quality assurance and accreditation in open and distance learning (ODL) institutions. Mahlangu (2016, p. 107) maintains that, although much has been written about quality assurance, only limited work exists that explores quality assurance and accreditation in ODL. Quality assurance and accreditation in ODL ought to be based on the following assumptions: DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch006 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

KNOW-learners are able to build their own knowledge on a daily basis looking at external elements; DO-learners are able to apply what is learnt in ODL program; LIVE-all learners are afforded equal opportunities to develop themselves and their communities and therefore they should BE-addressing the skills required for individual students to develop their potential (Mahlangu, 2016, p. 111). Quality is seen as an ongoing method of evaluating, assessing, monitoring, guaranteeing, maintaining, and improving the quality of ODL education systems, institutions, or programs (Mahlangu, 2016, p. 109). Quality management strategyas-practice is neither much concerned with nor able to explain the performance of ODL institutions in practice (Jarzabkowski, Kaplan, Seidl, & Whittington, 2016, p.272). Quality management practices must be tied to the “who” and the “how,” should quality assurance be done. Quality assurance and accreditation in ODL must strive towards ensuring accountability for public funds; improving the quality of ODL education provision; informing funding decisions; stimulating competitiveness within and between ODL institutions; quality checking on new and private ODL institutions; supporting the transfer of authority between the state and ODL institutions; and assisting students’ mobility (Latchem, 2016, p.10).

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING This article is based on a social constructivist approach with the view that all knowledge and the meaningful reality is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world and transmitted within the social context (Justus & Nangombe, 2016, p.91). Under the influence of neo-liberalism, public education has been invaded by the private sector, which has its own quality education systems oriented toward profit-making. Neoliberalism not only affects economic and political activities but also is transforming ODL management systems, knowledge production, and educational beliefs. The acquisition of knowledge by countries around the world should include absorbing knowledge of others, open trade, external investment, licensing agreements, and local and indigenous knowledge development. The acquisition of knowledge is concerned with national educational policies, which include improving the education of disadvantaged groups as well as lifelong learning (Chen & Chin, 2016, p. 116). It is good practice that quality assurance (QA) procedures must include self-evaluation,

147

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

followed by review by quality assurors who are competent to make national and international comparisons (Kelleher, 2016, p.3). Social power plays an important role in influencing the quality of ODL programs. Feasibly the most well-known expression of the underlying assumption of constructivism is this famous quotation by Ausubel: “The most important factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.” The main principle of constructivism in ODL is that quality assurance and accreditation must be the building blocks whereby new knowledge can be added and understood in terms of quality assurance. The implications of this notion are important. Constructivist epistemology advocates a constructivist education that will be used in checking and activating quality management systems when doing accreditation in ODL. Constructivism implies that hypothetico-deductive reasoning is a practice that all quality assurors must engage in when trying to understand ODL quality standards. The scientific method and diagnostic reasoning have to be constructivist. Constructivism underpins many human interactions when dealing with and recognizing both the prior knowledge of ODL quality management systems and the personal constructs of individual quality assurors when doing quality assurance (Dennick, 2016, pp. 200–204).

RESEARCH DESIGN A qualitative approach was followed in this research. Qualitative information was gathered using document analysis. Today, qualitative research covers a crossdisciplinary field involving the humanities and social sciences, assuming traditions or multiple paradigms of analysis derived from positivism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, Marxism, critical theory, and constructivism and seek not only to make sense of these phenomena but also to interpret the meanings that people give to them (de Lima Ferreira & Bertotti, 2016, p. 1427). The rise of neo-liberal thought has accelerated the expansion of several universities, but neither neo-liberal thought nor neo-liberalism itself can satisfy the need to explain the changes taking place in the ODL education market, especially the value of obtaining a higher education degree in a modernizing society.

METHODS In compiling this chapter, data were collected through a literature review.

148

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to explore the following themes: • • • • • • • • • •

Social constructivist approach to quality assurance and accreditation in ODL Stakeholder theory The purpose of quality assurance Performance indicators aimed at quality assurance Performance indicators for programs Performance indicators for courses Categories of quality indicators Accreditation guidelines to enhance quality assurance Dimensions of service quality Recommendations to ensure quality assurance

STAKEHOLDER THEORY Stakeholder theory refers to the management activities of the enterprise managers in balancing the interests of all stakeholders. This theory points out that an enterprise’s survival and development depends on stakeholder support. Therefore, enterprises also have an obligation to meet the requirements of these stakeholders (Zhang, 2016, p. 477). Stakeholder theory argues that organizations create value through their relationships with a variety of parties, including not only shareholders but also customers, suppliers, competitors, employees, regulators, community members, and any others “who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). Stakeholder relationships in ODL are valuable not only because they help reduce costs and avoid risk but also because they create demand, foster flexibility, and attract resources. For these reasons, ODL institutions that are managed for stakeholders can sustain superior performance as compared with those that are not (Hess & Hess, 2016, p. 55). Khanyile and Green (2016, p. 329) are of the opinion that organizations enter into relationships with different groups that these groups influenced and are influenced by the organization. The theory puts emphasis on the nature of these relationships in terms of processes and outcomes for the organization and its stakeholders. The interests of all students as stakeholders are of intrinsic value and it is assumed that there is no single prevailing set of interests. The theory focuses on management decision making. It explains how stakeholders attempt to influence organizational decision making processes, in

149

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

order for them to be aligned with their needs and priorities; and organizations are expected to understand and balance their interests and those of different students. In any organization, trust judgments among the stakeholders are based on selective perceptions. Trust can be lost through unmet expectations of integrity, goodwill, and consistency of action that are inherent in the contract between the parties involved. To reestablish trust, stakeholders have to hold true to their promises and to be consistent, acting in good faith. While there are many features to organizational trust, two generalized features are the following: competence-based trust and goodwill-based trust. Competence-based trust is considered the cornerstone of interorganizational alliances. In essence, competence-based trust is one of the most important conditions for the continuation of ODL institutions. It is the belief that one party has faith in another’s ability to execute activities. Goodwill-based trust is an emotional belief about another party, the confidence that one party will not intentionally harm the other party. It concerns the motives of the other actor and involves aspects of integrity, benevolence, and honesty. Goodwill-based trust is tied to past relations and requires a considerable amount of specific information acquired over long periods (Brown, Buchholtz, & Dunn, 2016, p. 188). While ODL institutions expect that students’ needs and learning expectations will be met, each student is only one small part of the bigger picture. Nevertheless, that small part has the potential to make or break the ongoing partner relationships. ODL institutions have the power to influence decision making regarding employment (Horstmanshof & Moore, 2016, pp. 98–99). According to Ali and Abdelfettah (2016), the normative stakeholder theory includes those stakeholders to whom the organization has a moral obligation, as an obligation of stakeholder fairness, over and above that due to other social actors simply by virtue of their being human. The theory holds that the organization is poised between cooperation and competition, each with its own intrinsic value. The descriptive facet of the stakeholder theory is used to describe and explain characteristics and specific behaviors, such as the nature of the ODL institution. Three different attributes are associated with this theory—namely, power, legitimacy, and urgency. •

•

150

Power is “the probability that one actor within a social relationship would be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance” (Ali & Abdelfettah, 2016, p. 44). For ODL institutions to implement power depend on the type of resources they have and the allegiance they have with the stakeholder. This principle is considered a cornerstone of the theory of resource dependence. Legitimacy is “a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

•

system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Ali & Abdelfettah, 2016, pp. 44–45). The stakeholder attribute of urgency is a claim of stakeholders “that takes into account the dynamic interactions between stakeholders and managers” (Ali & Abdelfettah, 2016, p. 45).

Stakeholders may be classified as primary or secondary. Primary stakeholders interact directly with the system, and the organization cannot survive without their participation. Secondary stakeholders interact indirectly with the system and are not essential for its survival. Stakeholders could be internal or external groups, depending on whether they originate from inside or outside the organization (Ali & Abdelfettah, 2016, p. 46). Inclusion of all voices is essential to improve the understanding of the expectations of each stakeholder and to encourage continuous improvement in the delivery of ODL programs for the benefit of all. Stakeholder theory provides a conceptual tool that helps understand the agency, power, and influence of those with an interest or stake in the ODL environment. Different stakeholders are involved in ODL, for example: •

• •

Stakeholder 1. ODL Institutions: The changing nature of work and education, employers’ need for flexibility, and changes in public policy regarding the workplace and higher education have an influence on the nature and impact of the stakeholder voice. Stakeholder 2. Students: Engaging students in student-voice activities can strengthen their development in social skills, hence preparing them for the real world is vital. Stakeholder 3. ODLs as Employers/Supervisors: Even though ODL institutions are a critical component of ODL education, there is little research on understanding and developing the meaning of this relationship between quality assurance and accreditation in ODL. There is a need for ODL institutions to be able to articulate the significance of integrating quality assurance into their programs. To meet the need of a well-trained workforce, ODL institutions must work with all stakeholders in order to balance the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency and to meet the stakes of each segment or stakeholder (Hoyle & Deschaine, 2016, pp. 375–376).

There is a lack of a universally accepted definition of quality. Since the concept of quality is dynamic, it is divided into three subcategories: quality, quality management, and quality management practices. Romle et al. (2016) define quality as conformance to the organizations’ own quality requirements. Quality management is the management process that is central to or dominates the action of quality 151

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

control and quality assurance. Therefore, quality management supports the idea that quality is the responsibility of all management, not just a quality assuror. It has four components: quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and quality improvement.

Quality Management Practices The danger of superficial understandings of quality management practices is one of misattribution: espoused practices are held out as examples to imitate and adopt, when it is improvisations and workarounds that are really making the practices work (Jarzabkowski, Kaplan, Seidl, & Whittington, 2016:262). The preceding four factors of quality management focus on achieving and sustaining high-quality output using management practices as the input and quality performance as the output. Total quality in ODL as an educational institution ought to be characterized by increased student satisfaction through continuous quality assurance processes in which all staff and students actively participate (Romle et al., 2016, pp. 620–621). From this definition, we can see that the whole process should be geared toward meeting the needs of students while identifying future improvements. Therefore, ODL institutions are expected to deliver quality education to students. Communication in ODL is important for daily tasks within an ODL environment and in providing open distance education, yet some obstacles, for example ambiguous policies and communication red tape, which may be considered factors to cause failure by miscommunication and misinterpretation due to quality assurors’ differences in doing quality assurance (Suwandej, 2015, p.2222). Formal quality processes in ODL institutions should be designed by the requirement to respond to the audits of quality assurance agencies, which focus on the activities of the institutions and their staff. Feedback in all its forms can have a powerful influence on a learning environment, although the effects can be both positive and negative (Leonard, FitzGerald, & Bacon, 2016, p. 17). Quality assurance activities depend on the existence of the necessary institutional mechanisms, preferably sustained by solid quality assurance principles. The scope of quality assurance ought to be determined by the shape and size of the ODL system. Quality assurance differs from accreditation in the sense that the former is only a prerequisite for the latter. Quality assurance is often seen as a part of the quality management of ODL, while sometimes the two terms are used interchangeably (Siyouki, Keshavarz, & Rahimi, 2016, p. 919). The International Organization of Standardization (2010) has defined quality as “the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements.” More recently, quality has been simply defined as “doing the right things for the right people, at the right time and doing them right the first time” (Kalra & Kopargaonkar, 2016, p. 12). 152

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Learning, as a process, encompasses four different stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. For the adult learner, this model could also be used to describe field-based quality assurance (Doran, Sciglimpagtia, & Toole, 2001, p. 11).

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE? When institutional actors are uncertain about an institution’s worth, they rely on the institution’s social status to make inferences about its quality. Thus, an organization’s status serves as a signal to compensate for quality uncertainty. Although the social status of an ODL institution can be influenced in part by its past performance outcomes, an ODL institution can boost its position within the status hierarchy when its affiliates have a high status in quality assurance (Mukundhan & Nandakumar, 2016, p. 69). University rankings have emerged as a response to the needs of policymakers, higher education institutes, academicians, and the general public since the beginning of the 1980s when media and research institutions across the world began releasing improved and specified versions of rankings. University rankings are a critical criterion in decision making for various stakeholders, yet there are possible negative side effects of these rankings. In comparing accountability, quality assurance, and ranking methods, the primary goal of rankings is to provide information to their target customers, mainly students and parents and other ODL education institutions, about their quality, while on the other hand, quality assurance and accountability mechanisms focus on improving quality and financial accountability (Olcay & Bulu, 2016, p. 2). According to Yingqiang and Yongjian (2016, pp. 7–8), to respond to diverse stakeholder concerns about the quality in ODL institutions, …countries around the world established and improved quality assurance systems for higher education with the hope of improving the quality of higher education in their countries or regions. Accountability and new managerialism provided the theoretical explanation and support for governments and society to intervene in ODL education. In practice, as a primary vehicle for accountability, ODL institutions’ education quality assurance units absorbed these concepts, once commonly seen as private sector values, and made them more specific. As quality assurance is needed by ODL programs, such concepts have to permeate all levels of the ODL system, and to become the guiding ideology for quality assurance. This ideology has to be typically reflected in accountability, supervision, control, performance, and

153

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

functioning of all ODL institutions. In this sense, ODL education quality assurance itself has evolved into an ideology occupying a hegemonic position. To increase the capacity of quality processes to enhance learning in ODL settings, there is a need to avoid an overreliance on any one data source, or one theory of learning, and to develop approaches for using multiple data sources that will respond to the complexity of learning environments (Leonard et al., 2016, p. 19). According to Pitsoe and Letseka (2016, p. 96), assessment in ODL contexts requires making expectations and standards for quality explicit and public. Quality assurance is a critical element when it comes to accreditation in ODL. These institutions have an obligation to provide some guarantee of the quality of the programs they offer to students. According to Farahmand (2016, p. 7), ODL institutions should have the following principles in place: • • • • • • • •

A mission statement A vision of the organization Core values A code of conduct for the organization Realistic goals Long-term objectives Implementation and follow-up strategies Analysis of both internal and external trends on how ODL should be operated

Strategies and procedures should guide quality assurors toward students’ personal empowerment, self-help, and the capability to cope with the different facets of ODL individually. Suitable tools and services need to be provided as pointers in doing quality assurance. Assessment of ODL materials and training processes must take into account the individual student’s requirements, preferences, and capabilities. Dissimilarities in learning programs, pace of learning and preferences influence how individuals in ODL institutions obtain their skills and competencies. ODL programs and individual needs are not synonymous and should be quality assured differently in ODL settings (Rossouw & Alexander, 2015, p. 76). Quality assurance should be carried out in each and every ODL environment. In managing quality in ODL, the broad dimensions of engagement, encompassing feelings of emotional involvement (sense of belonging and enjoyment) and behavioral engagement (class attendance, supportive behavior toward the lecturer), and cognitive engagement (invested in their own learning, seeking challenge) should be specified in a program’s outcomes. It makes for better pedagogy to link the skills to disciplinary knowledge and learning development in an ODL setting. Methods such as mindmapping should be part of ODL programs to support students’ understanding of 154

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

how all programs interrelate (O’Rawe, 2015, pp. 177–180). Organizations could be assessed for their learning culture based on seven different but interrelated action imperatives. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Create continuous learning opportunities. Promote inquiry and dialogue. Encourage collaboration and team learning. Empower people toward a collective vision. Connect the organization to its environment. Establish systems to capture and share learning. Provide strategic leadership for learning (Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016, p.26).

Accreditation and quality assurance in an ODL environment must be considered as one of the pillars in the development of education. Quality assurance must try to guarantee the improvement of standards in ODL institutions. It enables them to gain the necessary input, refine the processes, and raise the standards of output to meet the goals set and the needs of students, employers, and financiers in ODL. Accreditation, on the other hand, should be viewed as the cornerstone to achieving quality assurance in ODL. Stakeholders have a range of expectations about quality outcomes in ODL. The accreditation process, while responding to institutional and programmatic interests, can play a major role by changing accreditation standards and by placing a strong emphasis on performance outcomes, especially student learning outcomes (Jaber & Batsh, 2016, pp. 312–314).

QUALITY INDICATORS AIMED AT QUALITY ASSURANCE When working on quality assurance processes, ODL institutions are expected to develop internal quality control systems which take into account their institutional realities as they relate to their organisational culture (Njiro, 2016, p.80).The size of an ODL institution is an indicator of modes of strategy application and the ease of implementation of quality assurance strategies (Kelly, 2016, p.62). A good system for quality assurance in ODL institutions must be characterized by an organization in which the quality assurance techniques are embedded within the organization’s structure, and they are an integral part of the day-to-day functioning of the quality assurors within the organization (Stalmeijer, Whittingham, de Grave & Dolmans, 2016, p. 53). Quality Assurance in ODL requires a multi-dimensional approach. Assessment must be seen as a key driver in fostering student learning in ODL. Criterion-referenced, standards-based assessment tasks must be accompanied by a 155

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

grading tool that should outline the specified criteria being assessed, the attainable levels of achievement or standards, and standards descriptors that will capture the expected quality of work (Grainger & Weir, 2016, pp.74-75). The purpose of quality assurance in ODL should be to implement quality assurance policies and practices for ODL education. This means that the quality of students, lecturers, and support services, and ultimately, the quality of the ODL institution, should be the main focus. Before an ODL program can be accredited, the quality assurance framework standards should include curriculum design, quality of faculty, and quality of research; available technological infrastructure on administrative policies; and the accreditation regime. These are the key factors that ought to influence quality in ODL. Indicators of quality assurance can be divided into three phases: educational input, educational output, and educational process (Shahid, Wahab, & Ahmed, 2016, pp. 146–147). Generally speaking, quality assurance systems should include external monitoring and emphasize accountability rather than constant improvement. The use of performance indicators requires ODL institutions to participate in critical self-assessments that will support the development of a reflective culture of quality, which is vital in developing ODL systems. In developing performance indicators, care should be taken to ensure that they provide a comprehensive analysis of the most relevant domains of quality in ODL institutions. For example, before accreditation can take place, ODL institutions are expected to check that programs do the following (Rama & Hope, 2009, p. 7): • • • • • • •

Capture the important aspects of performance Reflect institutional realities Focus on the impact of institutional processes on learners Reflect key policy concerns Make sense logically and in practice Capture meaningful aspects of quality provisions Be realistic about whether any of the programs are implementable

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR PROGRAMS Recruitment strategies and employment in a profession need to be considered when interpreting these indicators. To gain stakeholder confidence in ODL, there should be an improvement in the basic processes; relevant allocation of the human, material, and financial and information resources; and effective and able management to set a clear and understandable strategy by the quality assurors (AL-Hayaly & Alnajjar,

156

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

2016, p. 75). Some of the performance indicators for programs are retention, pass rate, and completion times.

Retention A low retention rate may suggest that there are potential quality issues in the process of student admission, teaching and learning, and in the overall student experience. Prompt actions to address early attrition are critical to minimize the compound effect on attrition in the later years of the program.

Pass Rate This is a core indicator of student success and the quality of the academic environment. When the pass rate is at very high or very low levels, it may suggest that there are potential quality issues in student teaching and learning and/or the overall student experience.

Completion Times This indicator represents one dimension of the effectiveness of the delivery of educational services. The number of students in different study modes (full time or part time) needs to be factored in when interpreting the results (Wong & Lavrencic, 2016, p. 11).

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR COURSES Educational quality indicators are a set of elements that define standards for academic quality in an ODL environment, and they are the fundamental foundation for any educational quality evaluation process (Lopez, Yañes, Salgado, & Vergara, 2016, p. 114). The way the courses are organized is very important. Organization refers to the specialization and structure of the courses. Planning is also important. Planning refers to the use of control strategies prior to the accreditation process and to reviewing the courses to essentially perform the process of quality assurance when finished with the accreditation. The factor of applicability is important too. It seeks to check the functionality and the application of course content. Lastly, the factor of effort is necessary. This is based on establishing goals and quality standards associated with the area of student specialization (Rodríguez, Morales, & Mansanares, 2016, pp. 30–31).

157

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Enrollments An unplanned significant increase in student enrollments could potentially impact the quality of the student experience. Conversely, an unplanned significant and continuing decrease may signal a decline in the quality of courses offered as perceived by prospective students.

Pass Rate This is a core indicator of student success and the quality of the academic program. When the pass rate is at very high or very low levels, it may suggest that there are potential quality issues in student teaching and learning and/or the overall student experience (Wong and Lavrencic, 2016, p. 11).

CATEGORIES OF QUALITY INDICATORS There are different categories of quality assurance. Lopez et al. (2016, p. 128) categorized the following quality assurance indicators: •

• •

•

158

Administrative Indicators: Institutions as related to developing a relevant mission and vision, establishing institutional legitimacy, achieving internal/ external standards and goals, and procuring resources for optimal institutional functioning; indicators relating to support services for the institutional community (students, faculty, alumni, etc.) as well as the administrative personnel who work in these service areas. Faculty Indicators: Relating to the profile of the faculty supporting the institution’s academic activities, focusing on the learning process as well as research. Student Support Indicators: A set of quality indicators that pertain to the availability and responsiveness of student support services—for example, the degree to which student complaints are adequately addressed; indicators relating to the profile and characteristics of the student population, from prospective students to alumni. Instructional Indicators/Academic Indicators: The competence of instructors—for example, programs and courses that prepare students for employment; indicators relating to the academic offerings of the institution with regard to its academic programs and degrees and their structure, review, and evaluation.

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

•

•

•

Student Performance Indicators: A set of quality indicators that pertain to student engagement with curriculum, faculty, and staff and increases in knowledge, skills, and abilities that lead to gainful employment, such as increased critical thinking skills (Njiro, 2016, p. 85). Physical Resources: Indicators relating to the physical resources the institution counts on to support its purpose as it relates to its academic offerings and educational model, research, and facilities for cultural and sports activities. Planning and Finances: Indicators relating to the institution’s strategic planning cycles, focused on continuous improvement and the financial resources that support the institution and the planning and administration processes associated with these.

ACCREDITATION GUIDELINES TO ENHANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE Accreditation in ODL is a way of verification of a definite institution’s education quality which has been approved by academic quality approval and presented to a person, group or people who needs education. Accreditation is a concept developed in education to agree on certain standards (Yildiz & İşman, 2016, p.2857). Accreditation requires much effort and money from ODL institutions (Westerheijden, 2016, p.25). Quality in ODL can be characterized by three elements, namely: staffing, training and methodological materials, material and technical infrastructure. The development of ODL institutions, which offer courses on profit taking basis and offer instruction in multiple sites and without permanent staff and other facilities, pose problems for quality assurance agencies (Kumar, 2015, p.332). The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by ODL institutions meets acceptable levels of quality. According to O’Rourke (2016, pp.597-598) standards for accreditation must, inter alia, address the quality of the institution or program in the following areas: 1. Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the ODL institution’s mission; 2. Curricula; 3. Facilities, equipment, and supplies; 4. Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the specified scale of operations; 5. Student support services; 6. Recruiting and admissions practices; 159

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

7. Measures of program length and the objectives of the 8. degrees or credentials offered; 9. Record of student complaints received by, or available to, the ODL institution; and 10. Record of compliance. There are different models of accreditation. The process of accreditation requires ODL institutions to have qualified and competent quality assurors. According to Hou (Angela), Ince, Tsai, Wang, Hung, Jiang & Chen (2016:478) there are different models that can be followed in accreditation in an ODL environment, namely: •

•

•

•

160

National Accreditation: Evaluation activities involve Individual procedure. Separate onsite visit, multi-final report and various accreditation outcomes are done. The advantage for this model is simple and cost saving. Its weaknesses are that multiple visits, multiple panels, even multiple decisions must be done in this model. Joint Accreditation: Evaluation involves a joint procedure. There are multi onsite visits, one single report and outcome is done. The advantage is that common objective, integrated program, and internationalization can be achieved. Its weaknesses are time-consuming. It needs more human resources and cost. International Accreditation: Evaluation activities involve an individual procedure. Separate onsite visit, multi-final report and single accreditation outcome is done. This model has a lack of diversity and differentiation. It can easily reduce national Quality Assurance agency capacity building and participation and violate national sovereignty of countries. Single Accreditation: Evaluation activities involve a joint procedure. One onsite visit, one single report and outcome is done. The advantage is that common objective, and integrated program can be achieved. It is also time, human resources and cost saving for institutions. The challenge of this model is that it can take time to determine a coordinating Quality Assurance agency. Learning outcomes must be articulated and achieved. ODL institutions are expected to organize their work, determine their content of offerings and set expectations for students who enrol in them. Learning outcomes should meet postsecondary expectations of students. Curricula provide should provide opportunities for successful transfer of credit from one ODL institution to another. Transparency must be maintained and comparability be established in order to provides reliable, easily accessible and readily understandable information to the public and students (Uvalić-Trumbić & Daniel, 2016:3). In technical terms, quality assurance must be carried out by an expert panel

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

that assesses the quality assurance system of the institutions based on visits, review of annual reports and the like (Schmidt, 2017:8). Accreditation processes could be at the institutional level, where the evaluation is done in all areas of the ODL institution, or at the program level, where the focus of the accreditation process is a particular area or program and its most relevant aspects. Accreditation processes both at the ODL institutional and at the program level require that the ODL institution establishes a relationship between its own strategic ODL quality indicators and those defined by the accreditation organizations in order to analyze and respond to the requirements of the accreditation process with evidence (Lopez et al., 2016, p. 113). When doing quality assurance and accreditation in ODL, quality assurors should be in a position to determine how the program or ODL institution is helping students integrate or transfer the classroom learning of theory and reflection to workplace activities (Doran et al., 2001, p. 11). By the time of graduation, students are expected to know and to be able to achieve the program outcomes—for example, to have the ability to apply knowledge; the ability to design, analyze, and interpret data; the ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; the ability to identify, formulate, and solve problems; an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; the ability to communicate effectively; the broad education necessary to understand the global and social contexts; knowledge of contemporary issues; the ability to use various concepts, formulations, principles, and methods to tackle problems in the real world; and the ability to use analysis, synthesis, logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills to solve new problems in practice (Duan & Bassett, 2012, p. 2). The principles for assessing institutional performance should be based on performance indicators such as academic achievement, attendance rates, dropout rates, and compliance with procedures for the standardization of educational provision and data management. Quality ought to be clearly defined in terms of quantity through measurable outcomes, benchmarks, performance indicators, and other statistics reminiscent of the key performance indicators (Brady & Bates, 2016, p. 169). According to Chan and Kanjanawasee (2016, pp. 187–188), two specific educational quality guidelines are needed to reflect the conditions or characteristics of the input, process, output, outcome, and impact in ODL. The first guideline is composed of six dimensions of educational quality: • • • • • •

Management and good governance Strategic planning Educational programs Quality of academic staff Teaching and learning resources Student admission 161

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

The second guideline consists of nine dimensions of educational quality: • • • • • • • • •

Mission Governing structure, management, and planning Academic programs Quality of academic staff Students and student services Learning services Physical facilities Financial plan and management Dissemination of information

DIMENSIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY The dimensions by which we measure ODL institutions’ performance must depend on the purpose of evaluation. There is no reason to expect that an ODL institution that is good in one area will necessarily be good in another. Through the literature review, the following service quality dimensions were identified: • • • • •

Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers

Some authors indicated that service quality links directly to student satisfaction (Chin, 2010, pp. 33–34). The physical appearance of facilities, personnel, communication materials, equipment, and so on, may help to improve an ODL’s image. The quality of service may influence students’ perception of ODL. In fact, there is a relationship between the tangible dimension of service quality and students’ satisfaction. Perceptions of service quality can have a major influence on student satisfaction and thus attract more students through word-of-mouth communications service. Quality is a key performance measure in ODL excellence, and it is the main strategy available for ODLs to create a strong perception in students’ minds (Ideris, 2016, p. 796). 162

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

In the ODL mode of learning, the content provider and the student are separated by physical distance. This is a learning environment in which lecturers and students are not, for the most part, in a face-to-face situation. ODL institutions can meet the growing demand for courses and programs for distance students by improving the aspect of quality. Quality in the ODL environment is often judged in terms of the learning materials, whatever the medium. The success of an ODL program depends on how well the course production, delivery, and student support subsystems are functioning (Nsuki, Bowa, Gunga, & Origa, 2015, pp. 87–88).

RECOMMENDATIONS ODL institutions should follow scientific and applied quality assurance standards and principles when doing quality assurance and accreditation of their programs. It is recommended that they institute official and specialized units/departments to examine inventive ideas and then form working groups within them to make an incentive scheme for original achievements in order to support the process of knowledge discovery. To increase the capacity of quality processes to enhance learning in ODL settings, there is a need to avoid an over-reliance on any one data source, or one theory of learning and to develop approaches for using multiple data sources that respond to the complexity of ODL learning environments (Leonard, Fitzgerald, & Bacon, 2016, p.19). They should also establish evaluation processes for accreditation with the purpose to revise their social function (relevance) as well as the quality of the services they offer. There may be problems when quality assurance systems are imported from other countries. To establish an accreditation system in the field of ODL, a quality assurance system special for each and every ODL institution should be established considering the local institutional, cultural, structural and technical characteristics of each institution. Quality assurance systems should concentrate on the basics, which are the students’ learning outcomes.

CONCLUSION ODL institutions have to battle with limited resources, both physical and human, to ensure that quality assurance and accreditation of their programs takes place. They need to configure their praxis in order to deliver quality programs and services. Students cannot learn effectively and efficiently until they are convinced that ODL programs are quality assured and accredited. Quality assurors must be able to identify areas for improvement and areas of good practice in their reports. They must also formulate improvement strategies suitable to ODL environment. 163

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

REFERENCES Al-Hayaly, M. A. M. S., & Alnajjar, F. J. S. (2016). Knowledge management processes and their impact on organizational performance, the adoption balanced scorecard: The moderating role of quality assurance standards—An applied study on private Jordanian universities. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(6), 70–86. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n6p70 Ali, A., & Abdelfettah, B. (2016). An overview on stakeholder theory perspective: Towards managing stakeholder expectation. International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 3(3), 40–53. Brady, N., & Bates, A. (2016). The standards paradox: How quality assurance regimes can subvert teaching and learning in higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 155–174. doi:10.1177/1474904115617484 Brown, J. A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Dunn, P. (2016). Moral salience and the role of goodwill in firm-stakeholder trust repair. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 181–199. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.27 Chan, S., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2016). Development of internal quality assurance indicators of faculty of education in Cambodia. Scholar, 8(1), 186–200. Chen, R. J., & Chin, J. M. (2016). Beyond neo-liberalism: Higher education diploma inflation in Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 13(1), 113–132. Chin, W. M. (2010). Analyzing structural relationships between service quality, disconfirmation, satisfaction and loyalty. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 5(2), 31–44. Dahlberg, G. (2016). An ethico-aesthetic paradigm as an alternative discourse to the quality assurance discourse. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 124–133. doi:10.1177/1463949115627910 de Lima Ferreira, & Bertotti, G. R. (2016). Continuing education for professional development in higher education teaching. Creative Education, 7, 1425–1435. Dennick, R. (2016). Constructivism: Reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education. International Journal of Medical Education, 7, 200–205. PMID:27344115 Doran, M., Sciglimpagtia, D., & Toole, H. (2001). The role of field-based business consulting experiences in AACSB business education: An exploratory survey and study. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 2(l), 8–18.

164

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Duan, S., & Bassett, K. (2012, November). Integration of course learning outcomes with program assessment for ABET accreditation. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition. doi:10.1115/ IMECE2012-86896 Farahmand, N. F.-H. (2016). Competition forces attack management by new ways of managing conflicts. Nova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 1–11. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Grainger, P., & Weir, K. (2016). An alternative grading tool for enhancing assessment practice and quality assurance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(1), 73–83. doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1022200 Hess, M. F., & Hess, A. M. (2016). Stakeholder-driven strategic renewal. International Business Research, 9(3), 53–67. doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n3p53 Horstmanshof, L., & Moore, K. (2016). Understanding the needs of all the stakeholders: Issues of training and preparation for health work students and their clinical educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 93–100. Hou, Y-C., Ince, M., Tsai, S., Wang, W., Hung, V., Jiang, C.L., & Chen, K. (. (2016). Quality assurance of joint degree programs from the perspective of quality assurance agencies: Experience in East Asia. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(3), 473–487. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1107878 Hoyle, J., & Deschaine, M. E. (2016). An interdisciplinary exploration of collegiate internships: Requirements for undergraduate and graduate programs. Education + Training, 58(4), 372–389. doi:10.1108/ET-10-2015-0098 Ideris, M. S. K., Yi, L. T., Rodzi, S. M., Romle, A. R., Zabri, M. A. H. M., & Mahamad, N. A. (2016). Students’ satisfaction on facilities in Universiti Utara Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(6), 795–800. International Organization for Standardization. Quality Management and Auditing, Inc. (2010). Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.iso-qma.com/links.html Jaber, M. A., & Batsh, M. W. A. (2016). Jordanian experience in accreditation and quality in HEIs. US-China Foreign Language, 14(4), 312–327. Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, K. (2016). On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 248–259. doi:10.1177/1476127015604125

165

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, K. (2016). If you arent talking about practices, dont call it a practice-based view: Rejoinder to Bromiley and Rau in Strategic Organization. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 270–274. doi:10.1177/1476127016655998 Justus, A. H., & Nangombe, J. P. (2016). Paradigmatic perspective for a quality improvement training programme for health professionals in the ministry of health and social services in Namibia. International Journal of Health, 4(2), 89–95. doi:10.14419/ijh.v4i2.6164 Kalra, J., & Kopargaonkar, A. (2016). Quality improvement in clinical laboratories: A six sigma concept. Pathology Laboratory Medicine Open Journal, 1(1), 11–20. Kelleher, C. (2016). Exploring the Social Practice of Programme Board Level SelfEvaluation and its Contribution to Academic Quality Assurance. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 5(1). http://arrow.dit.ie/ijap Kelly, J. O. (2016). Strategy Content, Quality Management Practices, Organizational Factors and Performance of ISO 9000 Certified Middle Level Colleges in Kenya (Doctoral Thesis). School of Business, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. Khanyile, M., & Green, P. (2016). Application of Stakeholder Management for Business Sustainability in the Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(3), 328–337. Kumar, R. (2015). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Present Scenario and Challenges in India. Paripex - Indian Journal of Research, 4(6), 332-333. Latchem, C. (2016). Open and Distance Learning Quality Assurance in Commonwealth Universities. A report and recommendations for QA and accreditation agencies and higher education institutions. Commonwealth of Learning. Leonard, S. N., Fitzgerald, R. N., & Bacon, M. (2016). Fold-back: Using emerging technologies to move from quality assurance to quality enhancement. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 15–31. Lopez, J. S., Yañes, M. A. S., Salgado, M. D. R. M., & Vergara, M. D. L. R. (2016). Unified perspective for categorization of educational quality indicators from an accreditation process view—Relationships between educational quality indicators defined by accrediting agencies in México at the institutional and program level, and those defined by institutions of higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 113–130.

166

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Mahlangu, V. P. (2016). Assuring quality in ODL through Ubuntu. In M. Letseka (Ed.), Open distance learning (ODL) through the philosophy of Ubuntu (pp. 107–118). New York, NY: Nova. Mori, K., & Ractliffe, L. (2016, April). Evaluating the use of a MOOC within higher education professional development training. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 831–833). Academic Press. doi:10.1145/2872518.2890577 Mukundhan, K. V., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2016). Stakeholder influences on the choice and performance of FDI-based market entry modes. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(1), 63–74. doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1007017 Njiro, E. (2016). Understanding quality culture in assuring learning at higher education institutions. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 3(2), 79–92. Nsuki, P. K., Bowa, O., Gunga, S. O., & Origa, J. P. (2015). The relationship between perceived quality dimensions and growth in distance education: The case of external degree programme of the University of Nairobi, Kenya. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 3(2), 87–105. O’Rawe, M. (2015, April). Curriculum, classroom, culture, and connectedness. Paper presented at the Higher Education in Transformation Conference, Dublin, Ireland. O’Rourke, M. A. (2016). The “Law” and “Spirit” of the Accreditation Process in Legal Education. Syracuse Law Review, 66, 595–608. Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2016, April). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible? A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029 Pitsoe, V. J., & Letseka, M. M. (2016). Ubuntu driven ODL student assessment. In M. Letseka (Ed.), Open distance learning (ODL) through the philosophy of Ubuntu (pp. 93–106). New York, NY: Nova. Ponnuswamy, I., & Manohar, H. L. (2016). Impact of learning organization culture on performance in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.914920 Rama, K., & Hope, A. (Eds.). (2009). Quality assurance toolkit: Distance higher education institutions and programmes. Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning.

167

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Rodríguez, M. A., Morales, N. M., & Manzanares, M. T. L. (2016). Learning strategies in relation to academic performance in a nursing degree: A case study. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 2(1), 29–47. Romle, A. R., Sin, N. M., Mohamood, S. K. B., Darus, M., Saleh, S. S., & Saleh, N. H. (2016). Emerging the impact of quality management practices on graduates employability in tertiary education institution: A proposed framework. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(5), 619–626. Rossouw, J., & Alexander, P. (2015). A practical transition of employees towards information systems adoption: A public service perspective. The African Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 62–83. Schmidt, E. K. (2017). Quality assurance policies and practices in Scandinavian higher education systems: Convergence or different paths?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2017.1298194 Shahid, H., Wahab, Z., & Ahmed, S. A. (2016). Factor analysis to explore the indicators of quality assurance mechanism on higher educational institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 12, 146–154. doi:10.6000/19275129.2016.12.22 Siyouki, H. A., Keshavarz, M., & Rahimi, M. (2016). Establishment quality assurance system & development of internal evaluation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(2), 918–930. Stalmeijer, R., Whittingham, J., de Grave, W., & Dolmans, D. (2016). Strengthening internal quality assurance processes: Facilitating student evaluation committees to contribute. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 53–66. doi:10.1 080/02602938.2014.976760 Suwandej, N. (2015). Factors Influencing Total Quality Management. 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 0507 February 2015, Novotel Athens Convention Center, Athens, Greece. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2215–2222. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.361 Uvalić-Trumbić, S., & Sir Daniel, J. (2016). Adapting Quality Assurance to Innovative Programmes. Presented in 8th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning (PCF8). Available at http://oasis.col.org Westerheijden, D. F. (2016). Trends in Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement. Keynote presentation at CNED XXI Seminario internacional ’El aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior con acceso masivo (pp. 11–23). Santiago: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies:University of Twente. 168

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Open and Distance Learning

Wong, W. Y., & Lavrencic, M. (2016). Using a risk management approach in analytics for curriculum and program quality improvement. In J. Greer, M. Molinaro, X. Ochoa, & T. McKay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Learning Analytics for Curriculum and Program Quality Improvement Workshop (pp. 10–14). New York, NY: ACM. Yildiz, E. P., & İşman, A. (2016). Quality Content in Distance Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(12), 2857–2862. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.041220 Yingqiang, S., & Yongjian, S. (2016). Quality assurance in higher education: Reflection, criticism, and change. Chinese Education & Society, 49(1–2), 7–19. do i:10.1080/10611932.2016.1192382 Zhang, F. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and family enterprise. Open Journal of Business and Management, 4(03), 476–482. doi:10.4236/ojbm.2016.43049

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Accreditation: A process of external quality review to examine higher education institutions for quality assurance and quality improvement. Open and Distance Learning: A form of learning where students, teachers and learning resources are separate from each other in terms of time and/or place aiming to provide greater openness and flexibility. Quality: An ongoing method of evaluating, assessing, monitoring, guaranteeing, maintaining and improving the quality of education systems, institutions and programs. Quality Assurance: A planned and systematic process in higher education institutions in order to monitor performance against the accepted quality standards. Quality Indicators: Measures that give an indication of process and/or output quality. Social Constructivist Approach: According to this view, all knowledge and the meaningful reality is contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world and transmitted within the social context. Stakeholder Theory: The management activities of the enterprise managers in balancing the interests of all stakeholders.

169

170

Chapter 7

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning Victor Justice Pitsoe University of South Africa, South Africa Moeketsi Letseka University of South Africa, South Africa

ABSTRACT Quality assurance has become critical to Open Distance Learning (ODL) worldwide. Yet the ODL environment is marked by cultural hegemony. An elite group of individuals strategically dominate the educational arena in order to advance the supremacy of gender, race and socioeconomic status. This chapter highlights a divide between theory and practice. The e-learning paradigm, known as Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) creates opportunities for practitioners and students with respect to accessibility, flexibility, and cost. But it also creates challenges for quality assurance. Most ODeL texts do not treat quality assurance as discourse, power and cultural hegemony. Policymakers tend to assume that students have similar learning needs. This chapter (1) explores quality assurance; (2) it sketches Unisa’s shift to ODeL; (3) argues a case for quality assurance as a practice of hegemony; (4) critiques quality assurance as an Ideological State Apparatus; and (5) proposes a reengineering of quality assurance within alternative frameworks.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch007 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The idea of quality education is centuries old. Of late, it has become top priority on the agenda of many educational institutions worldwide. As Frazer (2005:9) writes, “the 1990s may become known as ‘the decade of quality’, in the same way that efficiency was a major theme during the 1980s”. In industry, commerce, government and now in higher education the word ‘quality’ is on everyone’s lips: ‘quality control’, ‘quality circles’, ‘total quality management’, ‘quality assurance’, etc. while much has been written about quality education, it is worthwhile noting that the context for determining quality has historically been limited by the purpose of education and the population for whom formal education was provided. Since the 1990s, quality assurance has become a critical element in the educational discourses globally. It is evident from the literature that quality assurance discourses play an important role in shaping higher educational practices. Particularly, it has become an integral part of the higher educational system and the day-to-day practice of ODeL practitioners in many countries around the world. However, the environment in which ODeL operates is not free from cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony is marked by an elite group of individuals who strategically dominate the educational arena with the aim of perpetuating the ideology of the supremacy of gender, race and socioeconomic status. In the traditional paradigm, quality assurance attributes are linked to contact hours, library holdings, and physical attendance. At a philosophical level, quality assurance in the traditional paradigm is trapped in the “fixed iron triangle”. Among others, traditionally, the notion of quality in higher education has been associated with meritocracy; with belonging to a small, privileged, and exceptional class. With the increasing acceptance of ODeL for expanded access to higher education, it is critical that quality assurance processes are developed and maintained for ODeL provision to be relevant and more functional that the products recognized the conventional higher education in emerging open learning environment. Within this context, ODeL in the 21st century presents challenges to quality assurance, as a social construct and a policy imperative, that were unimaginable just a quarter century ago. While the e-learning paradigm creates great opportunities for both practitioners and students in terms of accessibility, flexibility, and cost, it also creates challenges for quality assurance. One of the most noticeable gaps in many texts on ODeL is failure to see quality assurance as discourse, power and cultural hegemony. One possibility is to unpack quality assurance within e-learning context through Gramsci’s, Foucault’s and Althusser’s lenses. Quite often, policymakers and practitioners assume that students have the same learning needs – they use a

171

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

one-size-fits-all approach. Drawing on the work of Anglo-French theorists’ (Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault and Louis Althusser) framework, in this chapter we (1) conceptualize quality and quality assurance; (2) we reflect on Unisa’s shift to ODeL focusing on the challenges and opportunities; (3) we argue that quality assurance is the practice of hegemony; (4) we critique quality assurance as an Ideological State Apparatus; and (5) propose a reengineering of quality assurance within alternative paradigms framework.

CONCEPTUALISING “QUALITY” AND “QUALITY ASSURANCE” Throughout the history of the quality assurance, various iterations of what it means to be a good quality have come and gone. We need to take cognisance that the concepts of “quality” and “quality assurance” are not unproblematic. Both concepts have very different meanings and interpretations to both the providers of and the consumers of quality and quality assurance. In essence, the concepts “quality” and “quality assurance” are to a large extent amorphous and contested. Quality, just like “freedom” or “justice”, is an elusive concept, instinctively understood but difficult to articulate. Olakulehin (2009) asserts that the term quality is a difficult concept to define. It can easily be misconstrued because of its rather nebulous characteristics. Most scholars consider quality as extremely elusive, slippery, dynamic, multidimensional and relative concept. Quality can be defined as an embodiment of the essential nature of a person, collective object, action, process or organisation. It is remarkable that the most substantive body of literature (Tripathi & Jeevan, 2009; Harvey & Green, 1993; Watty, 2003; Olakulehin, 2009; Harvey, 1995; Holma & Junes, 2006; Gift, LeoRhynie, & Moniquette, 2006; Belawati & Zuhairi, 2007) see quality in education as a combination of: exceptional high standards; perfection and consistency; fitness for purpose; value for money; transformation capabilities; and product of planning, monitoring, control and coordination. For Watty (2003), quality is best defined as fitness for purpose in combination with exceptional high standards, perfection and consistency, value for money, and transformation capabilities (see Figure 1). The notion of quality could be grouped into five discrete but interrelated ways of thinking about quality (Harvey & Green, 1993). Harvey (1995) provides the following brief overview of the five categories: •

172

The exceptional view [of quality] sees quality as something special. Traditionally, quality refers to something distinctive and elitist, and, in educational terms, it is linked to notions of excellence, of “high quality” that is unattainable by most.

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Figure 1. Definitions for quality

(Watty, 2003)

• •

•

•

Quality as perfection suggests a consistent or flawless outcome. In a sense it “democratizes” the notion of quality – if consistency can be achieved, then quality can be attained by all. Quality as fitness for purpose views quality in terms of fulfilling a customer’s requirements, needs or desires – theoretically, the customer specifies requirements. In education, fitness for purpose is usually based on the ability of an institution to fulfil its mission or a programme of study to fulfil its aims. Quality as value for money views quality in terms of return on investment. If the same outcome can be achieved at a lower cost, or a better outcome can be achieved at the same cost, then the “customer” has a quality product or service. The growing tendency for governments to require accountability from higher education reflects a value-for-money approach. Increasingly, students require value for money for the increasing cost to them of higher education. Quality as transformation is a classic notion of quality that sees it in terms of change from one state to another. In educational terms, transformation refers to the enhancement and empowerment of students or the development of new knowledge.

Quite often, the concept “quality” is used interchangeably with the concept “quality assurance”. Quality assurance is a means of producing defect-and fault free products; and refers to actions, processes through which quality is maintained and developed, and through the quality policy these core processes are made visible and expressed (Holma & Junes, 2006:6). In addition, quality assurance does not merely mean a set of procedures to be followed – it is also an attitude or ethos which influences every aspect in an organisation’s activity. In other words, commitment to quality ought to be a part of an organisation’s culture. It must be acknowledged that quality assurance is the mechanism that is put in place to guarantee that the education is “fit for purpose” i.e., that it is good. It is 173

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

used in a general sense to include audit, evaluation, accreditation, and other review processes and elements (Gift, Leo-Rhynie, & Moniquette, 2006:126). In the same vein, Belawati and Zuhairi (2007:2) contend that quality assurance has been defined as “systematic management and assessment procedures adopted by higher education institutions and systems in order to monitor performance against objectives, and to ensure achievement of quality outputs and quality improvements”. Furthermore, quality assurance facilitates recognition of the standards of awards, serves public accountability purposes, helps inform student choice, contributes to improved teaching, learning and administrative processes and helps disseminate best practices with the goal of leading to overall improvement of higher education systems. In general, the term quality assurance refers to a process of defining and fulfilling a set of quality standards consistently and continuously with the goal of satisfying all consumers, producers, and the other stakeholders (Belawati & Zuhairi, 2007:2). It concerns protocols and practices – so, it appears to be context-specific.

