Quality Assurance In Open And Distance Learning: Global Approaches and Experiences

PREFACE

This is an edited book of case studies from around the world. The case studies serve as illustrative examples of implementation of the concepts of quality, quality assessment and quality assurance in Open and Distance Learning in institutions around the world. The case studies are by authors who are leading experts well known in quality and quality assurance in Open and Distance Learning. The book has been edited by Dr. Michael Mariasingam, Mr. Thomas Smith, and Dr. Chère C. Gibson who have considerable expertise and experience in Open and Distance Learning and quality assurance in ODL.

The Association of Finnish eLearning Centre is pleased to be the co-publisher of this groundbreaking and important book regarding quality of eLearning. Working together with the dedicated editors and authors of this book is a logical step in the activities of the association, as it has since its foundation in 2002 had quality of eLearning as a central theme in its work.

The Association of Finnish eLearning Centre is an independent non-profit promoter of eLearning and it provides a cooperative, joint forum for developers of digital educational activities and ways of working. It promotes an open culture of doing and sharing best practices. The membership includes nearly 50 institutional members representing companies, educational institutions, municipalities and other organizations in the field of eLearning. It serves also as a forum for eLearning stakeholders, enhances interaction between eLearning stakeholders, provides expert services and spreads eLearning information and experiences.

The Association is and has been an active promoter of quality in eLearning. This work has taken several forms. We organize annually the eEemeli competition for domestic eLearning products and services. The competition encourages Finnish eLearning providers to develop new products and services, and enhances the innovation and quality of eLearning. The criteria of eEemeli quality award include five different dimensions, which are pedagogical quality, technical quality, social quality, commercial potential as well as ethical quality and impact.

Another important initiative is the Finnish eLearning Quality Mark, which we have developed in collaboration with our essential stakeholders. The objective of this development work has been to emphasize the importance of the quality approach in developing the eLearning business. We have also been working closely in providing two intensive training courses for eLearning experts. As a part of this work, we also published in early 2011 a web-based course on eLearning quality.

Quality has been an important part also in our project activities. In the Finnish AVO project (Open Networks in Learning) the objective was to strengthen the production of open content with high quality, train and network the key experts, and to create new networks of peer learning for experts of different fields. Quality was seen as an important transversal element in the work of the project. The second AVO project – the AVO 2 project (Openness Accelerating Learning Networks) – has been generating and strengthening collaborative, participatory and networked working culture in educational institutions and organizations, and among their stakeholders. The main outcomes of AVO 2 project are, among others, new networks and forums to facilitate new learning solutions, handbooks and toolkits for teachers, decision-makers and citizens about social media, patterns for social networking and open content production, roadshows and online conferences, hands-on workshops and seminars to train users to apply digital tools to their everyday activities.

Our various quality development efforts have also improved our knowledge about eLearning and the potential social media for learning. Quality does not mean only development and implementation of criteria and standards – it is more a way of working and creation of knowledge together. We learn from peers and we receive feedback from peers – so the quality of outcomes is improving during the process.

The Association of Finnish eLearning Centre is proud to be a co-publisher of this book and we encourage our international colleagues to accelerate not only their work with eLearning quality, but also enhance the sharing of various approaches and experiences of eLearning quality. Quality is fundamentally a learning process – and this valuable book provides its readers many important and well-documented views on quality of eLearning.

Ari-Matti Auvinen

Chairman, Board of the Association of Finnish eLearning Centre, Leader of the quality initiative

Chapter 1

DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY ISSUES IN DISTANCE LEARNING

Michael Mariasingam

Consultant in Quality in Open and Distance Learning, USA

Tom Smith

Program Director Emeritus

Department of Engineering Professional Development

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Overview

This chapter presents a brief narrative of the development of distance education from a form of education alternative to traditional on-campus education, with considerable skepticism by all about its quality, and its quality being considered second only to on-campus education to its adoption of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and its acceptance as a viable alternative of equal or better quality to on-campus education. In describing the development of distance learning, the concerns about the current approach to quality assurance in distance learning like, concerns about the concept of quality adopted, lack of quality standards for quality assessment and quality assurance, the levels at which quality is generally measured etc and the need for a different approach to QA are discussed.

