II. International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design
02-04 May 2013
Famagusta – North Cyprus
GLOBAL TRENDS IN DISTANCE EDUCATION
Professor Ali Simsek
Anadolu University, Turkey
asimsek@anadolu.edu.tr
Distance education has gone through significant transformations over the years. It originally started as correspondence study. Then open
universities emerged as institutional bodies in the second half of the twentieth century. Later we have witnessed the growth of corporate
involvement in distance education. Today it is the age of technology-enabled distance learning.There have been a number of driving forces
characterizing certain trends and developments throughout the evolution of distance education practices. This paper discusses current
global trends and their effects on distance learning. These include but not limited to trends regarding students, faculty, pedagogy,
technology, and governance of distance education systems. The paper also elaborates on implications of these leading trends for specific
applications of distance education. It appears that much of typical practices in distance education are replaced with opportunities brought by
recent virtual communication technologies.
Introduction
Distance education has gained great momentum in recent years all around the world. It is a common practice both in developed and
underdeveloped countries. Developed countries use distance education to create more variety in their educational systems, while
underdeveloped countries are more concerned about providing educational opportunities to different segments of their population. All
countries perceive distance education as a powerful alternative to traditional system in reaching out more students both demographically
and pedagogically.
There is little doubt that distance education is an expanding field. In all countries, innovative practices of distance education are
growing. Most of these programs enjoy wide recognition and positive reputation. As a result, the number of institutions providing distance
education is increasing. For example, only “one-third” of higher education institutions in the United States offered distance education
courses in 1995 but this figure reached to “two-thirds” in 2007 (Davies, Howell, & Petrie, 2010). Today almost all degree-granting institutions
offer some kind of distance education for a variety of reasons.
Although distance education can be provided at all levels education, most distance education systems around the world operate
at the university level. Therefore, issues related to distance education are often discussed within the context of higher education.
Nevertheless, distance education systems at the university level share many characteristics with distance education programs at other
levels, including non-formal education practices. Following the same orientation, this paper too will focus on higher distance education but
we assume that many points made here will also be valid for distance education in general.
Major Trends
There are a number of global trends in distance education today. These trends change the conventional nature of distance education
systems from many perspectives. It is possible to discuss these trends in certain categories. These include but not limited to trends
regarding students, faculty, pedagogy, technology, and governance of distance education. Taking an instructional perspective, the present
paper puts its emphasis on these elements.
Student Enrollments
General student population and college enrollment are increasing rapidly. Although a big percentage of this increase takes place in
developing countries, situation is more or less the same in the developed world. Conservative projections gave 120 million students
worldwide in higher education by 2020 but this number has been exceeded even in 2004because more than 132 million students were
enrolled in universities worldwide,up from 68 million in 1991. China and India have doubled their enrollments in ten years (Santiago,
Tremblay, Basri, & Arnal, 2008). Even in the United States, it was estimated that college enrollment has grown 16% during the first decade
th
of the 20 century (Jones, 2003; cited in Howell, Williams, & Lindsay, 2003). It means that universities have more students than facilitiesso
that their capacities are not sufficient to cope with the heavy influx of students and meet enrollment demands. Many educational institutions
offer distance education to ease the massive pressure on their conventional systems.