UNISA’S SHIFT TO ODeL: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES The politics of alternative access to higher education in South Africa has a very rich and enduring history. Unisa is the largest distance education university in Africa. It offers ODeL (e-Learning) programs as a way of providing alternative access to higher education and a way of debunking the “fixed iron triangle” of higher education. Electronic Learning (e-Learning) expression, broadly used to describe “instructional content or learning experience delivered or enabled by electronic technologies (Wagner et al., 2008), is increasingly gaining momentum in higher education institutions throughout the world. Amongst others, it provides: (1) flexibility to meet the diverse needs of students, (2) faster learning at reduced costs, (3) increased access to learning, and (4) clear accountability for all the participants in the learning process. However, the quality of e-Learning is often viewed with skepticism. The question of quality of teaching and learning in the e-Learning environments is central to understanding the Unisa’s challenges and opportunities. We acknowledge that the defining features of quality within the virtual teaching and learning setting are debatable. Global challenges facing ODeL are overwhelming. Given that constrained low bandwidth environments and poor socio-economic backgrounds are associated with many developing countries, we want to reflect on the question: to what extent does low bandwidth, poor socio-economic backgrounds and lack of epistemological access of students affect the quality of learning in ODeL? We assume that getting e-Learning to students in remote areas where there are low levels of internet connectivity and poor bandwidth can be daunting in that they force the students 174

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

to settle for less interactivity. While there is growing demand for OdeL, there is a significant number of challenges ranging from technology constraints in low bandwidth, poor connectivity and obsolete hardware. As Suhail and Lubega (2010) write, “whilst blended learning offers a number of benefits, it is not a panacea, there are some obstacles such as; constrained low bandwidth environment which can be a key challenge to its adoption, particularly, in the context of organizations in Least Developed Countries”. In addition, they indicate that efficient blended learning process in constrained low bandwidth environment has not been adequately addressed. While we acknowledge quality assurance practice is not a “one size fits all”, we depart from the assumption that quality e-learning takes place within a complex system involving the student experience of learning, teachers’ strategies, ODeL practitioners’ planning and thinking, and the teaching/learning context. For us, high-quality e-Learning activities must demonstrate four principles: engagement of learners, acknowledgement of context, challenges for students, and the involvement of practice. Notwithstanding that e-Learning and virtual classrooms have generated incredible excitement in higher education, more specifically in Open Distance eLearning (ODeL), they are not immune to challenges. As Pityana (2009) notes, “on the African continent, where resources are scarce and higher education provision is poor, ODeL is viewed as a viable, cost-effective means of expanding provision without costly outlay in infrastructure.” While there is an expectation that e-Learning courses will transform the worldwide provision of education, and bring about high quality, accessible learning to everyone, we problematize three variables: (1) bandwidth and quality of connectivity; (2) poor socio-economic backgrounds; and (3) lack of epistemological access as serious obstacles to the successful implementation of ODeL at Unisa. Like other international institutions, Unisa’s ODeL is caught up in the quality agenda – it is not immune to critics and sceptics of quality assurance. Notwithstanding that e-Learning provides students with the flexibility of learning in terms of space, time and pace, Unisa’s low bandwidth and poor socio-economic backgrounds pose a significant number of challenges and have far reaching policy implications for best practices of quality assurance. The quality of ODeL is controversial and highly contested. By its very nature, e-Learning requires a certain level of technical sophistication from practitioners as well as students. Most importantly, a shift towards ODeL is forcing practitioners to confront existing assumptions of teaching and learning in higher education; and requires practitioners to acquire technical and pedagogical training, and requires a rethinking of the roles of practitioners. This position is echoed by Wagner et al. (2008) who note that the role of practitioner shifts from being the primary source of students’ knowledge to being the manager of the students’ knowledge resources; and a guide to the educational experiences of students. 175

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Unisa’s student demographics are dominated by students from the disadvantaged sectors of society – they come from disadvantaged schooling and poor socio-economic backgrounds. As Bharuthram and Kies (2013) observe, in many cases students from disadvantaged backgrounds have no access to school or community libraries and computers, and in some cases there is a lack of basic facilities such as running water, electricity, ablution services, desks and chairs in schools, etc. With this background in mind, ODeL faces an uphill battle. Research by Bharuthram and Kies (2013) suggests that (1) it is imperative that university-wide teaching and learning strategies and policies take into account the potential benefits and challenges when encouraging the use of the e-learning platform; and (2) the infrastructure within the institution must be conducive to providing the necessary level of academic support. While acknowledging that a shift to OdeL is geared towards increasing access to higher education, access to OdeL goes beyond the physical access – it embraces the politics of epistemological access. For us, access is both an epistemological and a policy imperative. The notion of epistemological access, political as well as an educational construct, flow from Wally Morrow’s work Learning to Teach in South Africa (2007). He relates problems of epistemological access to the dominance of an empiricist epistemology in education. His argument revolved around the distinction between two kinds of access: formal access involving, literally, the opening of doors to allow students in to places of higher learning and then what he termed ‘epistemological access’ – or access to ‘the goods which the university distributes’. Given the virtual nature of e-Learning environment, Rambe and Mawere (2011) postulate that the conception of access twists in another direction from spatial location of the space towards the affordances and constraints of the virtual learning environment. We argue that epistemological access to ICT skills are critical to effective quality assurance practice in ODeL. There is lack of ICT skills necessary for active participation in the OdeL –access to ODeL has the attributes of Morrow’s discourse of epistemological access. Without epistemological access to ICT skills quality assurance practice in Unisa’s OdeL is likely to go against the grain of best practices. In the light of the above, ODeL and elitism/capitalism have a symbiotic relationship. For Unisa’s ODeL to flourish and to be globally competitive, more specifically in the developing and underdeveloped countries, it should tackle serious issues such as challenges of access (quality of connectivity) and bandwidth. Both have a potential of impacting negatively on quality of teaching and learning – low bandwidth is a major impediment. On one hand, students in rural areas cannot access the internet because of poor internet connectivity. Sometimes students are unable to follow their studies because of poor bandwidth connectivity. On the other hand, a significant number of students cannot easily afford to spend extended periods of time at internet cafes. Students are faced with the challenges of bandwidth connection speed and lack of technical support. Thus low bandwidth, poor quality of connectivity, low 176

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

socio-economic backgrounds and lack of epistemological access are some of the limiting factors on best practices of quality assurance in Unisa’s ODeL.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AS PRACTICE OF CULTURAL HEGEMONY Recently there has been a remarkable resurgence of interest in the quality assurance movement in ODeL, one that can arguably be said to have transformed our understanding and appreciation of its key thinkers. However, ODeL is a complex and evolving enterprise which has significant operational as well as academic challenges. For this reason, assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in ODeL institutions is a worrying issue. The belief in quality assurance is fundamental, and is currently a priority of the South African government, as well as industry and commerce. It is in this ever changing environment that academics find themselves and it is this increased accountability which makes reflective practice something beyond realization (Davis, 2003: 244). Drawing from the Italian communist, philosopher, journalist and socialist politician, Antonio Gramsci’s theory, in this chapter we start from the supposition that a cultural hegemony is an integral part of quality assurance in ODeL. As Giroux (1980; 1981a; 1981b) writes, “hegemony is rooted in both the meanings and symbols that legitimate dominant interests as well as in the practices that structure daily experience”. In Gramsci’s theory, hegemony is the term for the social consensus, which masks people’s real interests. The hegemonic processes take place in the superstructure and are part of a political field (Giroux, 1997; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). In elaborating on this conception of hegemony, the basic premise of the theory is that man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas. As Gramsci (1971) wrote, the foundation of a ruling class is equivalent to the creation of a Weltanschauung. Marx had likewise observed that the ruling ideas of each age have always been the ideas of its ruling class (Bates, 1975). However, Gramsci found this simple fact much more suggestive than Marx, for whom it was but a corollary of economic theory. Bates (1975) asserts that the Italian scholar Norberto Bobbio has aptly observed that Gramsci’s debt to Lenin for the concept of hegemony is less than Gramsci claims. For Bobbio, the term was used more by Stalin than by Lenin, who preferred the terms ‘leadership’ and “management” (rukovoditel and rukovodstvo), and when he did use hegemony it was synonymous with leadership (Bates, 1975). Hegemony is both discursive and political. It includes the power to establish ‘legitimate’ definitions of social needs and authoritative definitions of social situations. It involves the power to define what counts as ‘legitimate’ areas of 177

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

agreement and disagreement. In the Gramscian sense, hegemony describes the power exercised by the ruling class over the population in order to maintain control of the means of production. Famously, Gramsci stated that hegemony is a form of control exercised primarily through a society’s superstructure, as opposed to its base or social relations of production of a predominately economic character. The aim of hegemony, according to Gramsci (1971), is not only to create a collective will, but an entire new conception of the world or Weltanshaung. For him, hegemony has no unconscious foundation. It contrasts with dictatorship as a distinctive form of domination that combines force and consent without force ever disappearing, and in which force is itself the object of consent. Outstandingly, hegemony is consent protected by the armor of coercion. It is worthwhile noting that through the power of consent, hegemony finds its way towards obtaining the spontaneous collaboration of the individuals, in order to uphold the political status quo in the long term. By hegemony, Gramsci (1971) meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations. Hegemony in this sense might be defined as an organizing principle that is diffused by the process of socialization into every area of daily life. To the extent that this prevailing consciousness is internalized by the population it becomes part of what is generally called “common sense” so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling elite comes to appear as the natural order of things (Boggs, 1976, p.39). Arguably, hegemony is not a static concept – it is very complex and in a constant state of flux. On the one hand, hegemony functions “to define the meaning and limits of common-sense as well as the forms and content of discourse in society” (Giroux, 1981a: 94); and “reinforces or reproduces the political and economic dominance of one social class over another” (McLaren, 1986, p.86). On the other hand, like Gramsci, Williams (1985) believed that hegemony is dynamic - it does not just passively exist as a form of dominance. It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited, altered, challenged by pressures not all its own. Furthermore, hegemony exceeds ideology in its refusal to equate consciousness with the articulate formal system which can be and ordinarily abstracted as ideology (Williams, 1985). Lastly, hegemony attempts to neutralize opposition - the decisive hegemonic function is to control or transform or even incorporate (alternatives and opposition). Cultural hegemony, as a relative concept, does not refer anymore to Western rationality and lifestyle conceived by the ruling classes (Hanafi, 2009). Rather, it refers to a more complex set of discursive strategies of combining principles from different systems of thought into one coherent ideology (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; 178

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Figure 2. The attributes “Double Helix’ of quality assurance and cultural hegemony

Phillips, 1998). Hegemony, for Williams (1985), constitutes lived experience, a sense of reality for most people in the society, a sense of absolute experienced reality beyond which it is very difficult for most members of the society to move, in most areas of their lives. Cultural hegemony has thus not produced cultural differences. Instead it has produced cultural racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia in the majority of Western countries (Hanafi, 2009). Whether one imagines hegemony to be relatively open or relatively closed, the essence of the concept is not manipulation but legitimation. The ideas, values, and experiences of dominant groups are validated in public discourse; those of subordinate groups are not, though they may continue to thrive beyond the boundaries of received opinion (Lears, 1985). In the light of the above analysis, studying quality assurance from Gramsci’s perspective involves two major theoretical shifts. First, from a philosophical perspective, cultural hegemony and quality assurance, as an ideological construct, have a symbiotic relationship – they take the shape of a DNA double helix (see Figure 2). We should hasten to mention, in passing, that quality assurance is a power relations construct. Quality assurance, as a form of a powerful bureaucracy, is compatible with the behavioristic view of learning, in which both curriculum and instruction are broken down into small, sequential steps dictated by the practitioners. Just like the Industrial Revolution, which called for the redesign of schools in order to prepare the labor force for new forms of work and citizenship, the fluid nature of ODeL settings’ calls for new forms of professional development consistent with a reflexive practice. Second, there is a prima facie case to be 179

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

made for cultural hegemony playing a part in quality assurance. Understanding quality assurance as praxis, identity, status, virtue, or agency is a hegemonic approach to the concept. It is also an ideological approach, based in idealist articulations of what quality assurance should be.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS Perhaps we should begin this section by stating, categorically and unambiguously, that we are neither Marxists nor communists. We therefore note that Louis Althusser’s work, as theoretical tool, is not alien to critiquing quality assurance practices in OdeL contexts. It has, among others, impacted upon various areas such as political philosophy, human ethics, critical literacy, linguistics and cultural studies. Central to this chapter is the assumption that quality assurance, as a social construct and the struggle over knowledge control, fits through Althusser’s framework. In his work, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (1971), Althusser distinguishes between two forms of state apparatuses: the ideological State apparatuses (ISA) and the repressive state apparatuses (RSA). He calls ideological state apparatuses realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions (Althusser, 1971:143), while repressive apparatuses function by violence (Althusser, 1971:145). For Althusser (1971), “Ideological State Apparatuses include education, religion, family, legal system, political system, culture, mass media, trade unions, which he says are primarily private. It is also worth mentioning that these are the agencies that function by violence, by at some point imposing punishment or privation in order to enforce power.” As Althusser (1971:149) puts it, all the State Apparatuses function both by repression and by ideology, with the difference that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominantly by ideology. Ideology, for him, is a “lived relation between men and their world”, except that in ideology ‘men do indeed express, not the relation between them and their conditions of existence, but the way they live the relation between them and their conditions of existence: this presupposes both a real relation and an ‘imaginary’, ‘lived’ relation’ (Althusser, 1969:233). Taking it further, Carpenter and Mojab (2011:9) assert that ideology is not just a system of ideas or thought content, but an epistemology, a way of knowing, that abstracts and fragments social life – it is our way of making sense of our experiences. For Althusser (1971), individuals can be sucked into ideology so easily because it helps them make sense of the world, to enter the “symbolic order” and ascribe 180

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

power to themselves. They identify with ideology because they see themselves pictured as independent and strong in it. While ideology “interpellates” subjects, in Althusser’s (1971:170) framework, hailing individuals into social being, quality assurance as ideology, works to secure the hegemony. Althusser says that an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and that while ideology in general has no history, specific ideologies have histories of their own. Ideologies interpellate people into defined subject positions through the ISA. The ‘subjects’ thus are far less likely to oppose their status in life since they accept the ‘practices’. As Althusser (1971:153) writes, all ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation. For him, the reproduction of the relations of production, the ultimate aim of the ruling class, cannot therefore be a merely technical operation training and distributing individuals for the different posts in the “technical division” of labor (p.183). Most importantly, Althusser theorizes that ideology “has a material existence”, arguing that ‘ideas’ or ‘representations,’ etc. do not have an ideal (idéale or idéelle) or spiritual existence, but a material existence” (p.165). Althusser asserts that each ISA is the “realization of an ideology” (p.166) as a result of which an ideology “always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices”. He concludes that “individuals are always-already interpellated by ideology as subjects”, which implies that “individuals are alwaysalready subjects”, “even before he is born” (p.176). To claim that Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatus has gone extinct would be premature at this time. However, it should be admitted without prevarication that quality assurance practice, as both an institution and ideology, fits perfectly through the lens of Ideological State Apparatus. It is intended to perpetuate social reproduction and political hegemony. Particularly, it advances the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. Through quality assurance practice, as epistemological hegemonic dominance, individuals are transformed into subjects through the ideological mechanism. As Althusser (1971:182) writes, the individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in order that he shall submit freely to the commandments of the Subject, i.e. in order that he shall (freely) accept his subjection, i.e. in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection ‘all by himself’. He observes that there are no subjects except by and for their subjection. That is why they ‘work all by themselves’. He (p.132) maintained that the reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class in words. 181

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

REENGINEERING OF QUALITY ASSURANCE WITHIN ALTERNATIVE PARADIGMS FRAMEWORK Aliakbari and Faraji (2011) asserts that ultimately, the aim of a critical theory of education is to identify sources of social domination, oppression, and injustice and to promote the kind of individual and collective reflective practices necessary for human emancipation. For them, “critical theory identifies the ubiquity (or better, hegemony) of a certain belief in science and its methods as an important factor in the maintenance and reproduction of injustice. By accepting, as valid, narrow positivist accounts of science, scientific practice is construed as manipulative, technicist, and concerned with the control of nature”. With this in mind, the fluid nature of ODeL, as both social and power relations construct, settings (e-learning) calls for a reengineering of quality assurance within reflective practice framework. For us, reflective practice offers an account of the epistemology of practice and of quality assurance. Central to this chapter is the assumption that reflective practice is an integral part of quality assurance in ODeL settings. We acknowledge the limitations of reflective practice. Reflective practice and quality assurance have a dialectical and symbiotic relationship. They attempt to provide the context in which internal processes are in a symbiotic relationship with quality assurance processes. The symbiotic relationship addresses fundamental issues relating to the meaning of quality (the exceptional view of quality; quality as perfection, quality as fitness for purpose, quality as value for money, and quality as transformation). Regardless of whether ODeL practitioners accept or disregard the current view of quality being measured and regulated, the discourse presented here highlights the symbiotic relationship between quality assurance and reflective practice. Reflective practice creates a habit, structure or routine for examining experience. It is key to improving the quality of teaching and learning in virtual classroom environments. In its multifaceted forms reflection encompasses multiplicity and its aim is towards transforming teaching and learning. Reflective practice is therefore about awareness of the forms of knowledge we use, how we use those forms of knowledge, how we can, as a result improve our action in real time, how our minds work and how we can use theories in practical situations, invisible and visible, tacit and explicit, flexible, adaptive and effective. Most importantly, reflective practice can also be defined in terms of action research, whereby specific problems (in specific settings) are targeted and a continuous feedback mechanism is established in order to inform ongoing development of practice (Kolb, 1984). In particular, reflective practice is about the relations between action and thinking; the kind of thinking that shapes our actions (before, during and after the action), and deals with the interaction between practice, reflection, thinking, learning and performance. 182

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Reflective practice and quality assurance are interdependent. Fundamental to reflective practice is the assumption that the quality of our actions is not independent of the thinking we are able to engage in, before and in the process of the action. Reid (1993:305) sees reflection as a process of reviewing an experience of practice in order to describe, analyze, evaluate and inform teaching and learning. Reflective practice is something more than thoughtful practice. It is that form of practice that seeks to problematize situations of professional performance in order that they can become potential learning situations and so the practitioners can continue to learn, grow and develop in and through practice (Jarvis, 1992:180). Reflective practice integrates or links thought and action with reflection. It involves thinking about and critically analyzing one’s actions with the goal of improving one’s professional practice (Imel, 1992:8). In a reflective practice group, participants share difficult situations they experienced in the form of action research. Thus action research can be regarded as a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986:62). Hence, reflecting is an essential element of learning in teaching practice and learning is seen as the creation of knowledge through the “transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984:41).

CONCLUSION In this chapter we have attempted an exposition of quality assurance in an Open Distance Learning (ODL) environment, which we argued, is marked by cultural hegemony. We conceptualized quality assurance from a five-pronged stance as exceptional, perfection, fitness for purpose, value for money, and as transformation. Drawing on the work of Italian communist and philosopher Antonio Gramsci we argued a case for quality assurance as a practice of cultural hegemony, with hegemony understood as a practice that is rooted in both the meanings and symbols that legitimate dominant interests as well as in the practices that structure daily experience. We also surmised, drawing on the work of Louis Althusser, that quality assurance can also be regarded as an ideological state apparatus. For Althusser, all ideological State apparatuses contribute to the reproduction of the relations of production, in this case, capitalist relations of exploitation. We proposed a reengineering of quality assurance within alternative paradigms framework, namely, a critical theory of education, for the simple reason that critical theory identifies the ubiquity of certain beliefs in science and their methods as important factors in the maintenance and reproduction of injustice. Integral to critical theory is reflective practice. In this chapter we acknowledge that reflective practice and quality assurance have a 183

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

symbiotic relationship in that they attempt to addresses fundamental issues relating to the meaning of quality as exceptional, as perfection, as fitness for purpose, as value for money, and as transformation.

REFERENCES Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. 2nd International Conference on Humanities, Historical and Social Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com/vol17/14-CHHSS%202011-H00057.pdf Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 351–366. doi:10.2307/2708933 Belawati, T., & Zuhairi, A. (2007). The practice of a quality assurance system in open and distance learning: A case study at Universitas Terbuka Indonesia (The Indonesia Open University). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1), 1–15. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i1.340 Bharuthram, S., & Kies, C. (2013). Introducing e-learning in a South African higher education institution: Challenges arising from an intervention and possible responses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 410–420. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2012.01307.x Boggs, C. (1976). Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press. Carpenter, S., & Mojab, S. (2011). Educating from Marx race, gender, and learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230370371 Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer Press. Davis, M. (2003). Barriers to reflective practice: The changing nature of higher education. The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education and SAGE Publications, 4(3), 243–255. Frazer, M. (2005). Quality assurance in higher education. In A. Craft (Ed.), Quality assurance in Higher Education: Proceedings of an International Conference (pp9 – 26). London: The Falmer Press. Gift, S., Leo-Rhynie, E., & Moniquette, J. (2006). Quality Assurance of Transnational Education in the English-speaking Caribbean. Quality in Higher Education, 12(2), 125–133. doi:10.1080/13538320600916692 184

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Giroux, H. (1980). Beyond the correspondence theory: Notes on the dynamics of educational reproduction and transformation. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 225–247. doi:10.1080/03626784.1980.11075221 Giroux, H. (1981a). Ideology, culture & the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Giroux, H. (1981b). Toward a new sociology of curriculum. In H. Giroux, A. Penna, & W. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction (pp. 98–108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Oxford, UK: Westview Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hanafi, S. (2009). Cultural difference or cultural hegemony? Contextualizing the Danish cartoon controversy within migration spaces. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 2(1), 136–152. doi:10.1163/187398609X430651 Harvey, L. (1995). Editorial: The quality agenda. Quality in Higher Education, 1(1), 5–12. doi:10.1080/1353832950010101 Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. doi:10.1080/0260293930180102 Holma, J., & Junes, S. (2006). Trainer’s and professional’s guide to quality in open and distance learning. University of Tampere. Imel, S. (1992). Reflective practice in adult education. ERIC Digest No. 122. ED346319. Jarvis, P. (1992). Reflective practice and nursing. Nurse Education Today, 12(3), 174–181. doi:10.1016/0260-6917(92)90059-W PMID:1625667 Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781849208871 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

185

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Morrow, W. (2007). Learning to teach in South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press. Olakulehi, F. K. (2009). Strengthening the internal quality assurance mechanisms in open and distance learning systems. National Open University of Nigeria Victoria Island. Phillips, L. (1998). Hegemony and political discourse: The lasting impact of Thatcherism. Sociology, 32(4), 847–867. doi:10.1177/0038038598032004011 Pityana, B. (2009). Open and distance learning in the developing world: Trends, progress and challenges. Keynote speech at the 2009 23rd ICDE World Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands. Rambe, P., & Mawere, M. (2011). Barriers and constraints to epistemological access to online learning in Mozambique schools. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 2(2). Retrieved from http://onlineresearchjournals.com/ijopagg/ art/80.pdf Suhail, N. A., & Lubega, J. (2010). Optimization technique for implementation of blended learning in constrained low bandwidth environment. In A. Tatnall (Eds.), Information technology and managing quality education (pp. 166–173). New York: Springer. Tripathi, M., & Jeevan, V. K. J. (2009). Quality assurance in distance learning libraries. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(1), 45–60. doi:10.1108/09684880910929926 Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26–36. Watty, K. (2003). When will academics learn about quality? Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 213–221. doi:10.1080/1353832032000151085 Williams, R. (1985). A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Critical Theory: Its aim is to identify sources of social domination, oppression, and injustice and to promote the kind of individual and collective reflective practices necessary for human emancipation. E-Learning: It is used to describe instructional content or learning experience delivered or enabled by electronic technologies. 186

A Critical Investigation of Quality Assurance in Open Distance E-Learning

Fitness for Purpose: A quality approach which focuses on the fulfilment of a specification or stated outcomes in a higher education institution or program. Hegemony: An organizing principle that is diffused by the process of socialization into every area of daily life. Open and Distance Learning: A form of learning where students, teachers and learning resources are separate from each other in terms of time and/or place aiming to provide greater openness and flexibility. Quality Assurance: A means of producing defect and fault free products and refers to actions, processes through which quality is maintained and developed. Quality: A combination of exceptional high standards, perfection and consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money, transformation capabilities, and product of planning.

187

188

Chapter 8

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020: Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and USA

Nilgün Özdamar Keskin Anadolu University, Turkey

David Metcalf University of Central Florida, USA

Apostolos Koutropoulos University of Massachusetts – Boston, USA

Michael Gallagher University of Edinburgh, UK

Inge de Waard Open University, UK

Yayoi Anzai Kyushu University, Japan

Köksal Buyuk Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT A global agenda (Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action) published in September 2015 by UNESCO provides a roadmap for the next 15 years for education planners and practitioners. The main goal of the agenda is recognized as “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. The Member States develop policies and programs for the provision of quality for open and distance education with sustainable financial and legal framework and use of technology, including the Internet, open educational resources, massive open online courses (MOOCs) and other modalities to improve access in order to reach this goal by 2030. Institutions have realized the full potential DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch008 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

of OER and MOOCs and started to develop their own policies with regard to teaching, learning and research resources in the public domain. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to examine national strategies on OER and MOOCs in the leading countries such as USA, UK, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey.

INTRODUCTION Education is not preparation for life, education is life itself - John Dewey Open Educational Resources (OER) initiatives have been developing and spreading rapidly since the early 2000s. These initiatives have been adopted by many well-known international institutions and organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Sun Microsystems. OER is a member of the digital openness family. Its constituent parts are Open Source Movement (for software), Open Access (for scientific output) and Open Content (for creative works) and also this family has expanded in other areas such as Open Data, Open Science, Open Innovation, Open Practices and Open Policies (Mulder, 2015). In 2001, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced its Open CourseWare (OCW) initiative by making its courses for free on the Internet, under an open license. A year later, a workshop on open courseware in developing countries was organized by UNESCO first used the term “Open Educational Resources” within its “Education for All” ambition (Wikieducator, 2017). The international definition of OER, recognized by UNESCO in 2002 in the final report of the Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries, is defined as: Open Educational Resources are teaching, learning and research materials in any medium, digital or otherwise, that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a charitable organization which supports the idea of open education by granting hundreds of millions of dollars to improve education by expanding the reach of openly available educational resources, has defined OER as:

189

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

… teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under and intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others. In this strategy, we also use the following terms to mean OER: open materials, open licensed materials, open instructional materials, open resources and open content. Open textbooks are a specific type of OER (Hewlett Foundation, December 2015, p.2) OERs are freely available for 5R activities (Wiley, 2015): Retain- the right to make, own, and control copies of the work; Reuse- the right to use the work in a wide range of ways; Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify or alter the work itself; Remix – the right to combine the original or revised work with other open works to create something new; Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original work, your revisions or your remixes with others. For example, when you download a video from sources such as Khan Academy, Udemy, or OpenLearn, you have permission to use those materials under a Creative Commons license without any payment needed or the need to obtain additional permissions from copyright holders. The 2012 World OER Congress held at UNESCO in Paris was especially focused on OER and encouraged institutions and organizations to produce open-licensed educational materials with public funds. After that, OER expanded its awareness and became more prevalent all around the world. For example, MIT Open Course Ware now has almost a million visits each month. According to Mulder (2015), these open education movements are driven by values like equity, inclusion, diversity, quality, and efficiency because of their philosophy of supporting openness. In recent years, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) phenomenon became global in the educational area. The first MOOCs emerged from the OER movement. Dave Cormier first coined the term MOOC in 2008 to define connectivist learning on networks, and George Siemens and Stephen Downes facilitated the first MOOC in that year (Bozkurt, Ozdamar-Keskin and de Waard, 2016). This first generation of MOOCs is now known as connectivist MOOCs, or cMOOCs for short. From the inception of first MOOC, offered originally at the University of Manitoba, to now MOOCs have drawn much attention by professionals in higher education and adopted as an online learning format by institutions of higher education. The second generation of MOOCs started in 2011 when Sebastian Thurn facilitated an Artificial Intelligence (AI) MOOC for free which drew 160,000 learners from 190 countries. This second generation is often called extended MOOCs, or xMOOCs for short, have boomed because proponents of this first xMOOCs were top American universities such as Stanford University, Harvard University, and MIT. HarvardX and MITx authored their “Year 4 Report” which covers xMOOCs offered from the summer of 2012 through the fall of 2016 (Chuang and Ho, 2016). According to this report, 290 courses have been offered, 245,000 certificates were earned, 4.5 million 190

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Figure 1. Gartner Hype Cycle of key MOOC events/developments

participants enrolled, 28 million participant-hours were accounted for, and 2.3 billion events were logged online. Also, 2.4 million unique users have participated in one or more HarvardX or MITx open online courses. Beyond that initial definition of MOOCs by Cormier, today MOOCs are defined as “courses designed for large numbers of participants that can be accessed by anyone anywhere as long as they have an internet connection, are open to everyone without entry qualifications, and offer a full/complete course experience online for free” (OpenupEd, 2015). MOOCs are still emerging and evolving perspectives all around the world.

BACKGROUND According to Bozkurt, Ozdamar-Keskin, and deWaard (2016), MOOCs are identified as being on the verge of the ‘plateau of productivity’ within the Gartner Hype Cycle (Figure 1). Considering that MOOCs are climbing up to the plateau of productivity, we consider that identifying the current state of the art, with regard to national strategies, would be helpful for strategic planning. In this regard, this chapter intends

191

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

to explore OER and MOOCs in countries distributed across the globe: Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, and the USA.

Current and Continuing Initiatives on OER and MOOCs in Canada Canada has had a rich history with open education at the post-secondary level. In 1970 Athabasca University, Canada’s Open University, was established in the province of Alberta. Although originally conceived as a traditional university, in 1972 it changed direction to experiment with the format of open and distance education (Athabasca University, 2016). In addition, in 1972 the Télé-université du Québec (TÉLUQ) was established on the other side of Canada, in the province of Québec. TÉLUQ’s mode of teaching was directly inspired by the Open University of the UK. Right from the start, TÉLUQ’s goal was to enable access to education to learners who were not able to make it to the on-site classroom, and to enable learners to learn through different modes of teaching (TELUQ, n.d.). McGreal, Anderson and Conrad (2015) inform us that Canada, unlike other nations, has no federal government authority in matters of education. Authority for matters of education rests solely with the provincial governments. However, the federal government can intervene in matters such as open education, and McGreal et al. point examples of government programs that promote the adoption and growth of the open data movement through the adoption of open licenses. Because of the established checks and balances in the Canadian government with regard to education, the initiative for adoption, expansion, and cooperation for open education, open educational resources, and open courses has rested solely within the pockets of innovation at individual educational institutions and provincial entities. This section will discuss some examples of such innovations and initiatives. Innovations and open education projects in Canada trace their origins and sustained existence to both pockets of innovation at individual institutions and to cooperation between and among various partners, at the government level, the university level, and at the individual level. We discuss some notable examples of organizations, work on OER, on open publishing, and on open courses: •

192

Organizations: There are a variety of organizations, both public and private, that work toward creating and sustaining open initiatives in Canada. One initial aspect of organizing is the gathering of Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC). This is an organization of Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial ministries of education who met, and discussed OER at the national level. Through their 2012 meeting, they affirmed their commitment to open access to knowledge. Similarly, Canada’s three research funding agencies,

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), have agreed on a draft policy which supports open access in scholarly publications. Finally, at the government level there are initiatives, such as the Western Provinces Memorandum of Understanding in which Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan join together to identify, share, and encourage the use of, and best practices in OER. There are also various educational groups such as OER universitas (commonly known as OERu), the Commonwealth of Learning, BCcampus, Contact North, and SPARC. SPARC, for example, is a global coalition with a commitment to making “open” the default for research and education (SPARC, n.d.). Canada is well represented in SPARC with memberships from 17 Canadian universities, as well as the Canadian Research Library Association. University members include Athabasca University, University of Manitoba, York University, and Guelph University. Canada is also well represented in another global effort, OERu, with Athabasca University, Thompson Rivers University, and eCampus Alberta as some of the members represented. OERu makes higher education accessible to everyone, with partners who provide affordable ways for learners to gain academic credit toward their qualifications from recognized institutions. One pathway toward credit is to achieve credit solely based on OER (OERu, n.d.). There are also provincial organizations, such as Contact North. Contact North is an Ontario initiative which provides updated information for students who wish to study online, it provides a place for educators to find the latest information on new technologies and developments in online learning, and it provides online literacy and basic skills course, especially to rural and remote populations. Finally, there are some private, non-profit, entities that exist such as LibriVox (librivox.org). This project is a non-commercial, non-profit, and ad-free project which aims to create recordings of public domain books in order to make them accessible to all. Librivox was started in 2005 in Montreal and provides ways for volunteers to record books from Project Gutenberg (gutenberg.org). Subsequent recordings are stored on the Internet Archive (archive.org) through a collaboration with them. •

Open Educational Resources: Availability of OER in Canada continues to be an institution-by-institution endeavor. Different universities offer to learn object repositories, including Athabasca University, Concordia University, Memorial University, and the University of Calgary. TÉLUQ is a notable example of an institution which offers a repository (Banques des ressources éducatives en réseau) with French-language resources. 193

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

•

•

194

Open Publishing: Open Publishing is another aspect in which Canadian institutions have embraced openness. In addition to the draft policy between the three research funding agencies, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries lists 52 Canadian universities that now have institutional repositories (as of October 2016) in addition to organization such as the National Research Council of Canada, the International Development Research Center, and Centre de documentation collégiale. Open Textbooks are another facet of Open Publishing, and we see BCcampus managing the Open Textbook Project which allocated money for the development of OER for the 40 most studied subjects (McNutt, 2016). Related to Open Textbooks, there is also the Athabasca University Academic Press which was the first open access university press in Canada (Wikieducator, 2015.). Finally, there are also open access journal initiatives, which are thriving, such as Athabasca University’s International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (irrodl. org), the Commonwealth of Learning’s Journal of Learning for Development (oasis.col.org), and the International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education (ijede.ca) to name a few. Open Courses: Massive Open Online Courses are a Canadian invention. The first account of a MOOC, and where the term was coined, was Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) offered by George Siemens and Stephen Downes at the University of Manitoba (Downes and Siemens, 2008; Fini, 2009). Despite this initial innovation, the MOOC has not caught on as wildly as it has in other parts of the world, and certainly not as much as it has with its close geographical neighbor, the United States. MOOC experimentation continues in smaller institutional pockets. However, the term MOOC has become a bit ambiguous meaning different things to different people with different types of MOOCs being offered but the format of these MOOCs is not necessarily the same as those offered by Siemens and Downes originally (Koutropoulos and Zaharias, 2015). Some examples of recent Open Courses offered in Canada are Athabasca University’s Learning to Learn Online (ltlo. ca) and xMOOCs offered by the University of Toronto. It is worthwhile to mention that while entities in other countries have developed their own MOOC platforms, such as FutureLearn (UK), France université numérique (or FUN in France, using OpenEdx), MiriadaX (Spain), Coursera, Edx, Udacity, NovoEd (USA), and more, Canada has not developed an explicitly Canadian MOOC platform of their own. Instead, institutions seem to be partnering with established MOOC platforms. Athabasca University is partnering with Canvas.net for the LTLO MOOC, and the University of Toronto is partnering with Edx and Coursera. TÉLUQ, which provides MOOCs in French, runs their open courses on their own instance of OpenEdx.

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

As McGreal, Anderson, and Conrad (2015) point out, Openness can be seen as a growing trend, however, few Canadian institutions are visibly working on open practice and policy development. There are many opportunities for institutions, as well as academic and provincial organizations, to work together to support the further development of open initiatives. Coffin (2012) reported that in 2012 only one Canadian institution is a member of the Open Education Consortium (formerly the OpenCourseWare Consortium). Today, almost five years later one more entity, Contact North, has joined. While Canada is represented well in some global consortia, it is underrepresented in others. Going forward it is expected that these pockets of innovation will continue their work in their respective pockets, however, greater impact could be gained through better provincial and national strategies.

Current Initiatives of OER and MOOCs in Japan This section introduces current initiatives and realities of OER and MOOCs in Japan. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in Japan, defined OER as lecture materials which a learner can get for free: lecture video, electronic textbooks, learning contents, educational software, a community for learners, and so on (2014). In 2004, MIT introduced OCW to major Japanese universities. In 2005, OCW started in Japan with six Japanese leading universities: Osaka University, Kyoto University, Keio University, Tokyo Institute of Technology, and Waseda University. The following year, in April 2006, Japan Open Course Ware Consortium, JOCW, was founded in cooperation with MIT. These universities offered the contents of their academic courses, including syllabi and lecture notes, to the general public through their own OCW web sites (JOCW, 2006). Since then, the number of the JOCW courses has been steadily increasing; currently, 2,572 courses are provided in Japanese, and 489 in English. MEXT conducted an extensive survey in 2014 to understand ICT use in higher education in Japan. As part of this survey, they asked about the perceptions of OER in Japanese universities, junior colleges, and technical colleges. When they asked whether they know about OER, 56.9% of universities and 57.5% of high schools responded they know about OER; but the responses from junior colleges was relatively low. It should be noted, however, that the extent of knowledge is rather shallow. Only around 10% of responding schools indicated that they knew about OER very well. This means that OER is generally not very popular in Japan. Another survey question asked about the perceptions of the value of OER for their schools. In this question, it was found that technical colleges have the highest expectations of OER, with 80.1% positive answers, while universities and junior colleges remained as 54.6% and 44.0% respectively. More detailed analyses revealed that, among these positive 80.1% responses at these technical schools, only 12.5% of the respondents 195

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

indicated that OER was “very valuable.” These results indicate that OER in Japan has not matured enough to be recognized in academic institutions. Another educational revolution in open education comes from MOOCs. As Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) suggest, it is characterized by “massiveness” and “openness.” To attain the goal, English is often used as a language of instruction. In Japan, however, we speak in Japanese, and majority of us do not have sufficient English language proficiency to understand MOOCs. This condition affects the situation of MOOCs in Japan. Japanese MOOCs are categorized into two types: Global MOOCs and local MOOCs. Global MOOCs include MOOCs offered on providers such as Coursera, edX and Udacity, where English is used as a medium of instruction and they are available to learners around the globe. MEXT (2016) reports that Coursera made partnerships with 117 elite universities around the world. Among them, there are 50 American universities, 36 European universities, and 13 Asian Universities, 3 from South America, and 3 from Oceania. There is only one Japanese university, which made a partnership with Coursera. Currently, the University of Tokyo provides four MOOCs: Welcome to game theory, Studying at Japanese Universities, Interactive computer graphics, and from the big bangs to dark energy. Thus, one could claim that the contents of these MOOCs are technology oriented. On the edX platform, one can find Japanese universities such as Tokyo Institute of Technology, The University of Tokyo, Hokkaido University, Kyoto Universiy, and Waseda University. Most of these courses are social science and humanities courses such as Modern Japanese Architecture: From Meiji Restoration to Today, Visualizing Japan (1850s-1930s): Westernization, Protest, Modernity, and Japanese Pronunciation for Communication. Providing MOOCs on global platforms is an excellent way to increase the recognition of these elite Japanese universities internationally, and surely these attempts contribute to open education and inclusiveness. Another advantage of providing a MOOC on a global platform is that professors of MOOCs can become good role models for non-native speakers of English who want to work in a global market. These role models speak English confidently, albeit with a Japanese accent. On the other hand, one of the limitations also rises from language issues. In global MOOCs, English is most often used as the language of instruction and can become a barrier to learning. In Japan, people speak in Japanese and do not have high enough English proficiency to understand MOOCs. According to MEXT (2016), the most commonly used subtitles for MOOCs are Spanish and Chinese. Thus for global MOOCs to be truly open and inclusive language barriers need to be minimized. The second type of MOOCs in Japan is the Local MOOC, and these have a strong influence on higher education in Japan. With a special focus on Japanese culture and language, a consortium of universities and corporations in Japan established the 196

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Japan Open Online Education Promotion Council (JMOOC) in 2013, to promote the use of MOOCs throughout Japan. Now JMOOC provides over 100 courses from various Japanese universities to more than 480,000 enrolled students (JMOOC, 2016). Kyushu University, for example, has offered four MOOCs on JMOOC as of 2016. Their MOOCs are characterized by providing Japanese and English subtitles, regardless of the language of instruction. They reported that the number of the enrolled students was 589, and the completion rate was 38.7%. Furthermore, they reported that 80% of the learners responded they were satisfied with the course and that the Japanese subtitles were very helpful for learning even for Japanese learners. While the number of the courses and the enrolled students are much smaller compared to Global MOOCs, Local MOOCs still play a significant role in Japan. Both Global MOOCs and Local MOOCs in Japan help to realize more opportunities and inclusiveness in education.

OER and Open Learning Initiatives in South Korea The South Korean environment for OERs, open learning and MOOCs is predicated largely on issues outside education. A significant driver of the development and utilization of open learning and open educational resources in South Korea, particularly in higher education, is due to a search for efficiency and equitable sharing of resources brought about by a rapidly declining birthrate and consolidation as universities are closing based on the diminishing pool of students. Eleven universities were closed between 2000-2014 out of a total of 220, with a further 47 universities having merged with 41 other universities (Korean Council for University Education, 2016). A further eleven universities have had their access to government funding curtailed making their closure possible if not likely (Kwon Sun Mi, 2016). According to the Ministry of Education’s Policy Office report (2016), there is the expectation that by 2018 university entrance quotas will outstrip the number of eligible high school graduates, a divide that will continue to accelerate (by 2024 this divide will be 30% greater than it was in 2014). The Ministry of Education has suggested that this will devastate the nation’s higher education system as it currently stands. Measures to combat this decline include reduction in university entrance quotas (reduced by 47,000 from 2014-2016), a boosting of competition between higher ranked universities, and radical reform, which may include consolidation with other universities or outright closure, for those lower-ranked universities, which total 66 in number. The Ministry of Education as part of this reform has focused on projects designed to invigorate higher education, including new projects to customize talents for social and business demand, evolving from the slogan: “We will cultivate talent that society wants”. It is from this backdrop of a declining birthrate and the educational reorganization that we see OER and open learning activity and policy emerge. 197

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

South Korea has openly and aggressively pursued open learning and OER partnerships and policies. Internationally, there are ongoing partnerships with large non-government organizations (NGOs) such as the World Bank’s Open Learning Campus, the online environment where many of the World Bank’s open learning options are offered; the Open Learning Campus itself was developed in partnership with the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Strategy and Finance (World Bank Group, 2016). Further partnerships include open and distance learning initiatives with UNESCO (2015) and beyond. Legally, and a move directly related to the acceleration of the development and availability of OER, the National Digital Library of Congress in the Republic of Korea has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Creative Commons Korea to provide open licensing on their content to accelerate “sharing for citizenship education with open resources” (Open Education Working Group, 2015). Domestically, there has been large-scale development of open learning initiatives, open courses, and OERs within higher education. South Korean higher education has invested in the development of Korea Open CourseWare (KOCW), modeled on MIT’s open courseware, which is designed to utilize lectures and lecture data that Korean universities have made openly available. “It is an open knowledge resource hub that can collect, distribute and utilize high-quality lecture contents diffused through universities in collaboration, and attempts to correspond to the flow of Open Educational Resources (OER) that is unfolding worldwide” (KERIS, 2015, p.111). Seoul National University pioneered much of this activity by developing open courseware designed to provide “open-ended educational content from SNU courses, including syllabi and lecture notes, made available on the internet to support higher education” (Seoul National University, 2007). Since 2014, Seoul National University has also developed MOOCs through their partnership with edX (2016). Many other universities have followed suit, such as the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Korea University, Yonsei University, and more, all offering MOOCs through open learning platforms such as Coursera, edX, and FutureLearn. Government policy and investment have followed suit with these earlier developments in open learning in higher education. The Republic of Korea has entered into partnerships with local universities to develop a native open learning platform called K-MOOC (2015). Starting in 2015 with 27 open courses from 10 universities, such as Seoul National University and KAIST, K-MOOC is set to expand rapidly to more than 500 courses in the next 18 years. K-MOOC represents a significant educational initiative for the Ministry of Education as it attempts to align open learning with larger lifelong learning policies, and to lessen the gap in educational capacity between universities domestically. Further, K-MOOC is partly designed to facilitate employability by promoting recruitment links between students and companies in the Republic of Korea (MOE, 2016). Ultimately, K-MOOC is but 198

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

one part of a larger educational process of providing equitable and efficient access to educational content. The Korea Education Research Information Service (KERIS), a governmentsupported organization which promotes education and research, manages much of this activity, particularly as it applies to KOCW, while K-MOOC is managed by the National Institute for Lifelong Education (NILE). Significantly NILE has placed MOOCs and OER at the forefront of their activity while targeting the elderly, women, and the disadvantaged through these efforts (KERIS, 2014), or those most likely to be adversely impacted by the prohibitive cost of higher education in South Korea. The Republic of Korea clearly identifies open learning and OER with national competitiveness in both formal education and lifelong learning and has signaled their commitment to this process through investments and policy. While the availability of open learning and OER is promising, adoption and use of that availability are more complex. In a survey with 111 university educators (Park, 2010), it was found that around 60% of educators from humanities and social sciences, 34% from natural sciences, and 5% from arts and physical education utilized various types of OER in their courses (ASEM LLL Hub, 2014). There are disciplinary differences and potential inhibitors that deserve further research. Kim (2013) surveyed 61 South Korea educators and revealed that over 70% had experience in using OER in their teaching, a promising statistic that suggests a greater use of OER than is generally found in neighboring China and Japan, yet these studies are too small to be generalizable across the Republic of Korea. Kim (2013) does, however, identify potential barriers to adoption including a lack of understanding of copyright issues, an issue that Creative Commons Korea has addressed with some success since 2013, and quality control of the OER itself. ASEM LLL point to issues such a lack of awareness, a lack of appropriate literacy to make use of OER, and a lack of support from management as barriers to the adoption of open learning content. These factors are echoed in further studies from Kim et al. (2015) with adult learners finding that direct workplace needs limited significant adoption of OER. So, the familiar constraints of awareness, applicability, competency, quality, and copyright apply to the South Korean context in their adoption of OER as well.

OER and MOOCs in Turkey The first initiatives into OER in Turkey started with National Courseware Consortium found in 2007 by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA). This two-year project obtained a 2 million Turkish Lira budget from the State Planning Organization in 2009. In the first year, 22 MIT courses and one Utah State University course were translated to Turkish from English, and 13 original courses in Turkish were developed. 199

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

In the second year of the project, 17 MIT courses, 8 Yale University courses, one Open University Course, one Notre Dame University course, and one UC-Irvine course were translated to Turkish, in addition to the 17 original courses in Turkish that were also developed. All courses are accessed on acikders.org.tr. Although the Turkish Open Course Ware (OCW) Consortium (UADMK) was assembled with the participation of representatives of 60 universities in 2012, only eight universities have a portal published for their courseware (Kursun, 2015). One of them was Middle East Technical University that has a portal including 118 courseware titles in 2012. Also, the OER movement was reported as a pioneer study subject in the 2006-2010 Knowledge Society Action Plan and as a strategic target in the 2011-2016 report of the Turkish National Science, Technology and Innovative Strategy. Anadolu University (AU), has been a pioneer in the field of open and distance learning in Turkey since 1982. AU is a mega-university enrolling almost two million students and aiming to offer higher education services, through a central open and distance system, to everyone who meets certain conditions in Turkey, in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Western Europe, the Balkan region, and the USA. Also, AU takes advantage of the opportunities provided by learning technologies in order to achieve the philosophy of lifelong learning. AU developed various open resources via online portals and the OER projects, namely Second University (2004), e-Certificate Programs (2007), Yunus Emre Newage Learning Portal (2008), ANAPOD (2008), and the E-Learning Portal of Open Education Faculty (2013) within the university. Moreover, AU initiated an interactive e-book project in 2012. The contents of all the learning materials have been designed according to the self-study format in the project managed by the Learning Technologies Research and Development Unit of the Open Education Faculty. Two hundred seventy-seven course books were transformed from their pre-published hardcopy versions into the e-book format between the years of 2012 and 2014. Currently, interactive e-books have been accessible via computers, laptops, and tablets from the e-campus system of the university. In terms of MOOCs in Turkey, Erzurum Ataturk University and Anadolu University are the leaders and major MOOC providers (Erdem-Aydın, 2015). Both of the universities announced their MOOCs platforms at the end of 2014 and offered their first courses in 2015. Ataturk University’s MOOCs platform is called AtademiX and has already offered 14 courses in Turkish and is currently running the additional course as well. AtademiX is a moodle-based MOOC platform and has four different course concepts including public, industry, academic, and academic for specific fields. As of May 2016, more than 4,500 participants registered in AtademiX and 46% of them are at the graduate level (Aydemir et al, 2016). Anadolu University started with 8 courses, mainly in social sciences and humanities, and more than 2000 learners in its custom developed MOOC platform called as AKADEMA. However, 200

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

after the first round of offerings, Anadolu University decided to change its platform and went on hiatus until June 2016. Currently, there are 57 courses offered in this platform free of cost. The university started this MOOC project with the goal to meet the lifelong learning needs of individuals of all ages and education levels. The course subject areas vary from computing skills and business management to communication and childcare. However, a not study has been published to date on MOOC participants, their preference in courses, and course materials in available through AKADEMA. There are some private universities taking part in the Turkish MOOC movement. For example, Yaşar University offers 20 online courses without any type of certification on a MOOC platform. Additionally, Koç University, in İstanbul, has offered 7 courses in Turkish on Coursera. UniversitePlus, another entrepreneur Turkish collaboration platform, with four different university partners, offers 46 online courses in both in Turkish and in English. Furthermore, Khan Academy is offering courses in Turkish, not only for corporations but also for educational institutions. These courses have drawn considerable interest by the Turkish people. In conclusion, it is clear that Turkey has become an adopter of OER and MOOCs, however, it is clear that there is a need to augment its efforts, especially in the context of educational research on OER and MOOCs.