• • •

Open and Distance Learning came of age with the British Open University in the early 1960’s as a second chance option for working adults. It has recently gained new recognition through large-scale projects providing unrestricted access to education through the Internet. Because quality in education is traditionally judged in large part through entrance requirements, open access to education has a particularly difficult case to make, and must develop sophisticated measures of progress and outcome.

• • •

The objective of this narrative is to give the readers some basic knowledge of distance learning emerging as ODL and the comprehensive requirements for quality in ODL so that the readers will be able to review and assess the case studies in the book with a clear perspective on quality and quality assurance and use appropriate judgment in adopting or leaving out the processes for QA used by different institutions in different countries.

Current Status of Distance Education

UNESCO (2003) defines distance education as follows:

Distance education (sometimes referred to as ‘distributed learning’ or ‘distance learning’) is any educational process in which all or most of the teaching is conducted by someone geographically removed from the learner, with all or most of the communication between teachers and learners being conducted through electronic or print mediums.

Distance education is not a recent phenomenon; it has been there for a century or more. It has been in existence since 1840 when, it is claimed, Isaac Pitman attempted to teach shorthand by correspondence. Since 1890, more than 130 million Americans have studied by distance education, including Franklin D Roosevelt, Walter P Chrysler, Walter Cronkite, Barry Goldwater, Charles Schulz, and many other distinguished alumni of DETC members (DETC, 2000). Although it has been in existence for over 150 years, distance learning was, for a long time, considered inferior to on-campus education and as an alternative to be considered only if on-campus education is not possible. As an inferior form of education, the question of the educational effectiveness of distance learning was not seriously raised. Distance education has, however, come a long way since then and since the 1970s it has even become a subject considered significant enough to merit academic research (Mann, 1998). Although it is still being considered by some large public funded research institutions as only a secondary form of educational delivery, for most part it is now being considered as a viable, by some even as a better alternative to traditional on-campus education This change brings in with it the concern for the quality of distance learning. Distance education has been offered for a long time mainly through print medium. The recent IT revolution, however, has changed the distance learning landscape significantly.

Growth in Distance Education

This change in the perception of distance education has recently led to a phenomenal growth in distance education. Around the world many institutions started offering distance learning programs. The initial reluctance of many of the publicly funded traditional institutions to meet the growing need for education at a distance provided many private educational enterprises capitalize on the growing demand. The lack of accountability and quality control mechanisms for distance learning programs attracted profit motivated private educational providers to distance learning (Swail and Kampits, 2001, p.38).

Over the last decade, there has been a change in the outlook about distance education also among publicly funded institutions. The demand for distance education has put a lot of political pressure on publicly funded traditional institutions to meet the need. Many institutions have revised their view on distance education and have come to believe that distance education could be of high quality and a better way to serve the ‘underserved’. For instance, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) now views distance learning as part of its central mission to serve the people of the state of Illinois, as part of the core values of the institution (Twigg, 2001, p. 4). The number of institutions committing to distance education has steadily increased.

The phenomenal growth in distance education, as a viable alternative to traditional education, has been mainly in response to a growing demand for flexible education. The growth in distance education is well documented - from its modern beginnings with the British Open University in 1960 to the first Internet courses in the 1990’s to the present where more than ninety four percent of all higher education institutions are engaged in distance learning. In 2001 in the US alone, the number of enrollments reached 1.3 million credit courses …. (Swail and Kampits 2001). More than a decade ago institutions worldwide, particularly in North America, Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and several other European countries, such as Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands adopted increasingly the online mode of teaching (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999). In 2007, just in the US alone more than 3000 institutions offered more than 11,240 programs and more than100, 000 different courses by distance education. The total number of enrollments in distance education courses in 2007 in the US was 12.2 million (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Lederman (2013) states:

In 2011, … a third of all the students enrolled in postsecondary education had taken an accredited online course in a postsecondary institution. (cited in Wikipedia, October 2013).

Lederman (2013) further observes:

… more than 7 in 10 public and for-profit colleges are now offering full academic programs (as opposed to merely freestanding courses) online, far more than were doing so a decade ago. Nearly half of private nonprofit colleges are offering fully online programs, about double the number that were doing so in 2002. (Lederman, 2013 cited in Wikipedia, October 2013).