Student profiles and their expectations are changing. Two characteristics are particularly important in this respect: Most of distance
education students today are both young adults and digital natives. There is almost a subpopulation of learners described as “online
generation”, “Y generation” or “learners of the information-age.” These technology savvy learners are likely to demand a more aggressive ebased pedagogy that includes digital technologies. The fundamental implication of this profile is that learners want more flexibility and
portability in terms of their learning experiences. In other words, learners attending a distance education program or course may be almost
anybodyrepresenting different ages, ethnicities, nationalities, interests, learning styles, motivation, epistemological beliefs etc. In fact, more
working adults, female learners, minority members, immigrant students, and those living in rural or remote areas are attending distance
education programs in recent years. For example, 42% of all learners at public and private educational institutions in the United States are
at the age of 25 or older (Aslanian, 2001). Similarly, majority of part-time university students in Canada were 25 years old or older in 2006
(ICDE, 2009). Also, approximately 60% of university students are female and this ratio is even higher in minority groups (Cetron& Daview,
2003). Thus, most programs targeted the non-traditional adult student (Compora, 2003)
Students are taking distance learning courses offered by various institutions.Almost all university students take at least two or three
online courses before graduation. This creates a composite program for each student satisfying their needs and expectations. Even the
most prestigious colleges around the world offer online courses to regular students. Many other universities accept course credits obtained
through online programs from other institutions. However, there are some disturbing problems in this area: First, students sometimes face
difficulty in transferring online courses due to accreditation problem of the course-offering institutions. The concept of “academic currency”
is suggested to overcome this challenge (Johnstone, Ewell, & Paulson, 2002).Second, course-completion rates and program-retention rates
are usually lower in distance education programs compared to face-to-face instruction in many cases (Brady, 2001). On the other hand, due
to economic and social constraints,when nationwide participation rate in on-campus higher education is extremely low (such as the case in
sub-Sharan Africa), distance education is considered a viable and affordable means (Pityana, 2008). Third, general reputation of offcampus programs is perceived to be relatively low compared to on-campus programs. Accreditation standards and quality policies may
solve most of these problems.
Faculty Initiatives
Many educators are reluctant to involve distance education efforts. Faculty members usually hesitate to participate in design and
delivery of distance courses. This was a big obstacle against distance education reforms in the past. Of course, there were many reasons
for this. However, mostly thanks to the availability of powerful technology and user-friendly software along with proper administrative
support, more educators have been volunteering for distance and open learning initiatives in recent years. It appears that considerable a
number of educators have perceived that their roles/responsibilities have changed in the educational landscape of the twentieth century
89 II. International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design
02-04 May 2013
Famagusta – North Cyprus
(Howell, Williams, & Lindsay, 2003; Paulson, 2002). Therefore, regardless of their fields of expertise, many pioneering educators today offer
online courses or provide online support materials for their face-to-face courses.
Universities are encouraging their faculty to involve distance education more. In addition to personal efforts of faculty members,
administrators of educational institutions have encouraged faculty members by offering financial incentives and compensations when they
contributed to distance education systems. Theyalso began to assign professional design teams to distance education projects instead of
expecting individual faculty members to develop such programs or courseson their own. These teams usually comprised of project leaders,
subject matter experts, instructional designers, computer professionals, graphic experts, facilitators, teaching assistants, language editors,
marketing specialists, student counselors etc. More importantly, leading educational institutions, mostly universities, provided training
opportunities for their faculty members in terms of how to develop and deliver distance courses. Tenure systems have also awarded
instructional as well as academic contributions to distance educationsystems (Hickman, 2003; Paulson, 2002). All these factors empowered
the faculty and made a big impact on the diffusion efforts.
Active involvement is producingmore positive attitudes toward distance education.It is a fact that there are still some problematic
areas regarding faculty’s involvement in distance learning programs. One of them is that many faculty members have thought that
developing distance education courses was easy but it did not take long for them to recognize that this was not the case. For example, work
load is usually higher in online courses compared to face-to-face instruction, and much of the efforts are not paid at all (Brogden& Couros,
2002). Another problem is that distance education often involves new media, and some faculty members resist to technology-based course
delivery systems including online courses (Oravec, 2003). Still another problem involves the faculty’s feeling of isolation, particularly when
they run into technology related hurdles and receive no help. Also,some educators are philosophically opposed to distance education so
that they either withdraw their contributions or degrade efforts toward integrating distance education into their normal educational practices.
Studies show that their views change positively depending upon the level of their involvement in distance education (Lindner, Murphy,
Dooley, & Jones, 2002). It implies that faculty members provide meaningful contribution to distance education efforts only when appropriate
infrastructure is established, adequate support is offered,and empowerment opportunities are provided.
Pedagogical Shifts
Information and knowledge are growingexponentially. Aslanian (2001) states that information used to double almost every ten years in
the past but it doubles every four years these days. This situation has a clear impact on breadth and freshness of content in education.