OER in the United Kingdom (UKOER) The United Kingdom has been an avid supporter of the idea of Open Educational Resources since 1999, and it has been launching research and educational initiatives to investigate its potential impact. Since 1999, The Open University has been making free learning available to everyone online. The Open University in the UK is one of the world leaders in OER with guidelines to provide around 5% of its course materials as free Open Educational content every year. From 2008, all that open learning content has been in one place – OpenLearn. In 2009 The Open Learning network (OLnet) was established, with an aim to collate evidence and encourage research into the development and practice around OER (OpenLearn, 2016). From its inception, a six-stage description of possible work was developed for the OLnet (McAndrew and Farrow, 2013): • • • • • •

Legal: Release of copyright through Creative Commons. Practical: Provide access to content. Technical: Develop an environment for open access. Pedagogic: Understand the designs that work. Economic: Devise a model for sustainable operation. Transformative: Change ways of working and learning. 201

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

From an institutional perspective, McAndrew and Farrow (2013) wrote, “the boundaries of the debate around open education are increasingly expanding in order to encompass the institutional, cultural and pedagogical implications of adopting an open model rather than retaining focus on the resources themselves” (p. 70). When JISC rolled out their open educational resources (OER) program, it was in partnership with the Higher Education Academy, and it ran in three phases between 2009 and 2012. The focus was on enabling free and open access to learning and teaching resources licensed in ways that permit reuse and repurposing in the UK and worldwide. The program built on our earlier work on e-learning resources, X4L in 2002-2006 and ReProduce in 2008-2009. As the total program consisted of 65 UKOER projects, this triggered a UK-wide rethinking of OER and its use. The 2012 Paris OER Declaration was formally adopted at the 2012 World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress held at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris (UNESCO, 2016) and this pushed the OER agenda even further. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation funded the OER Research Hub project. This sought to establish an evidence base for the many beliefs widely held regarding the benefits of OER and worked with 15 partners to build an evidence base regarding these. The OER Research Hub work has resulted in a strong academic output (see UKOER links) and a wide range of reports on OER impact for general audiences (see UKOER links). These reports and publications look at all levels of OER impact: the micro level (e.g. how do learners use OER), the meso level (e.g. OER realities within one educational institution looking at learning and teaching) and the macro level (e.g. impact on international collaborations between institutions, open education and critical pedagogy). This emphasizes the importance which is given to measure the impact of OER and develop strategies to increase this impact. The OER impact map is an initiative of the OER Research hub and provides a record of evidence about the global effect of OER. The OER Evidence Hub categorized the twelve challenges of OER in four categories (McAndrew and Farrow, 2013, p. 69): The findings of the OER Research Hub reveal a complex picture of OER use in teaching and learning, and a range of impacts that could be usefully explored for the next wave of OER implementation by taking a longitudinal approach to assess the impact over time. (Weller, de los Arcos, Farrow, Pitt and McAndrew, 2015). These UK-wide projects were enabled by individual universities providing rich results coming from their respective OER studies. A practical and rich analysis of the factors that need to be in place to embed openness into the institutional pedagogy of a researchintensive institute can be read in the prospects and challenges described by Masterman (2016). Another interesting direction is provided by the collective Intelligence approach to collating the evidence needed to support policy in open education as put forward by De Liddo, Buckingham Shum, McAndrew and Farrow (2012). 202

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

FutureLearn is a UK-based MOOC initiative, which launched its first public MOOCs in 2013 and the first MOOC platform to start from a Mobile First design. FutureLearn supports social learning, and is built on evidence-based online and mobile pedagogies (Sharples, 2013). Although FutureLearn MOOCs offer download options for almost all its media (transcripts, videos, audio, texts) there are a variety of copyrights on the media of each course, chosen by the course organizers. Access to online materials is not the same as ‘open processes’ involving the active engagement of MOOC learners (Knox, 2013). Additionally, this means that although most MOOCs are free, and their resources are available, they are not necessarily open to others for repurposing or reproduction in other courses. However, MOOC organizers can opt for an OER copyright which enables reuse of the resources, and some facilitators do use this option when providing their course on the FutureLearn platform. In May 2016 FutureLearn started to offer MOOCs that also offered academic credits, opening up a new way of achieving Higher Education related credits. On top of that FutureLearn also offers courses for K12 schools and professional development. In February 2017 FutureLearn offered courses provided by 110 partners worldwide. Not all FutureLearn MOOCs can be considered OERs, in fact, only a few MOOCs even use OER to provide already existing, high-quality OER content inside new MOOC courses. FutureLearn offers a wide range of copyright licenses, including Creative Commons licenses. And from the start Universities have used them. Two of FutureLearn’s earliest courses, Nottingham’s ‘Sustainability, society and you’ and Edinburgh’s ‘The discovery of the Higgs boson’, have been made available to enrolled learners under Creative Commons licenses (Shorter, 2014). The United Kingdom was and is a pioneer in the adoption, support, and dissemination of OER research. The research focus has evolved as OER options grew with the evolutions in online learning and technology, moving from the production of OER to the impact and strategic roll-out of OER in a global world. The OER concept uptake is enabled by scientific and a broad public information dissemination, and aimed at a balanced mix of micro, meso and macro levels of impact.

MOOCs, OER and Beyond: A Perspective from the United States From the earliest mentions of the potential for highly collaborative online classes for large audiences, many universities in the USA have been interested in the MOOC movement. In fact, MOOCs are probably one of the USA’s favorite Canadian imports! As part of the Open Educational Resources movement, US scholars tracked the promising early results and continued to experiment with the format, and modified it with their own conceptions and ideas of online learning.

203

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Early examples of US scholar involvement in MOOCs included scholars such as David Metcalf who participated in early cMOOCs. In the spring of 2011, both US and global participants and scholars participated in MobiMOOC. Inge deWaard, the convener of this MOOC brought together scholars to be facilitators in this MOOC dedicated to the global study of mobile learning. In a whirlwind effort, she organized several global scholars to produce and curate content for each week of a curriculum structured for massive, global use. Almost 1000 people signed up and joined in for at least part of the program. The level of commitment required of the students led to a strong core, but also a rapid drop off of a significant portion of the enrolled students. US scholars were sold on the qualitative aspects of MOOC that inspired the global community, but they were troubled by the completion rates, the lack of evaluation of knowledge, and skills to standardize and guarantee student outcomes. While scholars realized that this was not the goal of the “Mobile MOOC Lab”, they continued to look for ways to help improve both access and outcomes by incorporating messaging, assessment and the beginning of simple AI and learning strategies like cognitive load theory and interval spacing/adaptive learning to further improve the learner experience. In addition to MobiMOOC, other contemporary Canadian MOOCs were LAK11 (Learning Analytics and Knowledge 2011) and CCK11 (Connectivism and Connective Knowledge 2011) which occurred in the first half of 2011. EduMOOC, organized by Ray Schroeder of the University of Illinois Springfield was probably the first recorded attempt of a US-based cMOOC. A decided turning point in the US was the launch of Sebastian Thrun’s Stanford AI Course in the fall semester of 2011. Instead of setting a limit on the class size, the AI Class simply let everybody join. Out of the 160,000 students who enrolled, 23,000 obtained a Certificate of Completion. While the 14% completion rate started the ongoing controversy surrounding the MOOC format’s retention rate, Sebastian Thrun focused on the fact that 23,000 people from all around the world passed a class with the same criteria as Stanford students (none of which were even in the top 100). The structure of this MOOC looked quite different from the collaborative and project-based constructivist approach in MobiMOOC. This was the beginning of the xMOOC format, and started to take shape as a different approach from that of the previous MOOC format (again, now called cMOOC) to achieve a larger and less personal goal of increasing course access and perhaps throughput, even if the community features of the course were emphasized less. The xMOOC format overtook the original MOOC format and this new format became the defacto conception of what a MOOC looked like. Given the instructivist, broadcast, nature of the xMOOC, and the general lack of knowledge both in the realm of online learning, and the history of the MOOC, scholars in the US started pushing back against the format, coming up with additional shades of MOOC types such as pMOOC (project-based MOOC), DOCC (distributed open collaborative 204

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

course), Micro-MOOC, and SPOC (small private online course) just to name a few. This has two effects. First, there was a rapid development of MOOC providers, both venture-capital supported and non-profit. Second, there was something like an academic arms race occurring on college campuses to see which universities could offer their courses as MOOCs. While many universities offered some course in the new format, many didn’t seem to understand how to develop pedagogies for online environments with big enrollments, and their solutions were mostly technological in nature and devoid of sound instructional analysis. This meant that after an initial rush to offer MOOCs, some universities dropped their efforts, leading to an unsustained, and failed, push toward open learning. In the end, the dawn of the xMOOC signaled a very US approach to providing MOOCs: efforts focused on the online and the massive number of enrollments (a technical solution) and not on the open, social and learning quality aspects of the courses. More machine, less human. Despite the rich history of US institutions with the concept of open, such as MIT’s OpenCourseWare, and Creative Commons Licensing, that concept didn’t translate well into US-variety MOOCs. Despite the shortcomings of the xMOOC, some great outcomes were achieved. Examples of such outcomes are that courses that were once available only to elite institutions were now made available beyond the walls of those academic institutions. Still, the few collaborative features and a lack of innovation to go beyond a broadly distributed web course, something that existed in some for or another due to iTunesU and OCW. Still, the following startups attracted the attention and content of Some notable providers of MOOC platforms are: •

• • •

Udacity: Started as a MOOC provider but has transitioned to a NanoDegree, micro-credentialing provider and community. Through a partnership with Georgia Tech University and AT&T, an American Telecommunications company, they are offering they offer an accredited Master’s degree in computer science. Coursera: Curated catalog of great courses with limited accountability. Students are able to audit for free or pay a fee for a certificate of completion. EdX: Micro-Masters that unaccredited, real-world subject area degrees for a fee $99-$199. Canvas.Net: an online clearinghouse of xMOOC-structured courses found in the Canvas LMS format.

None of the models above are innately bad, but with initial leaders such as Daphne Koller and others moving away from MOOCs and open education to other missions with the potential to change the world, the initial democratization of education promise of the xMOOC will likely only be one small part of a larger solution in 205

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

OER that can change the whole world, not just Silicon Valley. Another interesting observation during this same timeframe of 2012-2014: iTunesU started by Apple and select universities in 2007, 1 year before the first Canadian MOOC and over 3 years before in the US was responsible for over 1 billion course/lecture downloads as part of the Open Educational Resource movement. This span of access puts the massive in any particular xMOOC to shame by comparison.

Next Steps in US MOOCs: Can It Be Fixed? There are a few undercurrents in US-based educational technology these days. The approach to solving learning issues from a technological perspective continues to be a main driver in the US. Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning are two key undercurrents that can help the xMOOC evolve into its next possible incarnation. One major strength of the xMOOC format is this compatibility with Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning. This leads to a potential for mass personalization through the use of these two technologies. If personal pathways through learning, and the ability to track knowledge, skills, and attributes for competency validation can be systematic, potential breakthroughs in learning may occur may occur. One early example from Michigan on Coursera in MOOCulus [mooculus.osu.edu] (Briggs, 2014).

A US Export Model? What about OER and other programs? Perhaps the ultimate learning mashup is yet to come. Both the xMOOC variety of MOOCs, a US innovation, and Open Educational Resources, such as those shared through OpenCourseWare are already seen as exports of US higher education institutions. As mentioned in the sections above, other countries have adopted and adapted US-created OERs, and MOOC offers already have the capability to translate and subtitle their offerings. These offerings, while not necessarily a hit in their home countries see a big following in countries such as India (Anders, 2015). This trend of exporting learning, and learning materials are expected to continue. MOOCs and OER have influenced scalable access to knowledge and community in the age of the Internet and cloud-based resources. To truly scale to the next level and allow broader access, MOOCs and OER must transform to be simpler and less expensive across the globe. xMOOCs will not be sufficient by themselves without community, accountability and student-centered outcomes. A new technology race is currently on the way to capture the cultural phenomenon of messaging platforms that have all the power of apps in a simple, timely and flexible format as easy as SMS or Multimedia messaging (MMS). Coupled with the power of artificial intelligent 206

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

or, in our case, adaptive learning- seamless, contextual learning that is tailored to the needs of each learner may become a reality. Using simple email or text messages to link to and trigger specific “Learning Playlists” of content found throughout the cloud will leverage existing MOOC content and OER through deep links, directly to the information a student needs when they need it. Examples include of this include WeChat for applying app-like capability in a messaging app. Approaching 1 billion users in China with an average revenue per user of $7 in a developing market (Chan, 2015). WeChat may also be a popular cultural export to other developing regions like Africa (Van DenHeeve, 2016). Cracking the code for a WeChat for Learning is a common goal of many developers in the US and has unified global education movements like the Global Guild (Churchill, 2013).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic planning requires analyzing what has been done so far. In this regard, this chapter contributes to analyze current state of art by exploring OER and MOOCs in six countries: Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey, UK, USA. Each of the cited countries recognizes the necessity of developing and using OER as well as MOOCs. An overlap in content development and use can be seen in the overlap between OER and MOOC use. However, the accompanying copyright and Intellectual Property rights of the produced educational material, be it OER or MOOC, is a point of distinction and sometimes of concern in terms of reproducibility. Until now multiple initiatives have emerged across the aforementioned countries in both local as international OER and MOOC production and use. Strategic planning is one of the actions taken by National governments or educational policy holders to set up MOOCs and OER. This planning is used to draw up the vision and resulting implementation of MOOCs, inevitably this is related to allocated budgets, previous expertise as well as educational realities existing in each country. In case of the OER one can see that there is room for growth in terms of efficient OER use, and additional projects are set up to ensure OER quality, reuse and implementation. With MOOCs entering the plateau of productivity, research into the efficiency and effectiveness of MOOCs is growing across countries, but the approach differs, depending on national policy (which type of OER/MOOCs have priority) or previous experience and capacity (having set up a MOOC platform, partnering up with different countries, educational priority). Although there is a clear link between OER, MOOCs and Higher Education, there is a tendency to embed other learning groups or institutes as well. However, follow-up studies that explore OER and MOOCs would be helpful to see the bigger picture. With this in mind, future research can focus on other countries 207

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

such as Russia, China, India, South Africa etc., which have different linguistic, strategic and cultural realities.

REFERENCES ASEM LLL. (2014). Open Educational Resources in Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from: http://asemlllhub.org/fileadmin/www.asem.au.dk/publications/e-ASEM_ OER_2014.pdf Athabasca University. (2016). History. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca/ aboutau/history/ Aydemir, M., Celik, E., Bingol, I., Cakmak-Karapinar, D., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2016). İnternet üzerinden herkese açık kurs (İHAK) sağlama deneyimi: AtademiX. Acikogretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 52–74. Bozkurt, A., Ozdamar Keskin, N., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203–221. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.287 Chosun.com. (2016). Ministry of Education Releases Report on Condition of Universities...Limits of Government Funds to Poorly Ranked Universities to Continue; Some Universities (Daegu Foreign Language University and Seonam University etc) at risk of closing. Retrieved from: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/ html_dir/2016/09/05/2016090502325.html Chuang, I., & Ho, A. D. (2016). HarvardX and MITx: Four Years of Open Online Courses - Fall 2012-Summer 2016. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2889436 or10.2139/ssrn.2889436 Coffin, M. (2012). Canada’s Contribution to the Commons: Creating a Culture of Open Education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Graduate Students’ Association. De Liddo, A., Buckingham Shum, S., McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2012). The Open Education Evidence Hub: A Collective Intelligence Tool for Evidence Based Policy. Presented to Cambridge 2012: Joint OER12 and OpenCourseWare Consortium Global 2012 Conference, Cambridge, UK. Downes, S., & Siemens, G. (2008). Connectivism and connective knowledge. The Daily Archives. Retrieved from http://connect.downes.ca/ edX. (2016). SNUx. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/school/snux

208

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Erdem-Aydın, I. (2015). Preferences and willingness for participating MOOCs in Turkish. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 88–96. Fini, A. (2009). The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643 Hewlett Foundation. (2015). Open educational resources. Advancing widespread adoption to improve instruction and learning. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Open_Educational_Resources_December_2015.pdf ICER Newsletter. (2015). Reports on Introduction to Cutting-edge Cyber Security for Individuals and Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.icer.kyushu-u.ac.jp/ sites/default/files/newsletter201602.pdf JOCW. (2006). A case study in open educational resources production and use in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/37647892.pdf JOCW. (2016). About JOCW. Retrieved from http://www.jocw.jp/AboutJOCW_j.htm K-MOOC. (2016). K-MOOC. Retrieved from http://www.kmooc.kr KERIS. (2014). White paper on ICT in Education Korea. Retrieved from http:// english.keris.or.kr/es_ac/es_ac_210.jsp KERIS. (2015). White paper on ICT in Education Korea. Retrieved from http:// english.keris.or.kr/es_ac/es_ac_210.jsp Kim, B. W., Lee, W. G., Lee, B. R., & Shon, J. G. (2015). Influencing factors in OER usage of adult learners in Korea. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2051 Knox, J. (2013). The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education technology. Open Praxis, 5(1), 21–29. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.36 Korean Statistical Information Service. (2016). About. Retrieved from http://kosis. kr/eng/ Koutropoulos, A., & Zaharias, P. (2015) Down the Rabbit Hole: An initial typology of issues around the development of MOOCs. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1), Article 4. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/4 Kursun, E. (2015). Açık Eğitim Kaynakları. In K. Cagiltay & Y. Goktas (Eds.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. LibriVox. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/ 209

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing Open Educational Practice to a Research-Intensive University: Prospects and Challenges. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1). McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2013). Open education research: From the practical to the theoretical. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/37756/1/OER-IRP-mcandrewfarrow.pdf McGreal, R., Anderson, T., & Conrad, D. (2015). Open Education Resources in Canada In G. Miao, S. Mishra, & R. McGreal (Eds.), Open Education Resources: Policy, cost and transformation. (pp. 63-73). Commonwealth of Learning. McNutt, K. (2016). Opening Canadian Classrooms. Retrieved from: http://albertaoer. com/openingcanadianclassrooms Metcalf, D., Jackson, M., & Rogers, D. (2015). Reflections on Case Studies in Mobile Seamless Learning. In L. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless Learning in the Age of Mobile Connectivity (pp. 109–120). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-113-8_6 Metcalf, D., Milrad, M., Cheek, D., Raasch, S., & Hamilton, A. (2008). My Sports Pulse: increasing student interest in STEM disciplines through sports themes, games and mobile technologies. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (pp. 23-30). IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/WMUTE.2008.38 MEXT. (2016). MOOCs in foreign countries. Retrieved from http://www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/koutou/itaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/08/14/1357548_02.pdf Mulder, F. (2015). Open(ing up) education for all…Boosted by MOOCs? In C. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynold (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education around the World. New York, NY: Routledge, xviii-xxvii. OpenLearn. (2016). Explore your world with free learning from The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/explore OpenupEd. (2015). Definition Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Retrieved from http://www.openuped.eu/images/docs/Definition_Massive_Open_Online_ Courses.pdf Ru, O. E. (n.d.). About OERu. Retrieved from http://oeru.org/about-oeru/ Shorter, M. (2014). FutureLearn blogpost. The first ‘O’ in MOOC. Retrieved from https://about.futurelearn.com/blog/the-first-o-in-mooc/ SPARC. (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved from: http://sparcopen.org/who-we-are/ 210

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

Teachonline. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://teachonline.ca/about-us TELUQ. (n.d.). Historique. Retrieved from http://www.teluq.ca/site/universite/ historique.php UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries. Final report. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf UNESCO webpages. (2016). What is the Paris OER declaration? UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/ access-to-knowledge/open-educational-resources/what-is-the-paris-oer-declaration/ Weller, M., de los Arcos, B., Farrow, R., Pitt, B., & McAndrew, P. (2015). The impact of OER on teaching and learning practice. Open Praxis, 7(4), 351–361. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.227 Wikieducator. (2015). Case Study – Athabasca University. Retrieved from: http:// wikieducator.org/Athabasca_University/Case_study Wikieducator. (2017). Open Educational Resouces. Retrieved from https:// wikieducator.org/Open_Education_Resources Wiley, D. (2015). Misstep and the open education infrastructure. In C. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynold (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education around the World (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Routledge.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Education for All: A global movement led by UNESCO that aims to meet the learning needs of all children, youth, and adults. Education within Globalization: The effects of the processes of globalization in education across the world. Educational Policy: The principles and government policy-making in the educational sphere. Global Education: A creative approach of bringing about change in our own society. Higher Education: Any of various types of education given in postsecondary institutions of learning and usually affording, at the end of a course of study, a named degree diploma, or certificate of higher studies. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Courses designed for large numbers of participants, that can be accessed by anyone anywhere as long as they have an 211

National Strategies for OER and MOOCs From 2010 to 2020

internet connection, are open to everyone without entry qualifications, and offer a full/complete course experience online for free. Open Education: A collective term to describe institutional practices and programmatic initiatives that broaden access to the learning and training traditionally offered through formal education systems. Open Educational Resources (OER): Teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under and intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others. Online Learning: e-Learning enabled teaching and learning that allows the learner to have increased interaction with content, teacher, and other learners. Open Learning: Policies and practice of openness in entry requirements (with minimal or no restriction on qualifications), choice of courses, place of study and time, etc.

212

213

Chapter 9

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): The Application and Administration of the Motivation Design Model Hasan Uçar Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey Alper Tolga Kumtepe Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Massive Open Online Courses, aka MOOCs, have become an indispensable part of the online education routine. Many universities and organizations put a lot of effort into designing, developing, and running such courses. However, it still remains to be an under-researched area. One of the most important issues associated with success in MOOCs is the learner motivation. High dropout and low retention rates have been attributed to learners’ low motivation. A recipe for these motivational challenges in MOOCs is provided by the ARCS-V motivational theory. This motivation design model provides a frame for analyzing the MOOCs learners, learning environment, and the resources. Based on this analysis, the model provides suggestions for assigning motivational tactics and strategies. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to introduce Keller’s ARCS-V motivational design model and discuss it as a potential remedy to motivational issues in MOOCs by administering and delivering motivational strategies based on the model in MOOCs environments.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch009 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

INTRODUCTION In recent years, Massive Open Online Courses (AKA: MOOCs) attracted a lot attention of many stakeholders in education. As implied in its abbreviation, MOOCs are courses provided to large masses over the Internet, free of charge, and without any requirements. The first MOOC was carried out in 2008 by George Siemens and Stephen Downes of University of Manitoba in Canada, and in a couple of years, started a completely new era in education (Daniel, 2012). These courses, which can be taken by a lot more learners than students registered in conventional courses, are open to anyone connected to the Internet, and have, over time, become a huge market, advertising space, and most important of all, a great learning opportunity. The New York Times journalist Laura Pappano described 2012 as ‘The year of the MOOC’, providing another indicator of the wide-ranging effects of the MOOCs. Although many different types of MOOCs have emerged in recent years, MOOCs are divided into two basic categories: cMOOCs and xMOOCs. These two types of MOOCs employ different instructional pedagogies. The concept of cMOOC refers to ‘Connectivist MOOCs’, and the first ever MOOC to be offered, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) designed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2008, was a cMOOC. In cMOOCs, learning occurs through interaction among learners and course elements (Daniel, 2012; Siemens, 2005). The popular second generation of MOOCs, the xMOOC refers to ‘extended MOOCs’, and is based on the behavioral approach to learning (Daniel, 2012). Of these two types of MOOCs, xMOOCs have gained more prominence because they are content-based and closer to the conventional learning model (Haggard, 2013; Rodriguez, 2012). In most of the MOOCs, learners can acquire a certificate for a small fee or free after fulfilling the requirements of the course. What is more, many colleges and organizations have started to recognize these certificates in recent years (Soffer & Cohen, 2015). In many contexts, including the present study, the expression MOOC refers to xMOOCs. Many organizations, partnering and collaborating with leading universities in the world, offer MOOCs that provide an opportunity for open learning on a global scale. The largest MOOC providers in the world include Coursera, edX, Udacity, Udemy, Khan Academy, PSPU (Peer to Peer University), FutureLearn and Open Learning, among others. As of December 2016, the US-based Coursera, one of the largest MOOC provider, partners with more than 145 colleges, offers 1600 courses, and has 22 million students (Coursera, 2016). These numbers demonstrate just how wide-ranging MOOCs are in terms of scope, and how important they have become. The number of organizations and colleges offering MOOCs is also increasing in countries other than the US, especially in Europe.

214

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Educators, researchers, learners and anyone who pursuit learning have started to pay a lot of attention to MOOCs after its advent in 2008 for various reasons. What makes MOOCs so popular and effective is basically the involvement of leading universities in the world that support these courses, and the sheer number of learners that are registered in these courses. Learners have different reasons for registering in these courses. Getting certification, being interested in the contents of the course, achieving personal development, and curiosity about MOOCs are among the many reasons why learners register in MOOCs (Bayne & Ross, 2014; Daniel, 2012; Haggard, 2013). However, there are serious difficulties with attendance and completion of the courses in these learning environments, which on average last 4-6 weeks, even though learners start out with certain goals. This is because, even though it is easy to register in MOOCs, learners’ achievement in these courses depend on many factors, as is the case in distance education courses. Learners’ time management skills, perceived self-efficacy, learning habits, autonomous personality, and motivation are important factors for success. MOOCs are increasing in number, receive more support from organizations, and attract ever higher numbers of participants, but high dropout rates and low commitment to courses among learners have emerged as important areas of study in recent years (Daniel, 2012; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Jordan, 2015). The present study aims to analyze and discuss motivation levels of learners registered in MOOCs, and contribute to the improvement of MOOC design so that they are better able to support learner motivation. In this context, because it is not possible to directly manipulate MOOC learners’ motivation in a given course, instructors and instructional designers need to design course contents and activities in such a way as to increase learners’ motivation and encourage attendance. To this end, the present study will offer steps, methods and strategies for applying the Motivation, Volition, and Performance (MVP) theory, in other words, the ARCS-V (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition) model to MOOCs.

BACKGROUND With the increasing prominence of the concept of lifelong learning in tertiary education institutions, many people decide to continue their education for various reasons. One of the most important reasons for the interest in lifelong learning is the change in qualifications sought and required for many jobs, particularly because of widespread usage of information and communication technologies. To achieve this goal, people can register, with one click, in free courses open for all, offered by prominent universities in the world, and sometimes are able to certify their education in return for a minimal fee or free. In this sense, MOOCs are like generators that

215

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

are activated when people from different backgrounds need additional training for business, education, personal development, hobby, or cultural reasons. One of the most important criticisms of MOOC concerns is course completion rates of learners (Balch, 2013; Daniel, 2012; Jordan, 2015). The Circuits and Electronics MOOC offered by the MIT in 2012 had 155,000 learners registered, but the rate of completion was a mere 4.6% (7,157 people) (Daniel, 2012). In another study, Jordan (2015) examined completion rates in 221 MOOCs, and found that the rate of completion varied between 0.07% and 52.1%, with a mean value of 12.6%. The length and start date of a course, as well as the type of assessment used, are identified as important factors affecting completion rates (Jordan, 2015). This study also underlined the importance of the first two weeks for attracting the attention of the learners to the course and encouraging completion. Although MOOCs have an average dropout rate of about 90%, these courses are expected to reach hundreds of millions of people in the coming years, with more effective and creative designs (Cusumano, 2013). Given the low completion rates of MOOC learners, studies are conducted on learner characteristics, learners’ motivations for registering, and course design. From this perspective, learner characteristics and motivations are the most commonly studied issues in the context of success (Jordan 2014; Jordan 2015; Koller, Ng, Do & Chen, 2013). In addition, Lee and Choi (2011) identified personal reasons, reasons related to course design and environmental factors as the three main causes why learners drop out of a course in distance education environments like MOOCs. In terms of learner characteristics, factors such as the academic history of the learner, ability to make effective use of time, technological self-efficacy, motivation and personality are considered significant. Course design related factors include course contents meeting learner expectations, the level of interaction in the course, and learner support services. Finally, environmental factors include the work and family life of learners and related responsibilities, and whether learners are supported by people in their social environment or not. Completion rates in MOOCs and various distance education systems provide clues as to the contents and design quality of courses. What is more, attendance by learners and successful completion are among the most important priorities in these environments. Learners are expected not just to log in to these systems, but also to succeed, engage and move forward within the system (Daniel, 2012). The number of people registering in MOOCs has started to decline compared to their first days, but completion rates are on the increase. This can be read as an indicator that today, only people who are keen on learning are registering for MOOCs, and it is perceived more than a hype. Similarly, based on Gardner’s Hype Cycles, Bozkurt, Özdamar-Keskin and de Waard (2016) suggested that, by 2015, the MOOC phenomenon was at the verge of the Plateau of Productivity phase and will enter this phase in near future. 216

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

The fact that MOOCs and course materials are open to all does not guarantee that all learners will succeed. Completion rates in MOOCs indicate, in terms of course design, that these courses make insufficient use of motivational factors and strategies. Course attendance, commitment, and success of learners can be improved with course designs that make use of motivationally effective strategies (Keller, 2010). From this angle, completion rates of MOOCs are indicators of basic problems with course design and with learners registered in these courses. To get effective results in terms of attendance and successful completion in MOOCs, first, the target audience of MOOCs should be analyzed, and on this basis, instructional designers should blend instruction and motivation design making use of theory-based practices. This is because, if learners are not sufficiently motivated in MOOCs, rates of completion would remain low, and MOOCs would continue facing problems with effectiveness. At this point, John M. Keller’s (2010) theory-based ARCS-V (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition) motivation design model, which has proven to be highly valid in distance education implementations, could be of use tackling the issue of learner motivation in MOOCs. In this model, motivational characteristics of learners and of the learning environment are analyzed prior to implementation, and interactive motivational strategies to be used throughout the course are designed. During the course, an effort is made to improve learners’ motivation by using these strategies via various interactive tools, at an appropriate frequency. In this context, this study provides a road map for systematically integrating motivational and interactive strategies into courses that would improve the effectiveness of MOOCs, using the theoretical framework of the ARCS-V motivation model.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) MOOCs have been influenced by paradigm changes observed in education and teaching fields in recent years, and in return, made a significant contribution to these paradigm changes. Moreover, recent developments in distance education and the rush into MOOCs have proven that the field get into the mainstream of the education trends. However, MOOCs serve an important function as learning environments, and offer great opportunities and experiences for life-long learning (Bayne & Ross, 2014; Bozkurt, 2015; Bozkurt et al., 2015). With the flexible learning opportunities they offer, MOOC-type learning models have numerous advantages. However, dropout and retention related problems are frequently seen in this learning model because it assigns almost all of the responsibility for learning to the learners themselves. Studies conducted to minimize these problems mainly focus on efforts to improve 217

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

learner motivation (Anderson, 2013). The literature review conducted by Hart (2012) shows that motivation is a factor that affects learners’ attendance in distance education environments, and is directly related to learners’ success. Thanks to contemporary information and communication technologies (ICT), MOOCs provide the opportunity for learning and teaching to tens of thousands of people, and as such, have been the subject of many studies, particularly in the field of education. The mania for MOOCs has spread all over the world in recent years, and MOOCs emerged as a new learning environment in terms of education. Their popularity has skyrocketed especially after The New York Times declared that 2012 is the year of MOOCs (Pappano, 2012). OpenupEd, one of the largest providers of MOOCs with the support of the European Union, describes MOOCs as follows: • • • •

Online courses designed for large numbers of participants (generally larger than 150 participants) That can be accessed by anyone anywhere without limitations as long as they have an internet connection, Are open to everyone without entry qualifications, And offer a full/complete course experience online for free (OpenupEd, 2016).

Based on this definition, the following nine issues have been identified as among the most important points to be taken into account in designing and running an effective MOOC (Siemens, 2012): •

•

•

218

Identifying the Topic and Intended Audience of the Course: Instructors should identify an interesting topic in which they have expertise, one that is in demand by learners. Instructors can adapt a topic they have been teaching to the online environment. In addition to topic, the intended audience (students, teachers, managers, etc.) should also be taken into account. Receiving Support From Others in the Teaching Process: It is important that instructors do not conduct teaching all by themselves, but cooperate with others. Making connections with people from different countries, cultures and fields, and inviting guest speakers to the lectures would add variety to the course. Contents: To the largest extent possible, instructors are recommended to use open-access sources, multi-media instruments, videos and texts. Space should be provided for learners to create content, and they should be given the opportunity to do so. Use content not as the end goal of learning, but as it’s starting point, and utilize content to sustain learning.

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

• • •

• • •

Identifying Interaction Tools and Spaces: To the largest extent possible, use distributed tools and spaces (e.g. tags, forums, e-mail, blogs, social media tools, etc.). Identifying the Type of Interaction: Allow learners to access content and participate in interaction via synchronous and asynchronous tools. Make Instructor Presence Felt: In MOOCs, the instructor should not be the central node, but an important node not to be disregarded. The instructor should be present in all learning environments (blogs, forums, e-mail, social media, etc.). The instructor should make their presence felt without dominating. Activities by Learners: Learners should be encouraged and given the opportunity to create content during the course. In addition, it is advisable that learners are given a role in course evaluation processes. Promotion and Sharing: Getting the word out to the intended audience and making efforts to promote the course in social networks and academic meetings is important. Iterating and Improving the Course: Learners’ opinions and recommendations about the course should be collected and necessary adjustments should be made. In this process, the instructors should also express and write about their opinions in various platforms.

In addition to above issues, Guardia, Maina, and Sangra (2013) stated that MOOCs generally put emphasis on the social, institutional, technological and economical sides of the teaching process. Furthermore, a new perception of knowledge production and learning phenomenon demand new approaches and pedagogies in MOOCs environments. According to these issues, the authors presented ten learning design principles for MOOCs environments: •

• • •

Competence-Based Design Approach: During the course, the learners should be active rather than passive learners. Problem-based or project-based learning approaches can be preferred and the focus should be on the outcome of learning. Learner Empowerment: Learner-center pedagogical approach should be adopted. Learning Plan and Clear Orientations: A well-conceived plan with tasks, activity deadlines, criteria for assessment, and assessment types should be prepared. Collaborative Learning: The instructor can plan activities in discussion forum, activities or tasks to enhance the interaction and collaboration among the students. 219

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

• • • • • •

Social Networking: Use social networks like twitter or Facebook to keep in touch the community. Peer Assistance: Create environments to support the learners to form groups and help each other. Quality Criteria for Knowledge Creation and Generation: Give an opportunity to learners to create contents through Web 2.0 tools and value them. Interest Groups: Design activities to promote learners’ interests, motivate them, and support their interests. Assessment and Peer Feedback: Use objective criteria through rubrics and encourage peer assessment and feedback. Media-Technology-Enhanced Learning: Use the latest media tools to capture the attention of the learners and choose the best tool according to activity.

MOOCs include, in addition to conventional lectures, short videos, assignments, weekly readings, and peer evaluations. These courses are cementing their place in the distance education ecosystem, but they are far from solving all problems in education. Their effectiveness is questioned for offering short instructional talking-head videos, failing to feature class discussions, and having low interactivity (Thille, Mitchell & Stevens, 2015). In addition, learners can access these courses via mobile devices or computers with Internet access, but these courses can only become significant if they have good instructional and motivational design, accompanied by meaningful, effective, relevant, and interactive activities. The most controversial aspect of MOOCs in recent years has been their completion rates. In a project initiated by Katy Jordan, a great many of MOOCs are recorded with information on parameters such as platform through which they are offered, supporting college, number of registered learners, completion rates, and course length. Figure 1 provides information on the course lengths and completion rates of 116 courses featured on platforms such as Coursera, edX, and FutureLearn between 2011 and 2015. As seen in Figure 1, shorter courses (lasting 5-6 weeks) have higher completion rates, but the average completion rate of all courses is lower than 10%. Reasons frequently mentioned in the literature as leading to problems such as low completion rates and high dropout rates include the following (Onah, Sinclair & Boyatt, 2014): • •

220

Lack of real intention to complete the course (Lack of motivation and curiosity) Lack of time (work, family, and workload of MOOC)

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Figure 1. MOOC completion percentages and course lengths (Jordan, n.d.) Source: http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html

• • • • • •

Course difficulty and lack of support (Some courses are difficult and the learners need help at first hand) Lack of digital skills or learning skills (The courses need autonomous learners with adequate technological self-efficacy) Bad experiences (Some MOOCs disappoint the learners by quality, materials, and technical problems) Expectations (Some learners have low abilities but they have high expectations) Late start (Some learners start late on the MOOCs and they could not reach the others) Peer grading (Auto grading MOOCs are more preferred than peer grading because of the work load)

Once again, the most important reasons for dropping out of or failing to complete MOOCs are lack of motivation, and lack of sufficient interest in the contents of the course. Improvements in these areas would motivate learners who register of their own volition, and help them overcome problems such as lack of time, limited technological self-efficacy, and difficulty of course contents. Motivational designs that feature interactive strategies and effective support, in particular, would help learners succeed in the courses and improve completion rates.

Motivation to Learn in MOOCs Although there is an abundance of approaches and theories regarding motivation in learning environments in general, theory-based motivational practices are rare in 221

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

MOOC learning environments. On the whole, these learning environments arguably fail to offer a sufficient amount of motivational practices. In distance education applications, such as MOOCs, motivational practices based on learners’ goals and opinions and instructors’ experiences are used. In the absence of an effective instructional design, accompanied by elements that would motivate learners and help them sustain their motivation, learners soon lose their interest in the course, lose motivation, and eventually drop out of the course in these learning environments. Therefore, learners’ motivation plays a very important role in the learning and teaching process (Keller, 2010). Motivation is also one of the factors that explain learners’ success or failure in learning environments (Fryer & Bovee, 2016). In distance learning environments such as the MOOCs, motivation can affect what, how, and when learners learn (Barak, Watted &Haick, 2016; Deimann &Bastiaens, 2010; Hartnett, George &Dron, 2011). Studies show that in learning environments, highly motivated learners succeed in the face of difficult learning situations, enjoy the process of learning, achieve deep learning, and act decisively and creatively (Keller, 2010; Knowles & Kerkman, 2007). Motivation is critical for distance learning environments such as MOOCs. Unless they are properly motivated, distance learners usually feel left alone, lose interest in learning, or give up learning (Deimann & Bastians, 2010; Keller, 2015; Smith, 2008). In such cases, difficulties that arise due to the nature of distance education should not be overlooked because learners in these learning environments need high levels of motivation (Deimann & Bastians, 2010; Fryer & Bovee, 2016; Hartnett et al, 2011; Keller, 2010). However, given that motivation is one of the factors that affect interaction, instructors can minimize learners’ motivation problems by using certain strategies via their instructional design regarding the structure of learner-instructor interaction. Interaction, thus, can be used as an important tool to increase motivation. Instructional design for distance education applications such as MOOCs can encourage sustained learning and decrease dropout rates by featuring motivational interaction design. However, it is observed that many MOOCs fail in this respect. In recent years, researchers, designers, and instructors have recognized this as an important problem with regards to attracting learners’ interest, encouraging attendance, and increasing motivation (Jordan, 2015). Many researchers report that lack of motivation in distance learning environments results in learners’ failure, lack of satisfaction, and dropping out of the course/school (Deimann &Bastians, 2010; Keller, 2015; Simpson, 2008). In addition, Hodges (2004) argues that motivation is one of the most important elements of a successful instruction, and if there is a failure to make use of proper motivational strategies, even the best instructional design would fail. On the other hand, it is argued that motivational instructional designs and strategies in distance education would improve learners’ levels of success and satisfaction, and could solve problems such as high 222

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

dropout rates, which afflict distance education in general and MOOC environments in particular (Semmar, 2006). It is very difficult to control learners’ motivation in MOOCs, as is also the case in face to face learning environments. However, educators and instructors can affect learners’ motivation via strategic interventions, and thus encourage learning and increase motivation. In addition, studies show that to achieve an effective, efficient, and long-term learning, instructional designs should be able to attract and retain students’ interest and inspire them, and to this end, feature motivational elements and be reflexive Deimann &Bastiaens, 2010; Keller, 2010; Kim &Frick, 2011). At this point, the ARCS-V motivational design model, which has been successfully implemented in both face-to-face and distance learning environments, can be applied to MOOC learning environments as well, to attract learners’ attention, increase motivation, and encourage learning.

ARCS-V Model of Motivational Design The ARCS-V model of motivational design provides a theoretical framework regarding the motivational needs of learners in face-to-face and distance education. This motivational design model was created in the early 1980s by John M. Keller, on the basis of motivational inputs, processes, and outputs in the learning process (Keller, 2010). For about 35 years, it has been applied as the ARCS model (Macro Model of Motivation and Performance) with a four-factor structure. However, in 2005, the final dimension of volition was added, based on Gollwitzer’s (1993), Kuhl’s (1987), and Zimmerman’s (1990) volition and self-efficacy theories, and the model took its current form as the ARCS-V (Motivation, Volition, and Performance) model (Keller, 2010; Keller &Deimann, 2012). The ARCS-V model of motivational design synthesizes a large number of theories and approaches (Keller, 2010). The most important of these is Gagne’s Theory of Conditions of Learning and Merrill’s Component Display Theory. Each factor of the ARCS-V model thus integrates tens of different theories and approaches and the model allows adopting a holistic systems approach regarding motivation in the learning process. The main psychological approaches that form the basis of each factor in the ARCS-V motivation model are shown in Figure 2. The ARCS-V model of motivational design was initially designed for face-toface learning environments. However, with the increase in the variety of learning environments, it started to be used in distance education environments as well, and the model was widely studied and implemented (Keller &Suzuki, 2004; Keller, 2010). Keller’s ARCS-V model of motivational design aims to increase learners’ motivation with five important elements. These elements are generating curiosity among learners regarding instruction and contents, relating course contents and 223

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Figure 2. Psychological bases of the ARCS-V model of motivation design (Uçar & Kumtepe, 2016)

outcomes with learners’ goals, generating confidence, learners experiencing effective results, and learners acquiring self-regulation skills (Keller, 2010, Keller &Deimann, 2012). In the ARCS-V model, similar to many other motivation theories, these motivation elements depend on the interaction between the learner and the instructor. Motivation-based communication is the most important motivational and instructional tool in the model. The five main principles of motivation that underlie the ARCS-V model are briefly explained by Keller (2008) as follows:

224

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

• • • • •

(A) Learners’ motivation increases when their attention to the topic is aroused. (R) Learners’ motivation increases when they perceive that the knowledge to be gained is relevant to their personal goals. (C) Learners’ motivation increases when they have confidence and faith that they can succeed in the course. (S) Learners’ motivation increases when they expect satisfactory results at the end of the course and experience these results. (V) Learners’ motivation increases and is sustained when they use volitional strategies to reach their goals during the course.

This motivational model can be successfully implemented in many learning environments, particularly in distance learning environments (Chang &Chen, 2015; Kim &Frick, 2011; Kim and Keller, 2008; Uçar, 2016). In this sense, the motivational design model is a highly valid and reliable model. In this model, learners’ motivations are analyzed and the learning context is examined prior to creating the strategies to be used. Then, the instructional designer designs the most appropriate strategies by taking into account the five dimensions of the motivation model and interaction tools that can be used in the course. According to Keller (2010), motivation design is not a design model that is independent of the instruction process and environmental effects. As Figure 3 shows, the motivation model is an extension of instructional design and is a part of the holistic design approach to learners’ motivation. The motivational design systematically integrates instructional design and learning environment factors. In the design of learning environments, the structure of the course, learners, and the online learning system through which the course is to be offered are taken into account. In this sense, the structure and size of MOOCs, and characteristics of the intended audience are prioritized. In the instructional design stage, on the other hand, course materials are developed in line with instructional goals, which are in turn informed by the approach adopted for instructional design. Finally, in motivational design, various tactics and strategies are developed to make the instruction process relevant and attractive to learners (Keller, 2010). In the context of MOOCs, the learning environment refers to tools such as discussion forums, the online learning community, and learning management system used for the course. Instructional design in MOOCs, on the other hand, refers to the design of the contents of the course, with learning outcomes being set on the basis of an analysis of learners and course objectives. Finally, motivational design refers to the implementation of strategies created on the basis of the ARCS-V model of motivational design, using tools of communication appropriate for the learners.

225

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Figure 3. The relationship of motivational design, instructional design and learning environment design (Adapted from Keller, 2010)

Motivational Design Process In MOOC environments, it is important to conduct a thorough analysis of the intended audience and the learning environment prior to implementing ARCS-V motivation strategies, and to design effective strategies on this basis. Priority should be given to the completion of the four-stage and ten-step design activities to identify motivational problems and set relevant strategies. In the ten-step design activity, the learning environment, learners and learning materials should be analyzed, motivational problems should be identified, appropriate course materials should be selected, an assessment should be performed, and appropriate strategies to be used in the instruction process should be selected (Keller, 2010). The four main stages and ten steps in this process are shown in Figure 4. The most important issue in this design stage is to conduct a thorough analysis of learners. To this end, detailed information can be collected from learners who register in the course, via a survey, to obtain data on learners in the first step. In addition, the instructor can complete this stage by receiving suggestions from their colleagues. The four-stage and ten-step motivational design process shown in Figure 4 would be more appropriate in large-scale projects, long-term implementations, or contexts where sufficient personnel are available (Keller, 2010) In such cases, these ten steps would help conduct a detailed analysis of the intended audience, the environment, and instruction materials, and allow making detailed plans for implementation, but in practice, it may take a lot of time. However, in learning environments like the MOOCs, implementation of this ten-step process is important for the use of motivational strategies. For some MOOCs, depending on their length and attendance rates, the detailed analysis and design process explained above may not be needed. A Simplified Motivation Design Matrix was developed by Suzuki and Keller (1996) to be used in 226

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Figure 4. The four steps and ten activities of the motivational design process (Keller, 2010)

such cases. The simplified motivation design aims to help instructors examine and analyze learners’ motivational characteristics in a short period of time, given course contents to be taught and the software to be used. The instructor then evaluates all the information collected, and selects the appropriate motivational strategies based on the motivational problems identified. This way, the analysis is conducted in a short period of time, proper strategies are selected, and learners are contacted using the most appropriate tool. Table 1 provides explanations and process questions for the strategies to be selected on the basis of the five categories of motivational design, within the ten-step analysis and design framework. The first category involves attracting the attention of learners, the second category involves creating relevant contexts on the basis of learners’ goals in the learning process, the third category involves generating confidence regarding success, the fourth category involves satisfying learners, and the final category involves providing assistance to learners if their motivation decreases or they face difficulties in the learning process. The last category, although listed at the end, is usually one of the first three steps employed in many applications. In addition, if learners are highly motivated, the last category may not be needed. The designer needs to conduct a thorough analysis concerning this category and decide whether to use it or not.

227

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Table 1. Motivational design categories, explanations, and process questions ARCS-V Categories and Explanations

Process Questions

Attention

Attracting the attention of learners and arousing their curiosity for learning

How can I make the learning experience interesting and motivating?

Relevance

Relating learning objectives to the achievement of the personal goals of the learner

In what ways will this learning experience be valuable for learners?

Confidence

Making learners believe that they can succeed, and helping them control their success

How can I, via instruction, help learners succeed and control their success?

Satisfaction

Supporting successful learners with rewards

What can I do to make learners feel good about their learning experience and keep learning?

Volition

Providing learners with strategies to be used when they face an obstacle in the process of learning, and helping them acquire the skills to overcome difficulties

How can I help learners acquire self-regulation skills they can use to reach their goals when faced with obstacles in the learning process?