However, this exponential growth in distance education has also raised considerable concern about the quality of distance education.

Distance Learning - The Concern

The long history of distance education being considered a second-rate education, the unprecedented exponential growth in distance education, and the entry of for profit private educational providers - have raised questions of quality in distance education.

Distance education by the traditional institutions naturally brings in the question of accreditation and along with it the need for quality assurance. Accreditation agencies and institutions have been pressured to establish quality standards. What Nielson (1997) said has been a concern with accountability, both to stakeholders who fund and accredit the programmes and to the programmes' consumers, namely students is still valid. That is why the lingering complaints about degree mills and the checking efforts like the Diploma Mill Police by Get Educated.com. More than a decade ago Swail and Kampits (2001) said Skeptics argue that the nation’s rich history of regional accreditation may be overwhelmed by the tsunami of technologically mediated instruction (p.35) but even today the concern remains quite strong for several reasons. First, World Education Services (2013) says there are problems with some accreditation agencies:

However, accreditation does not necessarily guarantee legitimacy. There are currently 35 accrediting agencies in the United States that are not recognized by the Department of Education or CHEA and that will put their stamp of approval on just about any program with no questions asked. In many cases, the accrediting agencies in question are merely self-serving organizations set up by the diploma mills themselves.

Second, in spite of the prevailing serious efforts to ensure the quality of distance learning by well recognized and reputed accreditation commissions, there are still concerns (discussed below) with several aspects of today’s quality assurance and accreditation processes and procedures as implemented by the accrediting commissions.

The concern with Quality Assurance in distance learning – Current scenario

The concern for quality in distance education, however, was not matched by suitable processes and standards for assessment and assurance of quality of distance programs. Some believe that the accreditation commissions and other quality assurance agencies have been challenged with their capacities for quality assurance being overwhelmed by the exponential growth of distance education programs (Twigg, 2001). Research by several experts in distance education in the last decade indicates that the rapid expansion has superceded our understanding of how to plan, organize, and evaluate these programs effectively. Quality in distance learning has become an important issue that needs to be addressed.

There are several inadequacies and limitations with the current approach to quality assurance in distance education employed by accreditation commissions and others. The concern with the quality of distance learning programs is in the following aspects:

Concern with the concept of Quality

Quality is a complex construct. Ehlers (2004) pointed out that quality can be conceptualized in three different dimensions: different levels of the educational process to which quality can apply, different quality perspectives, and different meanings of quality (see Figure 1), and that each of these dimensions needs to be considered in developing approaches to quality assurance and quality assessment.

Quality assurance in distance education is still treated generally by most not very different from on-campus education. Eaton (2002) noted more than a decade ago:

… currently configured, regional accreditation standards and the regional distance learning guidelines tend to focus on the similarities between site-based education and electronically-based education, paying less attention to the differences between the two approaches to teaching and learning.

The accreditation processes and standards have not changed very much since then to take into consideration the unique features and problems of distance education. Distance education and on-campus education, however, are markedly different modes of delivery and therefore the processes used in quality assurance need to take into account the differences. Unlike on-campus education, which is offered within the borders of a campus and a country, distance education programs are often global. This global nature of distance education programs causes significant challenges for quality assurance and accreditation (Pond, 2002). Therefore, with the rapid expansion of distance education generally, online programs in particular, concern for the quality control of these programs by accreditation has become an issue of paramount importance.

Concern with the Perspectives of Quality

The current approach to quality focuses primarily on the perspectives of internal constituencies - students, faculty, and appropriate administrative personnel – and does not stress the perspectives of external stakeholders, such as employers, licensing agencies, and others, who could be major players in quality assurance strategy. Most programs have external constituencies and for quality to be comprehensive their needs should be considered and met. As Auvinen and Mariasingam (2012) say, An essential element in quality work is continuous dialogue between all key players and Academy for Educational Development (AED and EQUIP2, 2006) state:

Stakeholder collaboration in the definition, implementation, measurement, and evaluation of education quality improvement projects arguably increases the likelihood that the resulting policy will more effectively meet the needs of various beneficiaries and donors, be judged meaningful and successful by a wide range of stakeholders, have fewer unintended consequences, and be more sustainable.

…. Education quality improvement efforts benefit from open and deliberative discussion between stakeholders.