Rapid proliferation of new information and its subsequent requirement for acquisition imply that people constantly need to update their
intellectual capacity. This creates the need for lifelong learning so that distance education systems provide alternative learning opportunities
and both current students and former graduates attend these programs depending upon their conditions. For this reason, distance
education programs are based on more up-to-date content and state-of-the-art instructional technologies. Of course, this makes the
learning experience more useful and appealing for all learners.
Instruction is learner-centered, interactive, and self-regulated in distance education. Many distance education programs around the
world provide a variety of learning resources and instructionalstrategies for students. Learning is not constrained to lecture notes or
textbooks only. Metaphorically stating, the “sage on the stage” understanding of the past turned into the “guide on the side” understanding
of today. It means that the role of the instructor was seen as “transmission” of information in the past so that lecture-style approach was
dominant. However, the major role of the instructor today is perceived to be “facilitation” of learning so that the constructivist approach is
employed more in today’s distance learning programs. As a consequence, main responsibility rests on the shoulders of individual learners
in distance education programs (Moore and Anderson, 2012).
Academic emphasis is shifting from seeking diploma to gaining competence. Many learners attend distance education programs or
take distance courses to develop their intellectual capacity and update their competencies directly related to their occupational as well as
daily needs. For example, working adults attend distance learning programs to improve their professional knowledge and skills, while
regular students take distance courses because they are more functional for their career goals. Although it is still important for formal
students in academic degree programs, diploma is less meaningful for many distance learners so that they prefer certification programs.
For this reason, distance and open learning institutions offer more certification programs than degree programs (Compora, 2003).
Standardized and reusablecontent elements areprevalent in distance education. Instructional designers of distance education
programs usually insist that the core content for each course should be determined and embedded successfully. Then, through a number of
instructional strategies, students should be directed to alternative resources. This is necessary at least for two reasons: First, accountability
and assessment are still important in distance education so that all students should be able to achieve objectives of the courses, and this
should be officially documented. Second, instructional designers prefer to use the same content as learning objects in different
courses.Learning objects are developed carefully, tagged in a systemic way, stored in well-designed databases, retrieved when needed,
and combined with other objects for specific needs (Frydenberg, 2002). In short, standardization and re-use of specific contentselements
assure the acquisition of minimum competencies for all students and contribute to efficiency of instructional design efforts in large scale
distance education projects.
Technological Innovations
Distance education programs by nature are technology-based. All distance education programs use contemporary technology to
deliver instruction to students when in fact they are away from instructors. This can only be achieved with the help of technology. It is
generally acknowledged that open and distance education is a good way of reaching out large number of students. For example, 40% of all
higher education students in Turkey and 25% of all higher education students in India are enrolled in distance education institutions (ICDE,
2009). Therefore, distance education systems have used the best educational technologies of their time. It was correspondence at the
beginning, later it became radio-television, now it is digital networks. However, each of these technologies has certain capabilities and
instructional design should be done accordingly. Nowadays, Internet represents the most basic educational technology in many distance
education programs because it can be used competently by people from all nationalities, ethnicities, genders, age groups, and socioeconomic levels. However, due to “digital divide”, certain parts of the globe (particularly Africa where there is a big demand for education)
cannot take full advantage of contemporary technologies in their distance education efforts, although the fastest growth in mobile phone
subscribers was in sub-Saharan region in recent years (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007).
Mobile technologies play a vital role in contemporary distance education. Tablet computers, mobile phones, personal digital
assistants, and other similar technologies are currently integral parts of distance education systems. That’s why, open university is also
called “pocket university.” It is because ubiquitous nature of these smart technologies can make learning possible anytime and anywhere
(frequently referred to m-learning). If currents trends continue, the typical mobile phone will have the processing power of today’s desktop
computer and cell phones will be affordable by anyone inmany developing countries. These technologies can also provide multimedia and
hypermedia based interactive opportunities for all learners (Elias, 2011). Thus, educational institutions use them to reach their students at
90 II. International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design
02-04 May 2013
Famagusta – North Cyprus
their convenience. Particularly, through smart mobile technologies, students can have access to education even when they are on travel or
vacation. However, no single technology is always best for distance learning so that a blended approach should be employed when
possible. It means that a variety of technologies should be used when designing and delivering distance instruction. This is also important
from the point of accommodating individual differences of studentsand their personal attributions regarding the roles and demand
characteristics of technologies in learning.