(Adapted from Keller, 2010)

In short, motivational design is created within the framework of this five-factor structure that affects motivation in the learning process. Keller (2010) emphasized that the designer or the instructor needs to ask themselves two basic questions in this process: First, ‘What can I do to make the learning process effective, efficient and attractive for the learners?’, and second, ‘How can I make the learners feel that they can succeed in the course, and they themselves are responsible for success?’.

Implementing the Motivational Design Model With MOOC Instructors In distance learning environments such as the MOOCs, instructors’ motivation is at least as important as learners’ motivation. Highly motivated instructors are able to reflect their motivation and ambition to learners. In this context, Table 2 provides questions that instructors in distance learning environments such as MOOCs need to ask themselves concerning each category, prior to implementing the ARCS-V model, to analyze themselves and the learners. It is necessary for learners to be highly motivated, but it is not sufficient by itself. In addition, instructors need a systematic motivational design and a plan to motivate learners (Keller, 2010).

228

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Table 2. Motivational design checklist ARCS-V Categories

Self-Analysis by the Designer/ Instructor

Analysis of Learners by the Instructor

Attention

Am I excited about this learning experience? How can I make this learning process more interesting?

Will the learners be interested? What sorts of tactics would attract their attention and draw their interest?

Relevance

Do I believe that this learning experience will be valuable for learners?

Will the learners feel that the learning experience is valuable? What can I do to make them feel that this is important?

Confidence

Do I have confidence in my ability to make this learning experience an effective an interesting one?

Do the learners have confidence in themselves and their skills for learning the subjects?

Satisfaction

Am I expecting to experience positive feelings concerning this learning process?

How can I make learners feel good about their learning experiences in this process and remain committed to keep learning?

Volition

Will I be able to provide effect management and support to learners throughout this learning event?

What can I do throughout the learning process to help learners retain their goal orientations and focus on the course?

(Keller, 2015)

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Studies are needed on many MOOC-related topics, in the context of motivation, from instructional design to the technologies used, from pedagogical approaches to instructional methods. However, given the scope of the present study, it is recommended that future studies and implementations focus on the use of motivational design models and strategies in instructional design processes, to minimize motivational problems in distance learning environments like MOOCs. In addition, researchers should conduct experimental studies to examine the effect of the ARCS-V motivation model on dropout rates. Motivational strategies can be used in shorter and longer duration courses to examine their effectiveness via experimental studies. Studies can be conducted on the use of motivational strategies differentiated for diverse groups on the basis of issues like differences between learners’ reasons for registering, levels of education, ages, and countries. A study that would examine learners’ reasons for dropping out of MOOCs and develop appropriate motivational strategies on this basis within the framework of the motivation model could make an important contribution to the literature. Future studies that would develop motivational designs taking cultural elements and differences in MOOC environments into account would make an important contribution to our understanding of MOOCs, given their multicultural structures. In addition, given that motivation varies from person to person and is affected by many 229

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

factors, qualitative studies on this issue could generate more detailed results. In this context, the effectiveness of strategies to be used for learners with different goals could also be examined. Finally, conducting design-based studies is recommended to have in-depth analyses of theoretical, design and implementation aspects of motivational strategies in MOOC environments.

CONCLUSION Studies on learning in MOOC environments usually focus on learners’ dropout and completion rates on the basis of quantitative data. Taking this as their starting point, some commentators make post-truth statements about effectiveness and attendance in these courses. The number of registered learners was very important initially, but in recent years, topics related to the instructional processes, effectiveness, and outputs of these courses started to attract more attention. To run these courses effectively and to get the desired outcomes, it is important that motivational factors regarding learners, instructors, and the learning environment should be taken into account. Motivation is one of the key factors for learners to complete and succeed in a course, in distance learning environments as well as in face-to-face learning environments. In this context, learners in distance education arguably experience significant motivation problems. Prior to using strategies of the ARCS-V motivational model in MOOC environments to solve these problems, a ten-step design process needs to be completed. In the ten-step design activity, the learning environment, learners and learning materials should be analyzed, appropriate strategies to be used in the instruction process should be selected, appropriate course materials should be identified, and proper assessment should be conducted. There are significant challenges involved in studying learning and motivation-related factors in distance learning environments, particularly in MOOCs, and designing and managing appropriate strategies. To overcome these problems, it is important to implement the highly reliable and valid ARCS-V motivational design model in order to motivate learners. Given theories of and practices related to motivation in general, the five factors featured in the ARCS-V motivational design model play a very important role in the learning process. It is important that strategies to be developed on the basis of these factors be used via appropriate communication tools and with proper frequency. The effectiveness of motivation model strategies may vary with participant characteristics, culture, and type and length of the course. However, motivational strategies and tactics designed on the basis of the motivation model and systematically used in MOOC environments would improve learners’ interest in the course, as well as their motivation and success, and significantly decrease dropout rates.

230

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

REFERENCES Anderson, W. (2013). Independent learning: Autonomy, control, and meta-cognition. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.; pp. 86–103). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch6 Balch, T. (2013). About MOOC completion rates: The importance of student investment. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://augmentedtrader.com/2013/01/06/aboutmooc-completion-rates-the-importance-of-investment/ Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010 Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course (MOOC): The UK view. London: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/elt/ the_pedagogy_of_the_MOOC_UK_view Bozkurt, A. (2015). Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi dersler (Massive Online Open Courses - MOOCs) ve sayısal bilgi çağında yaşamboyu öğrenme fırsatı. AUAd, 1(1), 56–81. Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., & Aydin, H. C. et al. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009-2013. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953 Bozkurt, A., Özdamar Keskin, N., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203–221. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.287 Chang, N. C., & Chen, H. H. (2015). A motivational analysis of the ARCS model for information literacy courses in a blended learning environment. Libri, 65(2), 129–142. doi:10.1515/libri-2015-0010 Coursera. (2016). Courses. Retrieved December 4, 2016, from https://about.coursera. org/ Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Are the costs of free ‘too high in online education? Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 26–28. doi:10.1145/2436256.2436264 Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3(3), 18. doi:10.5334/2012-18

231

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Deimann, M., & Bastiaens, T. (2010). The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its capacities. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 1. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.778 Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.003 Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. e-Learning Papers, 33. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/MOOC-DesignPrinciples.-A-Pedagogical-Approach-from-the-Learner%E2%80%99s-Perspective Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online learning. Department for Business Innovation& Skills. BIS Research Paper (130). Retrieved November 24, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42. Hartnett, M., George, A. S., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20–38. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030 Hodges, C. (2004). Designing to motivate: Motivational techniques to incorporate in e-learning experiences. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(3), 1–7. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf Hu, H. (2013). Massive open online courses are changing the way we think about higher education. Diverse issues in higher education. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from http://diverseeducation.com/article/52317/ Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133–160. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651

232

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112 Jordan, K. (n.d.). MOOC Completion Rates: The Data. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185. doi:10.1080/01587910802154970 Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3 Keller, J. M. (2015). Integrating motivation into ADL: Applying the ARCS-V motivation model. Annual ADL Conference. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.nordicadl.com/ Keller, J. M., & Deimann, M. (2012). Motivation, volition, and performance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multi-nationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 231–239. doi:10.1080/1358165042000283084 Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate student’s motivation, study habits, and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 36–51. Kim, K., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 1–23. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.a Knowles, E. & Kerkman, D. (2007). An investigation of students attitude and motivation toward online learning. InSight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 2, 70-80. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from https://er.educause.edu/~/ media/files/article-downloads/erm1337.pdf Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y

233

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Onah, D. F., Sinclair, J., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 5825-5834. Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-openonline-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2). Semmar, Y. (2006). Distance learners and academic achievement: The roles of selfefficacy, self-regulation and motivation. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 12(2), 244–256. doi:10.7227/JACE.12.2.9 Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform [Blog post]. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-aplatform/ Simpson, O. (2008). Motivating learners in open and distance learning: Do we need a new theory of learner support? Open Learning, 23(3), 159–170. doi:10.1080/02680510802419979 Smith, R. (2008). Motivational factors in e-learning. George Washington University. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from http://el-gor.at/elearn/Medien/Motivation.pdf Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in academic curriculum: A pilot study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.2031 Suzuki, K., & Keller, J. M. (1996). Creation and cross cultural validation of an ARCS motivational design matrix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Japanese Association for Educational Technology, Kanazawa, Japan. Thille, C., Mitchell, J., & Stevens, M. (2015). What we’ve learned from MOOCs. Retrieved December 22, 2016, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ views/2015/09/22/moocs-are-no-panacea-they-can-help-improve-learning-essay Uçar, H. (2016). Uzaktan eğitimde motivasyon stratejilerinin öğrenenlerin ilgileri, motivasyonları, eylem yeterlikleri ve başarıları üzerine etkisi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey.

234

Integrating Motivational Strategies Into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Uçar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2016). Use of ARCS-V Motivational Design Model in Online Distance Education. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ARCS-V Model of Motivation Design: A motivational design model developed by John M. Keller (1979) that aims to analyze the conditions and the environment and suggest strategies to increase the learners’ motivation. The acronym stands for Attention (A), Relevance (R), Confidence (C), Satisfaction (S), and Volition (V). Attention: The first component of ARCS-V model. It focuses on motivating learners by building their curiosity and sustain their interest. cMOOC: Massive open online courses based on connectivism and connectivist approaches. Confidence: The third component of ARCS-V model. It focuses on helping the learners believe that they will succeed in the course. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Online free courses planned for large numbers of participants. The courses have no limitations and they are open to everyone without entry qualifications. Motivation: An internal force that push learners to engage in a certain activity and make an effort to achieve the goal. Distance Education: It refers to education model in which learners, teachers and learning resources are separated in time and space. Relevance: The second component of ARCS-V model. It focuses on creating significant connections between the course instruction and the learners’ learning goals. The learners will be motivated if the instructors associate the course instruction with the learners’ goals and aims. Satisfaction: The forth component of ARCS-V model. It focuses on satisfying the learners at the end of the learning activity. Volition: The fifth component of ARCS-V model. It focuses on persistence of learners to start and complete a learning task as a result of powerful motivation. xMOOCs: Massive open online courses based on behaviorist approaches.

235

236

Chapter 10

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities Luka Mathayo Mkonongwa Dar es Salaam University College of Education, Tanzania Sotco Claudius Komba Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania

ABSTRACT This chapter examines literature about distance higher education in Africa, as presented by different scholars. The evolution of distance education has been well explored from the print to the current era of information and communication technology. Challenges and opportunities in the provision of distance higher education have been discussed and better practices for providing quality distance education have been suggested. It is concluded that the provision of distance education must be carefully planned and the technologies employed in its delivery must be reflective of the context in which they are used.

INTRODUCTION Education in today’s world is considered as a vital tool for human growth and socio-economic development. Studies have indicated that education, especially higher education, has a greater role to play in the socio-economic development of any country (Green, Little, Kamat, Oketch & Vickers, 2007; Bloom, Canning & Chan, 2006). According to the World Bank’s African Action Plan for 2006-2008, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch010 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

the roles of higher education include the provision of relevant skills to the labor market; a capacity to understand and use global knowledge in science and technology, particularly for agriculture; a capability to assess existing information and generate new understanding through research; and a much closer working relationship with the productive sector of the economy (Bloom et al., 2006). It is further argued that higher education may create greater tax revenue, increase savings and investment, and lead to a more entrepreneurial and civic society (Bloom et al., (2006). It can also improve a nation’s health, contribute to reduce population growth, improve technology, and strengthen governance. Investing in tertiary education in Africa may accelerate technological diffusion and technological catch-up, hence decreasing knowledge gaps and alleviating poverty in the region (Bloom et al., 2006). Thus, efforts by developing countries to improve their economies can only be fruitful through transformation and expansion of their education systems and practices, especially at tertiary level. The adoption of new pedagogical practices through the integration of ICTs in education is vital in improving quality, widening access and gaining competitive advantage in the global economy. One of the approaches to widening access to higher education is the provision of higher education through distance learning. Therefore, the main purpose of this chapter is to examine literature about distance higher education in Africa, as presented by different scholars, with a view of identifying challenges and opportunities and suggesting better practices for providing quality distance education.

BACKGROUND Distance education or distance learning is understood as a field of education “taking place with the student physically or geographically removed from the instructor using some form of technology to facilitate learning and contact” (Valentine, 2002). It encompasses programmes that allow the learner and the instructor to be physically apart during the learning process and maintain communication in a variety of ways (Keegan, 1986). Some people think that distance education began with the invention of the Internet; which is a wrong perception (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Although scholars have diverse views on when exactly distance learning started, many studies indicate that distance education started in the mid-19th century (around 1840s) and that nearly all scholars agree that this education was delivered by correspondence (Keegan, 2005; Moore & Kearsley, 2005; Nasseh, 1997; Taylor, 2006). Moore and Kearsley

237

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

(2005) identify five ‘historical generations’ through which distance education has evolved from correspondence to internet. The authors summarize the five orderly generations as follows: Correspondence, broadcast radio and television, open universities, teleconferencing, and internet or web. Distance education emerged in response to the need to provide access to those who would otherwise not be able to participate in face to face courses (Beldarrain, 2006, Rao, 2008). Today, distance education has become an education option for everyone who, for one reason or another, needs further education, but is constrained by family responsibilities, job ties, location, or income to attend campus education. Halimi (2005, p.14) precisely describes three categories of people who knock on the university doors today in the name of distance education or lifelong learning: First, the postponers – those who could have had access to higher education at the end of their secondary education, but they put it off for various personal or career reasons. Second, the returners – those who have already benefited from it, and come back for a ‘second slice of the cake’ with the purpose of upgrading their knowledge in order to get a better job of simply to enjoy cultural improvement for their own well-being. Third, second chancers – those who have not yet had an opportunity to benefit from academic learning, and who apply for or are offered another chance to do so. According to Halimi, most of these second chancers are from underprivileged groups that have been underrepresented in higher education, such as the disabled, people from minority ethnic groups and poor social background, women with family commitments, and those who left compulsory schooling without qualifications. However, distance education was not widely accepted in the beginning. The criticism against distance education can be noted from Keegan’s (2005) words that the correspondence image was disliked, governments largely ignored distance training, university professors scoffed at it as corporate trainers focused on instructor-ledtraining. Similarly, Albrechtsen,Mariger & Parker, (2001) noted that historically, the long delays in communication, the lack of interaction, the inability to monitor the progress or veracity of those taking the courses, and the lack of regulations concerning courses themselves, all added to the image of distance education as a second-rate alternative to “a real” education. In 1883, the first official recognition of correspondence education took place. Chautauqua College of Liberal Arts in New York granted degrees to students who successfully completed academic work through correspondence education and summer workshops. Significant developments in distance learning emerged in the 20th century. As noted by Keegan (2005), in the 1970s, there were changes in both quality and quantity of provision in distance learning. This period witnessed the establishment of the European Open Universities, notably the Open University of the United Kingdom at Milton Keynes, the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia at Madrid, and the Fern Universität in Hagen Germany which were followed by other open 238

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

universities in the world. A survey by Adams (2007) indicated that between 1991 and 2004, enrolment in distance education had grown from virtually nothing to more than 2.35 million students, a rate that is estimated to be more than ten times the growth of the general post-secondary market. Globally, the general trends indicate that in countries where Distance Learning has been incorporated in the higher education system it has proved to be the best option in reducing the gap between the literate and the illiterate population (Aderinoye & Siaciwema, 2008; Igwe, 2009). With the advent of ICTs, distance learning has overcome some of the problems and obstacles that once kept it on the fringes of respectability (Albrechtsen, et al., 2001). Volery (2000) argues that if universities do not embrace this technology (ICT), they will be left behind in the pursuit for globalization and technological development. Similarly, O’Hearn (2000) comments that contemporary university structures must be changeable and adaptable, able to embrace new learning and communication technologies offered through e-learning, or face the consequence of limiting students’ direct access to global knowledge repositories that have the ability to extend higher education.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Distance Education in Africa In Africa, the beginning of distance education can be traced back to the 1940s. The first distance education programme was established by the University of South Africa (UNISA) in 1946. From the 1960s, many African countries introduced distance education programmes in the form of correspondence courses. The development of Iinformation and Communication Technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet and the World Wide Web, has made it possible to expand distance learning to reach a wide range of population, including people living in remote areas. Schachter, Pence, Zuckernick and Roberts (2005) suggest that the growing acceptance of distance education using ICTs globally, provides some of the possible responses to the problems in the African context. Field and Fegan (2005) argue that in order to meet the challenges of the dynamic knowledge society of the 21st century, we must understand how people learn and how ICT can assist in the learning process. However, in Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, education is still a privilege for few people. Many people cannot read and write and many others have only basic education, that is they can only read, write and do a little arithmetic. Very few people have education beyond primary level. Despite the best intentions of governments and the international community, UNESCO’s ‘Education for All’ drive is failing in Africa (Visser, Visser, Simonson & Amirault, 2005). With the growing rate of 239

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

poverty caused by internal wars, HIV/AIDS pandemic and unsustainable social, political and economic policies, the gap between the educated and the uneducated is widening. In recent years, distance learning has become a policy option for a number of states in Africa (Pityana, 2004). With the growing demand for higher education, coupled with the changing demands of the world of work and the competitive nature of the global economies, distance education has gained its importance in the continent. Many higher learning institutions in Africa have adopted dual education (running both on-campus courses and distance learning programmes) as a strategy to meet the growing demand for tertiary education (Pityana, 2004). In an attempt to develop sustainable distance education programmes, special institutions of higher learning have been established in some African countries to offer distance education programmes. These institutions are popularly known as Open Universities. In 1988, there was only one Open University in Africa, the Open University of Pretoria, in South Africa. Currently, there are many such institutions and organizations in Africa (Igwe, 2009) and more are likely to emerge in the future. They include the Open University of Tanzania (OUT), the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), the Botswana College of Distance and Open Learning (BOCODOL), Sudan Open Learning Organization (SOLO) and the Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU). These institutions offer post graduate and undergraduate degrees, diplomas and certificates.

The Potential for Distance Education in Africa Several advantages of distance education, especially in the developing world, including Africa, have been analyzed in literature. Africa is the leading continent with the least educated population. Studies have indicated that the participation rate in postsecondary education in Africa is the lowest of all (Schachter, et al. 2005; Teffera and Altbach, 2004). A report by NEPAD Secretariat Weekly Newsletter (8th September, 2005) indicated that more than 40 million children in Africa were not in school and had never been exposed to any formal education. Teffera and Altbach (2004) commented that if Africa is to succeed economically, culturally and politically, it must have a strong postsecondary sector. This goes in line with the view that “without proper education of its people, Africa will not survive this (third) millennium” (Britz, Lor, Coetzee & Bester, 2006). In the same light, Hans Van Ginkel, the Rector of the United Nations University, noted that without a sustainable, strong knowledge sector of its own, Africa will always remain in a dangerously dependent position (United Nations University, 1998 cited in Britz et al. 2006). At this juncture, it is thus evident that Africa is lagging behind in terms of access to formal education, especially higher education which consequently exacerbates economic, social and 240

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

technological problems facing the continent. Campus based education, predominated by traditional delivery methods, is insufficient to meet the educational demands of the twenty-first century African generation. Hence, distance education, geared by modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), is envisaged as a means where by disadvantaged members of the society, of all ages in Africa, can enrol either directly or remotely at a tertiary education institution (Breetzke, 2007). Distance education has been praised by students and educators in both the developing and developed countries due to its unique potentials. It offers greater access to education, flexibility in scheduling, possibility of proceeding at one’s own pace, the opportunity to study without having to travel or without leaving home, and individualized attention from the instructors (Hellman, 2003). Hellman (ibid) further argues that “for institutions that manage to persuade instructors to bring their courses online, the opportunity to reach distant students holds out the hope of great savings in the construction of classroom buildings, student housing, parking lots and other physical infrastructure as well as substantial potential savings in teaching salaries” (p. 5). Breetzke (2007) points out the reasons why distance education is desirable in a developing country. First, it increases access to four commonly excluded groups, including secondary school graduates who fail to gain admission to universities, married women with household responsibilities, geographically isolated or uprooted students (such as refugees) and economically disadvantaged communities. Second, distance education can relieve the financial burden of students being required to physically attend a university campus as well as the logistical difficulties therein. Third, distance education enables universities to benefit from economies of scale as the number of students increase annually. In addition, distance education supported by the use of ICTs can be considered as a solution to the crisis in teacher education and training in Africa where there are “millions of unqualified and under qualified teachers” working in schools (Banks, Moon & Wolfenden, 2009, p.2). Danaher and Umar (2010) have pointed out that “experiences of many developed and developing countries have shown that, if properly organised and managed, open and distance learning can enable countries to train a large number of teachers in a shorter time and with lower cost than can conventional campus-based teacher education” (p.8). In teacher education, distance education has been used “extensively to provide pre-service teacher preparation, upgrading of academic qualifications, and in-service continuing professional development in particular subjects, content areas and instructional methods” (UNESCO, 2002, p.29).

Distance Higher Education and ICT Integration in Africa In recent years, there has been a growing interest among researchers and educators to understand how ICTs have impacted on the teaching and learning processes, 241

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

especially, in higher education. The advent of modern ICTs can be regarded as a blessing to distance higher education programmes in Africa in particular and the world as a whole. With the use of ICTs, distance education has become more interactive and participatory than before. Distance learners can send messages, share ideas, ask questions (to instructors, mentors and colleagues) and receive instant feedback through the use of electronic tools such as e-mail, telephone and chat. For this reason, technology integration has been taken to be one of the first priorities in many higher education institutions in the world, including Africa. Despite the disparity in the technological development between developed and developing countries, it is obvious that education systems in Africa must integrate technology in their curriculum in order to enable them enter the globalized competitive knowledge economy. This concurs with the argument by Groves and Zemel (2000), cited in Brown, Benson & Uhde (2004:100), that “Technology infusion into higher education teaching and learning process is a must if we are to keep abreast of the most effective teaching practice and tools”. Technology has the potential to bring together the sparsely distributed knowledge and enable it to be shared equally among humanities. In educational settings, “technology is responsible for distorting the concept of distance between learner and instructor, and enabling learners to access education at any time and from any place” (Beldarrain, 2006, p.139). In other words, geographical distance and time are no longer barriers for the regular interaction between the learner and instructor. In addition, even individuals who have no formal admission to higher education institutions can electronically enrol in the institutions and access knowledge. The use of technological tools such as video conferencing, teleconferencing, e-mail, web-based instructions, and online learning to mention but a few have made all these to happen. For instance, e-mails can be used for posting lecture notes, teaching aids, copies of power-point slides, Web links and assignments. It can also be used by the instructor to communicate with students more easily and quickly. In addition, technological tools such as Wikis, blogs, podcasts, discussion forums, chat rooms and Facebook have made educational delivery more interactive, meaningful and enjoyable. Beldarrain (2006) comments that “as new technologies emerge, instructional designers and educators have unique opportunity to foster interaction and collaboration among learners, thus creating a true learning community” (p.140). Generally, ICTs have added value and popularity to distance higher education programmes worldwide. This reality is in line with the argument by Albrechtsen et al. (2001) that “with the advent of ICT, distance learning has overcome some of the problems and obstacles that once kept it on the fringes of respectability”. Isaacs, Broekman and Mogale, (2004) view the adoption and use of ICT as paving the way to new digital opportunities for developing countries, particularly in the area of education. The authors view the birth of modern ICTs as an opportunity to “accelerate 242

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

economic and social development and greater inclusion of isolated - particularly rural - populations into the mainstream of society and economic activity” (p.13).

Distance Education Delivery Approaches in Africa Distance education programmes in Africa are offered at different levels, ranging from primary to tertiary and higher education. The main approaches to distance education in Africa include the following: First, distance education programmes offered by specially established institutions offering open and distance education. These include Adult Learning Centres, Centres for Continuing Education, Teacher Professional Development Centres and Open Universities or Open Learning institutions. Secondly, a range of distance education programmes incorporated into campusbased institutions (dual education). These institutions offer both campus-based and distance education. Examples of such institutions include the University of South Africa (UNISA), University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) in Tanzania, and the University of Botswana. It is estimated that more than 150 institutions in SubSaharan Africa offer distance education programmes and 20 per cent of these are universities (AAMCOLDE, 2004 cited in Leary & Berge, 2007). Educational institutions which offer distance education programmes have been using various delivery systems depending on the level of their learners and resource capacity of the institution. Distance education delivery systems have evolved from print, audio, and radio to the use of modern ICTs which include video conferencing, televisions, satellites, the Internet and other multimedia (Leary & Berge, 2007). However, it can be noted that despite the emergence of various distance education delivery media, Africa has not utilized fully this potential technological development. Print is still the leading delivery system used by many African institutions to offer distance education. This marks the widening digital divide between Africa and the rest of the world.

Barriers to ICT Integration in Africa Like the rest of the world, Africa recognizes the potential impact of ICTs in education and training in particular, and for socio-economic development in general. As noted by Ahmed and Nwagwu (2006), “African countries recognize that much of their economic future will depend upon the understanding of the technological forces at work and their long-term implications” (p. 86). Despite the recognition of the potential for ICTs in promoting distance higher education, Africa is the most disadvantaged part of the world in terms of diffusion of information and communication technologies and its integration in education and training. The development of ICT in Africa can be considered to be in its infancy. It is true that nearly all countries in Africa are 243

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

rapidly adopting the use of computers and the Internet. Countries such as Senegal, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Gabon, and Zimbabwe, among others, have populations with growing dependence on the Internet and pose great potential in using Web Based Technology (Leary & Berge, (2007). However, only a small fraction of Africans have access to and use of ICTs, particularly the Internet. This has retarded the efforts to fully integrate this technological innovation in the delivery of distance education. This explains why distance education delivery in Africa for more than 90 per cent depends on the print media. Researchers have identified several factors for the slow uptake of ICT in Africa and the developing world. According to Adam (2003), the challenges which hinder effective technology integration in higher education institutions in Africa include lack of adequate bandwidth, financial constraints, scarcity of technical skills, unwillingness of faculties to adapt to the changing circumstances in networked environments and lack of skills to create local e-learning content. Other factors include lack of progressive ICT policies, financial constraints, poor infrastructure (Moyo, 2003), poor economies, political instability, large populations and poor leadership/governance (Minishi-Majanja, 2007). Other factors include lack of network infrastructure; high telephone and Internet access costs; limited expertise and skill levels; and lack of an enabling national policy (Isaacs, 2002; Aderinoye & Siaciwena, 2008).

Prospects of Distance Education in Africa Despite some setbacks which have been discussed in the previous section, distance education has made some remarkable progress in Africa. As noted by Zeleza (2005, p.45), ‘the number of institutions offering distance education within and to Africa is growing’. Literature indicates some of the prospects of distance education, including: First, the development of distance education from offering basic education and certificates to the provision of degrees (bachelor, master and doctoral degrees) is one of the main prospects of distance education in Africa. These distance education degree programmes are either provided in dual-institutions (institutions offering both conventional and distance education programmes) or in institutions offering distance education only, such as open universities, and institutes of open and distance learning. Secondly, there has been a rapid increase in the adoption and use of ICT (especially computers and the Internet), particularly in Sub-Saharan countries such as Senegal, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Gabon and Zimbabwe (Leary & Berge, 2007; Minishi-Majanja, 2007; Britz et al. 2006). For instance, in 1996, only 11 African countries had Internet access, but in 2000 (four years later), all of the 53 African Countries had become connected to the World 244

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Wide Web (Adomi, 2005, cited in Leary & Berge, 2007). It has also been reported that Africa was the first continent where the use of cellular phones outnumbered the use of landlines (Britz et al., 2006). Research has also indicated that access to and use of modern ICTs on the continent has become more affordable, coupled with the growing use of open source software (Britz et al., 2006). The rapid adoption of ICTs is an important pre-condition for the development of distance education. However, it is also worth mentioning that the pace of technological adoption and diffusion in Africa has varied significantly depending on the history, management (vision, policies, etc.), financial well-being (i.e. funding sources or innovativeness etc.) and availability of ICT human resource capacity (Minishi-Majanja, 2007). Lastly, there are growing efforts to formulate policies at regional, governmental and institutional levels on the adoption and implementation of modern information and communication technologies. African countries recognize that modern ICTs are potential tools for economic development and growth. In 1996, the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) initiated the African Information Society Initiative (AISI) with the aim of building Africa’s information highway and to investigate the use of ICTs for development in Africa (Britz et al., 2006). African countries were encouraged to establish national information and communication infrastructures (NICI). Barker (2005), cited in Britz et al. (2006) reports that more than 30 countries in Africa have embarked on a NICI to ensure that sound ICT policies are in place. The growth of ICTs in Africa has been accelerated by the establishment of New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) in 2001 by the African Union (AU). NEPAD was established specifically to address challenges such as poverty, economic marginalization and the acceleration of the empowerment of women on the African continent (Britz et al., 2009). One of the main priorities of NEPAD is building and improving infrastructure including ICT (NEPAD, 2004 cited by Britz et al., 2006).

Challenges Facing Distance Education in Africa Distance education in Africa faces numerous challenges. First, although the advent of ICTs has the potential to transform and integrate Africa into the global knowledge community, its realization has been hampered by slow technological uptake. As noted by Davison, Vogel, Harris and Jones (2000), “in developed economies, newer versions of technologies are often used to upgrade older versions, but in developing economies still older versions of technology are often prevalent (if they exist at all)...” p.2. This technological discrepancy increases rapidly hence widening the gap of ‘digital divide’ between the ‘information rich and the information poor’ nations (Ahmed, 2004; Ahmed & Nwagwu, 2006; Nwagwu & Ahmed, 2009). In this regard, there are lesser possibilities for developing countries, especially in Africa to develop 245

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

side by side technologically with developed countries and take full advantage of ICT in promoting distance education without sustainable strategic plans. Secondly, despite the fact that distance education is becoming more popular in Africa, those who receive such education are not the neediest groups. As noted by Dhanarajan (2001), “open universities of the poorest countries serve more or less the same sector of the population that was previously privileged to receive university education. Drawing experience from India, the author noted that students are mostly urban, male, middle class, and have substantial prior learning, and are white collar workers”. They include primary and secondary school teachers, nurses, secretaries, and other government employees working in rural areas. These groups are not a true representation of the rural population. Those who do not belong to these groups (i.e. the rural poor, marginalized communities and women) receive minimal or no access to distance education. As such, Hellman (ibid.) points out that ‘the digital divide within developing countries does exist not only between countries but also between and among categories of people within countries in the following series of dichotomies: literate/illiterate, urban/rural, mobile/immobile, men/women, powerful/ powerless, rich/poor, and young/old’ (p.13). The other challenge is related to the inadequacy of financial and policy support from some governments which seems to be a setback to the development of distance education programmes in Africa. Although distance education programmes have been reported to be cheaper than campus-based education (Breetzke, 2007, Moore, 2003), they require some funding to run some fundamental businesses of the programmes such as preparation and purchase of teaching and learning materials, staff remunerations and other related costs. When institutions face such “monetary or political constraints that may prevent them from integrating new technologies” (Beldarrain, 2006), they tend to avoid distance education programmes. In addition, brain drain renders Africa unable to develop standard learning resources as well as managing distance education programmes. Africa is losing a lot of its potential human resource to the developed world. Many well educated individuals whose knowledge and skills are potential to the improvement of the African education sector, particularly distance education, migrate to work in the developed countries. For instance, there are many African professors, ICT specialists, and other professionals working in various institutions including universities in the United States, Europe and Asia. Moreover, there is an over reliance on donor funding and expertise, which result in poor implementation and unsustainable distance education programmes. In most cases, funds to support distance education projects in Africa are provided by donor agencies from developed countries. Such financial support is usually meant to promote other economic motives of a donor country to a particular African country and not developing distance education per se. Walsham (2000, pp.105-109), as cited 246

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

in Ahmed and Nwagwu (2006), correctly argued that “the industrialized countries of the world have been dominant in the production, development and transfer of information technology, and their interest in ICTs in the developing countries has often been more concerned with the profitability of their own business enterprises than with any broader goals concerning the development of recipient countries”. As a result, there are multitudes of donor-funded projects (DFPs) in the continent which claim to promote African education and development but their impacts are unsustainable. For instance, there are many donor-funded projects on ICT and distance education programmes in Africa which invest millions of dollars in African universities (e.g. in Mozambique, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda) in the so called effort to increase the Internet bandwidth and consequently to enable universities develop and integrate Web-based learning in their distance education programmes (Leary & Berge, 2007). The donor agencies include The Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie, SIDA/SAREC, USAID, World Bank, UNESCO and many other agencies. These donor agencies carry out their activities in Africa under the leadership of their expatriates. Consequently, when the projects are finally handed over to the local authorities, they end up collapsing due to lack of knowledge and expertise among the indigenous community members. Larson and Murray (2008) observed that ‘initiatives that rely on donor financing, are not sustainable in the long term’. If foreign aids and grants were to create a sustainable base for African educational and technological development, more funding would be required to support training and technological innovation than on technology utilization. African countries, therefore, are posed with a challenge of using their internally generated meagre resources and capacities to develop their educational programmes, including distance education. Furthermore, there is lack of learning materials and ICT products which are produced in African languages and cultural contexts deters the development of distance education. The United Nations (1998), as cited in Ahmed and Nwagwu (2006), noted that “the new ICT products and applications are frequently designed in ignorance of developing countries’ realities, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, and fail to address the needs of the most disadvantaged sections of the community.” Lastly, civil wars and social unrest in Africa have negative impacts on the prospects and sustainability of developmental programmes, including the educational programmes. Developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, are in continuous civil wars. This is evident in Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Sudan, Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Somalia, and more recently, Libya. As a result of these military uprisings, Africa loses both human and material resources. Thousands of people die, others are wounded and disabled, and millions are left homeless due to the devastating wars. Consequently, millions of money is wasted in supporting wars, maintaining peace, sustaining the war victims or refugees (especially women 247

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

and children) as well as reconstructing infrastructures destroyed during the war. Funds wasted in this way would have been used in financing developmental projects, including ICTs and distance education. In a way of summarizing, Braimoh and Osiki (2008) identify ten key barriers to effective distance education practice in Africa: (1) unstable power supply (2) economic drive to amass own wealth by some distance education institutions (3) commercialization of education at the expense of quality offered (4) high cost and weak socio-economic viability of learners who may be reluctant to invest in technological facilities for knowledge acquisition purposes (5) technological illiteracy among learners, even if they have access to modern technologies for learning purposes (6) realization of geographical typography of the learners, where they are bereft of the paraphernalia of modern life, that restrict their access to modern facilities (7) fraud, bribery, and corruption among lecturers and site tutors sacrificed at the expense of quality programme facilitators (8) infiltration of cultural dilution and value disorientation by neo-imperialism of foreign institutions (9) problems with proper counselling and mentoring for learners (10) inadequate learner support provision. Therefore, without serious efforts to overcome these barriers, a successful realization of distance higher education in Africa will remain an illusion.

Initiatives to Promote Distance Education in Africa There have been efforts made at local and international level to promote distance learning in African higher learning institutions and overcome the challenges discussed above. At a Pan-African level, initiatives such as the African University Network initiative are underway, proposing that by 2015 all universities and colleges will be connected to the Internet. No matter how the technical infrastructure is upgraded throughout Africa, it will have little effect (or a negative one of increasing the digital divide within the nations), unless a concurrent development takes place in human resources (ibid). At international level, the World Bank established the African Virtual University (AVU) pilot project in 1997. Its goal was to establish partnerships with key African universities and to offer credit courses and non-credit seminars in Sub-Saharan Africa, primarily utilizing video-teleconferencing technology. On completion of its pilot phase, AVU has been converted into an independent NGO offering accredited programmes using a modular, digital library to provide more access to scholarly publications and share African research results, connectivity assistance for its partner institutions and a distance learning portal open to all African universities (Schachter et al. 2005).

248

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

The introduction of Open Educational Resource (OER) by the UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) was another initiative to promote distance education in developing countries including Africa. OERs are Web-based materials offered freely and openly for re-use in teaching, learning and research (Larson & Murray, 2008). Learning materials created by OER are free of copyright restrictions. The purpose of OER is to create learning resources that can be easily and freely accessed by poor and isolated learners found mostly in remote areas of developing countries. OERs are positioned to play a transformative role in a world where access to quality education is viewed as a right rather than a privilege (Larson and Murray, 2008). In Nigeria, for instance, the British Council supported the University Village Association Rural Literacy Programme by providing the local community with audio taped learning materials used to augment outreach programmes delivered to adult learners (Aderinoye & Ojokheta, 2004). Other organisations which have supported distance education in Nigeria include the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Commonwealth of Learning (CoL), USAID, the British Council and Literacy Enhancement Assistance Programme (LEAP) (ibid). These organisations have supported distance education programmes in terms of learning resources, staff development and information technology application in education. The SchoolNet is another initiative introduced in Africa to enhance distance education. SchoolNets emerged in Canada and Europe in the 1980s and early 1990s as national organizations that aim at promoting teaching and learning through the use of ICT. In Africa the SchoolNet initiative was introduced in the early 1990s in an ‘attempt to apply new ICTs to resource –poor environments as a means to enhancing education and development, and bridging the much-vaunted ‘digital divide’ (Isaacs et al., 2004, p.1). Despite all the efforts made to establish a sustainable base for distance learning in Africa, research has indicated that there are still some crucial problems which hinder the development of distance learning in particular and education in general. Such problems include unreliability of electric power, lack of infrastructure, high telephone and Internet access costs, limited expertise and skill levels, and of lack of sustainable national policy in some African countries. A study by Schachter et al. (2005) suggested that in order for Africa to build capacity and develop sustainable distance learning programmes there is a dire need to address six major issues, namely; learner support systems, course design capacity, government policy, indigenous knowledge, research and collaboration, and lastly, human resource development which is examined in greater depth. However, the study further indicated that with the growing recognition of the importance of universities to long-term sustainable development and the active support by outside agencies and groups such as the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa, there is a movement to reform government 249

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

policy at the national level in some countries. Along with support for ICTs, some governments are promoting more autonomy while encouraging better governance at the institutional level, as well as opening access to higher education.

Opportunities for Enhancing Distance Education in Africa Africa can take advantage of the various opportunities available to enhance distance education programmes. Some of these potential opportunities include the following: First, the establishment of specialized institutions of higher learning that offer distance education (open universities) is an opportunity for African countries to promote distance education programmes to reach the rural poor communities. If African governments take deliberate efforts to invest heavily in these institutions, distance education will be extended beyond the present scope and benefit the disadvantaged communities and rural masses more than is the case now. Secondly, if the links established between African education institutions and institutions in developed countries are sustained, they can be an opportunity for African institutions to develop and offer joint distance education programmes and produce learning resources which meet international standards. For instance, the University of Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania is a partner to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) in Australia in offering computer science and business studies as well as diploma and degree programmes (Komba, 2009). Third, Global ICT networks such as the Task Force on ICT established by The United Nations for the purpose of looking for “new, creative ways of spreading the benefits of ICTs and avert the digital divide” (Ahmed and Nwagwu, 2006:90) can provide an opportunity for governments and educational institutions particularly higher education in Africa to establish strong ICT units which ultimately support the provision of distance education. In addition, the UN has initiated a forum where governments, UN agencies, private sectors and the civil society can share their vision and understanding toward the development of electronic learning including distance education. Fourth, increased recognition and acceptance of ICT and its integration in education and training by many African governments can be utilized as an opportunity to set up explicit policies on distance education. Fifth, the rapid uptake of mobile phones in Africa can be used as an opportunity to promote distance education programmes. The use of mobile phones in Africa has spread more rapidly than any other technological development experienced before. The adoption rate of mobile technologies in Africa’s developing countries is said to be among the highest globally (Brown, 2003, Aker & Mbiti, 2010). Reports have shown that while mobile phone subscription increased by 17 percent between 2002 and 2007, in Africa, the annual increase during this period was 49 percent 250

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

(ITU, 2008; Aker and Mbiti, 2010). For instance, while only 11% of the people in Tanzania can access and use internet services (TCRA, 2010), more than 70% use mobile phones. In Tanzania mobile phones are used even in very remote areas where electricity does not exist. It is estimated that in every group of ten people in Tanzania, there are twenty mobile handsets. This is so because there are many mobile phone companies and nearly all users of mobile phones have more than one mobile handset and more than two mobile lines. These mobile cellular service companies operating in Tanzania include Vodacom, Tigo (formerly Buzz), Air Tel (formerly Zain), Zantel and Sasatel. Some of these companies have become popular due to their involvement in money transfers through the so called M-Pesa (mobile money) service. This service is popular in East Africa, particularly in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Mobile phones are used as a tool for distance education delivery in some developing countries such as Korea, China and South Africa, commonly referred to as M-learning (mobile learning). Distance learners residing in rural areas can access online materials (especially where mobile phones are connected with the Internet), communicate with their instructors, send their assignments and seek support by using mobile phones. If distance education programmes in Africa will employ the use of mobile phones in their delivery, then communities are likely to benefit more from this technology than the current use where most of the mobile communication is for non-educational purposes. According to Brown (2003), ‘mobile technologies have the power to make learning even more widely available and accessible than we are used to in existing e-learning environments’. This view is also shared by Motlik (2008) who points out that: While many developing nations find internet-based e-learning unsuitable for their needs, mobile learning methods –specifically those involving the use of cell-phones for both formal and informal learning – hold great promise for them. The technology is more affordable, learners are familiar with it, and with proper instructional design it promises educational opportunities with an increased flexibility for learners, satisfying the ‘anytime/anywhere’ component of distance education for thousands if not millions of learners (p.3).

Blended Learning System and Distance Higher Education As information technologies become more sophisticated, many scholars suggest the integration of campus-based education (predominated by face-to-face instructions) with distance education through the incorporation of information and communication technologies (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Duhaney, 2004; Klein, Noe &Wang, 2006;

251

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Macdonald, 2006; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). The term used to describe this fusion of traditional face to face instructions and the online delivery is blended learning. There is a plethora of literature describing the way the advent of information technologies have influenced changes in the design and delivery methods in both campus-based and distance education institutions. It is estimated that traditional physical classrooms have been the dominant form of knowledge transfer for at least 3,000 years (Nallaperumal & Saravanan, 2008). In recent years, many higher education institutions have shown keen interest in blended learning. A study by Arabasz and Baker (2003) revealed that 80 percent of all higher education institutions offer blended learning courses. The changing nature of the educational and economic demands of changing populations coupled with the development of information and communication technologies have compelled educators and designers to think of the best educational design and delivery mode that can accommodate such varied needs of diverse personalities and economies. With the advent of information and commnunication technologies, some educators resorted to fully online learning programmes. However, literature has shown that educators who have tried both approaches realize that neither traditional lecture format nor the distance education (or fully online) approach is appropriate for every student, every teacher, and every course (Nallaperumal & Saravanan, 2008). This has led higher education institutions to a third option, blended learning (Franks, 2002). Blended learning can be an opportunity to fundamentally redesign teaching and learning approaches in ways that realize increased effectiveness, conviniency, and efficiency (Vaughan, 2010). Studies have indicated that there are many advantages of using blended learning approaches for students, instructors and institutions as well as the pedagogy. The advantages of blended learning for students include its potential to offer students opportunity to access learning resources anywhere and anytime; it minimises costs; and increases the learners’ learning outcomes (Dziuban, Hartman& Moskal, 2004). Other advantages on the learners side include promoting independent learning habits; allowing learners to take control of their study schedules; and providing a wider exposure of learners to a wide learning resources. In addition, blended learning provides a chance for shy and inconfident students to contribute in the learning dialogues. The advantages of the blended learning model on instructors include its potential to help instructors improve their technological skills; it allows instructors to interact with students beyond the classroom environment and it is also regarded as the best grooming environment for instructors who are not yet comfortable for fully online learning as it allows them “to begin with a course that is mostly face-to-face, then expand the online component as their expertise increase” (Dziuban, et al., 2004). On the institutional side, blended learning helps to overcome problems related to access, cost, efficiency and overcrowded campus classrooms. From a pedagogical

252

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

perspective, blended learning allows the two teaching approaches (face-to-face and online instructions) to complement one another.

Management of Distance Higher Education Provision in Africa Despite the potential advantages of distance education, including augmenting lecture and seminar rooms with chat rooms, campuses with the World Wide Web, and communities of learning with the borderless networks of cyberspace, it is pertinent to strengthen its management for quality assurances purposes. It is generally accepted that distance education faces academic challenges which need to be addressed to avoid compromising basic quality expectations within the academic community. In other words, if the provision of distance higher education is not well managed, the outputs may not meet the expected standards, hence subjecting distance education and accreditation bodies into disrepute. Therefore, as Komba (2009) notes, the institutions responsible for the provision of distance education in Africa need to build upon existing quality assurance mechanisms in order to ensure the quality of distance education programmes. The quality assurance management should not only focus on curricula structures, entry qualifications, and pedagogical issues, but also assessment procedures which ought to be competency-based. If these considerations are taken aboard, there is a great likelihood for the distance higher education to provide programmes which are recognized as being trustworthy and educationally valuable.

CONCLUSION This chapter has presented various issues regarding distance higher education as studied by different scholars. At this juncture, it can be deduced that there is a close relationship between higher education and development. The more educated the people are, the greater the possibility for the development of a country. Literature has shown that distance higher education in particular and distance education in general, have a long history. It has evolved from print through radio and television to the use of Internet. Scholars agree that distance education emerged as a means for widening access to education for those who for various reasons had limited opportunity to get education through the conventional system. The development of information and communication technologies has improved the delivery of distance education. Various initiatives have been introduced locally and internationally to promote distance higher education. However, literature has indicated that the provision of distance education faces numerous challenges and its provision varies from one country to another, depending on the economic and technological development of 253

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

a given country. Therefore, it is concluded that the provision of distance education must be carefully planned and the technologies to be employed in its delivery must be chosen depending on the context in which they have to be used.