In spite of this observation, current approaches to quality generally focus on the requirements of only internal stakeholders. Auvinen and Mariasingam (2012) observe,

However, the quality assurance approach of educational institutions has been largely built on internal quality work and quality control, which has been assisted by external quality assessors and national quality assurance authorities and agencies (Ossiannilsson & Creelman, 2012).

And, as Schweiger (1996) pointed out The achievement of quality can be managed and quality itself be credibly measured only when it is clear … whose quality interests are to be served. All stakeholders should be identified and their perspectives need to be taken into account.

Concern with the Levels at which Quality is measured

Quality, to be meaningful, effective, and precise, should be measured at multiple levels. In distance education there are three levels at which quality can be considered — the course level, the program level, and the institutional level. Yet, quality assessment and assurance strategies currently focus on only one level — either at the program level or at the course level. Quality needs to be measured also at the institutional level, especially in online learning where the combination of institutional technological and administrative functions play such a large part in determining the quality of the learner’s experience. To be precise, to ensure the quality of a program quality must also be measured and assured at the institutional level, program level and course level for each course of the program.

Lack of Standards

To have a precise assessment of quality, quality must be measured using benchmarks - quality standards. But, currently there is a lack of quality assessment tools that define benchmarks. Quality assurance agencies do not have proper quality standards for assessment and assurance of the quality of distance programs. What Swail and Kampits (2001) observed: "Over the past three decades, accreditors (and the public) have supported the rapid rise of distance education with little attention to new benchmarks for evaluation and assessment" is valid even now.

Several organizations have proposed new guidelines for assessing the quality of distance education programs. A review of the guidelines by Mariasingam (2006) revealed that the current approach to quality assurance in online education and the currently used quality guidelines proposed by the organizations for assessing the quality of distance education are inadequate, incomplete, and have serious limitations. The quality frameworks currently used, with the exception of a few like the framework by Mariasingam (2006), are inadequate because they are just broad guidelines not benchmarks or standards against which an item should be measured for quality. They are just guidelines misleadingly called benchmarks. They are not even best practices. The guidelines are not specific enough to enable a precise quality assessment and assurance. They do not specify the outcomes to be measured and they do not specify the level at which the outcomes should be measured. They do not incorporate criteria critical to establishing quality and have other limitations and inadequacies.

Lack of a Comprehensive Approach

In assessing the quality of currently existing quality frameworks the following criteria were used by the author and a colleague (Mariasingam & Hanna, 2006) to check how well the frameworks met these criteria:

To what extent do the program's teaching/learning materials and processes

• Foster collaborative learning?

• Facilitate formation of learning communities?

• Facilitate social integration?

• Facilitate career integration?

• Impart the skills necessary to transfer knowledge to job performance?

• How flexible is the program in enabling learners to pursue education anywhere, anytime, at any pace?

• How does the program prepare participants to become successful lifelong learners?

• How well does the program address societal educational needs?

• Are program costs examined comprehensively from the perspective of the learner, in terms of time, access, and dollars, as well as from the perspective of the institution on these measures?

• Are employer requirements concerning the learning outcomes of online programs specifically listed in appropriate situations and contexts and included as a criterion of overall program quality?

• To what extent are requirements of governments incorporated as a critical element of quality?

• Are relevant cross-cultural challenges, choice of language of instruction, and meeting international standards and requirements for accreditation considered a key element of quality online programs?

• Do criteria incorporate performance evaluation criteria appropriate to the goals and processes of online learning, rather than using simplistic comparisons with what happens in face-2-face classrooms?

It was found that while some or in some cases most of the criteria were met, none of the existing quality frameworks met all the criteria mentioned above critical for achieving high quality. Hence the claim that the currently existing framework lack the standard required to guarantee high quality.

The limitations and inadequacies of the quality assurance process and the frameworks currently used in distance learning have created the need for adopting a new comprehensive approach to quality assessment and assurance that would meet all the above critical requirements and the need for new quality frameworks with measureable benchmarks based on the new comprehensive approach.

Countries like Australia and the UK, particularly the UK, have implemented a comprehensive approach to quality assurance that meets the above criteria critical for quality. A good example is the quality framework of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of the UK.