Social networks are serving as virtual learning communities. Today majority of students are members of social networks. Almost all
distance education students use social media such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Second Life and the like. Currently,
Facebook has about one billion users around the world, the number of YouTube users is around half a billion, and Twitter has more than a
quarter billion users (Simsek, 2012). With these technologies, students cannot only have access to the content but also collaborate with
others taking the same course. Because collaboration is important in developing interpersonal/social skills in students of all ages, many
distance education programs require team projects that can be completed only with individual contributions of all team members. Through
social networks, students may select their partners after reviewing their profiles and communicate with them successfully during the
academic work.
The need for effective learning management systems is growing. Characteristics and conditions of student population in distance
education programs vary significantly. Distance education generally requires a de-centralized but well-orchestrated system when it comes
to delivery of instruction and access to learning resources. Each student progresses at his/her individual pace so that the learning
management system should facilitate such flexibility. The system should be technologically powerful and academically smart. It should
address all the possible requirements and key elements of a learner-centered, interactive, and self-regulated distance education system
starting with registration to courses to keeping records for comprehensive uses. This becomes particularly vital when students can complete
their courses with open resources developed by other institutions (Simsek, 2011).
Governance Models
The landscape of educational institutions is changing. Traditional campuses are declining and virtual campuses are emerging. Many
public, non-profit, and private institutions combine their resources to create better organizational models in distance education. According to
Gallagher (2003), only 4% of all higher education students are enrolled in courses provided by for-profit organizations but this ratio is about
33% when it comes to online courses. It means that the involvement of private organizations in education is more visible in profitable
distance learning programs, particularly in the fields of business and information technology. Private organizations are not really interested
in high-cost (i.e. health sciences) or low-profit areas (i.e. fine arts). They usually leave these areas to public institutions because they
consider education to be a tradable commodity (Knight, 2004). Other reflections of the private sector’s interest in distance education also
include franchising, curriculum sales, and opening of branch campuses in different countries.
Virtual university partnerships are increasing.National and international consortiaaround the world are expanding. Universities,
publishing companies, software developers, computing firms, and media organizations have formed partnerships for developing and
delivering distance education. Such a movement assumes that all these parties put their expertise to the table and create the best mixture
with their partners. For example, publishing houses provide the content based on their textbooks, universities take the responsibility for
assessment and documentation, software developers offer courseware or e-materials, computing firms provide Internet/Web services, and
media organizations help publicity or broadcasting. In recent years, even the financial institutions have participated in educational consortia
because they offer funding for distance education systems and/or loans for students. Many of these partnerships have produced virtual
universities that initiated thecurrent discussion on “click versus brick” universities.In addition, conventional universities are increasingly
moving into the delivery of online programs. Virtual universities also increase international student mobility and globalization of education so
that learning becomes increasingly borderless. However, national governments are beginning to regulate the initiatives of foreign
institutions providing distance education services. Some of the measures include but not limited to accreditation process, the creation of
national lists, student loan restrictions, residency requirements, and copyright regulations (ICDE, 2009).
The movement of open educational resources is gaining popularity.As defined by UNESCO, this term refers to “the open provision of
educational resources enabled by information and communication technologies for consultation, use, and adaptation by a community of
users for non-commercial purposes” (OECD, 2007). Open educational resources may be in the form of open courses, modules, materials,
textbooks, videos, films, courseware, tests, reports, content, data, software tools, applications, standards, techniques and the like. In order
to be labeled as “open”, these resources should be free and accessible for users when they need to reach information. During the recent
years, many educational institutions including the most prestigious universities of the world, participated in the movement of open
educational resources. This provided many opportunities for collaboration, quality, cost-saving, variety, influence, and sustainability in
distance education programs.
Conclusion
Although distance education is appealing for many learners, some students do not prefer learning at distance. Given a legitimate choice,
these students prefer classroom teaching with an instructor and other students for a variety of reasons. They value the presence of a
learning group in which they can develop both formal and informal interactions. If this is the case, what are the reasons making open and
distance learning so popular in recent years?