REFERENCES Adam, S., & Nel, D. (2009). Blended and online learning: Student perceptions and performance. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), 140–155. doi:10.1108/17415650911005366 Aderinoye, R., & Ojokheta, K. (2004). Open Distance Education as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development: Reflections on the Nigerian Experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 5(1), 1–13. Aderinoye, R., & Siaciwena, R. (2008). Trends and Issues in Open and Distance Learning in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/miscfiles/call_for_papers_ africa.html Adomi, E. E. (2005). Internet Development and Connectivity in Nigeria. Department of Library and Information Science, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Publ ished/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2800390306.html Ahmed, A. (2004). Making Technology Work for the Poor: Strategies and Policies for African Sustainable Development. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4(1), 1–17. Ahmed, A., & Nwagwu, W. E. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities of E-learning Networks in Africa. Development, 49(2), 86–92. doi:10.1057/palgrave. development.1100250 Aker, J. C., & Mbiti, I. M. (2010). Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa. In CGD Working Paper 211. Washington, DC: Centre for Global Development. doi:10.1257/jep.24.3.207 Albretchtsen, K., Mariger, H., & Parker, C. (2001). Distance Education and the Impact of Technology in Europe and Japan. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3). All-Africa Ministers’ Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education (AAMCOLDE). (2004). Status of Open Learning and Distance Education in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.africaodl.org/conference/odl.htm

254

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Arabasz, P., & Baker, M. B. (2003). Evolving Campus Support Models for E-learning Courses. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research (ECAR). Retrieved from http:// net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/ekf0303.pdf Banks, F., Moon, B., & Wolfenden, F. (2009). New Modes of Communication Technologies and the Reform of Open and Distance Learning Programmes: A response to the Global crisis in Teacher Education and training. 23rd ICDE World Conference on Open and Distance Learning, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Barker, T. (2005). Blended Learning. Retrieved from http://homepages.feis.herts. ac.uk/~comqtb/blended%20learning01.pdf Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, Open learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating New Technologies to Foster Student Interaction and Collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498 Bjørn, F., & Stein, K. (2007). A Rural-Urban Digital Divide? Regional Aspects of Internet Use in Tanzania. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries. Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2006). Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa. Human Development Sector Africa Region. Harvard University. Braimoh, D., & Osiki, J. O. (2008). The Impact of Technology on Accessibility and Pedagogy: The Right to Education in Sub- Saharan Africa. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 53–62. Breetzke, G. D. (2007). A Critique of Distance learning as an Educational Tool for GIS in South Africa. Open UP. University of Pretoria. Britz, J. J., Lor, P. J., Coetzee, I. E. M., & Bester, B. C. (2006). Africa as a knowledge society: A reality check. The International Information & Library Review, 38(1), 25–40. Brown, A. H., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. P. (2004). You’re Doing What With Technology? An Expose on “Jane Doe” college Professor. College Teaching, 52(3), 100–104. Brown, T. H. (2003). The role of M-Learning in the Future of E-learning in Africa? Paper presented at the 21st ICDE World Conference, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://matheas.webstart.com/uploads/The-role-of-m-learning-in-the-future-of-elearning-in-africa.pdf 255

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Centre for Educational Technology (CET). (2008). National Imperatives and Limitations of ICT in Tanzania. University of Cape Town. Retrieved from www. cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/tanzania.pdf Chapnick, S. (2000). Are you ready for e-learning? Retrieved from http://blog.uny. ac.id/nurhadi/files/2010/08/are_you_ready_for_elearning.pdf Danaher, P. A., & Umar, A. (2010). Contemporary Research on Open and Distance learning in Teacher Education. In P. A. Danaher & A. Umar (Eds.), Perspectives on Distance Education: Teacher Education Through Open and Distance Learning. Commonwealth of Learning. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage. Journal of Human Relations, 45, 660–686. Davison, R., Vogel, D., Harris, R., & Jones, N. (2000). Technology Leapfrogging in Developing Countries: An Inevitable Luxury? Electronic Journal of Information. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.7786 &rep=rep1&type=pdf Dhanarajan, G. (2001). Distance Education: Promise, Performance and Potential. Open Learning, 16(1), 61–68. doi:10.1080/02680510124465 Duhaney, D. C. (2004). Blended Learning in Education, Training, and Development. Performance Improvement, 43(8), 35–38. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140430810 Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended Learning. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research, 2004(7), 1-12. Field, H. M., & Fegan, J. (Eds.). (2005). Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy, Pedagogy, New paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo: Waseda University Media– Mix Co Ltd. Franks, P. (2002). Blended Learning: What is it? How does it impact student retention and performance? In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher education (Vol. A, pp. 1477–1480). Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/9370 Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. 256

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Green, A., Little, A. W., Kamat, S. G., Oketch, M., & Vickers, E. (2007). Education and Development in a Global Era: Strategies for Successful Globalisation. Educational Papers. Groves, M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional Technology Adoption in Higher Education: An Action Research Case Study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57–65. Halimi, S. (2005). Lifelong Learning for Equity and Social Cohesion: A New Challenge for Higher Education. In C. McIntosh (Ed.), Perspectives in Distance Education: Lifelong learning and Distance Higher Education: Vancouver: UNESCO/COL. Hellman, J. A. (2003). The Riddle of Distance Education: Promise, Problems and Applications for Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Programme on Technology, Business and Society, No. 9. Igwe, U. O. (2009). Libraries Without Walls and Open and Distance Learning in Africa: The Nigerian Experience. Retrieved from http://www.wikieducator.org/ images/PID_399.pdf Isaacs, S. (2002). ICTs in African Schools: A Multi-Media Approach for Enhancing Learning and Teaching. Techknowlogia, 4(1), 32–34. Isaacs, S., Broekman, I., & Mogale, T. (2004). Contextualising education in Africa: The role of ICTs. In T. James (Ed.), Information and communication technologies for development in Africa, Vol. 3, Networking institutions of learning SchoolNet (pp. 1- 23). Ottawa: CODESRIA/IDRC. ITU. (2008). World Telecommunication Indicators Database. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union. Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of Distance Education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Keegan, D. (2005). The Incorporation of Mobile Learning into Mainstream Education and Training. Retrieved from www.mlearn.org.za Khan, A. W. (2008). Distance Education for Development. Paris: UNESCO. Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing E-learning Strategies: Design, Delivery, Implementation and Evaluation. London: Idea Group Inc. doi:10.4018/978-159140-634-1

257

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to Learn and Course Outcomes: The Impact of Delivery Mode, Learning Goal Orientation, and Perceived Barriers and Enablers. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665–702. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00050.x Komba, W. L. M. (2009). Increasing Education Access through Open and Distance learning in Tanzania: A Critical Review of Approaches and Practices. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 5(5). Larson, R. C., & Murray, M. E. (2008). Open Educational Resources for Blended Learning in High Schools: Overcoming Impediments in Developing Countries. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1). Leary, J. & Berge, Z. (2007). Successful Distance Education Programs in SubSaharan Africa. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), Article 12. Mac Donald, J. (2006). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: A Good Practice Guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited. Mafu, S. (2004). From the Oral Tradition to the Information Era: The Case of Tanzania. International Journal on Multi-Cultural Societies, 6(1), 53–78. Mambo, H. L. (2001). Tanzania: An Overview of Information Communications Technology Development in Libraries and Information Services. International Journal of Information and Library Review, 33(1), 89–96. doi:10.1080/10572317 .2001.10762540 Masalu, D. C. P. (2005). Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Tanzania and its Impact on Ocean Data and Information Management. Journal of Ocean and Coastal management, 48, 85-95. McAvinia, C. (2006). CALLers and Learning Technologists: Where do they meet, and what do they have in common? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4 & 5), 389–403. doi:10.1080/09588220601043073 Mcharazo, A. A. S. (2000). Public Libraries and Distance Education in Tanzania: Issues and Dilemmas. Libri, 50(4), 295–301. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2000.295 Mercado, C. A. (2008). Readiness Assessment Tool for An eLearning Environment Implementation. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 16(3), 1-11.

258

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2007). Integration of ICTs in Library and Information Science Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/index.htm Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A System View. Belmont: Thomson, Wadsworth. Motlik, S. (2008). Technical Evaluation Report 63: Mobile Learning in Developing Nations. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1–8. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.564 Moyo, S. (2003). Distance Learning and Virtual Education for Higher Education in Africa: Evaluation of Options and Strategies. African and Asian Studies, 2(4), 497–521. doi:10.1163/156920903773004031 Mushi, P. S. D. (2001). Prospects for Combining Residential and Distance Model of University Education in Tanzania. Utafiti, 4, 221-255. Nallaperumal, S., & Saravanan, S. (2008). The Impact of blended learning to enhance the quality of higher education. In Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Issues and Challenges. London: Taylor and Francis Group. Nasseh, B. (1997). A Brief History of Distance Education. Retrieved from:http://168.144.129.112/Articles/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20 Distance%20Education.rtf Nwagwu, W. E., & Ahmed, A. (2009). Building open access in Africa. International Journal of Technology Management, 45(1/2), 82–101. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.021521 OHearn, J. (2000). Challenges for Service Leaders: Setting the Agenda for the Virtual Learning Organisation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2), 97–106. doi:10.1108/09596110010307341 Ololube, N. P., Ubogu, A. E., & Egbezor, D. E. (2007). ICT and Distance Education Programmes in a Sub-Saharan African Country: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 7(3), 181–194. Pityana, N. B. (2004). Open Distance Learning in Africa: Access, Quality, and Success. University of South Africa. Retrieved from www.unisa.ca.za/contents/ about/principle/docs/AMC Rao, S. R. (2008). The Social basis of Distance Education: Strategies for Inclusive Growth. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 58–65.

259

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Schachter, L., Pence, A., Zuckernick, A., & Roberts, J. (2005). Distance Learning in Africa: From Brain Drain to Brain Gain. Retrieved from http://www.web.uvic. ca/~eyrd/pubs/Schacter_pence_etal_2005.pdf Sife, A. S., Lwoga, E. T., & Sanga, C. (2007). New Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Challenges for Higher Learning Institutions in Developing Countries. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3(2). Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=246 Ssekakubo, G., Suleman, H., & Marsden, G. (2011). Issues of Adoption: Have ELearning Management Systems Fulfilled their Potential in Developing Countries? SAICSIT, 11, 231-238. Retrieved from: http://pubs.cs.uct.ac.za/archive/00000712/01/ p231-ssekakubo.pdf Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2006.11.007 Taylor, D. (2006). Issues, Trends and Challenges in Distance Education: An International Perspective. Retrieved from http://net.eller.arizona.edu/distance learning.pdf Teffera, D., & Altbach, P. G. (2004). African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21–50. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009822.49980.30 Twigg, C. A. (2000). Institutional Readiness Criteria. EDUCAUSE Review, 42–51. UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development. (1998). Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for sustainable development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. UNESCO. (2002). Open and Distance Learning: Trends, Policy and Strategy Considerations. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2008). Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http:// portal.unesco.org/education/ URT. (1996). Education and Vocational Training Policy. Final Draft. Retrieved from www.moevt.go.tz Valentine, D. (2002). Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3).

260

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Vasisenaho, M., Islas, C., Tedre, M., & Sutinen, E. (2006). Implementing information and communication Technology in Higher Education in Tanzania. IST-Africa 2006 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2006 Vaughan, N. D. (2010). Blended Learning and Community: Designing for a Blended Community of Inquiry. In Blended learning in Finland. Helsinki: Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Visser, Y. L., Visser, L., Simonson, M., & Amirault, R. (2005). Trends and Issues in Distance Education: International Perspective. New York: Information Age Publishing. Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online Education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223. doi:10.1108/09513540010344731 Walsham, G. (2000). IT/S in developing Countries. In M. Zeleny (Ed.), The Handbook of Information Technology in Business. London, UK: International Encyclopaedia of Business Management, Thomson Learning. Woodrow, J. E. (1992). Locus of Control and Teacher Computer Attitude. Journal of Computers in Education, 14(5), 421–432. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(90)90036-7 Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012 Yusuf, M. O. (2005). Information and communication technologies and education: Analysing the Nigerian national Policy for Information Technology. International Education Journal, 6(3), 316–321. Zeleza, P. T. (2005). Transnational Education and African Universities. Retrieved from www.aau.org/gc11/adocs/pdf/eng/zeleza.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Blended Learning: This is an education programme which combines online digital media with traditional classroom methods. Distance Education: It is a field of education taking place with the student, physically or geographically removed from the instructor, using some form of technology to facilitate learning and contact.

261

Reflections on Distance Higher Education in Africa

Education: It is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. E-Learning: This is the use of electronic media (computers, tablets, or phones) to educate or train learners. Higher Education: It is the scope of knowledge and skills imparted within the teriary level of education – that is beyond the primary and secondary levels of education. Information and Communication Technology: This refers to forms of technology that are used for communication and to transmit, store, create, share or exchange information. Teaching Approach: It is a set of principles, beliefs, or ideas about the nature of learning which is translated into the classroom. Tertiary Education: It is the educational level following the completion of a school providing a secondary education.

262

263

Chapter 11

AdministrativeRelated Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey Uğur Demiray Anadolu University, Turkey Gülay Ekren Sinop University, Turkey

ABSTRACT This chapter intends to determine the existing status of distance education at higher education level in Turkey. Recently, there are various institutions in Turkey which provide distance education such as distance education research and application centers, information departments, continuing education centers, head of IT departments etc. However, little is known about their administrative related structuring. This chapter provides a qualitative research which aims to answer following issues: (1) to determine the existing distance learning programs and compulsory joint courses being provided in distance mode, (2) to identify varying titles given to the institutions or units which provide compulsory joint courses or programs in higher education, (3) to determine the LMSs used to provide distance education, (4) to determine e-learning activities in distance education institutions, (5) to identify the roles of administrative staff in distance education institutions.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch011 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

INTRODUCTION Orientation to distance education in Turkey has been a continuous process until today with an increasing momentum since 1950s. However, the first practice of distance education in higher education is carried out by Open Education Faculty of Anadolu University, which was established in 1982. It is considered to be an important attempt in terms of implementation of distance education in the field in national and international literature. The first attempt to implement distance education in Turkey was conducted by the Banking and Commercial Law Institute of Ankara University in 1956 (Kaya, 2002). In 1974, teacher training was started in higher education by correspondence study (Özer, 1989). Distributed Higher Education Institution (YAYKUR), established in 1975, has opened a way to graduate from universities via distance education by providing education at the level of associate degree and their equivalents through television broadcasts. This institution was closed in 1979 (Özdil, 1986; Demiray, 2007). Anadolu University Open Education Faculty (OEF), which was established in 1982, was given the task of providing continuous and open education in Turkey with legal regulation and in that period, OEF was the only institution providing distance education at higher education level. In 1993, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration was established in Anadolu University to deliver bachelor’s degree via distance learning. Bachelor Programs of the Pre-School and English Language Teaching were opened in the Open Education Faculty in cooperation with the Ministry of National Education (MNE) in 2000. Currently, Anadolu University continues to provide distance education with its seventeen undergraduate and thirty six associate degree programs in Faculty of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and also in OEF within the scope of Open and Distance Education System. As of March 2016, Anadolu University is a mega university that is not only recognized in Turkey but also worldwide with its more then a million students (www.anadolu.edu.tr). Department of Computer Engineering in Middle East Technical University started to offer certificate programs via distance education in 1989. In this process, distance education activities were initiated by sending virtual messages (Demiray, 2007). Fırat University started its distance education activities through its own television station in 1991. After then, in 1992, the first Open High School, and in 1997, the first Open Primary School was established (Demiray, 2007). Distance education studies were conducted in cooperation with Ahmet Yesevi University and Anadolu University via teleconferences between 1999 and 2000. Thanks to advances in this system, Master of Business Administration program was opened by Ahmet Yesevi University and then, most of the courses were given from Ankara to the students in Turkestan. Then, Mersin University started first technical programs by distance

264

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

education in 2002 and also Sakarya University started to provide foreign language education and certificate programs in cooperation with MNE in 2003. Also, in between the years of 2000-2010 a few private and state universities such as Sakarya University, Bilgi University, Karadeniz Technical University, and Middle East Technical University etc. offered some of their undergraduate programs via blended learning (70% distance education, 30% face-to-face education). In addition, the opportunity offered by a regulation in the OEF (in Turkish abbrev: AOF) system named “Second University without Examination” made it possible to study in both undergraduate and associate degree programs in a same period, including distance education and open education programs. With this regulation, the students are allowed to enroll associate or undergraduate degree by open education while they are studying at any traditional undergraduate degree, or if they are studying at any traditional associate degree, they are allowed to enroll in any associate degree by open education without having an entrance examination. Today, many universities are providing open and distance education throughout the country by 2000s. There are three universities (Anadolu University, Atatürk University and İstanbul University) which have “Open Education Faculty” in their academic structure. Besides, many universities have institutions that provide distance education activities such as associate degrees, undergraduate degrees, post graduate degrees, undergraduate completion degrees (from associate degree to undergraduate degree), certification programs and also compulsory joint courses such as Principles of Ataturk and Revolution History, Turkish Language, Foreign Language and Use of Basic Information Technologies. Open and distance learning activities in universities have become widespread due to a formal arrangement made in 2009. By the year 2013, distance education activities such as certificate programs, compulsory joint courses (the courses such as Principles of Ataturk and Revolutionary History, Turkish Language, Foreign Language, Use of Basic Information Technologies that should be enrolled by every undergraduate student as required by law, or some other graduate courses that are delivered in distance mode from a single center to different departments of universities), and also a set of degree programs such as associate degree, bachelor degree, bachelor degree completion or non-thesis master’s degree programs are carried out in 54 universities (Ekren, 2014). Besides, since 2015, 505 programs (187 associate degree, 70 bachelor degree, 16 bachelor degree completion, 232 nonthesis master’s degree) have been identified in 68 universities which was offered through distance mode (Koçdar & Görü Doğan, 2015). Moore and Kearsley (2011) identified the levels of distance education organizations as single-mode institutions and dual-mode institutions. In single-mode institutions, all the faculty and staff of the institutions are devoted to distance education. This organizational model does not exist in Turkey. On the other hand, a dual-mode institution adds distance 265

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

education to its established traditional campus. This organizational model uses existing faculty, administrative staff, instructional designers, technical experts or the other personnel for distance education systems. However, they are all managed by a distance education unit of the university. Consequently, the universities in Turkey are working as dual-mode institutions. Usun (2004) highlights the administrative structure of the Open Education Faculty in Turkey. It has one dean and four vice deans who are responsible directly to the rector of the university and each with different responsibilities such as (1) registration, regional offices, organization of academic counseling, exams, (2) course materials, media production and delivery from OEF Radio and TV studios, (3) development projects, and (4) international relations and international projects. The OEF has responsibility for designing the course materials scientifically as well as registering students, organizing exams, preparing and producing printed, visual and audio course materials. There are many studies about challenges in the issues about distance education in Turkey such as distance learning (Akça Üstündağ, 2009; Alper & Gülbahar, 2009), distance learning systems (Umut & Madran, 2004), virtual university, online learning, computer-aided learning (Şimşek et al., 2008), and learning styles in distance learning environments (Ekici, 2003). Demiray, İnceelli and Candemir (2008) indicate that 458 studies are conducted by one author, 84 studies are conducted by two authors, 55 studies are conducted by three authors and others are conducted by 4 and 5 authors during the 25 years of the Open Education Faculty (Demiray et al., 2008, p.29). Göktaş et al. (2012) conducted a study on 460 articles published in Turkey on the field of education technologies between 2000 and 2009, and stated that these studies mostly directed towards learning environments and technology (47,4%) and distance education/learning (12,9%). However, there is no such study which highlights the roles of administrative or academic staff in distance education institutions in Turkey. On the other hand, the number of open and distance learning programs and distance courses in many universities in Turkey is increasing day by day (Koçdar & Görü Doğan, 2015). However, there is a demand for trained work force to handle and manage these programs or distance courses. There are a range of studies in the literature which aim to determine required roles and related competencies and skills for technical or administrative staff of distance learning programs. One of the first studies conducted by Thach (1994) identified eleven roles such as instructor, administrator, instructional designer, technology expert, technician, support staff, librarian, graphic designer, evaluation specialist, site facilitator, and editor. Additionally, Williams (2000, 2003) identified thirteen roles and role specific competencies needed to implement and manage distance education programs in higher education.These roles are administrative manager, instructor/facilitator, 266

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

instructional designer, technology expert, site facilitator/proctor, support staff, librarian, technician, evaluation specialist, graphic design, trainer, media publisher/ editor, and leader/change agent. Role specific competencies for these roles are as follows (Williams, 2003): • •

•

• • • • • • • • •

Managerial skills, budgeting skills, marketing skills, strategic planning skills for “administrative manager”; Content knowledge, teaching strategies/models, general education theory, skill with internet tools for instruction, instructional design for interactive technologies, library research skills, modeling of behavior/skills for “instructor/facilitator”; Instructional design skills, instructional design for interactive technologies; media attributes knowledge, general education theory, text layout skills, skill with internet tools for instruction, teaching strategies/ models, web related programming skills, learning style and theory, HTML authoring skills for “instructor designer”, Computer hardware skills, technology operation/repair skills, skill with internet tools for instruction for “technology expert”, Advising/counseling skills for “support staff”, Library research skills for “librarian”, Technology operation/repair skills, computer hardware skills, computer networking skills for “technician”, General Education Theory for “evaluation specialist”, Graphic design skills, text layout skills, media attributes knowledge, skill with internet tools for instruction for “graphic designer”, Training skills, modeling of behavior/skills, general education theory, teaching strategies/models, skills with internet tools for instruction, advising/ counseling skills for “trainer”, Skills with internet tools for instruction, graphic design skills, media attributes knowledge for “media publisher/editor”, Modeling of behavior/skills, managerial skills, marketing skills, strategic planning skills, policy-making skills, general education theory for “leader/ change agent”.

Besides, the roles such as content facilitator, technologist, designer, manager/ administrator, process facilitator, adviser/counsellor, assessor, and researcher are identified by Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples and Tickner (2001). Moreover, Thach and Murphy (1995) identified ten related competencies for these roles such as interpersonal communication, planning skills, collaboration/teamwork skills, English proficiency, writing skills, organizational skills, feedback skills, knowledge 267

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

of distance education field, basic technology knowledge, and technology access knowledge. Likewise, Lee and Hirumi (2004) identified six fundamental skills for online teaching such as interaction, management, organization/instructional design, technology, content knowledge and teamwork skills. In addition, there are more studies (Li & Chen, 2012; Nworie, Haughton, & Oprandi, 2012; Muñoz-Carril, González-Sanmamed & Hernández-Sellés, 2013) which emphasis on the requirement of key roles to maintain distance learning programs. Koçdar and Karadağ (2015) aimed to find career opportunities for the graduates of 27 degree-granting distance education programs in 18 universities residing in 12 countries and proposed a classification (leadership positions and expertise positions) by categorizing the roles (such as technical expert, media professional, advisor, pedagogical expert, online librarian, program evaluator, subject matter expert, instructional designer, trainer, e-leraning specialist, course developer, facilitator in online training, university faculty, curriculum developer, project management assistant, financial advisor, online course support specialist, educational consultant) promised by these distance education programs. Koçdar and Karadağ also emphasized different titles on distance education programs such as “distance education”, “distance learning”, “open and distance learning”, “open learning”, and “e-learning”. In like manner, there are different titles on the names of distance education institutions in Turkey. However, there is no research which titles are mostly being used to name these institutions. Furthermore, Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are a kind of software that manages learning activities via web. An LMS provides several opportunities to users such as providing asynchronous learning materials, sharing, presenting and organizing learning materials in different ways, recording lectures, doing assignments, having exams, providing feedback to the assignments and exams, keeping records of students, tutors and also the analytics in the system. Aydın and Biroğul (2008) indicated that LMSs should have or support the following characteristics: (1) multiple technologies (IMS Content, Package, MPEG file, Office File, JavaScript, PHP) to create content, (2) tools for content development and management, (3) database support, (4) advanced search and saving capability of any header, (5) XML support for interoperability with other systems, (6) adaptability to industrial standards (such as AICC and SCORM), (7) video conference support, (8) an exam module (online exam), (9) student tracking, (10) multi-languages, (11) schedule, (12) backup support, (13) chatting tool, (14) whiteboard, (15) group work/ discussion forums, (16) system installation, (17) a survey, (18) system requirements. There are different types of LMSs which are being used in distance education institutions such as Moddle, ALMS, Canvas, Sakai, Blackboard etc. For instance, Moodle (Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) is an open source, free LMS that many tools can be added to the learning system such as survey, workshop, instant 268

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

messaging, calendar, e-mail, wiki, materials, course content, forum, assignments, and exams. The other features of Moodle are as follows: (1) supported by any operating systems, (2) as having a large developer community, errors can be solved and new features/modules can be added easily, (3) providing personal pages, (4) providing support tools such as authentication, course authoring, server services and registration integration, (5) providing different type of course templates such as weekly organized course events, topic organized course events, course events including social discussions. Moodle is being used in 230 countries worldwide, and has more than 11,000,000 courses and 96,000,000 users (https://moodle.net/stats/). On the other hand, ALMS is completely native software developed by Advancity and Sakarya University. Integration for asynchronous and synchronous applications is available. ALMS has features that meet the needs of not only education institutions but also other sectors. The distinction between ALMS and other learning management systems can be summarized as follows: (1) eight activity support such as homework, e-course, exam, forum, document, virtual classroom, questionnaire and video, (2) weekly scheduling activities, (3) assigning activities to classes and in-class groups, (4) priority planning between activities, (5) setting due date for all types of activities, (6) ability to add a question to the video content in desired level and measuring follow-up in details, (7) ability to assign assignments as documents and text, (8) scoring incoming assignments and giving feedback, (9) setting deadline and size limit for assignments, (10) creating a group-specific courses, or general forums, (11) accessing trainings via course archive, (12) virtual library where common documents are located and shared (http://alms.com.tr/). Moreover, Enocta is a company in Turkey that has been providing services and products to meet the e-learning needs of institutions since 1999. Enocta has been using Skillsoft’s educational content and online resources since 2008. Enocta meets e-learning requirements of institutions, not only in higher education but also in many sectors such as banking, finance, energy, construction, logistics, health, insurance, tourism, and telecommunication. Enocta Learning Management System (enocta LMS) is an LMS which is running by the distance education management system called Enocta Academic Education Platform (EAEP). In EAEP, there are functions such as academic process planning and formation of academic hierarchy (such as training unit structure, department structure, branch structure, addition of new semester or termination of last semester), establishment of user profiles and authorization of users, course monitoring and evaluation. However, little is known about which LMS is mostly being used in distance education in Turkey. This chapter aims to answer the following issues: (1) to determine the existing distance learning programs and compulsory joint courses being provided in distance mode, (2) to identify varying titles given to the institutions or units which provide compulsory joint courses or programs in higher education, (3) to determine the 269

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

LMSs used to provide distance education, (4) to determine e-learning activities in distance education institutions, (5) to identify the roles of administrative staff in distance education institutions. This study is important in determining the existing status of distance education at higher education level in Turkey, additionally, specifying the potential roles of administrative staff employed in distance education units of universities as well as identifying the roles of the staff that may be needed in this field.

METHOD This research is a qualitative research. Content analysis was used as a research method. The research method used in this research aims to understand, interpret and evaluate some administrative related issues from the view of the authors. In this context, as of January 2017, data was collected through the web pages of the existing universities (both public and private) in Turkey. 65 universities were examined in this study (see Appendix 1). These universities are determined by examining the programs providing distance education in the guidelines of 2016-OSYS higher education institutions and quotas (OSYM, 2016). Data are collected by considering the following headings; name of departments/ units that provide distance education, the start year of them to distance education, the name of LMSs that are being used in distance education, the number of programs provided in distance mode (associate degree programs, bachelor degree programs, certificate programs, master programs, bachelor completion programs), the number of compulsory joint courses being provided in distance mode (Basic Computer Courses, Foreign Language-English, Principles of Atatürk and Revolution History, Turkish Language), the number of technical administrative staff in such fields; Content Developer/Content Coordinator/Content Manager, Graphic Designer/Media, IT Manager, System Manager/System Expert, Web Master/Web Programmer, Software Developer, Instructional Designer, staff in charge of LMS, General Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator, Technical Coordinator, Educational Technology Expert/ Educational Technologist, Assessment and Evaluation Expert. In this study, the data is limited by the information obtained from the web pages of the higher education institutions in Turkey by December 2016.

270

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Figure 1. Programs in distance education institutions

FINDINGS The Existing Distance Learning Programs and Compulsory Joint Courses There are 65 universities providing associate degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, certification and/or online compulsory joint courses in Turkey. 25% of them (n=39) have master’s degree (non-thesis) programs, 23% of them (n=37) have associate degree programs, 22% of them (n=35) have online compulsory joint courses, 13% of them (n=20) have certification programs, 10% of them (n=16) have bachelor completion programs and %7 of them (n=11) have bachelor degree programs (Figure 1.). There are 470 programs in distance education institutions. 36.8% of them (n=173) are associate degree programs, 26.4% of them (n=124) are post graduate programs (non-thesis), 15.7% of them are certification programs, 10.6% of them are (n=50) bachelor degree programs, and the others (n=49) are bachelor completion programs (Figure 1). On the other hand, according to the press briefing of Higher Education Council of Turkey (HEC) about distance education in bachelor completion programs in health field, practical trainings are seen significant in the curriculum of universities in many fields of health such as Nursing, Midwifery, Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation and Language and Speech Therapy. Therefore, the bachelor completion activities have been carried out entirely under the responsibility of universities, academicians in accordance with the relevant legislation of the bachelor fields in accordance with their curricula. Although these universities will be able to use distance learning

271

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Figure 2. Online compulsory joint courses providing by distance education institutions

methods, it is also seen crucial to provide practical trainings to the students, not only in distance mode but also face to face (HEC, 2015). On the other hand, online compulsory joint courses are provided by thirty five distance education institutions. These are “Turkish Language” courses in twenty nine institutions, “Principles of Atatürk and Revolution History” courses in thirty institutions, “Foreign Language (English)” courses in twenty one institutions, “basic computer courses” in nine institutions named as Computer, Usage of Basic Information Technologies, Introduction to Computer, Basic Information Technologies, Computer Applications, Basic Computer Science, Information Technologies. There are also some courses which are given in distance mode but they are not compulsory courses (Figure 2). These courses are such as Basic Law, Sports Culture, Basic Concepts of Law, Professional Foreign Language, Social Responsibility and Ethics, Entrepreneurship and some other diploma courses. The courses such as Turkish Language, Principles of Atatürk and Revolution History and Foreign Language (English) are compulsory joint courses that must be enrolled by every student in higher education according to a legislative regulation on higher education institutions.

The Varying Titles of Institutions or Units Providing Distance Courses or Programs Distance education institutions carry out open and distance education practices under different department names such as Application and Research Center of Distance Education, Distance Education Center, Open Education System, Distance Learning Center, Vocational School of Distance Education, Distance Education Coordinatorship, Distance Training Unit, Application and Research Center of ICT, e-Learning Center, Open and Distance Education Faculty. They are mostly named 272

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Figure 3. The varying titles of institutions and units

as and Research Center of Distance Education (47.7%) and Distance Education Center (24.6%). The others (27.7%) are shown in Figure 3.

The LMSs Using to Provide Distance Education The Learning Management Systems such as Academic LMS (ALMS), Enocta LMS, Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai, Canvas, and Cambridge LMS are being used in Turkey (Figure 4, Figure 5). A few universities are using more than one LMS to meet different e-learning needs of their students such as Anadolu University-Blackboard, Canvas, Cambridge LMS, İstanbul Bilgi University – Moodle, Blackboard, İstanbul University – ALMS, Blackboard. Turkish higher education universities are mostly (n=21) prefering to use Moodle such as Akdeniz, Ankara, Atılım, Balıkesir, Bartın, Başkent, Beykoz, Çanakkale 18 Mart, Çankırı Kara Tekin, Dicle, Eskişehir Osmangazi, Gazi, Işık, Karabük, Kocaeli, Nevşehir Hacı Betaş Veli, Ondokuz Mayıs, Plato, Uşak, Yeni yüzyıl, Yıldız Teknik. Besides, 15 universities are using ALMS such as Afyon Kocatepe, Atatürk, Beykent, Bingöl, Bülent Ecevit, Cumhuriyet, Fırat, İstanbul, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam, Cappadocia, Marmara, Namık Kemal, Okan, Sakarya, and Trakya. On the other hand, 9 universities are using enocta LMS such as Amasya, Celal Bayar, Çukurova, Ege, İstanbul Arel, İstanbul Esenyurt, Selçuk, Süleyman Demirel, Yüzüncü Yıl. There are also nine universities that have their own LMSs developed by themselves such as Bahçeşehir University - it’s learning, Bitlis Eren University - Web Mining Integrated Semantic Web Based Learning Management System (WSLMS), İstanbul Medipol University - Medipol University Education Information System (MEBIS), Maltepe University - Maltepe University Distance Education System (MUDES), Middle East Technical University – METU LMS or METU Online. MUDES has been used by Maltepe University as an LMS tool. Through this platform, students are able to access course materials at any time, send assignments, message with classmates or lecturers and participate in discussion forums (http:// 273

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Figure 4. Learning management systems that are using in Turkey

Figure 5. One of the interfaces of ALMS

muzeb.maltepe.edu.tr/). Accordingly, “It’s learning” platform is being used by Bahçeşehir University, which is designed by two Norwegian technical university students in 1999. It has curriculum guides (tools like course templates, planners and the ability to align content to standards streamline course development for teachers), instructional frameworks (flexible feedback options, blogs, discussion boards and e-Portfolios), resources, student progress reports (personal dashboards) and communication tools (seamlessly integrated tools) (http://info.itslearning.net/).

E-Learning Activities in Distance Education Institutions Ankara University has an “e-tutor” certification program that is designed to help instructors and those who want to teach technology-supported courses to be equipped with up-to-date knowledge and skills in the use of technology and integration with the 274

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Table 1. Courses in e-tutor certification program of Ankara University E-Tutor Certification Program (Name of Courses) Foundation of E-Learning Learning and Content Management Systems (Moodle) and Virtual Classroom Management (Adobe Connect) Instructional Design and e-course Syllabus Instructional Methods and Techniques, Effective Communication Copyright and Ethics in E-Learning Process, E-Evaluation Graphic Design Teaching Content and Multimedia Activities Development Social Software and Advancing Technologies

training process in order to improve quality and success in the e-learning process. In this program there are eight distance courses and each has ten hours course period. The course names are as follows (Table 1). Apart from this, “E-learning Application for Professional Skill Education in Pre-Graduation Medical Education” is a kind of e-learning platform organized under the leadership of Akdeniz University. This platform is aimed to create a free e-learning environment for medical students. This platform provides basic professional skills for medical students. Through this platform, students can access trainings complimentarily, ask questions to the lecturers asynchronously and send instant messages to each other (www.onlinetipegitimi.com/). Moreover, Ninova, a large-scale web-based electronic learning platform of İstanbul Technical University (ITU), provides teaching and learning opportunities for educators and students. It includes course contents and classroom management tools. Its courses have open access (http://ninova.itu.edu.tr/).

The Roles of Administrative Staff in Distance Institutions Distance education institutions in Turkey generally have a manager with one or two assistant managers, executive board members, sometimes a consultative committee, student affairs, and also technical administrative staff specialized in various fields such as content development, graphic design, media, information technologies, system specialist, web development, instructional design, learning management system, educational technology, measurement and evaluation that can vary from university to university. Additionally, most universities have a distance education coordinatorship. This coordinatorship is responsible for (1) carrying out research and development studies in distance education issues, (2) having the course contents prepared for the 275

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

web supported education studies being carried out by the university, (3) providing the required software automations and course contents from inside or outside the university, to provide consultancy and coordination on these issues, (4) carrying out research and development studies on distance education by making scientific and technological researches to spread the qualifications of trainings through e-learning which help to the development of Turkey in the process of transition to information society, (5) cooperating with national and international organizations in research and practices related to distance education, (6) opening distance education units abroad when required (www.atilim.edu.tr). Besides, there can be different types of distance education coordinators in universities such as distance education coordinator, general coordinator, academic coordinator, technical coordinator, and program coordinator. “Distance Education Coordinator” is responsible for conducting distance education technical activities in the university. “Distance Education General Coordinator” directs the technical and academic services of the distance education system. “Distance Education Academic Coordinator” coordinates the academic services of the distance education system. “Distance Education Technical Coordinator” coordinates the technical competence of the distance education system. “Program Coordinator” coordinates the academic services of the departments given through distance education as a course coordinator. The existence of different roles in distance education institutions require different management structure and functions, therefore they must be different from traditional education institutions (Gürol & Turhan, 2005). Within the scope of this study, thirteen roles identified in distance education institutions in Turkey are as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

276

Content Developer/Content Coordinator/Content Manager, Graphic Designer/ Media, Information Technology (IT) Specialist/Data Processing Expert, System Manager/System Expert, Web Master/Web Programmer/Web Designer, Software Developer/Programmer, Instructional Designer, Staff in charge of LMS, General Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator, Technical Coordinator, Educational Technology Expert/Educational Technologist, Assessment and Evaluation Expert.

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Figure 6. The frequencies of technical administrative staff

In this study, there is 268 administrative staff which is identified according to the data obtained from the web pages of 42 universities; however, 23 universities have not stated their administrative staff in their web pages. Within overall data, 25 staff are responsible for student affairs, and 132 are responsible for technical issues (Figure 6) such as content developer/content coordinator/content manager (n=29), graphic designer/ media (n=17), IT specialist (n=15), system manager/system expert (n=16), software developer (n=10), staff in charge of LMS (n=8), assessment and evaluation expert (n=8), educational technology expert/educational technologist (n=7), web master/web programmer (n=6), general coordinator (n=6), instructional designer (n=5), technical coordinator (n=4), assistant coordinator (n=1).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS It is important to note that open and distance education activities of the government or private higher education institutions at almost all levels have gained momentum in recent years in Turkey, and a number of legal regulations have been imposed on these institutions and programs. More studies are required to straighten these regulations on practices, applications, technical issues, contents, curriculum etc. of variety of distance education programs. As of December 2016, it has been determined that 65 universities are providing distance education at the higher education level in Turkey. On the other hand, some institutions in Turkey have been providing distance education at the primary and secondary education levels since the 1990s. Many academic or administrative staff was assigned to these programs. Their level of growth, level of competencies, level of self-confidence and their increasing or decreasing level of satisfaction regarding their roles are not sufficiently known. Therefore, these 277

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

mentioned topics can be examined in future studies. Moreover, future research can be conducted on distance learning systems, such as the possibilities of providing or offering different programs at all levels of learners (including obstacles and inmates), new and technological educational opportunities (including MOOCs, OERs etc.), and the implementation of new legal regulations.

CONCLUSION The co-operation of staff working in distance education institutions ensures not only the development of distance education but also the development of scientific evaluation criteria related to this development. Interdisciplinary collaborative efforts with teams can bring resources to the highest levels and increase the productivity of trainers (Care & Scanlan, 2001). It is expected that these relations to be established in distance education institutions will keep the organization alive. Black (2003), looking at distance education institutions as living organisms, and investigated which concepts must be kept alive in management, administration, leadership and policy of distance education such as live and holistic, flexible, dynamic, constantly evolving process, proactive, interactive, a visionary, future-oriented, combining value and purpose in the vision, open-source system, open-source subsystem, open social system, self-regulating and organizing, the ability to establish comparative advantage, the ability to create and find a suitable new resource, open to collaboration, creating together with the environment, customer (student) focused, multiple solution oriented, good communication, people who follow the system’s processes, organizational culture, organizational variables, a temporary structure, a reference organization, open boundaries, creating and sharing knowledge and experience, introducing innovators, award winning, protected, nourished, intellectual, social skills, experience, an educational organization based on knowledge and experience, high level managers (brave visionaries, change agents). According to McFarlane (2011), managers of distance education institutions expect that academic and administrative staff have become experts in their field. Particularly in distance education, it is desirable that instructors are interested in providing quality education and training. Hill (1998) indicated that a faculty member of distance education must have experiences related to; (1) training including technical training, instructional design, fundamentals of distance learning etc., (2) consulting including advising, balancing the conflicting needs, looking for innovative solutions etc., (3) curriculum development including teaching experience for developing a distance course, a degree in instructional technology, taking courses in curriculum

278

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

or related areas etc., (4) research including valid assessment, course requirements due to the dynamic structure of distance programs, (5) marketing and promotion including finding new and creative ways to spread course information, programs and its goals, (6) administration including staffing, program planning, policies and legal issues, (7) basic technical/computer knowledge including technical problem solving, additionally technical support team. Planning is one of the most important provisions for success. Before the online courses, several processes such as distribution of tasks, composition of contents, and determination of tools and preparation of instructors for online courses should be planned (Bilgiç, Doğan, & Seferoğlu, 2011). The roles identified by this study can be used as a guide for selection of staff for distance education institutions. According to Moore and Kearsley (2011), a working distance education system should have some components such as teaching content and knowledge provided by faculty and other resources; a course design subsystem consisting of materials and activities for learners; a subsystem which delivers the courses to learners through media and technology, instructors and support personnel who interact with learners as they use these materials, learners in different environments, and a management subsystem (such as departmants or units) to organize policy, resource allocation, to assess and evaluate outcomes, and to coordinate other subsystems. On the other hand, Allen, Bourhis, Burrell and Mabry (2002) indicate unanswered questions about some administrative issues when implementing distance education. Apart from technical requirements, students’ satisfaction with participation in distance education, tailoring educational procedures to different learning styles based on individual differences (one may prefer distance education while another has a strong negative reaction), and cost-effectiveness of existing programs (not only for instruction but also transportation, relocation etc.) must be under consideration by the administration of distance education systems. Effective and successful administration of distance education programs or distance education institutions are required to have an established value and quality culture by focusing on minimum input and maximum output covering all individuals, especially students and staff. A strong team-work with a strong organizational culture can be added to the distance education institutions (Spector, 2010). Besides, management processes are significant to initiate any organizational change, to increase organizational quality, or to form effective strategic planning for distance education institutions (Kesim, 2015). The following suggestions may guide policy makers, managers, leaders, administrators, and instructors etc. in the field to reach their own desired goals:

279

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

• • • •

• • • •

•

Distance education policies and legal processes for any level of education institutions should be different from traditional education policies and legal processes. Qualifications or competencies of the staff employed in distance education units should be audited, and also the roles assigned to these staff should be different from traditional education units. The roles and competencies that are assigned for the staff in distance education units should be considered thorough, and should be in world-scale. When selecting the staff to be employed in the distance education units, their knowledge and experience in the field of distance education should be audited, there must be a connection between their competencies and distance education and if necessary, their level of knowledge in distance learning related issues should be questioned (for example instructors can be forced to attend Ankara University, e-tutor certification program). There are many learning management systems that can be selected for a distance education system. Among these, the most appropriate learning management system should be determined for the lecturers and learners. Distance education do not have a static structure, it should remain alive. The compulsory joint courses provided by distance education units are generally same; therefore they can be offered by the same channel; they can be determined by the government to be cost-effective. There is not enough information about course content, instructors, and contact information of lecturers etc. on the web pages of distance education units of universities. A good distance education system should be transparent and should not hide information. Most of the programs in distance education units are in the level of associate degree and post graduate degree (non-thesis). It is possible to open programs at higher levels; however, increasing the quality and accreditation of distance education programs must be a priority to gain people’s trust.

REFERENCES Akça Üstündag, D. (2009). Türkiye’de bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri alanında yapılan yüksek lisans tezlerinin içerik ve yöntem açısından değerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış lisans tezi. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Üniversitesi Bilişim Enstitüsü.

280

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1602_3 Alper, A., & Gülbahar, Y. (2009). Trends and issues in educational technologies: A review of recent research in TOJET. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 124–135. Aydın, C. Ç., & Biroğul, S. (2008). E-öğrenmede açık kaynak kodlu öğretim yönetim sistemleri ve Moodle. International Journal of Informatics Technologies, 1(2). Bilgiç, H. G., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimde Çevrimiçi Öğretimin Durumu: İhtiyaçlar, Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 1(2), 81–87. Black, L. (2003). Adult and distance education management: An application of the metaphor organizations as organisms. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4). Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Demiray, U. (2007). Orchestrating ethics for distance education and online learning. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Online learning communities (pp. 277–285). Information Age Publishing, Inc. Demiray, U., İnceelli, A., & Candemir, Ö. (2008). 5th Anniversary of OEF: A Review of the Literature on The Open Education Faculty. In Turkey 1982–2007 (A Revised and Expanded the 4th Editon). Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University Publications. Ekici, G. (2003). Uzaktan eğitim ortamlarının seçiminde öğrencilerin öğrenme stillerinin önemi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(24). Ekren, G. (2014). Uzaktan Eğitim Yönetiminde Liderlik Anlayışı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Üniversitesi, Bilişim Enstitüsü. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Türkiye’de eğitim teknolojileri araştırmalarındaki eğilimler: 2000-2009 dönemi makalelerinin içerik analizi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 177–199.

281

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. doi:10.1007/BF02504508 Gürol, M., & Turhan, M. (2005). Yönetim Fonksiyonları Bağlamında Uzaktan Eğitim Yönetimi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 83-89. HEC, Higher Education Council. (2015). YÖK, sağlık alanında lisans tamamlamada “uzaktan eğitim” tartışmalarına açıklık getirdi. Retrieved from http://yok.gov. tr/documents/10279/18433653/YOK_Saglik_Alaninda_Lisans_Tamamlamada_ Uzaktan_Egitim_Tarti%C5%9Fmalarina_Aciklik_Getirdi.pdf/84fcded0-d340-48ee9e6c-2f4193785a2a Hill, M. N. (1998). Staffing A Distance Learning Team: Whom Do You Really Need? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1). Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları. Kesim, E. (2015). The Importance of Distance Education Experts in the Organizational Development Process of Distance Education Institutions: A Theoretical Evaluation. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 73–88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch006 Koçdar, S., & Görü Doğan, T. (2015). Türkiye’deki Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenme Programlarının Bir Analizi: Eğilimler ve Öneriler. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(4), 23–36. Koçdar, S., & Karadag, N. (2015). Identifying and Examining Degree-Granting Programs for Distance Education Experts: A Preliminary Analysis. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation, and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 190–210). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch012 Lee, J. L., & Hirumi, A. (2004). Analysis of essential skills and knowledge for teaching online. In Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, Chicago, IL. Li, S., & Chen, L. (2012). A survey on competency requirements for the key professional roles in distance education in China. Information Technology and Educational Change, 3(3), 101–118.

282

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

McFarlane, D. A. (2011). The Leadership Roles of Distance Learning Administrators (DLAs) in Increasing Educational Value and Quality Perceptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(1). Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning. Muñoz-Carril, P. C., González-Sanmamed, M., & Hernández-Sellés, N. (2013). Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 462–487. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1477 Nworie, J., Haughton, N., & Oprandi, S. (2012). Leadership in distance education: Qualities and qualifications sought by higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 180–199. doi:10.1080/08923647.2012.696396 OSYM. (2016). 2016-ÖSYS Yükseköğretim Programları ve Kontenjanları Kılavuzu, Tablo-3 (Önlisans programları), Tablo-4 (Lisans programları). Retrieved from http://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,12454/2016-osys-yuksekogretim-programlari-vekontenjanlari-kilavuzu.html Özdil, İ. (1986). Uzaktan Öğretimin Evrensel Çerçevesi ve Türk Uzaktan Eğitim Sisteminde Uzaktan Öğretimin Yeri. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları. Özer, B. (1989). Türkiye’de Uzaktan Eğitim: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açık Öğretim Fakültesi’nin Uygulamaları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(3), 3. Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Becit, G., Kılıçer, K., Akbulut, Y., & Yildirim, Y. (2008). Türkiye’deki Eğitim Teknolojisi Araştirmalarinda Güncel Eğilimler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (19), 439-458. Spector, B. (2010). Implementing organizational change: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Thach, E. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Thatch, E., & Murphy, K. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79. doi:10.1007/ BF02300482 Umut, A. L., & Madran, R. O. (2004). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim sistemleri: Sahip olması gereken özellikler ve standartlar. Bilgi Dünyası, 5(2), 259–271. 283

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Usun, S. (2004). Learner Support Services in Distance Education System (A Case Study of Turkey). Online Submission, 5(4). Williams, P. E. (2000). Making informed decisions about staffing and training: Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45–57. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_4

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS AICC (Aviation Industry CBT Committee): It is a standard that apply to the development, delivery, and evaluation of training courses that are delivered via technology. Different from SCORM, it allows content to exist on a separate server and supports secure information transfers with HTTPS. HEC (Higher Education Council): In Turkey, higher education entered the process of restructuring from academic, institutional and administrative direction with the Higher Education Law numbered 2547 in 1981. With this law, all the higher education institutions in Turkey are gathered under the roof of the Higher Education Council (YÖK), and converted into academics universities such as education institutes are connected to education faculties, conservatories and vocational higher schools are connected to universities. IMS (Instructional Management System Project Global Learning Consortium): It is an initiative of EDUCAUSE, started in 1995, and then become a non-profit organization addresses the requirements in a wide range of learning contexts, including higher education, K-12 schools and government training (https:// www.imsglobal.org). Interoperability: It is concerned the LMS components such as protocols, architectures, user’s interfaces, etc. and the interconnection for their access with multiple LMSs. LMS (Learning Management System): A web-based software application platform used to present non-synchronized learning material over the network, and sharing and presenting the existing learning material in different ways, enrolling in lectures, taking assignments, entering exams, providing feedback on these assignments and exams, organizing learning materials, keeping records of student, teacher and system etc. It allows an instructor to create and deliver content, monitor learners’ participation, and assess student performance. 284

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

OEF (Open Education Faculty): It is abbreviation of the “Open Education Faculty” or “Faculty of Open Education” for the English, and also calls in Turkish as “Açıköğretim Fakültesi”. Anadolu University Open Education Faculty is the first instution that gives higher education by distance mode in Turkey. The term “Open education” is using to describe institutional practices and programmatic initiatives that broaden access to the learning and training traditionally offered through formal education systems. The qualifier “open” refers to the elimination of barriers that can preclude both opportunities and recognition for participation in institution-based learning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_education). SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model): It is an e-learning standard developed by Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), which defines a common data model and application program interface (API) for e-learning content. SCORM allows a standardized communication between course content and LMS. Skillsoft: It is an American educational technology company and training provider that produces learning management system software and content.