Quality assurance agencies in the US need to develop new quality standards for quality assurance. Establishing appropriate standards and benchmarks for evaluating the quality and the impact of online degree programs is now critical. The quality frameworks to be designed by the quality assurance agencies should have a comprehensive set of criteria for quality that would meet the requirements of all stakeholders, and for each criterion benchmarks for measurement must be defined at multiple levels. For an example, one could refer to the quality framework of Mariasingam, Quality criteria and benchmarks for online degree programs (Mariasingam, 2006).

Emerging Situation Regarding Distance Learning

Emergence of Distance Education as Open and Distance Learning

UNESCO (2003) describes Open and Distance Learning (ODL) as:

… approaches to learning that focus on freeing learners from constraints of time and place while offering flexible learning opportunities. For many students, open and distance learning (ODL) is a way of combining work and family responsibilities with educational opportunities.

and UNESCO describes how the open nature of ODL could be realized as:

The ‘open’ nature of distance learning might be formally institutionalized in such policies as open admissions, and freedom of selection of what, when and where to learn. The openness of distance learning is also seen in relatively flexible organizational structures, delivery and communication patterns as well as the use of various technologies to support learning.

UNICEF (2009) in its report Open and Distance Learning for Basic Education in South Asia describes ODL as:

The term ODL or open and distance learning is frequently used as an umbrella term to cover educational approaches that reach learners in places that are convenient or accessible to them, provide learning resources for them, or enable them to qualify without attending school or college in person, or open up new opportunities for keeping up to date no matter where or when they want to study. While understandable, the conflation of the terms can be confusing and in this report we will substitute open learning as the umbrella term, with distance education as one type of open learning. (Emphasis in the original)

A close review of emerging distance learning programmes tend to indicate that the trend in developing and delivering distance learning programmes seems to make the programmes meet as closely as possible the characteristics defined above as the characteristics of Open Learning Programmes.

Why Open and Distance Learning?

As mentioned earlier, the number of Distance Learning programs offered by universities around the globe has expanded remarkably in the last decade. Mainly two factors have contributed to this change: a growing demand for education globally and a great demand for flexible education – education anytime, anywhere, in any mode. Mann (1998) says,

…. having attained the status of a subject considered worthy of academic research in the 1970s (Keegan 1986), distance education has developed multi-typologies, often in response to the specific needs and aspirations of learners it aims to serve, as an alternative mode of educational delivery (emphasis added).

Why the increased need and demand for Open and Distance Learning?

The world is going through rapid changes. These changes have affected life in general and

transformed the nature of businesses in particular. A number of external forces are driving this transformation. Some of these drivers are (ASEE Conference, 2005 cited in Mariasingam et al 2008, p. 2):

• Rapid advancements in technology

• Rise of new kinds of technology

• Globalization and the increasingly global nature of businesses

• Growing complexity of socio-technical systems

These drivers and the resulting transformations are making knowledge to become obsolete at a phenomenal rate. For instance, according to the Alumni e-Newsletter of Purdue Engineering the half-life of engineering knowledge averages five years.

It’s not only the demographics that are calling out for change. Current estimates place the half-life of engineering knowledge—the time interval in which half of what an engineer knows becomes obsolete—at between 2.5 and 7.5 years, with an average estimate of 5 years. Engineering curricula are faced with the challenge of developing students who are learners for life. (Purdue Engineering. Fall 2005 E-Newsletter, 2005), cited in Mariasingam et al 2007).

This short life of knowledge has created the need for lifelong learning. According to the American Council on Education,²²

Learning is a lifelong process, important to successful participation in the social cultural, civic, and economic life of a democratic society … (American Council on Education, p.11, cited in Mariasingam et al 2007).

According to Allen Academy of eLearning (2007),

Today, traditional students in higher education – age 18 to 22 – make up less than 20% of all students. The fastest growing group attending higher education institutions are working, part-time students older than 25.

For such learners, Open and Distance Learning makes lifelong learning possible as it, as UNESCO says, is an easier way of combining work and family responsibilities with educational opportunities.

In addition, ODL offers numerous advantages to learners in their learning experience. Wikipedia (Wikipedia, October 2013) presents the following as the learning benefits to learners:

Present-day online communication allows students to associate with accredited schools and programs throughout the world that are out of reach for in-person learning.