It appears that distance education has a dilemma: On the one hand, some students do not really prefer to learn at distance; on the other
hand, students are increasingly demanding to be allowed to learn at a distance such as e-learning, web-based learning, m-learning, virtual
learning etc. Then, what should be done? Shall educational institutions make more investment in open and distance learning or should they
avoid such practices? Well, technology with proper pedagogy provides valuable solutions in this area.
Nowadays more courses and degrees are becoming available through distance education programs. The difference between traditional and
distance learning is almost disappearing. Students select their courses and programs based on their specific conditions and they often do
not discriminate whether a course is on-campus or on-line. However, none of these formats fully satisfies all the expectations so that many
institutions/educators prefer a blended approach that integrate good features of both face-to-face and distance education. When we
evaluate the current global trends in distance education as a whole, it appears that educational institutions should offer more and better
distance learning opportunities for their varying audiences. These educational opportunities may be fully distance learning courses or
combined parts of blended learning programs.
91 II. International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design
02-04 May 2013
Famagusta – North Cyprus
References
Aslanian, C. B. (2001). Adult students today. New York: The College Board.
Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements,
challenges, and new opportunities.Retrieved March 8, 2013 from
http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/OER/OpenContent/Hewlett+OER+Report.htm
Brady, L. (2001). Fault lines in terrain of distance education. Computers and Education, 18, 347-358.
Brogden, L. M. & Couros, A. (2002). Contemplating the virtual campus: Pedagogical and administrative considerations. The Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 68(3), 22-30.
Cetron, M. J. & Daview, O. (2003). 50 trends shaping the future (Special report).Bedhesta, MD: World Future Society.
Compora, D. P. (2003). Current trends in distance education: An administrative model. Online Journal of Distance Education Administration,
6(2). Retrieved February 21, 2013 from http:/7www.westga. edu/~distance/ ojdla/summer62/compora62.html
Davies, R. S., Howell, S. L., Petrie, J. A. (2010). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at research universities in North
America, 1998-2007. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 42-56.
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12(2),143–156.
Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality standards in eLearning: A matrix of analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 3(2). Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.irrodl. org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/109/551
th
Gallagher, R. (2003, March). The next 20 years: How is online distance learning likely to evolve? Paper presented at the UCEA 88 Annual
Conference. Chicago, IL.
Hickman, C. J. (2003, March). Results of survey regarding distance education offerings. University Continuing Education Association
(UCEA) Distance Learning Community of Practice.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., &Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategies
planning. Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, 6(3). Retrieved February 21, 2013 from http://www.
westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/howell63.html
ICDE. (2009).Global trends in higher education, adult and distance learning. Retrieved January 17, 2013 from http://www.icde.org
Johnstone, S. M., Ewell, P., & Paulson, K. (2002). Student learning as academic currency. ACE Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved
February 13, 2013 fromhttp://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-04.pdf
Jones, R. (2003). A recommendation for managing the predicted growth in college enrollment at a time of adverse economic conditions.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1). Retrieved February 21, 2013 from
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring61/jones61. htm
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1),
5-31.
Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., Dooley, K. E., & Jones, E. T. (2002). The faculty mind and how to read it. Distance Education Report, 6(14), 5.
nd
Moore, M. G. & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of distance education (2 ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oravec, J. (2003). Some influences of online distance learning on US higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1), 89104.
Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123-140.
Pityana, B. (2008, July). A decade of development and education in Africa: The promise of open and distance learning. Keynote address at
the Pan Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning. London, United Kingdom.
Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E., & Arnal, E. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society. Paris: OECD.
Simsek, A. (2011). Interview with Tony Bates on aspects and prospects of online learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1), 8894.
Simsek, A. (2012, May). Emerging technologies and social participation. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Communication, Media, Technology, and Design. Istanbul, Turkey.
Walsh, P. (2009). Global trends in higher education, adult and distance learning: ICDE environmental scan. Oslo, Norway: International
Council for Open and Distance Education.Available at:
http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/Reports/FINALICDEENVIRNOMENTALSCAN05.02.pdf
92