285

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

APPENDIX In Turkey, there are 65 universities which are providing open and distance education by 2016, their year of starting the distance education and their activities are shown in Table 2. (PS: Numbers of distance education universities are increasing day by day, so this numbers can change.) Table 2. Universities providing distance education in Turkey and their activities Year of Start to DE*

Name of University

Associate Degree

2009

Afyon Kocatepe University

•

2010

Akdeniz University

•

2011

Amasya University

•

1982

Anadolu University

•

2002

Ankara University

•

Bachelor Degree

•

Master Degree

Certification

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

2009

Atatürk University

•

•

2008

Atılım University

•

•

2013

Bahçeşehir University

2009

Balıkesir University

2010

Bartın University

2011

Başkent University

2008

Beykent University

•

2011

Beykoz University

•

2012

Bingöl University

2011

Bitlis Eren University

2011

Bülent Ecevit University

•

•

•

•

• •

Çanakkale 18 March University

•

2014

Çankırı Kara Tekin University

•

2003

Çukurova University

•

Ege University

•

•

2012

2012

•

•

Celal Bayar University

Dicle University

•

•

Cumhuriyet University

Dokuz Eylül University

•

•

2012

2011

Compulsory Joint Courses

•

2009

2010

Bachelor Completion

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• • •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

continued on following page 286

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Table 2. Continued Year of Start to DE*

Name of University

2011

Erzincan University

2012

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

2002

Fırat University

Associate Degree

Bachelor Degree

Master Degree

•

Certification

Bachelor Completion

• •

•

2008

Gazi University

2013

Hacettepe University

•

2016

Hasan Kalyoncu University

•

2011

Işık University

•

Compulsory Joint Courses

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

2009

İnönü University

2011

İstanbul Arel University

•

•

2009

İstanbul Aydın University

2010

İstanbul Bilgi University

•

2013

İstanbul Esenyurt University

•

2011

İstanbul Kültür University

•

2015

İstanbul Medipol University

1996

İstanbul Technical University

2009

İstanbul University

2013

İzmir Economy University

2013

Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University

2016

Vocational School of Cappadocia

2010

Karabük University

•

2010

Karadeniz Technical University

•

2009

Kırıkkale University

•

2005

Kocaeli University

•

2009

Maltepe University

•

2009

Marmara University

•

2002

Mersin University

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

continued on following page 287

Administrative-Related Evaluation for Distance Education Institutions in Turkey

Table 2. Continued Year of Start to DE*

Name of University

Associate Degree

Bachelor Degree

•

Master Degree

Certification

Bachelor Completion

•

•

•

2012

Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University

2013

Namık Kemal University

2013

Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University

•

2009

Okan University

•

•

•

2009

Ondokuz Mayıs University

•

•

•

•

• 1998

Middle East Technical University

2009

Vocational School of Plato

•

2005

Sakarya University

•

2013

Selçuk University

2008

Süleyman Demirel University

2008

Trakya University

2009

Uşak University

2011

Yeni Yüzyıl University

2012

Yıldırım Beyazıt University

2013

Yıldız Teknik University

2014

Yüzüncü Yıl University

288

•

• •

•

• • • •

•

• • •

• • •

• •

•

• Total

* Distance Education

Compulsory Joint Courses

37

11

39

20

• 16

35

289

Chapter 12

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning: Management of Learning and Human Resources Serap Uğur Anadolu University, Turkey Yusuf Levent Şahin Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Many researchers have given priority to the stimulation feature of the games. This concept can be stated to be not only as old as human history but also one of the trend activities. Therefore, many researchers have recently concentrated their attention on the term ‘’gamification’’. This term, which includes using the stimulating components of the games out of the game context, has provided items like badges, grading/scoring systems and leadership tables in the work and learning processes. Mostly, it increases stimulation level in the work and learning processes. When the important potential of gamification has been noticed, the number of gamificationintegrated applications has rapidly increased in both work and learning processes of individuals from various age groups. In this regard, this paper aims to review the literature in order to find out how and where gamification could be used in the management processes of open and distance learning systems.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2645-2.ch012 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

INTRODUCTION Educational computer games and gamification have become prominent as the elements that are widely used in marketing, social platforms and almost in every aspect of the life today. Understanding the difference between applications made through computer games, and gamification applications; it is important for the organizations to be able to accurately determine to use which one of these according to their needs. At this point, it is necessary to define the differences between gamification and computer game applications and to reveal their distinguishing characteristics. The game concept can be briefly described as a complex system in which the player performs a series of rule-based tasks (Dominguez, et al. 2013). According to Gee (2004), these tasks should be designed as loops which help gaining experiences. The tasks to be experienced should be in small pieces and the player should know what he/she is going to encounter after each task, and the emotional needs of the player should be met with items such as trophies, badges, and points. The player’s concerns about his/her success should be kept under control, and the order of the tasks should be adjusted according to the skills of the player (Dominguez, et al. 2013). The game is the sum of the activities reflecting the social lives of the individuals. The javelin, for example, is an adult war game played by Turks for ages (Cited by Yıldırım & Demir, 2014: from Güleç, 1996). Today, there are games played offline or online on a computer. Despite the fact that the general purpose of the computer games is entertainment like in the game javelin, the teaching aspect of the online games should not be disregarded. Adults have been spending their time as much as children to play the games that offer the opportunity to develop oneself in an entertaining way (Yıldırım & Demir, 2014). Based on above arguments it can be proposed that the games are regarded as a tool that can be used in the field of education, following their commercial performances (Mayer, Schustack, & Blanton, 1999). Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell (2002) identified the reasons for the use of computer games in education and training as follows: • • •

Enabling traditional teaching-centered learning activities to turn into a learner centered structure, in which the learners are active, The sources in the literature that reveal the positive results of the studies on the computer games’ as an effective tool in learning the complex subjects, Increasing the motivation of the learners.

Although the game concept has been used for centuries, gamification is a new concept that refers to the use of video game components in the non-gaming environments in order to enhance the user experience and to connect the user to the environment (Bozkurt & Kumtepe, 2014; Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 290

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

2011). The components that are used can be identified as the awards and reputation systems, which include participation points, badges, levels and leaderboards (Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, & Dixon, 2011). According to Zichermann and Linder (2010), gamification is the process and mechanics of game thought to communicate with the audience and solve problems. Although the concept of gamification has long been used, it was first mentioned by Nick Pelling in 2002 (Marczewski, 2013; Park & Bae, 2014). The use of the gamification concept in the documents appeared in 2008, and it became popular in the second half of 2010 with the influence of conferences and the actors (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke, & Dixon, 2011). When defining the gamification in the educational environments; it can be described as using the game techniques, dynamics and game structure in educational environments in order to encourage the individual to achieve the desired behaviors, to increase the motivation of the individual and to maintain his or her commitment to the environment (Deterding et al., 2011; Lee & Hammer, 2011). There are predetermined goals and objectives in gamification and for these goals a story is established. The goals are achieved by using the structural factors such as rules, feedback, interactions, challenges, and outputs (Prensky, 2001; Fiş, Erümit, & Karakus, 2015). With gamification, it is aimed to make the learning process more attractive for learners. With such a learning environment where there are more entertaining activities, learners can be motivated, and thus they can gain a different learning experience (Güler & Güler, 2015). According to Huotari and Hamari (2012), gamification, which is based on the game concept, may have similar effects like the games. Similar to the game process, the environment prepared with gamification has emotional processes about success and failure. In games, players have positive emotions when they accomplish their tasks; and these positive emotions are fed with various awards such as points, trophies or materials. When the player fails, he/she might feel anxious. A low level of anxiety can be accepted, however, for sure, it is not desired to turn into fear. For this reason, the order of the tasks should be arranged in a way that fits the player’s skills (neither too much below, nor too much above) (Dominguez, et al., 2013). The players can be kept in the game also in gamification with the motivation provided by emotional satisfaction and feedback. Werbach and Hunter (2012) developed a three-category model of gamification. The elements of the gamification that constitute these categories are identified as; dynamics, mechanics, and components. They suggested a pyramid regarding the model and positioned the components in the following way: According to this model, game design process begins with the selection of the basic dynamics regarding the needs of gamified process. The mechanics required regarding the selected dynamics are determined and the components are determined 291

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 1. The gamification model and components of Werbach and Hunter

depending on these mechanics. The elements and characteristics that are going to take place in the game according to the model of Werbach and Hunter (2012) are explained below: •

292

Dynamics: They are the highest level of the structure; they take place in almost every kind of game, and are the basic principles that make up the gamification design. The most important game dynamics are: ◦◦ Constraints: It can be expressed as limitations or obligations. They exist in each game and they identify the boundaries/frame of the player’s freedom. ◦◦ Emotions: They are situations such as sadness, joy, curiosity, competitiveness, frustration, and happiness. Feeling of amusement is of particular importance, and pleasure and experience that accompany this feeling are internal reinforcements that ensure continuing the game. ◦◦ Narrative: The game should have a consistent, continuing story in itself. This story might be in an explicit or implicit structure. ◦◦ Progression: It is the dynamic that the player can follow his/her progress and development. It is more meaningful and important to make a progress in the game rather than going into a routine loop for a player and continue doing the same things. ◦◦ Relationships: They are the social interactions that make the player experience some feelings such as friendship, self-sacrifice or competition through communication with the other players.

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

•

•

Mechanics: Mechanics, which are the basic processes that provide player participation and carry the action forward, can direct the player in the desired direction during the game. The most important mechanics are: ◦◦ Challenges: The situations that lead the player make an effort to find a solution. They are the goals to be achieved to win the game or pass the level, with puzzles or other similar duties. ◦◦ Chance: The factor that everything in the game is not realized by skills, instead random elements are included. ◦◦ Competition and Cooperation: Competition is the situation that when a player or a group wins, the others lose; while cooperation is the efforts of the players in achieving the goal together. Both mechanisms are related to the feelings of winning and losing. ◦◦ Feedback: Presenting information about the player’s status in the game. When the player sees his/her situation during the game, his/her desire and ambition for the progress can be stimulated. Giving feedback also helps the player to find strategies about determining to take which action and when to take the determined action in order to win the game. ◦◦ Resource Acquisition: The player’s accumulating certain resources such as useful items within the game in order to be successful in the game. ◦◦ Rewards: They indicate the success of the player. With the rewards such as status, access, power or materials; the player’s desire to win can be increased, and at the same time his/her staying in the game can be provided and his/her motivation can be increased. The frequency of rewarding should be arranged carefully. ◦◦ Transactions: The trade between the players. They can be either directly or through intermediaries. ◦◦ Turns: Allowing to change the players and players’ involvements in turns. ◦◦ Win states: The situations in which a player or group wins, withdraws or loses. Components: They are much more specialized forms than the ones in mechanics or dynamics. The most important game components are listed below: ◦◦ Achievements: The game objectives defined for the player in the game. ◦◦ Avatars: The visuals of the characters that represent the player. ◦◦ Badges: The visual representations created for the achievements of the player in the game. ◦◦ Boss Fights: The challenges and steps that require the player’s overcoming in each level to pass the next. 293

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦

Collections: Collected badges or items. Combat: The combats or battles that are usually fictionalized as short ones. Content Unlocking: The images that are available only when the players reach the goals. In other words; it means that the player accesses a specific content after completing certain conditions in the game. Gifting: The possibility of sharing resources with other players. Giving and taking gifts among the players. Leaderboards: The ranking tables of the players according to their total points/scores. Levels: The steps defined for the progress of the player. They show how good the player is in the game. Points: The means of showing the progress in the game in numbers. Quests: The components that are targeted within the game, similar to the expected achievements. Social Graphs: The gamification components that allow players to view their friends and communicate with them in the game. Teams: The groups of players who come together in the direction of a common goal. Virtual Goods: Items that can be bought with the money used in the game. Also, they can be collected at the end of different tasks in the game.

When gamification design is concerned, adopting an approach including all these elements can enhance the effectiveness and prestige of the design. In the gamification designs that are to be tailored for a specific purpose, selecting the elements according to the requirements can be more productive in terms of planning and implementing the process.

THEORETICAL OR CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDS According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the flow situation, which occurs when the player’s task difficulty is balanced, expresses the state of balance when the individual is able to feel that he/she has the control of the duty that he/she carries it out with a careful effort, and experience the feeling of success with the feedback he/she receives as a result of his/her actions in order to fulfill his/her duty (Hamari, 2012). The rationale behind the effort to use games in teaching is to provide motivation (Kapp, 2012). Keller (1987) has made definitions for the components of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction in the ARCS model of motivation, which is 294

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

one of the models of motivation on which the gamification depends theoretically. The scheme for these components is given in Figure 2. • • • •

Attention: A necessary element for motivation and it is seen as a precondition for learning. It is aimed to ensure the sustainability of attention and draw the attention to the game by responding the needs of the learners for excitement. Relevance: The component which is about the fact that the individual’s career plans and needs are directly related to his/her education. Confidence: Serves for the need of the individual to know that he/she can succeed before starting a job. In order to motivate learning, and support the formation of self-confidence, different tasks should be established. Satisfaction: Ensuring the happiness of the learners at the end of the learning activities. It is expected that the learners should be satisfied without raising the feeling for the learners that a struggle or a stage in the game is controlled. This satisfaction can also be provided with awards (Keller, 1987).

When the benefits of using gamification in education are concerned; it can be regarded that, a solution to the problem of the difficulty for the instructors to attract the attention of the learners and provide their commitment to the learning environment Figure 2. ARCS Model of Motivation

295

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

(Kara and Sevim, 2013), can be produced with the help of gamification (De-Marcos, Domínguez, Saenz-de-Navarrete, and Pagés, 2014). Moreover, the difficulties in considering individual differences in the teaching process have been regarded as one of the reasons for the use of gamification in education (Hanus and Fox, 2015). In order to understand the design of gamification, it is necessary to know which theories are related to this concept and which models should be taken into consideration. Kapp (2010) has detailed the theoretical foundations of the gamification within the learning context in his research. Kapp, who determined the theories that will form the basis of gamification and the influence of these theories on the design of gamification, also mentioned the distributed practice, social learning theory, fluency, episodic memory strength, support, and level concepts. The table of the theories on the basis of the gamification and their effects on the design, formed by Sezgin (2015), from Kapp’s study, is presented below. The ADDIE model and Scrum model can be utilized in the planning and production stages for gamification design (Kapp, 2012). Burguillo (2010) and Huang (2011) have especially emphasized the use of motivation theories in gamification. Hence, Garris, Ahlers and Driskell (2002) have pointed out that the high entertainment value that games provide supports this fact. Karataş (2014) has examined the use of gamification for educational purposes and has revealed the theories related to gamification. The results of this study are given in Table 2. Under the light of this information, it can be proposed that many theories can be taken as basis for gamification applications. Gamification drew much attention and gained a wide interest in many fields. It can be seen that gamification is applied to many fields. TheFunProject by Volkswagen, Foursquare, and Nike Plus can be given as successful gamification examples. When the literature is reviewed, it is possible to reach studies conducted in many different fields from health to logistics management, from marketing to medical services, from children to adult education. With a number of different researches done in the world and Turkey, the answers that were sought to the questions regarding the usability of the gamification applications in these fields were as; how they will be used, in what dimensions they will be used, what can be done, and if they are applicable. The use of the gamification applications in the field of education is increasing day by day. A paper reviewed the research studies conducted in the field of gamification and education in 2014. In this study, using the keywords “gamification” and “learning” without year limitation, fulltext articles were scanned in Turkish and English. Sixty-two studies were found to be related to the purpose of the research and they were systematically examined. It was concluded that more research studies have been done in recent years. Most of the examined studies have been conducted with undergraduate students, and it was seen that they focused on the information and communication technologies as a learning field on which they preferred to 296

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Table 1. Theories and their effects on gamification Theory

Its Effect on the Design of Gamification

Social Learning Theory

The learner observes the desired behavior on the model and evaluates the desired behavior internally.

Cognitive Apprenticeship

The structure and environment should be authentic, providing guidance and feedback to learning activity.

Fluency

The learner’s interest must be kept constantly at a certain level. The system should be able to adapt itself to the level of the learner; it must be neither very difficult nor very easy.

Operant Conditioning

Appropriate rewards, points and badges must be provided to maintain the interest of the learner.

ARCS Motivation Theory

The attention of the learner should be drawn, the relevant information should be included and appropriate struggle levels should be targeted. In this way, the learners will be confident that they will succeed and the internal-external motivational elements will be provided.

Malone’s Intrinsically Motivating Instruction Theory

It includes challenges, fantasy and curiosity.

Lepper ‘s Instructional Design Principles for Internal Motivation

It involves learning control, challenging, curiosity, and handling the subject together with other elements.

Intrinsic Motivation Taxonomy for Learning

It includes internal and external motivational elements such as challenge, curiosity, control, fantasy, cooperation, competition and perception.

Autonomy Theory

It offers opportunities for learners such as autonomy, sense of competition and to be connected with others.

Distributed Practice

It is enabled to repeat the contents in the game by playing again in time.

Learning Support

At the beginning, intensive guidance is provided. Over time, this continues to decline until the learners are able to solve the problems by themselves.

Episodic Memory

The feelings regarding the lessons inside the game are reminded to the learner.

Table 2. Distribution of learning/game theory/model/strategy Learning/Game Theory/Model/Strategy

n

%

Motivation Theory

8

18.61

Self-Determination Theory

4

9.3

Game Design Factors (GDF)

2

4.65

Key Characteristics of a Learning Game (KCLG)

2

4.65

MDA (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics)

2

4.65

Flow Theory

2

4.65

The Fogg Behaviour Model (FBM)

2

4.65

Other

21

48.93

Total

43

100

297

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

study. It is also reported that the influence of gamified learning environment on the academic achievement/performance is mostly investigated. Additionally, it was revealed that the most used game components were badges and points, and also the studies mostly focused on the motivation theories (Karataş, 2014). The Khan Academy can be seen as one of the educational examples of gamification. The Khan Academy is an environment which includes world-wide used free course materials and resources (Simões, Redondo & Vilas, 2013). The elements such as points, badges, participation in learning assignments, progress of statistics tracked by completing learning tasks, and gamification elements are used as feedback for learners in the online learning environment. According to the opinions of the learners who took lessons at Khan Academy, these notifications had become a source of motivation for them (Light & Pierson, 2014). Participants who learn in this environment could collect the points as long as they participate in learning activities in order to achieve the objectives presented, and they could open different avatar locks in return to scores or they can have the right to customize their avatars (Light & Pierson, 2014). It can be used in order to efficiently utilize human resources in management processes, and it can be included in the services offered. It is also possible to use the teaching material prepared with the help of gamification as a content type, as well as a gamification design can be created regarding the use of the learning management system. In this chapter; in addition to recommendations for applications will be made by focusing on the topics of what can be done by using gamification and how to apply them in open and distance learning services, gamification in the management processes of open and distance learning.

USING GAMIFICATION IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING Systems such as learning management, online meeting and course presentation tools, video and media pooling systems, online library services, student information, single password management services, portal pages, load distributors and database systems are examples of infrastructure components of open and distance learning services (Süral, 2015). Learning Management Systems can be perceived as a possible environments that can be gamified. Learning management systems enable the management of the educational content and therefore has an important role in the implementation of open and distance learning activities. The purpose of the learning management system, which is an integrated system that enables the learning and teaching processes to be individualized, learners and teachers’ monitoring; can be identified as facilitating the e-learning activities and realizing them in a more 298

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

systematic and planned manner (Paulsen, 2002; Duran, Önal, Kurtuluş, 2006, Altıparmak, Kurt, Kapıdere, 2011). As the learning activities can be evaluated through learning management systems, they facilitate continuous improvement of the learning type. At the same time, since the processes that the learners carry out can be tracked with the help of the learning management systems, learning individuals can be aided when necessary (Duran, Önal, Kurtuluş, 2006, Altıparmak, Kurt, Kapıdere, 2011). In learning management systems; content presentation, interaction environment, exam and homework practices can be served for the learners. Simultaneously, every activity of all the teachers and learners in the system can be recorded and reported. Learning management systems provide functions such as presentation of learning materials, sharing the presented learning material and creating discussions on the material, course/class catalogue management, giving and collecting the tasks, organizing online exams and examining learners online, providing feedback on assignments and exams, organizing the learning materials, keeping the student, teacher and system records and creating reports (Paulsen, 2002). Today, when the software providing LMS services are considered, it can be noticed that gamification elements have started to take part in. For example, the software named Talent LMS allows users to rate every entry of users into the system, each completed course material and test, and each discussion participated (Elearning Industry, 2016). Talent LMS also uses the badge method for operations such as activities, learning activities, and survey participation. In this system, gamification is designed to encourage the learners’ use of the system. Regarding the frequency of the system use and the level of the completed tasks, the users skip levels, and thus some features that are locked in the Talent LMS become active. At the same time, a leaderboard is formed within the Talent LMS, and learners who meet the leadership criteria can see their progress in the table. The learners can also monitor their status among the general users in the system with this gamification feature presented inside Talent LMS. These scoring criteria, grades and leadership criteria can be arranged in the way that the tutors determine. As learners reach the stages determined in the scope of gamification according to their Talent LMS use, they are rewarded and therefore their motivations increase. Growth Engineering, another learning management system, uses a leadership system and has an additional level system designed in line with the learning objectives. In Growth Engineering, goals for classes or lessons can be determined and these goals can be scored.

299

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 3. LMS scoring criteria options menu

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

Figure 4. Badge characteristics

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

Figure 5. Level characteristics

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

300

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 6. Leaderboard characteristics

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

Figure 7. Game elements

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

Figure 8. Scoreboard screen

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

301

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 9. Reward criteria

(https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms)

Figure 10. Growth engineering platforms

(http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/gamification/)

Figure 11. Growth Engineering gamification elements (http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/gamification/)

Figure 12. Gamification elements

(http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/gamification/)

302

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

It is also expected by determining the roles that the learners will perform the learning activities within these roles. In addition, the “personal growth plan” section, where learners can track themselves, is also a feature of this LMS, and this feature is one of the performance management center characteristics of the LMS. This center is also designed with integration of gamification elements. The software named Accord LMS cooperates with a social technology company and offers a system, which is integrated with gamification to its users. This LMS also includes reporting features such as scoring, badge system, leveling, as well as a reporting system for the instructor. Axonify, which includes features such as rating, badge system, leveling, and rewards; also entails real games, unlike other LMSs. For example, games are triggered by designated game actions and the progressing feature in the question-and-answer style is available in this system. With the Blackboard LMS, learners can be rewarded with a certificate or badge after realizing the achievements that the instructor has determined. Badges can be shared on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Wordpress. In addition, contributions made by the users who participate in the discussion environments are rated. These numbers are converted into points and the users are placed on leaderboards and the ones with the highest rates can be rewarded with badges (Glover, 2013). It can be concluded that many learning management systems are currently in use and they contain gamification elements. When these systems are examined, starting from the data to be gained about the gamification elements used in learning management systems, it can be stated that gamification can be applied in a learning Figure 13. Accord LMS platforms

(https://www.accordlms.com/)

303

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 14. Axonify mobile application screen

(http://www.axonify.com/resources/gamification-enterprise-learning-strategy/)

management system by including the elements of rating, badge system, leveling, leaderboard and rewarding. The use of gamification is not limited to learning management systems. In fact, there are various software that can be used in the production of course materials with gamification elements. With Classroom Dojo, a virtual class can be created and the learners can be evaluated according to their behaviors. Since there is parental tracking feature in this application, it will be more appropriate to consider it in the 304

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 15. Blackboard LMS platforms

(http://www.blackboard.com/learning-management-system/blackboard-learn.aspx)

Figure 16. The gamification elements used in LMSs

first and middle school stages. Virtual classroom applications, which can be used by being integrated into the learning management system, might be considered as a type of participation that can be included in the scoring when gamification is being designed. For example; in a gamification set up where the existing class materials are used; while participating in the synchronous virtual class sessions brings a full score, watching the course record can also be considered as an activity to be evaluated on half points. Content to be prepared with interactive videos is also a type of content that can be considered within the scope of gamification applications. Similar course materials can be used as components to be evaluated in the gamification of the content services. Thus, learners can progress through the 305

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

system by taking points with their use of each of the course materials, get a rank at the end of each material, enter the ranking list, and be placed in the high rows of the leaderboard. A student who completes the course materials presented in the LMS can progress by accepting his/her new task at the end of each material, and rewards can be presented as the level increases. In addition, software such as DNS Eros and PlayGen can be used in the production of course materials which are planned to be formed within the scope of gamification. This software and the companies also support the designs for gamification. Gamification applications can also be used as a class material. Hence, when the literature is reviewed, it can be realized that applications containing gamification elements are developed and presented for use as contents. For example, with Microsoft Ribbon Hero, which was first released into the market in 2010 (the second version was released to the market in April 2011), a series of tasks at different levels were assigned to the users to teach the MS Office program. Initially, all users were assigned the same task, however, the tasks were customized in the process, taking the features which the user used in the MS Office program into consideration (Kim,

Figure 17. SoruKüp gamification application

306

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

2013). Each task corresponded to a specific score, and feedback was given to the users, who performed the tasks. The items such as how the tasks were carried out and how many points were taken were allowed to be shared via Facebook. In addition, the individual had the opportunity to compare his or her score with the other users via the leaderboard. An open task list for each level was available. It can be expressed that, the training is gamificated in this application by using scoring, leaderboard and specialized tasks (Yıldırım & Demir, 2014; Çağlar & Kocadere, 2015; Wikipedia, 2016). Another open and distance learning component in which the gamification method is in use is the contents. It can be assumed that presenting the contents via gamification, particularly in distance learning activities for teachers and learners in independent environments, will positively affect participation in the courses. The SoruKüp application of Anadolu University is a gamification application that includes the elements such as rating, badge system, ranking, levels, and leaderboard. In this application, which is designed as an information contest, learners try to get the highest scores by responding to the questions belonging to random courses in four-person tables in the fastest way and reiterate what they have learned while playing games. They try to get higher ranks by reaching a higher place in the leaderboard by getting high scores. The application also possesses the rewarding feature.

GAMIFICATION IN MANAGEMENT PROCESSES There are many different dimensions to be addressed within open and distance learning management processes. In this regard, this section will include suggestions for the use of gamification elements in the management process of open and distance learning. Gamification in management processes can be considered as an application that can be used to regulate activities that will determine performance criteria and increase productivity. In particular, performance metrics used in the businesses refer to informing the user about the current status of the business and taking appropriate actions in controlling, planning and implementing. In addition, performance measures enable both worker and management performances to be assessed in terms of the appropriate awards (wage increase, bonus, promotion, and recognition) for a well done job (Dhavale, 1996). Additionally, the most popular approach used to provide continuous improvement in a business unit is the continuous improvement method offered by Deming. In this method, there are cycle steps that are defined as plan, do, check and act (Deming, 1986). It is stated that, establishment of effective performance measures to ensure continuous improvement has a close relationship with the measurement of activities and the priorities and objectives of the business activity system (Lynch & Cross, 1995). 307

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

When management theories are concerned; Weber’s bureaucracy approach can be seen as matching the elements such as assignment, leveling, leadership charts used in gamification. In this approach authority and responsibilities are determined, tasks and duties are pre-defined and programmed, there are written rules, and specialization in authority and duties are required. Hawthorne’s theory (Sahin, 2004), in which gaining the love and respect of colleagues and being in good relations with them is significantly important, nonmonetary rewards and penalties are as important as salaries and in which staff responds to organizational standards according to group perception, rather than as an individual (Şahin, 2004), can also match the elements of gamification such as respectability, ranking, and leveling. Within the framework of the Learning Organization theory (Turan, Karadağ & Bektaş, 2011), where teamwork is included, each individual’s opinion is valuable and shared expectations are freed, gamification practices can be developed within the scope of team work. And also the Total Quality Management (Özdemir, 2002) structure, which is a people-oriented management approach in which decision-making authority is distributed, requiring leaders to be active and working with a professional quality team; can be carried out by being arranged with gamification elements.

Figure 18. Weber’s theorem and gamification elements

308

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 19. Hawthorne’s researches and gamification elements

Figure 20. Learning organization and gamification elements

309

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 21. Total quality management and gamification elements

These theories and their elements that match gamification are given in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6. It is considered that these theories and structures frequently used in not only management of education but also management of businesses can be utilized in the management processes of open and distance learning, too. It is supposed that the productivity of human resources can be increased by gamification applications which can be utilized as performance evaluation system in the organization and processes of education and training activities in open and distance learning. For example, instructors can be evaluated by the administrators and by their learners and teammates in terms of their duties and thus they can obtain points. In addition, according to the type of the contribution they make, for example, instructors who support the production of course materials or content of the courses can be scored according to the quality of the content, and preparation and delivery time. The assignment of new duties in the system based on their total scores or rewarding them with a certificate might be a practice that will increase the motivations of the instructors. The second dimension of gamification can be utilized through implementing a badges system for the evaluation of the academicians who produce course content for the open and distance learning system over the content they have produced. In addition, practices such as rewarding can also increase their work motivation and the desire to work. 310

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Figure 22. The dimensions in the management of open and distant learning

Important dimensions in open and distance learning management can be listed as: accessibility, flexibility, student learning, education and training, and accreditation. These dimensions are also parts of a cycle at the same time (Şahin, 2016). Within a holistic perspective, it can be suggested that Open and Distance Learning is an organizational structure (Moore & Kearsley, 2012). Such an organizational structure, gamification applications can be used to maximize human resources utilization and to increase the performance in the most efficient way. In addition, the performance evaluation criteria for the task units in the system, such as administrative staff, production teams, personnel communicating with the student individually -public relations personnel, support staff, technical support staff, office staff, can be organized as game steps and badge systems, levels, leaderboard, and rewards can be utilized. In addition, end of tasks and level jump elements such as new tasks and promotions, can be specified. It is anticipated that, in the decision making processes in the context of the management of open and distance learning, gamification applications can be utilized in education planning, organization and communication, coordination and leadership, as well as evaluation processes. The contribution to the field of the studies and researches related to this, which will be carried out in the future, will be in an undeniable level. 311

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The popularity of gamification has been increasing day by day and its effects and benefits have been searched by the researches in various fields such as business, marketing, health, and education. Therefore, it is considered that gamification can be utilized also in the management processes of open and distance education. It can be proposed that, gamification, which will be designed by considering the performance criteria with Weber’s bureaucracy theory, Hawthorne’s researches, Learning Organization and Total Quality Management theories and additionally by identifying the appropriate elements for the goals to be achieved within these criteria; will have positive effects on managers and employees in the management processes of open and distance learning. It is noticed that there is a need for research on the implementation of gamification applications and the effects of these applications. These studies can be designed with the purpose of benefiting from the human resources efficiently, increasing the motivation of the employees, performance tracking, and increasing the quality of services that are offered to the learners. Gamification applications, which are widely used from child to adult education, can also be used for open and distance learning by taking the profiles of the learners in the system into consideration. There are a number of theories such as ARCS motivation theory, self-determination theory, social learning theory, cognitive apprenticeship, which can be applied for these purposes. The preparation and use of the content designed with gamification as a class material in open and distance learning is also one of the critical issues. When the literature is reviewed, especially scoring, badging, leveling, leaderboard, tasks and rewards appear to be the more prominent elements to utilized in the open and distance learning system. There are certain issues playing an important role in fulfilling the need for research and implementations in this field. These issues can be stated as conducting research studies with the experiments about the developed or to-be-developed applications, exploration of the use of each element in the gamification process, collecting the academicians’ and learners’ views on gamification application, and investigating the effects of these applications on learning achievements.

312

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

REFERENCES Altıparmak, M., Kurt, İ. D., & Kapıdere, M. (2011). E-öğrenme ve uzaktan eğitimde açık kaynak kodlu öğrenme yönetim sistemleri. XI. Malatya: Akademik Bilişim Kongresi. Anadolu. (2016). Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi. Retrieved from https:// www.anadolu.edu.tr/acikogretim/acikogretim-fakulteler/2/acikogretim-fakultesi/ genel-bilgi. 08.01.2017. Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013, October). Improving participation and learning with gamification. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on gameful design, research, and applications (pp. 10-17). ACM. Bayırtepe, E., & Tüzün, H. (2007). Oyun-Tabanlı Öğrenme Ortamlarının Öğrencilerin Bilgisayar Dersindeki Başarıları ve Öz-Yeterlik Algıları Üzerine Etkileri. Retrieved from http://mimoza.marmara.edu.tr/~esad.esgin/EBOT/documents/makale2.pdf Bottino, R. M., Ferlino, L., Ott, M., & Travella, M. (2006). Developing strategic and reasoning abilities with computer games at primary school level. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1272–1286. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.003 Bozkurt, A., & Genç-Kumtepe, E. (2014). Oyunlaştırma, Oyun Felsefesi ve Eğitim: Gamification. Akademik Bilişim 2014 (pp. 155-164). Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin. Çağlar, Ş., & Kocadere, S. A. (2015). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarinda Oyunlaştirma. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 14(27). Cugelman, B. (2013). Gamification: What it is and why it matters to digital health behavior change developers. JMIR Serious Games, 1(1), e3. doi:10.2196/games.3139 PMID:25658754 De-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers & Education, 75, 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012 Deming, E. (1986). Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Demirel, Ö., Seferoğlu, S., & Yağcı, E. (2003). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme (4. basım). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments.

313

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings. ACM. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 2425-2428. Dhavale, D. G. (1996). Performance Measures For Cell Manufacturing and Focused Factory Systems. Journal of Cost Management, 10(1), 59–70. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2012.12.020 Duran, N., Önal, A., & Kurtuluş, C. (2006). E-Öğrenme Ve Kurumsal Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşim Öğrenim Yönetim Sistemleri. Akademik Bilişim 2006. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ab06/bildiri/165.pdf Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026 Elearning Industry. (2016). Gamification and The LMS: The Case Of TalentLMS LMS. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-andlms-case-talentlms Fiş Erümit, S., & Karakuş, T. (2015). Eğitim Ortamlarında Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Oyunlaştırma. Eğitim Teknolojileri Okumaları 2015 (pp. 395-414). TOJET - Sakarya Üniversitesi. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607 Gawley, R., Morrow, C., Chan, H., & Lindsay, R. (2016). BitRun: Gamification of Health Data from Fitbit® Activity Trackers. International Conference on IoT Technologies for HealthCare (pp. 77-82). Springer.

314

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Digital Education Review, (8), 15-23. Retrieved from http://www.raco.cat/index.php/IEM/article/ download/204239/272773 Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Güler, C., & Güler, E. (2015). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Oyunlaştırma: Rozet Kullanımı. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(3). Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–245. doi:10.1016/j. elerap.2013.01.004 Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2014.08.019 Herzig, P., Strahringer, S., & Ameling, M. (2012). Gamification of ERP systemsExploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs. In Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 793–804). Braunschweig: GITO. Hsu, S. H., Chang, J. W., & Lee, C. C. (2013). Designing attractive gamification features for collaborative storytelling websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 428–435. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0492 PMID:23438264 Huang, W. H. (2011). Evaluating learners motivational and cognitive processing in an online game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 694–704. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.021 Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17-22). ACM. doi:10.1145/2393132.2393137 Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., & Kim, S. H. (2012) Gamification: A new paradigm for online user engagement. 33rd Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems, 4, 3573–3582. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons. 315

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Karaarslan, M. H., & Altuntaş, B. (2016). Türkiye’deki Seçilmiş Pazarlama Vakalarının Oyunlaştırma Kavramı Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(17). Karataş, E. (2014). Eğitimde Oyunlaştırma: Araştırma Eğilimleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 315–333. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10. Kim, J. T., & Lee, W. H. (2013). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–11. Kim, S. (2013). Recent advances in gamification application. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 5(13), 93. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2014.03.007 Korn, O. (2012, June). Industrial playgrounds: how gamification helps to enrich work for elderly or impaired persons in production. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (pp. 313-316). ACM. doi:10.1145/2305484.2305539 Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146. Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2014). Increasing Student Engagement in Math: The use of Khan Academy in Chilean Classrooms. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 10(2), 103-119. Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1995). Measure up! How to Measure Corporate Performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 256-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A simple introduction. Andrzej Marczewski. Mayer, R. E., Schustack, M. W., & Blanton, W. E. (1999). What Do Children Learn from Using Computers in an Informal, Collaborative Setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27–31. 316

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

McCallum, S. (2012). Gamification and serious games for personalized health. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 177, 85–96. PMID:22942036 Miller, A. S., Cafazzo, J. A., & Seto, E. (2016). A game plan: Gamification design principles in mHealth applications for chronic disease management. Health Informatics Journal, 22(2), 184–193. doi:10.1177/1460458214537511 PMID:24986104 Muntean, C. I. (2011, October). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, 323-329. Özdemir, S. (2002). Eğitimde toplam kalite yönetimi. Kırgızistan-Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 253–270. Park, H. J., & Bae, J. H. (2014). Study and Research of Gamification Design. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 8(8), 19–28. Paulsen, M. F. (2002). Online Education Systems: Discussion and definition of terms. NKI Distance Education, 202. ISO 690. Retrieved from https://www.porto.ucp.pt/ open/curso/modulos/doc/Definition%20of%20Terms.pdf. 3.11.2016. Pereira, P., Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., & Noriega, P. (2014). A review of gamification for health-related contexts. International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability (pp. 742-753). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/9783-319-07626-3_70 Şahin, A. (2004). Yönetim Kuramları ve Motivasyon İlişkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (11), 523-547. Şahin, B. (2016). Uzaktan Eğitimin Yönetimi. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/ wn996vrqgneu/copy-of-uzaktan-egitimin-yonetimi/ Sezgin, S. (2015). Öğrenme ve öğretimin oyunlaştırılması: Çalışma ve eğitim için oyun tabanlı yöntem ve stratejiler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 187–197. Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007 Süral, İ. (2015). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede teknolojik altyapının oluşturulması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi AUAd, 1(4), 81–95. Thefuntheoary. (2016). The Fun Theory. Retrieved from http://www.thefuntheory.com

317

Using Gamification in Open and Distance Learning

Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012, February). Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1067-1070). ACM. Turan, S., Karadağ, E., & Bektaş, F. (2011). Üniversite yapısı içerisinde öğrenen örgüt ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 17(4), 627–638. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press. Wikipedia. (2016). Ribbon hero. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ribbon_Hero Yıldırım, İ., & Demir, S. (2014). Gamification and education Oyunlaştırma ve eğitim. Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 655–670. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2765 Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: inspire customer loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. John Wiley & Sons.

KEY TERM AND DEFINITIONS Administration: The activity of running Open and Distance Learning processes. Distance Education: Education of learners that are separated in time and space. Game Based Learning (GBL): A type of game play that has defined learning outcomes. Gamification: The application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts. Human Resources: The personnel of a business or organization, regarded as a significant asset in terms of skills and abilities in Open and Distance Learning. Management in Open and Distance Learning: The process of dealing with issues in Open and Distance Learning. Open and Distance Learning: A general term for the use of distance education with a special emphasis to lifelong learning and openness in education.

318

319

Compilation of References

Açıkalın, A. (1995). Toplumsal Kurumsal ve Teknik Yönleriyle Okul Yöneticiliği. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları. Adam, S., & Nel, D. (2009). Blended and online learning: Student perceptions and performance. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), 140–155. doi:10.1108/17415650911005366 Aderinoye, R., & Siaciwena, R. (2008). Trends and Issues in Open and Distance Learning in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/miscfiles/call_for_papers_africa.html Aderinoye, R., & Ojokheta, K. (2004). Open Distance Education as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development: Reflections on the Nigerian Experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 5(1), 1–13. Adomi, E. E. (2005). Internet Development and Connectivity in Nigeria. Department of Library and Information Science, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www. emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/ Articles/2800390306.html Ağaoğlu, E., Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K., & Karaöse, T. (2012). Okul yöneticilerinin yeterliklerine ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri (Kütahya İli). Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164). Ahmed, A. (2004). Making Technology Work for the Poor: Strategies and Policies for African Sustainable Development. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4(1), 1–17. Ahmed, A., & Nwagwu, W. E. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities of E-learning Networks in Africa. Development, 49(2), 86–92. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100250 Akça Üstündag, D. (2009). Türkiye’de bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri alanında yapılan yüksek lisans tezlerinin içerik ve yöntem açısından değerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış lisans tezi. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Üniversitesi Bilişim Enstitüsü. Aker, J. C., & Mbiti, I. M. (2010). Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa. In CGD Working Paper 211. Washington, DC: Centre for Global Development. doi:10.1257/jep.24.3.207 Akıncı, G. M. (2006). Evrensel tasarım yaklaşımı: Bayburt üniversitesi örneği. Tasarım+Kuram Dergisi, 10(17), 16-26.

Compilation of References

Akyol, E. (2009). Endustriyel tasarım eğitiminde evrensel tasarım algısı (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskisehir. Albretchtsen, K., Mariger, H., & Parker, C. (2001). Distance Education and the Impact of Technology in Europe and Japan. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3). Al-Hayaly, M. A. M. S., & Alnajjar, F. J. S. (2016). Knowledge management processes and their impact on organizational performance, the adoption balanced scorecard: The moderating role of quality assurance standards—An applied study on private Jordanian universities. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(6), 70–86. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n6p70 Ali, A., & Abdelfettah, B. (2016). An overview on stakeholder theory perspective: Towards managing stakeholder expectation. International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 3(3), 40–53. Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. 2nd International Conference on Humanities, Historical and Social Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr. com/vol17/14-CHHSS%202011-H00057.pdf All-Africa Ministers’ Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education (AAMCOLDE). (2004). Status of Open Learning and Distance Education in Africa. Retrieved from http://www. africaodl.org/conference/odl.htm Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3 Alper, A., & Gülbahar, Y. (2009). Trends and issues in educational technologies: A review of recent research in TOJET. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 124–135. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/ Documents/trends-global-higher-education-2009-world-conference-en.pdf Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. Altıparmak, M., Kurt, İ. D., & Kapıdere, M. (2011). E-öğrenme ve uzaktan eğitimde açık kaynak kodlu öğrenme yönetim sistemleri. XI. Malatya: Akademik Bilişim Kongresi. Amaral, A., & Magalhaes, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1

320

Compilation of References

Anadolu. (2016). Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://www.anadolu. edu.tr/acikogretim/acikogretim-fakulteler/2/acikogretim-fakultesi/genel-bilgi. 08.01.2017. Anderson, W. (2013). Independent learning: Autonomy, control, and meta-cognition. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.; pp. 86–103). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch6 Aquinas, P. G. (2008). Organization Structure and Design: Applications and Challenges. New Delhi, India: Excel Books. Arabasz, P., & Baker, M. B. (2003). Evolving Campus Support Models for E-learning Courses. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research (ECAR). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/ library/pdf/ers0303/ekf0303.pdf Araujo, N., Wilson, R., & Clarke, B. (2015). Student engagement for employability: A Belonging Project case study. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA 2015), (pp. 1-14). Melbourne, Australia: Academic Press. Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2010). Why does college cost so much? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744503.001.0001 ASEM LLL. (2014). Open Educational Resources in Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from: http:// asemlllhub.org/fileadmin/www.asem.au.dk/publications/e-ASEM_OER_2014.pdf Ateş, M. F. (2002). Hizmetkâr Liderlik Ve Örgütsel Adaletin Örgütsel Özdeşleşmeye Etkisinde Örgütsel Güvenin Aracılık Rolü. Bildiriler Kitabı, 647. Athabasca University. (2016). History. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca/aboutau/history/ Avcı, U., & Topaloğlu, C. (2009). Hiyerarşik Kademelere Göre Liderlik Davranışlarını Algılama Farklılıkları: Otel Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. KMU İİBF Dergisi, 11(16), 1–20. Aydemir, M., Celik, E., Bingol, I., Cakmak-Karapinar, D., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2016). İnternet üzerinden herkese açık kurs (İHAK) sağlama deneyimi: AtademiX. Acikogretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 52–74. Aydın, C. Ç., & Biroğul, S. (2008). E-öğrenmede açık kaynak kodlu öğretim yönetim sistemleri ve Moodle. International Journal of Informatics Technologies, 1(2). Aydın, C. H. (2011). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme: öğrenci adaylarının bakış açısı. Ankara: İşkur Matbaacılık. Aydın, M. (2000). Eğitim Yönetimi. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi. Balch, T. (2013). About MOOC completion rates: The importance of student investment. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://augmentedtrader.com/2013/01/06/about-mooc-completionrates-the-importance-of-investment/

321

Compilation of References

Banks, F., Moon, B., & Wolfenden, F. (2009). New Modes of Communication Technologies and the Reform of Open and Distance Learning Programmes: A response to the Global crisis in Teacher Education and training. 23rd ICDE World Conference on Open and Distance Learning, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010 Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013, October). Improving participation and learning with gamification. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on gameful design, research, and applications (pp. 10-17). ACM. Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., Havel, A., & Fichten, C. S. (2012). Universal design of instruction: A winwin situation! Pédagogie Collégiale, 25(4), 20–22. Retrieved from http://www.adaptech. org/sites/default/files/Barile-Vol_25-4(eng).pdf Barker, T. (2005). Blended Learning. Retrieved from http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqtb/ blended%20learning01.pdf Barnes, C. (2012). Understanding the social model of disability. In Routledge handbook of disability studies. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Barnett, R. (2011). The coming of the ecological university. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 439–455. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.595550 Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138–145. PMID:10106795 Başaran, İ. E. (2004). Yönetimde İnsan İlişkileri. (3.Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15. doi:10.1177/004005991304500401 Bates, T. (2012). California State University partners with Pearson for system-wide online program. Retrieved February 14, 2013 from http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/22/californiastate-university-partners-with-pearson-for-system-wide-online-program/ Bates, A. W. (1990). Audio cassettes in the British Open University. In Media and Technology in European Distance Education. EADTU. Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, Open learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge. Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 351–366. doi:10.2307/2708933 Battal, N., & Sahan, H. (2002). Balıkesir Üniversitesi Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesinde düzenlenen yönetici eğitimi kursunun değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(7), 22–33.

322

Compilation of References

Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2012). Trends in college pricing. New York, NY: College Board. Bayırtepe, E., & Tüzün, H. (2007). Oyun-Tabanlı Öğrenme Ortamlarının Öğrencilerin Bilgisayar Dersindeki Başarıları ve Öz-Yeterlik Algıları Üzerine Etkileri. Retrieved from http://mimoza. marmara.edu.tr/~esad.esgin/EBOT/documents/makale2.pdf Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course (MOOC): The UK view. London: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/elt/the_pedagogy_of_the_MOOC_UK_view Baysal, C., & Tekarslan, E. (1998). Davranış Bilimleri. İstanbul: Dönence Basım ve Yayın Hizmetleri. Belawati, T., & Zuhairi, A. (2007). The practice of a quality assurance system in open and distance learning: A case study at Universitas Terbuka Indonesia (The Indonesia Open University). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1), 1–15. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v8i1.340 Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating New Technologies to Foster Student Interaction and Collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498 Bell, D. (2013). Funding higher education in the great recession: An international perspective. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in academia: Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 184–196). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. doi:10.4337/9781781001820.00019 Belleflamme, P., & Jacqmin, J. (2015). An economic appraisal of MOOC platforms: Business models and impacts on higher education. CESifo Economic Studies Advance Access, 2015, 1–22. doi:10.1093/cesifo/ifv016 Belshaw, D. (2011). What is ‘digital literacy’? A pragmatic invesigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University, UK. Beneke, S. J., & Ostrosky, M. (2013). The potential of the project approach to support diverse learners. Young Children, 68(3), 23–28. Bennett, L., & Hempsall, K. (2010). A report on the ‘leading excellence – application of the engaging leadership framework (ELF) to new higher education sites and contexts’ project. Sydney: Australian and Learning Teaching Council. Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 27(1), 71–79. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80008-X Berge, Z., & Muilenburg, L. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers and administrators: Results of a survey. In M. Clay (Ed.), Distance learning administration annual. Academic Press.