By having the opportunity to be involved in global institutions via distance education, a diverse array of thought is presented to students through communication with their classmates. This is beneficial because students have the opportunity to "combine new opinions with their own, and develop a solid foundation for learning.[41]

It has been shown through research that as learners become aware of the variations in interpretation and construction of meaning among a range of people [they] construct an individual meaning, which can help students become knowledgeable of a wide array of viewpoints in education.[41]

Within the class, students are able to learn in ways that traditional classrooms would not be able to provide. It is able to promote good learning experiences and therefore, allow students to obtain higher satisfaction with their online learning.[44]

When course design and the learning environment are at their optimal conditions, distance education can lead students to higher satisfaction with their learning experiences.[45] Studies have shown that high satisfaction correlates to increased learning.

Some of the above advantages are only possible with ODL, not with just simple distance education, and in the case of all the benefits available in distance education are enhanced by ODL

Also, ODL could be cost effective for learners. For learners it could save costs of transportation as learning could take place at home or the work place of learners. More importantly ODL could be the only way of getting education if the learner could not travel or lives in a remote place or disaster-prone areas from which travel to a place of learning may be impossible. UNICEF (2009) states:

ODL provides a means of overcoming certain barriers in basic education: of enabling access to national qualifications outside formal schools, of overcoming geographical barriers (such as radio broadcasting in disaster zones, mountainous regions and small island states), of training large numbers of teachers in situ (distance education). It also offers the potential to deliver better value for money, particularly with the economies of scale that can be achieved in high population South Asian countries.

ODL could be cost effective to institutions/organizations too. In the case of companies, Pamela (2001) notes that the following demands drive eLearning:

Rapid obsolescence of knowledge and training; need for Just-in-time training; search for cost-effective ways to meet learning needs of global workforce; skills gap and demographic changes drive need for new learning models; and Demand for flexible access to lifelong learning" (Source: WR Hambrecht & Company).

According to Overheul (2002) the benefits of a successful online learning program should include:

• Immediate and constant access to safety training programs.

• Easier scheduling of workers' training.

• Reduced overall training time.

• Global consolidation of workers' education.

• Reduced training costs.

• Increased retention of training material because of interactive learning formats.

• Greater reporting flexibility and capability.

• And, most important, a reduction in incidents and accidents. (p.103).

Emerging New Environment for Open and Distance Learning

Distance education has been affected significantly by a change in the landscape of education. At least three major contributors to this change in landscape could be identified:

• Globalization

• Emerging learner-centric teaching and learning environment.

• Increasing use of technology in education,

Globalization

Globalization has contributed to a number of significant changes in the landscape of education in general and ODL in particular. Educational provision has become highly competitive. Proliferation of educational institutions and increasing costs have made education an economic commodity in a very competitive environment. This growing competitive environment is a global phenomenon.

Globalization has changed the demography of the stakeholders in ODL. New developments, like globalization, in the educational environment of ODL have brought in new stakeholders in education. More discussion on stakeholders is in the Section on Stakeholder issues in ODL that follows.

Learner-centric teaching and learning environment

Over the past decade, the educational environment - approaches to education, educational models, and the educational process - have changed significantly. The past approach to teaching and learning was a top down approach. The assumptions of this approach were: Institution knows what programs to offer, what should be the standard, how to assess program quality etc; and faculty know how to teach, how to provide student support, how to assess student performance etc.

The past top down linear teaching models of inputs, outputs, and processes were perhaps suitable because of the learner demography of the time. Learners were in general passive learners - mostly from the same geographical locations - with similar socio-cultural values, with similar educational backgrounds, with similar learning styles, learning strategies, and learning needs.

With internationalization of education the learner demography and the learning needs, experiences etc of learners have changed. For education to meet learners’ needs and to be of most benefit to them teaching and learning process should suit learners’ learning styles and learning strategies and learning preferences. As Shah, Wilson, and Nair (2012) say,

… students are the most important stakeholders of universities and their experience or knowledge and understanding of higher education must be based on their voices. In other words, student experience is created by students rather than it being defined by universities.

This leads to the need for learner-centric teaching and learning. Current educational environment of education - ODL in particular- is responding to this need and is becoming learner-centric.