323

Compilation of References

Bergen. (2005). The European higher education area - achieving the goals: Communiqué of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/ documents/MDC/050520_Bergen_Communique1.pdf Berger, J., & Van Thanh, D. (2004). Leading organizations for universal design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 124–134. doi:10.1080/10665680490453959 Bharuthram, S., & Kies, C. (2013). Introducing e-learning in a South African higher education institution: Challenges arising from an intervention and possible responses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 410–420. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01307.x Bilgiç, H. G., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimde Çevrimiçi Öğretimin Durumu: İhtiyaçlar, Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 1(2), 81–87. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bjørn, F., & Stein, K. (2007). A Rural-Urban Digital Divide? Regional Aspects of Internet Use in Tanzania. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries. Black, L. (2003). Adult and distance education management: An application of the metaphor organizations as organisms. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4). Blöndal, S., Field, S., & Girouard, N. (2002). Investment in human capital through post-compulsory education and training: Selected efficiency and equity aspects. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economics Department Working Paper No. 333. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2006). Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa. Human Development Sector Africa Region. Harvard University. Blum, C., & Parette, H. P. (2015). Universal design for learning and technology in the early childhood classroom. In Young Children and Families in the Information Age (pp. 165–182). Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9184-7_10 Boggs, C. (1976). Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press. Bokova, I. (2016, November 2nd). UNESCO: Education needs to change fundamentally to meet global development goals. Today Newspaper. Bologna Declaration. (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_ doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF

324

Compilation of References

Bolton, P. (2013). HE in England from 2012: Funding and finance. London, UK: House of Commons Library. Boltuc, P. (2008). Global learning through collaboration. Formamente, Rivista Internationale di Ricerca sul Futuro Digitale GUIDE Association. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http:// formamente.unimarconi.it/extra/09_Boltuc.pdf Bottino, R. M., Ferlino, L., Ott, M., & Travella, M. (2006). Developing strategic and reasoning abilities with computer games at primary school level. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1272–1286. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.003 Bowen, W. G. (2012). The ‘cost disease’ in higher education: Is technology the answer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Bozkurt, A., & Genç-Kumtepe, E. (2014). Oyunlaştırma, Oyun Felsefesi ve Eğitim: Gamification. Akademik Bilişim 2014 (pp. 155-164). Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin. Bozkurt, A. (2015). Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi dersler (Massive Online Open Courses - MOOCs) ve sayısal bilgi çağında yaşamboyu öğrenme fırsatı. AUAd, 1(1), 56–81. Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., & Aydin, H. C. et al. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009-2013. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v16i1.1953 Bozkurt, A., Ozdamar Keskin, N., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203–221. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.287 Brady, N., & Bates, A. (2016). The standards paradox: How quality assurance regimes can subvert teaching and learning in higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 155–174. doi:10.1177/1474904115617484 Braimoh, D., & Osiki, J. O. (2008). The Impact of Technology on Accessibility and Pedagogy: The Right to Education in Sub- Saharan Africa. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 53–62. Breetzke, G. D. (2007). A Critique of Distance learning as an Educational Tool for GIS in South Africa. Open UP. University of Pretoria. Britz, J. J., Lor, P. J., Coetzee, I. E. M., & Bester, B. C. (2006). Africa as a knowledge society: A reality check. The International Information & Library Review, 38(1), 25–40. Brown, T. H. (2003). The role of M-Learning in the Future of E-learning in Africa? Paper presented at the 21st ICDE World Conference, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://matheas.webstart.com/ uploads/The-role-of-m-learning-in-the-future-of-e-learning-in-africa.pdf Brown, A. H., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. P. (2004). You’re Doing What With Technology? An Expose on “Jane Doe” college Professor. College Teaching, 52(3), 100–104.

325

Compilation of References

Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding & student finance. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www. independent.gov.uk/browne-report Brown, J. A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Dunn, P. (2016). Moral salience and the role of goodwill in firm-stakeholder trust repair. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 181–199. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.27 Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. doi:10.1080/03075070701685114 Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal design of instruction. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED468709.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2007). Equal access: Universal design of instruction. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ Equal-Access-Universal-Design-of-Instruction.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2007). Universal design in education: principles and applications. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Universal-Design-EducationPrinciples-Applications.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2012). Universal design in education: principles and applications. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Universal-Design-EducationPrinciples-Applications.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2013). Introduction to universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: Promising practices. Seattle, WA: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ Universal%20Design%20in%20Higher%20Education_Promising%20Practices.pdf Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning: Universal design, universal access. Educational Technology Review, 10(1), 32–61. Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burnett, D. J. (2002). Innovation in Student Services: Best Practices and Process Innovation Models and Trends. In D. J. Burnett & D. Oblinger (Eds.), Innovation in Student Services: Planning for Models Blending High Touch/High Tech. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1994). Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. Business, Innovation, and Skills. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning. Business, Innovation, and Skills Research Paper Number 130. London, UK: Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. Büyük, K. (2010). Stratejik Performans Yönetiminin Unsuru Olarak Örgüt Kültürünü Ölçümleme Üzerine Kavramsal Bir Çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 219–235. 326

Compilation of References

Çağlar, Ş., & Kocadere, S. A. (2015). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarinda Oyunlaştirma. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 14(27). Can, H., Tuncer, D., & Ayhan, D.Y. (1999). Genel İşletmecilik Bilgileri. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Can, N. (2002). Değişim sürecinde eğitim yönetimi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 155-156. Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Management Principles (V. 1.1). Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/ Carpenter, S., & Mojab, S. (2011). Educating from Marx race, gender, and learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230370371 Carrington, A. (2016). The padagogy wheel. Education Technology. Retrieved from https://www. educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2016/06/padagogy-wheel/ Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer Press. CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WCm_E_mLSUl CAST. (2015). CAST Timeline. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/ about/timeline.html#.WC66N_mLSUk Cavington, G. A., & Hannah, B. (1997). Access by design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Centre for Educational Technology (CET). (2008). National Imperatives and Limitations of ICT in Tanzania. University of Cape Town. Retrieved from www.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/tanzania.pdf Chaffee, E. E. (1983). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98. Chang, N. C., & Chen, H. H. (2015). A motivational analysis of the ARCS model for information literacy courses in a blended learning environment. Libri, 65(2), 129–142. doi:10.1515/ libri-2015-0010 Chan, S., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2016). Development of internal quality assurance indicators of faculty of education in Cambodia. Scholar, 8(1), 186–200. Chapnick, S. (2000). Are you ready for e-learning? Retrieved from http://blog.uny.ac.id/nurhadi/ files/2010/08/are_you_ready_for_elearning.pdf Chatfield, T. (2012, November 23). Can schools survive in the age of the web? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-can-schools-survive-the-web-age Chen, R. J., & Chin, J. M. (2016). Beyond neo-liberalism: Higher education diploma inflation in Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 13(1), 113–132. 327

Compilation of References

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Chin, W. M. (2010). Analyzing structural relationships between service quality, disconfirmation, satisfaction and loyalty. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 5(2), 31–44. Cho, S. K., & Berge, Z. L. (2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Chosun.com. (2016). Ministry of Education Releases Report on Condition of Universities...Limits of Government Funds to Poorly Ranked Universities to Continue; Some Universities (Daegu Foreign Language University and Seonam University etc) at risk of closing. Retrieved from: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/09/05/2016090502325.html Chuang, I., & Ho, A. D. (2016). HarvardX and MITx: Four Years of Open Online Courses - Fall 2012-Summer 2016. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2889436 or10.2139/ssrn.2889436 Coffin, M. (2012). Canada’s Contribution to the Commons: Creating a Culture of Open Education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Graduate Students’ Association. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., . . . Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/ cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizomatic learning – The community is the curriculum. P2PU. Retrieved from https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/882/rhizomatic-learning-the-community-is-the-curriculum/ Coursera. (2016). Courses. Retrieved December 4, 2016, from https://about.coursera.org/ Cugelman, B. (2013). Gamification: What it is and why it matters to digital health behavior change developers. JMIR Serious Games, 1(1), e3. doi:10.2196/games.3139 PMID:25658754 Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K., & Flew, T. (1997). New media and borderless education: A review of the convergence between global media networks and higher education provision. Canberra: DETYA. Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Are the costs of free ‘too high in online education? Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 26–28. doi:10.1145/2436256.2436264 Dabaj, F. (2011). Analysis of Communication and Media Technologies. A Review Study. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6, 1–15. Dahlberg, G. (2016). An ethico-aesthetic paradigm as an alternative discourse to the quality assurance discourse. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 124–133. doi:10.1177/1463949115627910

328

Compilation of References

Danaher, P. A., & Umar, A. (2010). Contemporary Research on Open and Distance learning in Teacher Education. In P. A. Danaher & A. Umar (Eds.), Perspectives on Distance Education: Teacher Education Through Open and Distance Learning. Commonwealth of Learning. Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2009). Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Retrieved from http://www. changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/march-april%202009/full-iron-triangle.html Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3(3), 18. doi:10.5334/2012-18 Davies, J. L. (1996). Higher Education Management Training and Development Quality Indicators. UNESCO. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0010/001057/105737E.pdf Davies, J. L. (1996). Higher education management, training and development quality indicators. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001057/105737E.pdf Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning ıntervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage. Journal of Human Relations, 45, 660–686. Davis, M. (2003). Barriers to reflective practice: The changing nature of higher education. The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education and SAGE Publications, 4(3), 243–255. Davison, R., Vogel, D., Harris, R., & Jones, N. (2000). Technology Leapfrogging in Developing Countries: An Inevitable Luxury? Electronic Journal of Information. Retrieved from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.7786&rep=rep1&type=pdf De Liddo, A., Buckingham Shum, S., McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2012). The Open Education Evidence Hub: A Collective Intelligence Tool for Evidence Based Policy. Presented to Cambridge 2012: Joint OER12 and OpenCourseWare Consortium Global 2012 Conference, Cambridge, UK. de Lima Ferreira, & Bertotti, G. R. (2016). Continuing education for professional development in higher education teaching. Creative Education, 7, 1425–1435.Dennick, R. (2016). Constructivism: Reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education. International Journal of Medical Education, 7, 200–205. PMID:27344115 De Millo, R. (2015). Unbundling higher education and the Georgia Tech Online MS in Computer Science: A chronicle. In C. Bonk, M. Miyoung Lee, T. Reeves, & T. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 147–156). Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis. Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2016). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 1–12.

329

Compilation of References

Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., & Kaplan, G. (2008). Higher education funding reforms in England: The distributional effects and the shifting balance of costs. The Economic Journal, 118(526), F100–F125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02118.x Deimann, M., & Bastiaens, T. (2010). The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its capacities. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 1. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.778 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A Thousand Plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Continuum. De-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers & Education, 75, 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012 Deming, E. (1986). Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Demiray, U. (2007). Orchestrating ethics for distance education and online learning. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Online learning communities (pp. 277–285). Information Age Publishing, Inc. Demiray, U., İnceelli, A., & Candemir, Ö. (2008). 5th Anniversary of OEF: A Review of the Literature on The Open Education Faculty. In Turkey 1982–2007 (A Revised and Expanded the 4th Editon). Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University Publications. Demirel, Ö., Seferoğlu, S., & Yağcı, E. (2003). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme (4. basım). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204 Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings. ACM. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using gamedesign elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 2425-2428. Dhanarajan, G. (2001). Distance Education: Promise, Performance and Potential. Open Learning, 16(1), 61–68. doi:10.1080/02680510124465 Dhavale, D. G. (1996). Performance Measures For Cell Manufacturing and Focused Factory Systems. Journal of Cost Management, 10(1), 59–70. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.

330

Compilation of References

Diki, D. (2013). International collaboration of distance learning universities for online learning in Indonesia. A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University, 2(1), 1–8. Dinçer, Ö., & Fidan, Y. (1995). İşletme Yönetimine Giriş. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık. Dinçer, Ö., & Fidan, Y. (1996). İşletme Yönetimi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytical findings and implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/00219010.87.4.611 PMID:12184567 Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & MartínezHerráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020 Doran, M., Sciglimpagtia, D., & Toole, H. (2001). The role of field-based business consulting experiences in AACSB business education: An exploratory survey and study. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 2(l), 8–18. Downes, S. (2016, February 17). Re: Personal vs Personalized learning [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/65065 Downes, S., & Siemens, G. (2008). Connectivism and connective knowledge. The Daily Archives. Retrieved from http://connect.downes.ca/ Duan, S., & Bassett, K. (2012, November). Integration of course learning outcomes with program assessment for ABET accreditation. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition. doi:10.1115/IMECE2012-86896 Duhaney, D. C. (2004). Blended Learning in Education, Training, and Development. Performance Improvement, 43(8), 35–38. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140430810 Duran, N., Önal, A., & Kurtuluş, C. (2006). E-Öğrenme Ve Kurumsal Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşim Öğrenim Yönetim Sistemleri. Akademik Bilişim 2006. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ab06/ bildiri/165.pdf Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended Learning. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research, 2004(7), 1-12. Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026 Education, J. W. T. (2006). Global Branding and its Relevance to Universities. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/events/ac21/lm_bojamm_global_ branding.pdf

331

Compilation of References

Educause. (2016). Higher Education’s Top 10 Strategic Technologies for 2016. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from https://library. educause.edu/resources/2016/1/higher-educations-top-10-strategic-technologies-for-2016 edX. (2016). SNUx. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/school/snux Efil, İ. (1999). İşletmelerde Yönetim ve Organizasyon (6. Baskı). İstanbul: Alfa Yayın. Ekici, G. (2003). Uzaktan eğitim ortamlarının seçiminde öğrencilerin öğrenme stillerinin önemi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(24). Ekren, G. (2014). Uzaktan Eğitim Yönetiminde Liderlik Anlayışı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Üniversitesi, Bilişim Enstitüsü. El Turk, S., & Cherney, I. (2016). Perceived online education barriers of administrators and faculty at a U.S. university in Lebanon. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2(1), 5–31. doi:10.17062/cjil.v2i1.30 Elder, V. (2014). Uni behind foreign student 8 ball: Joyce. Otago Daily Times. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/299734/uni-behindforeign-student-8-ball-joyce Elearning Industry. (2016). Gamification and The LMS: The Case Of TalentLMS LMS. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/talentlms-gamification-and-lms-case-talentlms Elias, T. (2010). Universal instructional design principles for Moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 110–124. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i2.869 Erdem-Aydın, I. (2015). Preferences and willingness for participating MOOCs in Turkish. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 88–96. Erdoğan, İ. (2000). Okul Yönetimi ve Liderliği. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık. Eren, E. (1988). Yönetim ve organizasyon. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A. Ş. Eren, E. (1993). Yönetim Psikolojisi. Beta Basım Yayın A.S. İstanbul. Eren, E. (1998). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, 5. İstanbul: Baskı, Beta Yayıncılık. Eren, E. (2011). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. Ergun, T., & Polatoğlu, A. (1988). Kamu Yönetimine Giriş. Ankara: T.O.D.A.İ. Yayınları. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.todaie.edu.tr/resimler/ekler/2bcb5159bd9bc9c_ek.pdf Ernst and Young. (2015). EY transforms its recruitment selection process for graduates, undergraduates and school leavers. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.ey.com/ UK/en/Newsroom/News-releases/15-08-03---EY-transforms-its-recruitment-selection-processfor-graduates-undergraduates-and-school-leavers Ertürk, M. (2001). İşletme Biliminin Temel İlkeleri. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları Framework For 21st Century Learning-P21. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org 332

Compilation of References

European Commission. (2013). Opening up education to boost innovation and digital skills in schools and universities. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13859_en.htm European Commission. (2016). A new skills agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competiteveness. COM (2016) 38/2. Retrieved from http:// ec.europa.eu/socail/main.jsp?catID=1223&lngId=en Eze, A. A. (2013). Management practice in an organization. Retrieved November 17, from http:// www.aiu.edu/applications Farahmand, N. F.-H. (2016). Competition forces attack management by new ways of managing conflicts. Nova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 1–11. Farnes, N. C. (2000). Distance Education for the Information Society: Policies, pedagogy and professional development. Analytical Survey. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://kenya-seminar.iite.ru/docs/ Analyt_Survey.pdf Fayolle, A., & Redford, D. T. (2014). Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9781781007020 Ferreira, D., Ornelas, E., & Turner, J. L. (2015). Unbundling ownership and control. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/jems.12084 Fichten, C. S., Heiman, T., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., & King, L. (2016). Sustainability of disability-related services in Canada and Israel: Will the real universal design please stand up? Exceptionality Education International, 26(1), 19–35. Field, H. M., & Fegan, J. (Eds.). (2005). Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy, Pedagogy, New paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo: Waseda University Media– Mix Co Ltd. Fini, A. (2009). The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643 Fiş Erümit, S., & Karakuş, T. (2015). Eğitim Ortamlarında Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Oyunlaştırma. Eğitim Teknolojileri Okumaları 2015 (pp. 395-414). TOJET - Sakarya Üniversitesi. Flutey, J., Smith, B., & Marshall, S. (In Press). The virtual CSU approach to organisational support and staff development. In C. Bossu & N. Brown (Eds.), Professional and Support Staff in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. Fox, J. A., Hatfield, J. P., & Collins, T. C. (2003). Developing the curriculum transformation and disability workshop model. Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education, 23-39.

333

Compilation of References

Franks, P. (2002). Blended Learning: What is it? How does it impact student retention and performance? In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher education (Vol. A, pp. 1477–1480). Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/9370 Frazer, M. (2005). Quality assurance in higher education. In A. Craft (Ed.), Quality assurance in Higher Education: Proceedings of an International Conference (pp9 – 26). London: The Falmer Press. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.003 Galusha, J. M. (1988). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3), 6–14. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2004.02.001 Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607 Gattorna, J. (2010). Dynamic supply chains: How to design, build and manage people-centric value networks. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Gawley, R., Morrow, C., Chan, H., & Lindsay, R. (2016). BitRun: Gamification of Health Data from Fitbit® Activity Trackers. International Conference on IoT Technologies for HealthCare (pp. 77-82). Springer. Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Digital Education Review, (8), 15-23. Retrieved from http://www.raco.cat/index.php/IEM/article/download/204239/272773 Gellman-Danley, B., & Fetzner, M. J. (1998). Asking the really tough questions: Policy issues for distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1), 2. Gift, S., Leo-Rhynie, E., & Moniquette, J. (2006). Quality Assurance of Transnational Education in the English-speaking Caribbean. Quality in Higher Education, 12(2), 125–133. doi:10.1080/13538320600916692 Gill, R. (2002). Change management – or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307–318. doi:10.1080/714023845

334

Compilation of References

Giroux, H. (1980). Beyond the correspondence theory: Notes on the dynamics of educational reproduction and transformation. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 225–247. doi:10.1080/03626784 .1980.11075221 Giroux, H. (1981a). Ideology, culture & the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Giroux, H. (1981b). Toward a new sociology of curriculum. In H. Giroux, A. Penna, & W. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction (pp. 98–108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Oxford, UK: Westview Press. Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Türkiye’de eğitim teknolojileri araştırmalarındaki eğilimler: 2000-2009 dönemi makalelerinin içerik analizi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 177–199. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. doi:10.1007/BF02504508 Govindaraja, M., & Natarajan, S. (2005). Principles of Management. New Delhi: Published by Prentice Hall Limited. Grainger, P., & Weir, K. (2016). An alternative grading tool for enhancing assessment practice and quality assurance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(1), 73–83. doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1022200 Grajek, S. (2016). Trend Watch 2016: Which IT Trends Is Higher Education Responding To? EDUCAUSE. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.geckolabs.co.uk/higher-educationstop-10-strategic-technologies-for-2016/ Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Green, A., Little, A. W., Kamat, S. G., Oketch, M., & Vickers, E. (2007). Education and Development in a Global Era: Strategies for Successful Globalisation. Educational Papers. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R.A. (2000). Behavior In Organizations:Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. Groves, M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional Technology Adoption in Higher Education: An Action Research Case Study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57–65.

335

Compilation of References

Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. e-Learning Papers, 33. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http:// www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/MOOC-Design-Principles.-A-Pedagogical-Approachfrom-the-Learner%E2%80%99s-Perspective Güler, C., & Güler, E. (2015). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Oyunlaştırma: Rozet Kullanımı. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(3). Gulliksen, J. (2016a). Det sociala kontraktet i en digital tid. Temarapport 2 [The social contract in a digital time. Theme report 2]. Stockholm: Digitaliseringskommissionen. Retrieved from https://digitaliseringskommissionen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Temarapport-2-Det-socialakontraktet-i-en-digital-tid.pdf Gulliksen, J. (2016b). Den högre utbilningens roll i en digital tid. Temarapport 4 [The higher educations role in a digital time. Theme report 4]. Stockholm: Digitaliseringskommissionen. Retrieved from https://digitaliseringskommissionen.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ Temarapport-4_Den-högre-utbildningens-roll.pdf Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2013). 21. Yüzyıl Öğrenci Özelliklerinin Öğretmen Adayları Tarafından Tanımlanması: Bir Twitter Uygulaması/The Defining Characterıstıcs of Students of The 21st Century By Student Teachers: A Twitter Activity. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(4), 436-455. Gürol, M., & Turhan, A. G. M. (2005). Yönetim Fonksiyonları Bağlamındauzaktan Eğitim Yönetimi. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2). Gürol, M., & Turhan, M. (2005). Yönetim Fonksiyonları Bağlamında Uzaktan Eğitim Yönetimi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 83-89. Gurses Ates, F. (2013). Evrensel tasarım ilkelerine bağlı halk otobüsü seçimi: Bulanık vikor yöntemi ile bir uygulama (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Hacıhasanoğlu, I. (2003). Evrensel tasarım. Tasarım+ Kuram Dergisi, 2(3), 93-101. Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online learning. Department for Business Innovation& Skills. BIS Research Paper (130). Retrieved November 24, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf Halimi, S. (2005). Lifelong Learning for Equity and Social Cohesion: A New Challenge for Higher Education. In C. McIntosh (Ed.), Perspectives in Distance Education: Lifelong learning and Distance Higher Education: Vancouver: UNESCO/COL. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–245. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004

336

Compilation of References

Hanafi, S. (2009). Cultural difference or cultural hegemony? Contextualizing the Danish cartoon controversy within migration spaces. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 2(1), 136–152. doi:10.1163/187398609X430651 Hanover Research. (2016). 2016 Trends In Higher Education Marketing, Enrollment and Technology. Retrieved November 5, 2016,from http://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Trendsin-Higher-Education-Marketing-Recruitment-and-Technology-2.pdf Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019 Harris, K. I. (2015). Developmentally universal practice: Visioning innovative early childhood pedagogy for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Early Child Development and Care, 185(1112), 1880–1893. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1028395 Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42. Hartmann, E. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) and learners with severe support needs. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11(1), 54–67. Hartnett, M., George, A. S., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20–38. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030 Harvey, L. (1995). Editorial: The quality agenda. Quality in Higher Education, 1(1), 5–12. doi:10.1080/1353832950010101 Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. doi:10.1080/0260293930180102 HEC, Higher Education Council. (2015). YÖK, sağlık alanında lisans tamamlamada “uzaktan eğitim” tartışmalarına açıklık getirdi. Retrieved from http://yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/18433653/ YOK_Saglik_Alaninda_Lisans_Tamamlamada_Uzaktan_Egitim_Tarti%C5%9Fmalarina_ Aciklik_Getirdi.pdf/84fcded0-d340-48ee-9e6c-2f4193785a2a Heik, T. (2012, August 31). Re: 9 Characteristics of 21st century learning. Teach thoughts. We grow teachers. Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/9-characteristicsof-21st-century-learning/ Hellman, J. A. (2003). The Riddle of Distance Education: Promise, Problems and Applications for Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Programme on Technology, Business and Society, No. 9. Herzig, P., Strahringer, S., & Ameling, M. (2012). Gamification of ERP systems-Exploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs. In Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 793–804). Braunschweig: GITO.

337

Compilation of References

Hess, M. F., & Hess, A. M. (2016). Stakeholder-driven strategic renewal. International Business Research, 9(3), 53–67. doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n3p53 Hewlett Foundation. (2015). Open educational resources. Advancing widespread adoption to improve instruction and learning. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/11/Open_Educational_Resources_December_2015.pdf He, Y. (2014). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283. Higbee, J. L., & Goff, E. (2008). Pedagogy and Student Services for Institutional Transformation: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education. Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. Hill, M. N. (1998). Staffing A Distance Learning Team: Whom Do You Really Need? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1). Hitt, J. C., & Hartman, J. L. (2002). Distributed Learning: New Challenges and Opportunities for Institutional Leadership. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hodges, C. (2004). Designing to motivate: Motivational techniques to incorporate in e-learning experiences. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(3), 1–7. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf Holma, J., & Junes, S. (2006). Trainer’s and professional’s guide to quality in open and distance learning. University of Tampere. Horstmanshof, L., & Moore, K. (2016). Understanding the needs of all the stakeholders: Issues of training and preparation for health work students and their clinical educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 93–100. Hou, Y-C., Ince, M., Tsai, S., Wang, W., Hung, V., Jiang, C.L., & Chen, K. (. (2016). Quality assurance of joint degree programs from the perspective of quality assurance agencies: Experience in East Asia. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(3), 473–487. doi:10.1080/07294 360.2015.1107878 Hoyle, J., & Deschaine, M. E. (2016). An interdisciplinary exploration of collegiate internships: Requirements for undergraduate and graduate programs. Education + Training, 58(4), 372–389. doi:10.1108/ET-10-2015-0098 Hsu, S. H., Chang, J. W., & Lee, C. C. (2013). Designing attractive gamification features for collaborative storytelling websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 428–435. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0492 PMID:23438264

338

Compilation of References

Hu, H. (2013). Massive open online courses are changing the way we think about higher education. Diverse issues in higher education. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from http://diverseeducation. com/article/52317/ Huang, W. H. (2011). Evaluating learners motivational and cognitive processing in an online game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 694–704. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2010.07.021 Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17-22). ACM. doi:10.1145/2393132.2393137 ICAI. (2014). Operations management & Information system. The Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI). Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://icmai.in/upload/Students/Syllabus-2012/ Study_Material_New/Inter-Paper9.pdf ICER Newsletter. (2015). Reports on Introduction to Cutting-edge Cyber Security for Individuals and Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.icer.kyushu-u.ac.jp/sites/default/ files/newsletter201602.pdf Ideris, M. S. K., Yi, L. T., Rodzi, S. M., Romle, A. R., Zabri, M. A. H. M., & Mahamad, N. A. (2016). Students’ satisfaction on facilities in Universiti Utara Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(6), 795–800. Igwe, U. O. (2009). Libraries Without Walls and Open and Distance Learning in Africa: The Nigerian Experience. Retrieved from http://www.wikieducator.org/images/PID_399.pdf Imel, S. (1992). Reflective practice in adult education. ERIC Digest No. 122. ED346319. Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). Opening up education: A support framework for higher education institutions (JRC Scientific Policy Report, EUR 27938EN). Retrieved from http://www.eunis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/jrc_2016.pdf International Organization for Standardization. Quality Management and Auditing, Inc. (2010). Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.iso-qma.com/links.html Isaacs, S., Broekman, I., & Mogale, T. (2004). Contextualising education in Africa: The role of ICTs. In T. James (Ed.), Information and communication technologies for development in Africa, Vol. 3, Networking institutions of learning SchoolNet (pp. 1- 23). Ottawa: CODESRIA/IDRC. Isaacs, S. (2002). ICTs in African Schools: A Multi-Media Approach for Enhancing Learning and Teaching. Techknowlogia, 4(1), 32–34. ITU. (2008). World Telecommunication Indicators Database. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union. Izzo, M. V., & Bauer, W. M. (2015). Universal design for learning: Enhancing achievement and employment of STEM students with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 17–27. doi:10.1007/s10209-013-0332-1 339

Compilation of References

Jaber, M. A., & Batsh, M. W. A. (2016). Jordanian experience in accreditation and quality in HEIs. US-China Foreign Language, 14(4), 312–327. Jahnke, I. (2015). Digital didactical designs: Teaching and learning in cross-action spaces. Oxford, UK: Routledge. James, A. F., Freeman, R. E., & Dawel, R. G., Jr. (2000). Management (6th ed.). Prentice Hall of India. Jarvis, P. (1992). Reflective practice and nursing. Nurse Education Today, 12(3), 174–181. doi:10.1016/0260-6917(92)90059-W PMID:1625667 Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, K. (2016). If you arent talking about practices, dont call it a practice-based view: Rejoinder to Bromiley and Rau in Strategic Organization. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 270–274. doi:10.1177/1476127016655998 Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, K. (2016). On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 248–259. doi:10.1177/1476127015604125 JOCW. (2006). A case study in open educational resources production and use in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/37647892.pdf JOCW. (2016). About JOCW. Retrieved from http://www.jocw.jp/AboutJOCW_j.htm Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334 Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2 Jordan, K. (n.d.). MOOC Completion Rates: The Data. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http:// www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133–160. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v15i1.1651 Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112 Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781849208871

340

Compilation of References

Joyce, S. (2016). NZ universities excel in world rankings. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-universities-excel-world-rankings Justus, A. H., & Nangombe, J. P. (2016). Paradigmatic perspective for a quality improvement training programme for health professionals in the ministry of health and social services in Namibia. International Journal of Health, 4(2), 89–95. doi:10.14419/ijh.v4i2.6164 Kalra, J., & Kopargaonkar, A. (2016). Quality improvement in clinical laboratories: A six sigma concept. Pathology Laboratory Medicine Open Journal, 1(1), 11–20. Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., & Kim, S. H. (2012) Gamification: A new paradigm for online user engagement. 33rd Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems, 4, 3573–3582. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons. Karaarslan, M. H., & Altuntaş, B. (2016). Türkiye’deki Seçilmiş Pazarlama Vakalarının Oyunlaştırma Kavramı Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(17). Karataş, E. (2014). Eğitimde Oyunlaştırma: Araştırma Eğilimleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 315–333. Katz, J. (2015). Implementing the three block model of universal design for learning: Effects on teachers self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K-12. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.881569 Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan eğitim. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. Keegan, D. (2005). The Incorporation of Mobile Learning into Mainstream Education and Training. Retrieved from www.mlearn.org.za Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of Distance Education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm. Kelleher, C. (2016). Exploring the Social Practice of Programme Board Level Self-Evaluation and its Contribution to Academic Quality Assurance. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 5(1). http://arrow.dit.ie/ijap Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10. Keller, J. M. (2015). Integrating motivation into ADL: Applying the ARCS-V motivation model. Annual ADL Conference. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.nordicadl.com/ Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185. doi:10.1080/01587910802154970

341

Compilation of References

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3 Keller, J. M., & Deimann, M. (2012). Motivation, volition, and performance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multi-nationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 231–239. doi:10.1080/1358165042000283084 Kelly, J. O. (2016). Strategy Content, Quality Management Practices, Organizational Factors and Performance of ISO 9000 Certified Middle Level Colleges in Kenya (Doctoral Thesis). School of Business, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. KERIS. (2014). White paper on ICT in Education Korea. Retrieved from http://english.keris. or.kr/es_ac/es_ac_210.jsp KERIS. (2015). White paper on ICT in Education Korea. Retrieved from http://english.keris. or.kr/es_ac/es_ac_210.jsp Kesim, E. (2015). The Importance of Distance Education Experts in the Organizational Development Process of Distance Education Institutions: A Theoretical Evaluation. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 73–88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch006 Keskin, U., Büyük, K., & Koç, U. (2013). Yönetsel ve örgütsel açıdan retorik. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 27–40. Keskin, U., Büyük, K., & Koç, U. (2013). Yönetsel ve Örgütsel Açıdan Retorik. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 27–40. Khakhar, D. (2011). A framework for open distance learning- organization and management. Retrieved on October 13, 2016, from http/www.potlandpress.com /pp/books/online/vu- ch3.pdf Khan, A. R., & Garg, S. (2003). Material production and distribution, and operations management (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Khan, A. W. (2008). Distance Education for Development. Paris: UNESCO. Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing E-learning Strategies: Design, Delivery, Implementation and Evaluation. London: Idea Group Inc. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-634-1 Khanyile, M., & Green, P. (2016). Application of Stakeholder Management for Business Sustainability in the Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(3), 328–337. Kılıç, G. (2006). Eğitim Kurumlarında liderlik tarzları ve örgüt kültürünün performans üzerindeki etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

342

Compilation of References

Kılınç, T. (2002). Liderlik üzerine bir analiz. Hastane Dergisi, 3, 84–88. Killfoil, W. R. (2003). Strategic Planning in Distance Education. Washington, DC: Distance Education Training Council. Kim, B. W., Lee, W. G., Lee, B. R., & Shon, J. G. (2015). Influencing factors in OER usage of adult learners in Korea. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2051 Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate student’s motivation, study habits, and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 36–51. Kim, J. T., & Lee, W. H. (2013). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–11. Kim, K., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 1–23. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.a Kim, S. (2013). Recent advances in gamification application. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 5(13), 93. King, J. W., Nugent, G. C., Russell, E. B., Eich, J., & Lacy, D. (2000). Policy frameworks for distance education: Implications for decision makers. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2), 5. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2016). Technology-enabled learning implementation handbook. Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/ handle/11599/2363/2016_TELI Klaussner, S. (2012). Trust and leadership: Toward an interactive perspective. Journal of Change Management, 12(4), 417–439. doi:10.1080/14697017.2012.728766 Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to Learn and Course Outcomes: The Impact of Delivery Mode, Learning Goal Orientation, and Perceived Barriers and Enablers. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665–702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x K-MOOC. (2016). K-MOOC. Retrieved from http://www.kmooc.kr Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling agile@ Spotify. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://wordpress.com/2012/11/113617905-scaling-Agile-spotify-11.pdf Knowles, E. & Kerkman, D. (2007). An investigation of students attitude and motivation toward online learning. InSight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 2, 70-80. Knox, J. (2013). The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education technology. Open Praxis, 5(1), 21–29. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.36 Koçdar, S., & Görü Doğan, T. (2015). Türkiye’deki Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenme Programlarının Bir Analizi: Eğilimler ve Öneriler. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(4), 23–36. 343

Compilation of References

Koçdar, S., & Karadag, N. (2015). Identifying and Examining Degree-Granting Programs for Distance Education Experts: A Preliminary Analysis. In G. Eby & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Identification, Evaluation, and Perceptions of Distance Education Experts (pp. 190–210). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8119-4.ch012 Koçel, T. (1999). İşletme yöneticiliği, yönetim ve organizasyon, organizasyonlarda davranış klasik - modern- çağdaş yaklaşımlar. 7. baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Koçel, T. (2003). İşletme Yöneticiliği: Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Organizasyonlarda Davranış, Klasik-Modern-Çağdaş ve Güncel Yaklaşımlar. (9.baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş. Koh, A. (2012). The challenges of digital scholarship. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronical.com/blogs/profhacker/the-challenges-of-digitla-scholarship/38103 Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/articledownloads/erm1337.pdf Komba, W. L. M. (2009). Increasing Education Access through Open and Distance learning in Tanzania: A Critical Review of Approaches and Practices. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 5(5). Korean Statistical Information Service. (2016). About. Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/eng/ Korn, O. (2012, June). Industrial playgrounds: how gamification helps to enrich work for elderly or impaired persons in production. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (pp. 313-316). ACM. doi:10.1145/2305484.2305539 Kose, U., Arslan, A. (2015). E-learning experience with artificial intelligence supported software: an international application on English language courses. GLOKALde, 1(3). Kosmützky, A., & Ewen, A. (2016). Global, national and local? The multilayered spatial ties of universities to society. In D.M. Hoffman & J. Välimaa (Eds.), Re-Becoming Universities? Higher Education Institutions in Networked Knowledge Societies (pp. 223-245). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_9 Koutropoulos, A., & Zaharias, P. (2015) Down the Rabbit Hole: An initial typology of issues around the development of MOOCs. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1), Article 4. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/4 Kumar, R. (2015). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Present Scenario and Challenges in India. Paripex - Indian Journal of Research, 4(6), 332-333.

344

Compilation of References

Kursun, E. (2015). Açık Eğitim Kaynakları. In K. Cagiltay & Y. Goktas (Eds.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso. Lanier, J. (2013). Who owns the future. London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd. Larson, R. C., & Murray, M. E. (2008). Open Educational Resources for Blended Learning in High Schools: Overcoming Impediments in Developing Countries. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1). Latchem, C. (2016). Open and Distance Learning Quality Assurance in Commonwealth Universities. A report and recommendations for QA and accreditation agencies and higher education institutions. Commonwealth of Learning. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science. Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge. Lazda-Cazers, R. (2010). A Course Wiki: Challenges in Facilitating and Assesing StudentGenerated Learning Content for the Humanities Classroom. The Journal of General Education, 59(4), 193–222. doi:10.1353/jge.2010.0023 Leary, J. & Berge, Z. (2007). Successful Distance Education Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), Article 12. Lee, J. L., & Hirumi, A. (2004). Analysis of essential skills and knowledge for teaching online. In Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, Chicago, IL. Lee, J. A., & Busch, P. E. (2005). Factors related to instructors willingness to participate in distance education. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 109–115. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.2.109-115 Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y Leonard, S. N., Fitzgerald, R. N., & Bacon, M. (2016). Fold-back: Using emerging technologies to move from quality assurance to quality enhancement. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 15–31. Leung, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2004). Effective management in the food industry. Management Research News, 27(4/5), 72–81. doi:10.1108/01409170410784491 LibriVox. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/

345

Compilation of References

Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access to the general education curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities: Childrens school success. Exceptionality, 16(1), 18–32. doi:10.1080/09362830701796776 Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2014). Increasing Student Engagement in Math: The use of Khan Academy in Chilean Classrooms. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 10(2), 103-119. Li, S., & Chen, L. (2012). A survey on competency requirements for the key professional roles in distance education in China. Information Technology and Educational Change, 3(3), 101–118. Lloyd, S.M., Byrne, M.M., & McCoy, T.S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1). Locke, W., & Bennion, A. (2013). Satisfaction in stages: The academic profession in the United Kingdom and the British commonwealth. In P. J. Bentley, H. Coates, I. R. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure, & V. L. Meek (Eds.), Job satisfaction around the academic world (pp. 223–238). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5434-8_12 Lopez, J. S., Yañes, M. A. S., Salgado, M. D. R. M., & Vergara, M. D. L. R. (2016). Unified perspective for categorization of educational quality indicators from an accreditation process view—Relationships between educational quality indicators defined by accrediting agencies in México at the institutional and program level, and those defined by institutions of higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 113–130. Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1995). Measure up! How to Measure Corporate Performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Mac Donald, J. (2006). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: A Good Practice Guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited. Mace, R., Hardy, G., & Place, K. (1991). Accessible environments: Towards universal design. In W. E. Preiser, J. C. Visher, & E. T. White (Eds.), Design interventions towards a more humane architecture (pp. 155–176). New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold. Mafu, S. (2004). From the Oral Tradition to the Information Era: The Case of Tanzania. International Journal on Multi-Cultural Societies, 6(1), 53–78. Mahlangu, V. P. (2016). Assuring quality in ODL through Ubuntu. In M. Letseka (Ed.), Open distance learning (ODL) through the philosophy of Ubuntu (pp. 107–118). New York, NY: Nova. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 256-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mambo, H. L. (2001). Tanzania: An Overview of Information Communications Technology Development in Libraries and Information Services. International Journal of Information and Library Review, 33(1), 89–96. doi:10.1080/10572317.2001.10762540

346

Compilation of References

Management Concepts. (2013). Management Concepts & Organisational Behaviour. Pondicherry University: Paper Code: MBAC 1001. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.pondiuni.edu. in/sites/default/files/MANAGEMENT%20CONCEPTS%20%26%20ORGANISATIONAL%20 BEHAVIOUR.pdf Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A simple introduction. Andrzej Marczewski. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 42(3), 281–309. doi:10.1023/A:1014699605875 Marshall, S. J. (2006). Issues in the development of leadership for learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-issuesdevelopment-leadership-learning-macquarie-2008 Marshall, S., & Flutey, J. (2014). Turning a digital vision into reality. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 190–200). Academic Press. Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organisational change? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192. doi:10.1080/ 09687769.2010.529107 Marshall, S. (2014). Technological innovation of higher education in New Zealand, a wicked problem? Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927849 Marshall, S. J., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., & Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and managing learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 87–103. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.512631 Martin, R. E. (2011). The college cost disease: Higher cost and lower quality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9781849806176 Masalu, D. C. P. (2005). Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Tanzania and its Impact on Ocean Data and Information Management. Journal of Ocean and Coastal management, 48, 85-95. Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing Open Educational Practice to a Research-Intensive University: Prospects and Challenges. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1). Mayer, R. E., Schustack, M. W., & Blanton, W. E. (1999). What Do Children Learn from Using Computers in an Informal, Collaborative Setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27–31. McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2013). Open education research: From the practical to the theoretical. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/37756/1/OER-IRP-mcandrew-farrow.pdf

347

Compilation of References

McAvinia, C. (2006). CALLers and Learning Technologists: Where do they meet, and what do they have in common? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4 & 5), 389–403. doi:10.1080/09588220601043073 McCallum, S. (2012). Gamification and serious games for personalized health. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 177, 85–96. PMID:22942036 McFarlane, D. A. (2011). The Leadership Roles of Distance Learning Administrators (DLAs) in Increasing Educational Value and Quality Perceptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(1). McGreal, R., Anderson, T., & Conrad, D. (2015). Open Education Resources in Canada In G. Miao, S. Mishra, & R. McGreal (Eds.), Open Education Resources: Policy, cost and transformation. (pp. 63-73). Commonwealth of Learning. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11–21. Mcharazo, A. A. S. (2000). Public Libraries and Distance Education in Tanzania: Issues and Dilemmas. Libri, 50(4), 295–301. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2000.295 McNutt, K. (2016). Opening Canadian Classrooms. Retrieved from: http://albertaoer.com/ openingcanadianclassrooms Meek, V. L., & Wood, F. Q. (1997). Higher education governance and management, an Australian study. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training. Mercado, C. A. (2008). Readiness Assessment Tool for An eLearning Environment Implementation. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 16(3), 1-11. Metcalf, D., Milrad, M., Cheek, D., Raasch, S., & Hamilton, A. (2008). My Sports Pulse: increasing student interest in STEM disciplines through sports themes, games and mobile technologies. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (pp. 23-30). IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/WMUTE.2008.38 Metcalf, D., Jackson, M., & Rogers, D. (2015). Reflections on Case Studies in Mobile Seamless Learning. In L. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless Learning in the Age of Mobile Connectivity (pp. 109–120). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-113-8_6 MEXT. (2016). MOOCs in foreign countries. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ koutou/itaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/08/14/1357548_02.pdf Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Miller, A. S., Cafazzo, J. A., & Seto, E. (2016). A game plan: Gamification design principles in mHealth applications for chronic disease management. Health Informatics Journal, 22(2), 184–193. doi:10.1177/1460458214537511 PMID:24986104 348

Compilation of References

Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2007). Integration of ICTs in Library and Information Science Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/index.htm Minnaar, A. (2013). Challenges for successful planning of open and distance learning (ODL): A template analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 81–108. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1387 Mintzberg, H. (1990). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 68, 163–176. Mirze, S. K. (2010). İşletme. İstanbul: Literatür yayıncılık. Mis. (2014). Management Information System-Introduction. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from https://www.tutorialspoint.com/management_information_system/pdf/management_information_ system.pdf Moore, M. G. (2000). Information and communication technologies in distance education. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://iite.unesco.org/img/upload/Distance_Education.pdf Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001 Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659 Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A System View. Belmont: Thomson, Wadsworth. Mori, K., & Ractliffe, L. (2016, April). Evaluating the use of a MOOC within higher education professional development training. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 831–833). Academic Press. doi:10.1145/2872518.2890577 Morrow, W. (2007). Learning to teach in South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press. Motlik, S. (2008). Technical Evaluation Report 63: Mobile Learning in Developing Nations. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1–8. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v9i2.564 Moyo, S. (2003). Distance Learning and Virtual Education for Higher Education in Africa: Evaluation of Options and Strategies. African and Asian Studies, 2(4), 497–521. doi:10.1163/156920903773004031

349

Compilation of References

Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7–22. doi:10.1080/08923640109527081 Mukerji, S., Tripathi, P. (2003). e-distance education management: A transformed perspective. Delhi Business Review, 4(1). Mukundhan, K. V., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2016). Stakeholder influences on the choice and performance of FDI-based market entry modes. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(1), 63–74. doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1007017 Mulder, F. (2015). Open(ing up) education for all…Boosted by MOOCs? In C. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynold (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education around the World. New York, NY: Routledge, xviii-xxvii. Muñoz-Carril, P. C., González-Sanmamed, M., & Hernández-Sellés, N. (2013). Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 462–487. doi:10.19173/irrodl. v14i3.1477 Muntean, C. I. (2011, October). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, 323-329. Murphy, D., Walker, R., & Webb, G. (2013). Online learning and teaching with technology: case studies, experience and practice London. Routledge. Mushi, P. S. D. (2001). Prospects for Combining Residential and Distance Model of University Education in Tanzania. Utafiti, 4, 221-255. Nallaperumal, S., & Saravanan, S. (2008). The Impact of blended learning to enhance the quality of higher education. In Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Issues and Challenges. London: Taylor and Francis Group. Nasseh, B. (1997). A Brief History of Distance Education. Retrieved from:http://168.144.129.112/ Articles/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Distance%20Education.rtf New Zealand Government. (2014). Tertiary education strategy 2014-2019. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment and the Ministry of Education. New Zealand Productivity Commission. (2016). New models of tertiary education: Draft Report. Wellington, New Zealand: The Productivity Commission. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2015). Report of external evaluation and review: The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand trading as Open Polytechnic. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/bin/providers/download/provider-reports/6022.pdf Newby, W. (2005). Voices from the classroom. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 120, 598–602.

350

Compilation of References

Nigavekar, A. S. (1994). Management information system for university administration: concept, structure and development. In K. B. Powar & S. K. Panda (Eds.), University Administration and Management (pp. 49–63). New Delhi: AIU. Njiro, E. (2016). Understanding quality culture in assuring learning at higher education institutions. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 3(2), 79–92. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nsuki, P. K., Bowa, O., Gunga, S. O., & Origa, J. P. (2015). The relationship between perceived quality dimensions and growth in distance education: The case of external degree programme of the University of Nairobi, Kenya. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 3(2), 87–105. Nurluöz, Ö., Birol, C., & Silman, F. (2010). Üniversitelerde Eğitim Yöneticilerinin Yöneticilik Davranışlarının Öğretim Elemanı ve Öğrenci Görüşlerine Göre İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 16(4), 579–601. Nwagwu, W. E., & Ahmed, A. (2009). Building open access in Africa. International Journal of Technology Management, 45(1/2), 82–101. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.021521 Nworie, J., Haughton, N., & Oprandi, S. (2012). Leadership in distance education: Qualities and qualifications sought by higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 180–199. doi:10.1080/08923647.2012.696396 O’Rawe, M. (2015, April). Curriculum, classroom, culture, and connectedness. Paper presented at the Higher Education in Transformation Conference, Dublin, Ireland. Obioha, M. F., & Ndidi, U. B. (2011). Administrative Problems of Open Distance Education in Nigeria: A Case Study of National Open University of Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(5), 89–97. OET. (2016). 2016 Online Education Trends. BestColleges.com: Tracking the innovations and issues changing higher education. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.bestcolleges. com/wp-content/uploads/2016-trends-in-online-education.pdf OHearn, J. (2000). Challenges for Service Leaders: Setting the Agenda for the Virtual Learning Organisation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2), 97–106. doi:10.1108/09596110010307341 Ojo, O. D., & Olakulein, F. K. (2006). The Place of Multiple Intelligence in Achieving the Objectives and Goals of Open and Distance Learning Institutions: A Critical Analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 19–27. Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2016). Universal design for learning in pre-k to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 1–24. Olakulehi, F. K. (2009). Strengthening the internal quality assurance mechanisms in open and distance learning systems. National Open University of Nigeria Victoria Island. 351

Compilation of References

Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2016, April). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible? A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029 Ololube, N. P., Ubogu, A. E., & Egbezor, D. E. (2007). ICT and Distance Education Programmes in a Sub-Saharan African Country: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 7(3), 181–194. Onah, D. F., Sinclair, J., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 5825-5834. OpenLearn. (2016). Explore your world with free learning from The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/explore OpenupEd. (2015). Definition Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Retrieved from http:// www.openuped.eu/images/docs/Definition_Massive_Open_Online_Courses.pdf O’Rourke, M. A. (2016). The “Law” and “Spirit” of the Accreditation Process in Legal Education. Syracuse Law Review, 66, 595–608. Ossiannilsson, E. (2015a). Quality enhancement for mobile learning ih higher education. In S. Keengwe (Ed.), Promoting active learning through the integration of mobile and ubiquitous technologies (pp. 167–182). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ossiannilsson, E. (2015b). Opening up education: Quality matters and personalization. In M. T. Restivo, A. Cardoso, & A. Mendes Lopes (Eds.), Online experimentation: Emerging technologies and IoT (pp. 247–260). Barcelona: International Frequency Sensor Association (IFSA) Publishing. Ossiannilsson, E. (2016a). Challenges and opportunities for active and hybrid learning related to UNESCO post-2015. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 333–351). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-4666-9680-8.ch017 Ossiannilsson, E. (2016b). Let the Learners Take the Lead for Their Lifelong Learning Journey. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development (pp. 159-180). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ossiannilsson, E. (2016c). Benchmarking: A method for quality assessment and enhancement in higher education. In Learning, design, and technology (pp.1–19). Springer. doi:10.1007/9783-319-17727-4_52-1 Ossiannilsson, E. (n.d.a). Leadership in global open, online and distance learning. In J. Keengwe & H. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transformative Digital Content and Learning Technologies (pp. 344–373). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. (in press) Ossiannilsson, E. (n.d.b). Quality models for open online learning (OOL), open educational resources (OER) and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Brussels: European Commission ET Working Group on Open and Distance Learning (ODL). (in press)

352

Compilation of References

Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (n.d.b). Towards fostering quality in open online education through OER and MOOC practices. In M. Jemni, M. Kinchuk, & K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: From OERs to MOOCs (Lecture Notes in Educational Technology). Springer. Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe. Oslo: The International Council for Open and Online Education (ICDE). Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (n.d.a). Transformation of teaching and learning in higher education towards open learning arenas: A question of quality. In P. Blessinger & T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open education: International perspectives in higher education. Open Book Publishers; doi:10.11647/OBP.0103 OSYM. (2016). 2016-ÖSYS Yükseköğretim Programları ve Kontenjanları Kılavuzu, Tablo-3 (Önlisans programları), Tablo-4 (Lisans programları). Retrieved from http://www.osym.gov.tr/ TR,12454/2016-osys-yuksekogretim-programlari-ve-kontenjanlari-kilavuzu.html Özalp, İ. (1992). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. (Cilt 1). Eskişehir. Özdemir, S. (2002). Eğitimde toplam kalite yönetimi. Kırgızistan-Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 253–270. Özdil, İ. (1986). Uzaktan Öğretimin Evrensel Çerçevesi ve Türk Uzaktan Eğitim Sisteminde Uzaktan Öğretimin Yeri. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları. Özer, B. (1989). Türkiye’de Uzaktan Eğitim: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açık Öğretim Fakültesi’nin Uygulamaları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(3), 3. Pahal, D. L. (1999). Effective Leadership--An IT Perspective. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(2). Pakman, D. (2011, April 15). The unbundling of media. Retrieved from http://www.pakman. com/2011/04/15/the-unbundling-of-media/ Panda, S., & Chaudhary, S. (2003). Management of media development and production (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Panda, S., & Mishra, S. (2007). E-Learning in a mega open university: Faculty attitude, barriers and motivators. Educational Media International, 44(4), 323–338. doi:10.1080/09523980701680854 Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-aremultiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html Parette, H. P., Blum, C., & Quesenberry, A. C. (2013). The role of technology for young children in the 21st century. Instructional Technology in Early Childhood, 1-28. Parhar, M. (2003). Trends in Contemporary Research in Open and Distance Education. Media and Technology for Human Resource Development, 14(3&4), 87–101.

353

Compilation of References

Park, H. J., & Bae, J. H. (2014). Study and Research of Gamification Design. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 8(8), 19–28. Paşaoğlu, D. (2010). Yönetim ve Yöneticilik. In Yönetim ve Organizasyon (pp. 22-49). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2944, Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayını No:1900, 1. Baskı, Eskişehir. Paul, R. H. (1990). Open learning and open management: Leadership and integrity in distance education. London: Kogan Page. Paulsen, M. F. (1995). The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for Computer. Mediated Communication. Available: http://nettskolen.com/forskning/19/cmcped.html Paulsen, M. F. (2002). Online Education Systems: Discussion and definition of terms. NKI Distance Education, 202. ISO 690. Retrieved from https://www.porto.ucp.pt/open/curso/modulos/ doc/Definition%20of%20Terms.pdf. 3.11.2016. Pereira, P., Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., & Noriega, P. (2014). A review of gamification for health-related contexts. International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability (pp. 742-753). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07626-3_70 Pérez-Mateo, M., Maina, M. F., & Romero, M., ve Guitert, M. (2011). Learner Generated Content: quality from students’ point of view. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (1), 2520-2529. Pérez-Mateo, M., Maina, M. F., Guitert, M. & Romero, M. (2011). Learner Generated Content: Quality Criteria in online Collaborative Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 14(2). Phillips, L. (1998). Hegemony and political discourse: The lasting impact of Thatcherism. Sociology, 32(4), 847–867. doi:10.1177/0038038598032004011 Pitsoe, V. J., & Letseka, M. M. (2016). Ubuntu driven ODL student assessment. In M. Letseka (Ed.), Open distance learning (ODL) through the philosophy of Ubuntu (pp. 93–106). New York, NY: Nova. Pityana, B. (2009). Open and distance learning in the developing world: Trends, progress and challenges. Keynote speech at the 2009 23rd ICDE World Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands. Pityana, N. B. (2004). Open Distance Learning in Africa: Access, Quality, and Success. University of South Africa. Retrieved from www.unisa.ca.za/contents/about/principle/docs/AMC Ponnuswamy, I., & Manohar, H. L. (2016). Impact of learning organization culture on performance in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/0307 5079.2014.914920 Powar, K. B. (2003). Management of institutions (S. Panda, Ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Powar, K. B. (2003). Management of institutions. In S. Panda (Ed.), Planning and Management in Distance Education (pp. 22–49). London: Routledge.

354

Compilation of References

Primrose, K., Paul, M., & Chrispen, C. (2013). Unmasking the role of collaboration and partnerships in open and distance learning systems. World Journal of Management and Behavioral Studies IDOSI Publications, 1(2), 36–43. Puentedura, R. (n.d.). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com Quaglia, B. W. (2015). Planning for student variability: Universal design for learning in the music theory classroom and curriculum. Music Theory Online, 21(1). Rama, K., & Hope, A. (Eds.). (2009). Quality assurance toolkit: Distance higher education institutions and programmes. Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Rambe, P., & Mawere, M. (2011). Barriers and constraints to epistemological access to online learning in Mozambique schools. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 2(2). Retrieved from http://onlineresearchjournals.com/ijopagg/art/80.pdf Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. doi:10.4324/9780203278116 Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211–229. Rao, S. R. (2008). The Social basis of Distance Education: Strategies for Inclusive Growth. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 58–65. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68–88. Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5–15. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2). Rodríguez, M. A., Morales, N. M., & Manzanares, M. T. L. (2016). Learning strategies in relation to academic performance in a nursing degree: A case study. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 2(1), 29–47. Romle, A. R., Sin, N. M., Mohamood, S. K. B., Darus, M., Saleh, S. S., & Saleh, N. H. (2016). Emerging the impact of quality management practices on graduates employability in tertiary education institution: A proposed framework. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(5), 619–626. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

355

Compilation of References

Rosenberg, S., & Mosca, J. (2011). Breaking Down the Barriers to Organizational Change. International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15(3), 139–146. Rossouw, J., & Alexander, P. (2015). A practical transition of employees towards information systems adoption: A public service perspective. The African Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 62–83. Ru, O. E. (n.d.). About OERu. Retrieved from http://oeru.org/about-oeru/ Rumble, G. (1992). The Management of Distance Learning Systems. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 43. UNESCO. Rumble, G. (2002). The management of distance learning systems. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved October 15, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000947/094701e.pdf Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. London: Croom Helm. Rumble, G. (1992). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities. Open Learning, 7(2), 31–45. doi:10.1080/0268051920070205 Ryan, R. (2007). Leadership Development: A Guide for HR and Training Professionals. Burlington, MA: Routledge. Şahin, A. (2004). Yönetim Kuramları ve Motivasyon İlişkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (11), 523-547. Şahin, A., Temizel, H., & Örselli, E. (2004). Bankacılık Sektöründe Çalışan Yöneticilerin Kendi Liderlik Tazrlarını Algılayış Biçimleri ile Çalışanların Yöneticilerinin Liderlik Tarzlarını Algılayış Biçimlerine Yönelik Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, 657-665. Şahin, B. (2016). Uzaktan Eğitimin Yönetimi. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/wn996vrqgneu/ copy-of-uzaktan-egitimin-yonetimi/ Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ files/55825/12017990845Salmi.pdf/Salmi.pdf Saruhan, C. Ş., & Yıldız, L.M. (2009). Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimi. Istanbul: Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım. Schachter, L., Pence, A., Zuckernick, A., & Roberts, J. (2005). Distance Learning in Africa: From Brain Drain to Brain Gain. Retrieved from http://www.web.uvic.ca/~eyrd/pubs/Schacter_ pence_etal_2005.pdf Schmidt, E. K. (2017). Quality assurance policies and practices in Scandinavian higher education systems: Convergence or different paths?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2017.1298194 Schraeder, M., Self, D., Jordan, M., & Portıs, R. (2015). The functions of management as mechanisms for fostering interpersonal trust. Advances in Business Research, 5(1), 50–62. 356

Compilation of References

Schumacher, T., & Scherzinger, M. (2016). Systemic in-house consulting: An answer to building change capacities in complex organizations. Journal of Change Management, 16(4), 297–316. doi:10.1080/14697017.2016.1230932 Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means, how to respond. World economic forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrialrevolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ Scott, B., & Barnes, B. K. (2011). Consulting on the inside: A practical guide for internal consultants. Danvers, MA: American Society for Training and Development. Sedghi, A., & Shepherd, J. (2011). Tuition fees 2012: What are the universities charging? Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/ higher-education-universityfunding Semmar, Y. (2006). Distance learners and academic achievement: The roles of self-efficacy, self-regulation and motivation. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 12(2), 244–256. doi:10.7227/JACE.12.2.9 Sezgin, S. (2015). Öğrenme ve öğretimin oyunlaştırılması: Çalışma ve eğitim için oyun tabanlı yöntem ve stratejiler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 187–197. Shahid, H., Wahab, Z., & Ahmed, S. A. (2016). Factor analysis to explore the indicators of quality assurance mechanism on higher educational institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 12, 146–154. doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.22 Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623–658. doi:10.1086/228791 Sharma, H. (2002). Student Support Services In Distance Learning System A Case Of DDE, Maharshi Dayanand University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(4). Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., & Wong, L. H. et al. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Shattock, M. (2003). Managing successful universities. Maidenhead, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Shorter, M. (2014). FutureLearn blogpost. The first ‘O’ in MOOC. Retrieved from https://about. futurelearn.com/blog/the-first-o-in-mooc/ Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform [Blog post]. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/ Sife, A. S., Lwoga, E. T., & Sanga, C. (2007). New Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Challenges for Higher Learning Institutions in Developing Countries. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3(2). Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/ viewarticle.php?id=246 357

Compilation of References

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47–51. doi:10.1080/1066568980310206 Simens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007 Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Simpson, O. (2008). Motivating learners in open and distance learning: Do we need a new theory of learner support? Open Learning, 23(3), 159–170. doi:10.1080/02680510802419979 Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Becit, G., Kılıçer, K., Akbulut, Y., & Yildirim, Y. (2008). Türkiye’deki Eğitim Teknolojisi Araştirmalarinda Güncel Eğilimler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (19), 439-458. Şişman, M. (1999). Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş, I. Basım. Ankara: Pegem A. Siyouki, H. A., Keshavarz, M., & Rahimi, M. (2016). Establishment quality assurance system & development of internal evaluation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(2), 918–930. Smith, R. (2008). Motivational factors in e-learning. George Washington University. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from http://el-gor.at/elearn/Medien/Motivation.pdf Smith, R. E., & Buchannan, T. (2012). Community collaboration, use of universal design in the classroom. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 259–265. Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in academic curriculum: A pilot study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.2031 SPARC. (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved from: http://sparcopen.org/who-we-are/ Spector, B. (2010). Implementing organizational change: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environments of US and European universities. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. Ssekakubo, G., Suleman, H., & Marsden, G. (2011). Issues of Adoption: Have E- Learning Management Systems Fulfilled their Potential in Developing Countries? SAICSIT, 11, 231-238. Retrieved from: http://pubs.cs.uct.ac.za/archive/00000712/01/p231-ssekakubo.pdf

358

Compilation of References

Stalmeijer, R., Whittingham, J., de Grave, W., & Dolmans, D. (2016). Strengthening internal quality assurance processes: Facilitating student evaluation committees to contribute. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 53–66. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.976760 Standaert, N. (2012). Towards a networked university. In R. Barnett (Ed.), The future university: Ideas and possibilities (pp. 87–100). London, UK: Routledge. Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons. Stewart. (2016, September 5). Online learning and the business of education: Part one. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/online-learning-business-education-part-one-michaelstewart Stolarchuk, L., Baker, N., & Cobb, C. (2013). Universal design for instruction and teaching strategies. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&conte xt=ctlpres Suhail, N. A., & Lubega, J. (2010). Optimization technique for implementation of blended learning in constrained low bandwidth environment. In A. Tatnall (Eds.), Information technology and managing quality education (pp. 166–173). New York: Springer. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007 Süral, İ. (2015). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede teknolojik altyapının oluşturulması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi AUAd, 1(4), 81–95. Suwandej, N. (2015). Factors Influencing Total Quality Management. 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 0507 February 2015, Novotel Athens Convention Center, Athens, Greece. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2215–2222. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.07.361 Suzuki, K., & Keller, J. M. (1996). Creation and cross cultural validation of an ARCS motivational design matrix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Japanese Association for Educational Technology, Kanazawa, Japan. Taylor, D. (2006). Issues, Trends and Challenges in Distance Education: An International Perspective. Retrieved from http://net.eller.arizona.edu/distance learning.pdf Taymaz, H. (1995). Okul Yönetimi. Ankara: Saypa Yayınları. Teachonline. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://teachonline.ca/about-us Teffera, D., & Altbach, P. G. (2004). African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21–50. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009822.49980.30 TELUQ. (n.d.). Historique. Retrieved from http://www.teluq.ca/site/universite/historique.php

359

Compilation of References

Terry, P. M. (1996). Empowering Teachers as Leaders. University of Memphis. Tertiary Education Commission. (2016). The key information set – helping learners make tertiary enrolment choices. Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Learners-Organisations/ Learners/About-the-key-information-set-/ Tertiary Education Commission. (n.d.). Performance based research fund. Retrieved July 16, 2016 from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-Based-Research-Fund-PBRF-/ Thach, E. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Thatch, E., & Murphy, K. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79. doi:10.1007/BF02300482 The European Commission. (2013). Opening up education to boost innovation and digital schools and universities. Retreved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-859_en.htm The European Commission. (2016). Public consultation on the modernisation agenda for higher education in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ more_info/consultations/documents/higher-education-consultation-results_en.pdf The European Commission. (2016). Report to the European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Brussels: High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ repository/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_ skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf Thefuntheoary. (2016). The Fun Theory. Retrieved from http://www.thefuntheory.com Thille, C., Mitchell, J., & Stevens, M. (2015). What we’ve learned from MOOCs. Retrieved December 22, 2016, from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/09/22/moocs-are-nopanacea-they-can-help-improve-learning-essay Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012, February). Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1067-1070). ACM. Thompson, J., & Hills, J. (2005). Online learning support services for distance education students: Responding to and maintaining the momentum. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Tokgöz, N. (2010). Yönetim Fonksiyonları. In Yönetim ve Organizasyon (pp. 22-49). T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2944, Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayını No:1900, 1. Baskı, Eskişehir.

360

Compilation of References

Tortop, N., İşbir, E. G., & Aykaç, B. (2010). Yönetim Bilimi. İstanbul: Nobel Yayınları. Training Toolkit (1999). Planning & Management of Open and Distance Learning. The Commonwealth of Learning and Asian Development Bank. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. Jossey-Bass. Tripathi, M., & Jeevan, V. K. J. (2009). Quality assurance in distance learning libraries. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(1), 45–60. doi:10.1108/09684880910929926 Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from élite to mass higher education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Trow, M. (1976). Élite higher education: An endangered species? Minerva, 14(3), 355–376. doi:10.1007/BF01096277 Trow, M. (1985). Comparative reflections on leadership in higher education. European Journal of Education, 20(2/3), 143–1598. doi:10.2307/1502944 Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the transition from élite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 243–280). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_13 Turan, S., Karadağ, E., & Bektaş, F. (2011). Üniversite yapısı içerisinde öğrenen örgüt ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 17(4), 627–638. Twigg, C. A. (2000). Institutional Readiness Criteria. EDUCAUSE Review, 42–51. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. Retrieved from https:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf Uçar, H. (2016). Uzaktan eğitimde motivasyon stratejilerinin öğrenenlerin ilgileri, motivasyonları, eylem yeterlikleri ve başarıları üzerine etkisi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey. Uçar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2016). Use of ARCS-V Motivational Design Model in Online Distance Education. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). UDI Online Project. (2009). Examples of UDI in online and blended courses. Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Retrieved from http:// udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/examples-udi-online-and-blended-courses Umut, A. L., & Madran, R. O. (2004). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim sistemleri: Sahip olması gereken özellikler ve standartlar. Bilgi Dünyası, 5(2), 259–271.

361

Compilation of References

UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development. (1998). Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for sustainable development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. UNESCO webpages. (2016). What is the Paris OER declaration? UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/openeducational-resources/what-is-the-paris-oer-declaration/ UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries. Final report. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf UNESCO. (2002). Open and distance learning, trends, policy and strategy considerations. division of higher education. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2002). Open and Distance Learning: Trends, Policy and Strategy Considerations. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2008). Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco. org/education/ UNESCO. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0021/002196/219641e.pdf UNESCO. (2015a). Transforming lives through education. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/ world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration UNESCO. (2015b). Qingdao Declaration. International conference on ICT and post-2015 education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/in-focus-articles/ qingdao-declaration United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012). UNESCO world congress releases 2012 Paris OER declaration. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Global inventory of regional and national qualifications frameworks: volume i: thematic chapters. Hamburg, Germany: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Lifelong Learning. United States Department of Education. (2014). Obama administration takes action to protect Americans from predatory, poor-performing career colleges. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-takes-action-protect-americanspredatory-poor-performing-career-colleges Ünüsan, Ç. (1997). Günümüz işletmelerinde Lider ve Güç Kavramının Pazarlama Dağıtım Kanalı Yönetimi Açısından Önemi, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi İ.İB.F. Dergisi, 13(1-2), 81–87. URT. (1996). Education and Vocational Training Policy. Final Draft. Retrieved from www. moevt.go.tz 362

Compilation of References

Uslu, A., & Shakouri, N. (2014). Kentsel peyzajda engelli/yaşlı birey için bağımsız hareket olanağı ve evrensel tasarım kavramı. Journal of Forestry Faculty of Kastamonu University, 14(1). Usun, S. (2004). Learner Support Services in Distance Education System (A Case Study of Turkey). Online Submission, 5(4). Uvalić-Trumbić, S., & Sir Daniel, J. (2016). Adapting Quality Assurance to Innovative Programmes. Presented in 8th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning (PCF8). Available at http:// oasis.col.org Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Daniels, J. (2014). A guide to quality in post-traditional online higher education. Mountain View: Academic Partnerships TM. Valentine, D. (2002). Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Vasisenaho, M., Islas, C., Tedre, M., & Sutinen, E. (2006). Implementing information and communication Technology in Higher Education in Tanzania. IST-Africa 2006 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2006 Vaughan, N. D. (2010). Blended Learning and Community: Designing for a Blended Community of Inquiry. In Blended learning in Finland. Helsinki: Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Verduin, J. R., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub. Victoria University. (2012). Vision and strategy for digital learning and teaching at Victoria 2012–2017. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/learning-teaching/ academic-development/digital-vision/DigitalVisionStrategy.pdf Visser, Y. L., Visser, L., Simonson, M., & Amirault, R. (2005). Trends and Issues in Distance Education: International Perspective. New York: Information Age Publishing. Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online Education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223. doi:10.1108/09513540010344731 Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26–36. Walsham, G. (2000). IT/S in developing Countries. In M. Zeleny (Ed.), The Handbook of Information Technology in Business. London, UK: International Encyclopaedia of Business Management, Thomson Learning. Watkins, R., & Kaufman, R. (2003). Strategic planning in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 507–792). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

363

Compilation of References

Watters, A. (2012, September 5). Re: Unbundling and unmooring: Technology and the higher ed. tsunami. Retrieved from educause.edu Watty, K. (2002). Quality in higher education: The missing academic perspective. Paper presented at the 2002 Australasian Association for Institutional Research Forum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Watty, K. (2003). When will academics learn about quality? Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 213–221. doi:10.1080/1353832032000151085 Webb, K. K., & Hoover, J. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library: A methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 537–553. doi:10.5860/crl.76.4.537 Weller, M. (2014). The Digital Scholar. How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice. Bloomsbury Open Access. doi:10.5040/9781849666275 Weller, M., de los Arcos, B., Farrow, R., Pitt, B., & McAndrew, P. (2015). The impact of OER on teaching and learning practice. Open Praxis, 7(4), 351–361. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.227 Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press. Werkman, R. A. (2009). Understanding Failure to Change: A Pluralistic Approach and Five Patterns. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(7), 664–684. doi:10.1108/01437730910991673 Westerheijden, D. F. (2016). Trends in Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement. Keynote presentation at CNED XXI Seminario internacional ’El aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior con acceso masivo (pp. 11–23). Santiago: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies:University of Twente. Wheeler, S. (2016, June 12). Digital literacies in the age of remix [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.steve-wheeler.co.uk/2016/06/digital-literacies-in-age-of-remix.html Wikieducator. (2015). Case Study – Athabasca University. Retrieved from: http://wikieducator. org/Athabasca_University/Case_study Wikieducator. (2017). Open Educational Resouces. Retrieved from https://wikieducator.org/ Open_Education_Resources Wikipedia. (2016). Ribbon hero. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_Hero Wiley, D. (2015). Misstep and the open education infrastructure. In C. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynold (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education around the World (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Routledge. Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. The International Review of Research in OPen and Distributed Learning, 10(5).

364

Compilation of References

Willets, D. (2010). Statement on higher education funding and student finance. Retrieved December 29, 2016 from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-on-higher-education-fundingand-student-finance--2 Williams, P. E. (2000). Making informed decisions about staffing and training: Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from http://www.leaonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_4?cookieSet=1 Williams, R. (1985). A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford. Williams, P. (2000). Making Informed Decisions about Staffing and Training: Roles and Competencies for Distance Education Programs in Higher Education. Distance Learning Administration Conference. Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45–57. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1701_4 Winter, G. A. (2016). Examining teachers’ lesson plans following universal design for learning training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. doi:10.4337/9781848446182 Wong, W. Y., & Lavrencic, M. (2016). Using a risk management approach in analytics for curriculum and program quality improvement. In J. Greer, M. Molinaro, X. Ochoa, & T. McKay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Learning Analytics for Curriculum and Program Quality Improvement Workshop (pp. 10–14). New York, NY: ACM. Woodrow, J. E. (1992). Locus of Control and Teacher Computer Attitude. Journal of Computers in Education, 14(5), 421–432. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(90)90036-7 Woolf, P. B., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI Grand Challenges for Education. AI Magazine, 34(4). Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.12.012 Xu, Z. L. (1991). The Relationship Between Leadership Behavior of Academic Deans in Public Universities and Job Satisfaction of Department Chairpersons. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2999. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2999

365

Compilation of References

Yeom, M.-H. (2015). Critical reflection on the massification of higher education in Korea: Consequences for graduate employment and policy issues. Journal of Education and Work, 29(1), 48–63. doi:10.1080/13639080.2015.1049026 Yıldırım, İ., & Demir, S. (2014). Gamification and education Oyunlaştırma ve eğitim. Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 655–670. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2765 Yildiz, E. P., & İşman, A. (2016). Quality Content in Distance Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(12), 2857–2862. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.041220 Yingqiang, S., & Yongjian, S. (2016). Quality assurance in higher education: Reflection, criticism, and change. Chinese Education & Society, 49(1–2), 7–19. doi:10.1080/10611932.2016.1192382 Yusuf, M. O. (2005). Information and communication technologies and education: Analysing the Nigerian national Policy for Information Technology. International Education Journal, 6(3), 316–321. Zaleznik, A. (1997). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67–78. PMID:14723179 Zeleza, P. T. (2005). Transnational Education and African Universities. Retrieved from www. aau.org/gc11/adocs/pdf/eng/zeleza.pdf Zhang, F. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and family enterprise. Open Journal of Business and Management, 4(03), 476–482. doi:10.4236/ojbm.2016.43049 Zhong, Y. (2012). Universal design for learning (UDL) in library instruction. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19(1), 33–45. doi:10.1080/10691316.2012.652549 Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: inspire customer loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. John Wiley & Sons. Zirkle, C. (2004). Access barriers experienced by adults in distance education courses and programs: A review of the research literature. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from http://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/bitstream/1805/273/1/Zirkle.pdf

366

367

About the Contributors

Koksal Buyuk has been the head of Anadolu University, Open Education Faculty, Learning Technologies Research and Development since July 2015. Büyük also serves as the head of Anadolu University, Strategic Research Center. Büyük holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration, a master and doctoral degree in management and organization. His research interests are: Governance, management, administration, strategic management, strategic performance, management of strategic performance, organizational culture, managements in non-governmental organizations, institutional achievement report, open and distance learning, distance education, management of distance education processes. Serpil Kocdar works as an assistant professor at Open Education Faculty of Anadolu University, Turkey. She is a graduate of Economics and she has a master’s degree in Distance Education. She worked in corporate banking sector as a vice manager from 1997 to 2002. She received her Ph.D. in Distance Education from Anadolu University in 2011. She worked in the Assessment Department of Open Education Faculty from 2002 to 2014. Currently, she works for the Quality Office and R&D and Instructional Technologies Department. Her research interests are quality assurance and accreditation, evaluation, assessment, instructional design and new learning technologies in open and distance learning. Aras Bozkurt received his MA and PhD degrees in Distance Education from Anadolu University. He is currently working as a specialist at Anadolu University, Open Education Faculty. Bozkurt has experience in teaching to adult learners and K12 students. He serves as a reviewer for several journals in distance education field and he is also an editorial board member for eLearn Magazine and Editorial Review Board for OLJ. His current research interests are topics related to digital books, interactive ebooks, gamification, game-based learning, research trends in distance education, social networks, online interaction, online learning spaces, online learning communities, online community formation and online learning. He is also interested in critical theories such as connectivism, rhizomatic learning, heutagogy and emerging research paradigms such as social network analysis, sentiment analysis, and data mining. ***

About the Contributors

Hakan Altinpulluk is a Research Assistant in Distance Education at the College of Open Education of Anadolu University, Turkey. He undertook undergraduate studies in the field of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) between the years of 2005- 2009 at Anadolu University. Also, he is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Distance Education at Anadolu University. Hakan Altınpulluk continues to work in the field of Open and Distance Learning, Augmented Reality, Mobile Learning, Massive Open Online Courses, Personal Learning Environments, and E-Learning Systems. Yayoi Anzai is an Associate Professor at the Innovation Center for Educational Resource at Kyushu University, where she develops Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and teaches English as a Foreign Language. Since she received her Ph.D. at International Christian University in Tokyo, she has been designing, developing and evaluating EFL instruction which integrates ICT. She is very active at both international and domestic conferences. Dr. Anzai’s research interests include English education, Open education, MOOCs/OER, mobile learning, and collaborative learning. Currently, she has been doing research on how MOOCs can be used meaningfully in English education, supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, JSPS KAKENHI. Inge de Waard (PhD) has an extensive research background in investigating and implementing Innovative Educational Technologies (The Open University, UK, EIT InnoEnergy, EU; Institute of Tropical Medicine – Belgium; Athabasca University - Canada). She has set-up, coordinated and developed several online and mobile learning projects, always with a focus on participation and durability. These projects involved partners and individuals from both the Northern (Canada, United States, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Germany, UK) and Southern regions (South-Africa, India, Peru, Morocco). She set up the first MOOC on mobile learning, called MobiMOOC (2011 & 2012), enabling learners to realize their own mobile project. As an avid enthusiast of open science, I am an active international speaker giving keynotes and guest lectures, as well as providing knowledge input (and consequently receiving lots of input) at seminars, SIGs and workshops. Her latest research resulted in a conceptual framework describing how adult learners with prior online learning experience self-direct their informal learning using multiple devices as they engage in the social learning MOOC platform of FutureLearn. Ugur Demiray received his BA in Media Studies from Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey. He also received his Ph.D from Anadolu University’s Social Sciences Graduate Institution, Department of Educational Communication. He is currently working for the Anadolu University. His research in distance education 368

About the Contributors

is applied at Anadolu University, the Ministry of Education, and by other universities in Turkey. He is interested in changing ethical behaviors around the world by inserting technological developments to the educational field, especially within distance education applications, for 3 years. He is also interested in the profile of DE students and the relationship between graduates and the job market. He has extensive experience in publishing articles on the topic of distance education, including articles within Anadolu University’s Turkish Online Journal for Distance Education (TOJDE). He is also an editor, consultant editor reviewer and book reviewer for more than 10 journals which deal with distance education, educational technology and on education fields around the world, such as Quarterly Review of Distance Education (QRDE), Editor, Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Information Age Publishing, Miami, USA; The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), Editor, Sakarya Universitesi, Turkey; Universite ve Toplum, Editor, Ankara, Turkey; Open Education-The Journal for Open and Distance Education and Educational Technology, Editor, Hellenic Network of Open and Distance Education, Greece; S n rs z Ö renme Dergisi [Journal of Learning Witout Frontiers], Turkey; The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), Editor, University of Southern Queensland; Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, Central Queensland University, Australia; The International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), The University of the West Indies, West Indies; Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), Editor, Malaysian Educational Technology Association (META), Malaysia; Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences], Anadolu University; EGITIM ARASTIRMALARI DERGISI (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, EJER), Turkey; Education and Progress eJournal-EPeJ, Associate Editor, http://www.hamdan-edu.com, Syria; Educational Research and Reviews, Associate Editor, http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR; Ilorin Journal of Education, University of Ilorin, Consulting Editor, http://www.ijeunilorin.net/ editorial_board.php. In addition, he has responsibilities on Advisory, Scientific Board and Referee on conferences, symposiums and panels. He has co-authored and individually contributed chapters in some Turkish and international books too. Gurhan Durak has been working as a lecturer in Computer Education & Instructional Technology department at Balıkesir university since 2006. He recieved B.S and M.S degree in Computer Education & Instructional Technology Department at Balıkesir university. He has completed his doctoral degree on Distance Education at Anadolu University. He gives lessons about instructional design, technology integration and distance education. He interested in online learning, instructional design, educational social networking sites, computer programming and distance education. 369

About the Contributors

Gülay Ekren has been working as a lecturer at the Department of Computer Technologies of Vocational School of Ayancık, Sinop University since 2009. She has a BA degree from the Computer and Instructional Technologies Department of Ege University, and MA degree from the Management Information Systems Department of Gazi University. She also has an online MA degree from the Distance Education Department of Anadolu University. She is now a Phd student in Department of Management and Information Systems in Sakarya University. Her research interests are open and distance learning, distance education management, mobile learning, quality assurance and accreditation in open and distance learning, management and information systems. Jonathan Flutey is the Learning and Research Technology Manager for Information Technology Services at Victoria University of Wellington. Jonathan’s team was created with the core focus of increasing the digital capability of the institution in technology that directly enhances and supports Learning & Teaching, Research and the students’ experience on-campus and online. Roles within the team include a digital capability builder, digital learning designers, digital research consultants, eResearch specialists and learning space designers. Jonathan’s role developed after 6 years of being an ITS Customer Relationship Co-ordinator and developing an understanding of academic and administrative technology requirements. Working closely with the University’s Center for Academic Development, Jonathan has aided in the development of faculty based support for academics and professional staff. This support model is now delivering strategic projects on behalf of the university including a cross disciplinary MOOC programme, convening the regional Research Bazaar conference and developing the designs and capability programmes for new ‘scaled-up’ active learning spaces. This new model of delivery for a central IT team within a New Zealand higher education institution has been highlighted by winning the Microsoft Innovation Award for Learning, Research and Students in 2014 and 2016. Michael S. Gallagher is a member of the Centre for Research in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh and Director of Panoply Digital, a consultancy dedicated to mobile for development (M4D). His research focus is on mapping the effects of mobility and mobile technology on open spaces, built environments, and urban spaces to support practice in the humanities in higher education, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. Hakan Kilinc is currently working as a research assistant at the Distance Education Department of Anadolu University. He graduated from Computer Education And Instructional Technology Department of Anadolu University. His professional 370

About the Contributors

interests include educational technology, distance education technology, leadership in open and distance learning institutions and personalized learning environments. Sotco Claudius Komba holds a doctoral (PhD) degree from the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He also holds a Master of Arts degree in Education and Bachelor of Arts with Education degree, both from the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Currently, Dr Sotco Claudius Komba is a Senior Lecturer in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania. Apostolos Koutropoulos (“AK”) is the program manager for the online MA program in Applied Linguistics and a faculty member in the instructional design MEd program at UMass Boston. Over the past few years he has participated in many massive online open courses (MOOCs) and has authored and co-authored research papers on open learning and learning in networked environments. AK holds a BA in Computer Science, an MBA with a focus on Human Resources, an MSc in Information Technology, an MEd in Instructional Design, and an MA in Applied Linguistics. His research interests include knowledge management, educational technology, applied linguistics, and open education. Alper Tolga Kumtepe: He earned his BSc degree in Educational Communications in 1995 at Anadolu University. He then completed his MS degree in 2000 and Ph.D. degree in 2005 in the program of Early Childhood Education at the Florida State University with an overseas graduate scholarship by the Turkish Ministry of Education. He worked as a researcher at the Florida Center for Reading Research. He is currently working as faculty member at the College of Open and Distance Education, Anadolu University, Turkey. His research interests include e-learning, teacher education, quantitative research methods, assessment, and evaluation. He participated in various online learning projects. Vimbi P. Mahlangu holds a B.A.Ed. (Vista University); B.Ed.; MEd; & Ph.D. degrees from the University of Pretoria. He is an Associate Professor at the University of South Africa, Department of Educational Leadership & Management. He is responsible for teaching and research. He presented papers at national and international conferences. He is a recipient of Dean’s Award for Excellence in Teaching in the Faculty of Education (2011) at the University of Pretoria. He has published extensively in accredited journals and contributed a book and book chapters. Stephen Marshall is Senior Lecturer in Educational Technology at the Victoria University of Wellington Centre for Academic Development and President of the Australasian Council on Open and Distance Education. Stephen leads the Victoria 371

About the Contributors

University Digital Vision and Strategy for Learning and Teaching initiatives and researches in the areas of e-learning benchmarking, plagiarism and academic integrity, intellectual property, and the development of educational policy and strategy supporting and encouraging the effective use of technology. He is co-creator of the internationally recognised and applied e-learning maturity model (eMM, http://elearning.geek.nz/emm/). Luka Mathayo Mkonongwa holds a doctoral (PhD) degree from the University College Dublin, Ireland. He also holds a Master of Arts in Applied Social Psychology degree and Bachelor of Arts with Education degree, both from the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He also holds a Diploma in Teacher Education from Morogoro Teachers’ College. Formerly, He worked as a secondary school teacher. Currently, Dr Luka Mathayo Mkonongwa is a Lecturer in the Department of Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies, Dar es Salaam University College of Education, Tanzania. Ebba Ossiannilsson is the V President for the Swedish Association for Distance Education (SADE), and the V President for the Swedish Association for E-Competence (REK). She is the founder and owner of Ossiannilsson Quality in Open Online Learning (QOOL) Consultancy. Dr. Ossiannilsson was awarded the EDEN Fellow title in 2014, and she became Open Education Europa Fellow in 2015. Since 2016 she is ambassador for GLOBE, the Community of digital learning. She is nominated in 2017 to become Open Education Europa Ambassador and also for the board for Open Education Consortium. Since the year 2000, she worked at Lund University, Sweden, as an e-learning, open online learning expert, and advisor with special focus on quality. Ossiannilsson is a researcher, advisor and consultant. She has worked as a consultant at several of the prestige national universities. She is frequently invited as keynote speaker for international, and national conferences, within the area of open, online, flexible, and technology enabled teaching and learning (OOFAT) and quality. She is board member in national and international associations, in the area of open online learning and education (EDEN EC, former EFQUEL, earlier in EUCEN). Ossiannilsson is on behalf of SADE in the ICDE Focal Points of Quality. She was the research leader for the ICDE research study on global overview of quality models, and the evaluator of the SEQUENT project on quality. Ossiannilsson collaborated with the EC ET working group on digital and online learning on quality in OER, MOOCs and open education and with Commonwealth of Learning. She was an expert for IPTS on their work on the framework for open education. Ossiannilsson is a quality reviewer for both ICDE as well as for EADTU, ECB Check, and also for former EFQUEL. She was in the board for LANETO, and was among the founders of EPPROBATE. Ossiannilsson is coordinating the ICDE_ON_BOLDIC 372

About the Contributors

on behalf of the Swedish Association for Distance Education (SADE). She is in the Board for several scientific Journals and the Editor in the Education Sciences Journal, the topical collection on MOOCs. Ossiannilsson is representing EDEN in ISO, and she works at national level in SIS/ISO (Swedish Standards Institute /ISO. She has a passion to contribute to open education for a Future We Want for All, as is emphasized by UNESCO for 2030. Ossiannilsson has conducted several research studies in open online learning, including flexible learning, OERs and MOOCs, she has conducted several national overview reports, for example, the POERUP, ADOERUP, Global OER Mapping, the IPTS Member States Case Studies on Policies for Opening up Education, and for the Open Education Working Group. She was one of the promoters for introducing MOOCs in Sweden, and she has finalized some 40+ MOOCs herself, since its start in 2008. She was invited as Quality expert for the investigation on MOOCs by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ). Ossiannilsson earned her PhD at Oulu University, Finland in 2012 with a dissertation on Benchmarking e-learning in higher education: lessons learned from international projects. Her dissertation has fortunately had a very large outreach and is often cited. Ossiannilsson’s publications comprise over 200 publications: Conference papers, Journal articles, Book Chapters, Reports, Editor for books, a forthcoming book (Springer on open education) and her dissertation. Please see links to her LinkedIn and to her ResearchGate. Nilgun Ozdamar Keskin received her Ph.D. from the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies of the Graduate School of Educational Sciences of Anadolu University in the year 2011. She was a visiting scholar at University of Central Florida from 2009 to 2010. She got the best paper award at m-Learn Conference 2011 in China. Her research interests are Massive Open Online Courses, Global Education, Lifelong Learning, Mobile Literacy, Online Learning, Mobile Learning, Open and Distance Education. Victor Pitsoe is employed as Full Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Management, University of South Africa. Among others, he is a Deputy Editor of Africa Education Review; and a member of The World Institute for Nuclear Security. He has published more than 40 articles and 10 book chapters; and edited two books. He has published extensively in the areas of classroom management, citizenship and human rights education, philosophy of education, open distance learning (ODL), teacher education, teacher professional development, management and leadership in education, and policy studies.

373

About the Contributors

Yusuf Levent Şahin graduated from an undergraduate program in “Computer Education and Instructional Technology” at Anadolu University and the doctorate degree of the same program. He has been working as a assistant professor at the Anadolu University Education Faculty. He works such as gamification, social network analysis. Hasan Ucar is an English language instructor and coordinator for distance English courses at Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey. He received his Ph.D. (2016) and Master’ (2012) in Distance Education from Anadolu University, Turkey. Hasan’s current research agenda is the motivational design of instruction in online learning environments. Additional areas of research include distance learning and teaching, online learning, instructional design/technology, teaching and learning in online technologies, and motivation and engagement of online learners. Serap Uğur graduated from an undergraduate program in “Computer Education and Instructional Technology” at Anadolu University and the master degree of the same program. Since 2002, she has been working as a lecturer at the Distance Education Department of Open Education Faculty. She works research and development activities & projects in fields such as e-learning content types, animation, gamification, social network analysis, instructional design, individual differences and human-computer interaction.

374

375

Index

21st century skills 6-7, 25, 34-36, 51, 5354, 56-58, 62

A accessibility 4, 14, 26, 42, 119, 123, 125, 128, 135, 137, 139, 145, 170-171, 311 accreditation 11, 25, 89, 146-148, 152, 154157, 159-161, 163, 169, 174, 253, 311 administration 12, 32, 36, 43, 45, 49-50, 73-74, 84-85, 90, 93, 102, 106, 119, 132, 134, 145, 213, 264, 278-279, 318 administrator 46, 49-50, 56-57, 62, 84, 103-104, 266-267 agility 66, 77 AICC (Aviation Industry CBT Committee) 284 ARCS-V model 223-225, 228, 235 ARCS-V Model of Motivation Design 224, 235 Artificial Intelligence (AI) 116, 190 assessing 147, 161, 169 attention 24, 35, 37, 70, 125, 190, 205, 214-217, 223, 227, 230, 235, 241, 289, 294-296

B barrier 21, 122, 196 blended learning 175, 251-253, 261, 265 Bureaucrative 92, 116

C capability 63, 68-69, 73, 76-77, 83, 154,

206-207, 237, 268 CAST 124-125, 127 Choice–Based Learning 31 cMOOC 204, 214, 235 competence 19, 24, 26, 32, 52, 276 confidence 75, 146, 150, 156, 215, 217, 224, 227, 235, 294 constructivism 17, 148 critical theory 148, 182-183, 186 crossaction learning spaces 6, 8 Cultural Change 16, 31

D Delivery Approaches 243 digital literacy 8-9, 18, 32 digital transformation 1, 5, 11, 13-16, 1819, 21-22, 24, 32 disruption 19, 69 distance education 6, 37-38, 43, 45, 47, 84-85, 88-91, 93-94, 102-104, 109, 116-119, 127, 132-139, 152, 174, 188, 192, 215-218, 220, 222-223, 230, 235-254, 261, 263-266, 268-279, 286, 312, 318 distance learning environments 35, 39, 62, 135, 222-223, 225, 228-230, 266 distributed leadership 5, 63, 66, 68-69, 72, 77, 83 Dual Mode İnstitution 89, 116

E economic development 14, 245 Education for All 26, 126, 189, 211, 239

Index

education institutions 4, 17-18, 21, 35, 47, 49, 85, 99, 102, 117, 132-133, 138139, 153, 169, 174, 206, 215, 242, 244, 248, 250, 252, 263, 266, 268-272, 274-279, 284 Education within Globalization 211 Educational Policy 207, 211 e-learning 6, 10, 17, 21, 73, 118, 170-171, 174-176, 182, 186, 200, 202, 212, 239, 244, 251, 262-263, 268-270, 272-276, 285, 298 Élite Education 64, 67, 83 epistemological access 174-177 evaluating 51-52, 125, 147, 169

F fitness for purpose 33, 172, 182-184, 187 flexibility 7, 14, 18, 32, 38-39, 52, 62, 66, 74, 77, 90, 107, 118, 134, 149, 169-171, 174-175, 187, 241, 251, 311 fourth industrial revolution 1, 3-4, 14, 19, 24-25

G Game Based Learning (GBL) 318 gamification 10, 17, 289-292, 294-296, 298-299, 302-312, 318 Global Education 3, 207, 211 guaranteeing 147, 169

H HEC (Higher Education Council) 284 hegemony 170-172, 177-183, 187 hierarchy 19, 116, 153, 269 higher education 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 14-19, 21, 24-26, 49, 63-67, 70, 77, 148, 153, 169, 171, 174-176, 187, 189-190, 193, 195-200, 202-203, 206-207, 211, 236244, 248-253, 262-264, 266, 269-273, 277, 284-285 human resources 46, 48, 248, 289, 298, 310-312, 318

376

I ICT 2, 12, 21, 32, 35, 37, 62, 90, 176, 195, 218, 239, 241-247, 249-250, 272 improving 9, 125, 147, 153, 163, 169, 182183, 237, 245 IMS (Instructional Management System Project Global Learning Consortium) 284 information and communication technology (ICT) 2, 12, 32, 62 instructor 39, 104, 136, 224, 226-228, 237, 242, 261, 266, 284, 303 Internet 2, 9, 12-15, 33, 38-39, 52, 62, 69, 118, 139, 174, 176, 188-189, 191, 193, 198, 206, 212, 214, 220, 237-239, 243-244, 247-249, 251, 253 Interoperability 268, 284

J John M. Keller 217, 223, 235

K knowledge transfer 252

L leadership 1, 5-7, 11, 13-16, 18, 21, 25-26, 32, 34-36, 45, 49-52, 54-58, 62-63, 65-66, 68-69, 71-77, 83, 86, 88, 93, 101, 103-104, 132, 177, 244, 247, 268, 275, 278, 289, 299, 308, 311 LMS (Learning Management System) 284

M maintaining 10, 75, 147, 169, 247 Management in Open and Distance Learning 42, 46, 49, 318 Management Information System (MIS) 102, 116 marginalized communities 246 mass education 64-66, 68, 83 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Index

4, 188, 196, 211, 213, 217, 235 Mixed Mode İnstitution 90, 116 mobile learning 10-12, 15, 21, 32, 204, 251 monitoring 3, 147, 156, 169, 172, 269, 298 motivation 15, 20, 57, 101, 125, 213, 215218, 221-230, 235, 291, 294-296, 298, 310, 312 motivation strategies 226 motivational design 213, 220, 223, 225230, 235

ownership 1, 6, 16, 20, 26, 31, 33, 73

N

quality 1-2, 5-6, 11, 15-16, 19, 22-24, 26, 33, 55, 67-68, 70, 73, 94, 104, 125-126, 146-148, 151-163, 169-177, 179-184, 187-188, 190, 199, 205, 207, 216, 236-238, 248-249, 253, 275, 278-279, 308, 310, 312 quality assurance 22-24, 70, 94, 146-148, 152-159, 161, 163, 169-177, 179-183, 187, 253 quality indicators 155, 157-158, 161, 169

national strategies 188-189, 191, 195 neo-liberalism 146-148

O ODL institutions 84, 109, 147, 149-150, 152-156, 159-160, 162-163 OEF (Open Education Faculty) 285 OER 4-5, 10, 32, 188-190, 192-193, 195203, 206-207, 212, 249 online learning 1, 5, 9, 12, 17, 20, 22-23, 32, 135, 190, 193, 203-204, 212, 225, 242, 252, 266, 298 open and distance learning 34-43, 45-52, 54, 56-58, 62, 84, 94, 99, 102-104, 106, 117-118, 132, 135, 137-138, 145-147, 169, 187, 198, 200, 241, 244, 265-266, 268, 289, 298, 307, 310-312, 318 Open and Distance Learning Components 40 open and distance learning institutions 3436, 39, 42, 45-46, 48-52, 54, 56-58, 94, 99, 102-103, 137 open courses 192, 198 open education 5-6, 14-16, 18, 32-33, 39, 64, 189-190, 192, 195-196, 198, 200, 202, 205, 212, 264-266, 272, 285 Open Educational Resources (OER) 4, 189, 198, 202, 212 open learning 12, 171, 197-199, 201, 205, 212, 214, 240, 243, 268 open online learning 1, 5, 9, 12, 17, 20, 22-23, 32

P performance indicators 70, 93, 156-157, 161 personal learning 1-2, 5, 10, 12-13, 25, 32-33, 135

Q

R Relevance 10, 163, 215, 217, 235, 294 Role specific competencies 266-267

S satisfaction 1, 24, 152, 162, 215, 217, 222, 235, 277, 279, 291, 294 SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) 285 Single Mode İnstitution 88-89, 116 Skillsoft 269, 285 Social Constructivist Approach 147, 169 Stakeholder theory 149-151, 169

T Teaching Approach 262 teams 7, 18, 63, 69-70, 72, 74-76, 135, 161, 278, 311 tertiary education 70, 215, 237, 240-241, 262 trend 10, 25, 77, 195, 206, 289

377

Index

trust 66-67, 74, 76, 150 Turkey 188-189, 192, 199-201, 207, 263266, 268-271, 273-277, 284-286, 296

universal education 64, 68, 83 Universal Instructional Design (UID) 117, 124, 128, 145

U

V

unbundling 2, 4, 14, 18-19, 33 universal design 117-124, 127-129, 132, 134-136, 138-139, 145 Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) 117-118, 124, 129, 145 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 117, 124, 145

Virtual CSU 63, 66, 72-77, 83 Volition 70-71, 83, 215, 217, 221, 223, 235

378

X xMOOCs 190, 206, 214, 235