Technology assisted ODL

Increasing use of technology in education has led to internationalization of education. Education in general has become cross-border in nature. ODL programs, as cross-border programs, now reach global learners. Technology has also made it possible for the institutions to add to the faculty adjunct instructors from any part of the globe, which could improve significantly the calibre of faculty for ODL programs.

Impact of the New Developments on ODL Provision and Quality

Globalization has created a significant increase in the demand for international programs. Technology assisted ODL programs being easily available as cross-border programs and with added flexibility they offer to learners ODL is becoming the preferred mode of learning for learners seeking international programs.

The new developments in ODL - ODL programs becoming cross-border programs with growing global learners with varied socio-cultural values, varying learning strategies, learning styles, learning needs and with varying learner support needs and the emerging learner centric teaching learning - have created the need for different approaches to organize and manage ODL and quality assurance in ODL.

New Approach to Organizing and Managing ODL Provision

Cultural issues and its impact on ODL

The cultural variations of global learners have a great impact on distance education because cultural differences affect greatly how people think, learn, respond, and perform (Mariasingam & Auvinen, 2011). Morse (2003) says:

Educational systems are culturally specific [previously found at sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/]. Ethnic group (cultural) differences are reflected in learning styles which are based on the modal behaviors of societal learned values. [previously found at sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/] …. Participant cultures – their learned rules of behavior in a group setting – are therefore important to the development of learning interaction and learning achievement.

Culturally different content affect significantly the learning of distance learners. In addition to this cultural impact on learning materials diversity in staff cultures affects the delivery of the learning materials. Cultural diversity of learners also affects the way learner support systems are to be designed to help learners. The learning styles and preferences of learners in the high-context cultures, it is found, are quite different from those of the learners in the low-context cultures (Mariasingam & Auvinen, 2011). If the teaching and learning are to be effective cultural differences should be given due consideration in all aspects of teaching and learning. The areas to look into to ensure that the ODL programs will be suitable for global learners include: Content Development; Cultural Contextualization of Content; Teaching and Learning; Staff Professional Development; Student Support Systems; and Assessment.

Content development for ODL

The distance learning materials are predominantly developed in the Anglo-Saxon world. Wong (2007) says that Wilson, Qayyum and Boshier (1998, cited in Wong, 2007) found from an Internet search that 68 to 87 percent of ‘e-learning courses available were American courses. Currently, therefore, the content development for distance learning is influenced by the learning abilities, learning styles, and learning preferences of the learners of the Anglo-Saxon world. When these distance learning contents are used in the Asian and other non-Western cultures without adaption it has been noted that the student persistence rates in distance learning has been very low, as low as 20 per cent. The main reason for the low student persistence has been identified as the unsuitability of the learning materials to the learners, who are culturally different from the learners for whom the learning materials were developed. To make content culturally relevant to the learners, content must be developed for cross cultural delivery.

Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) and outsourcing content are very desirable because sometimes better quality content may be available elsewhere. With course development having become a team effort rather than a solitary affair, as it used to be, even if there is an excellent content development expert locally, there may not be a good course development team locally. So, if such a team could be identified in other places, it would be better to outsource the content. But, the selected course development team should be given clear knowledge of the teaching and learning environment, learners’ requirements etc. Otherwise, when OER and outsourced content are used content must be adapted to be culturally sensitive. A joint COL-UNESCO OER Publication (WikiEducator, 2011) observes:

Part of the effective use of OER includes developing skills to adapt and contextualise existing OER to respond to diverse learning needs of students and support a variety of learning approaches for a given learning goal

To make content culturally relevant to the learners Wong (2007) says:

Mason (1994) outlined three broad alternative attitudes and practices:

Try to tackle the problem by 1) making adaptations to the original course; 2) jointly redeveloping the course for cross-cultural delivery with the original overseas provider; or 3) creating a different version of the original course by translation into the local language.

Try to develop a culturally neutral course

Try to argue that the cultural bias may encourage students to be independent in knowledge acquisition.

Teaching and learning process in ODL

The effectiveness of the learning process is very dependent on the learning abilities, learning styles, and learning preferences of learners, which are very much influenced by culture. The teaching process is influenced by culture. In teaching and learning as Patrick and Linder-VanBerschot