Douglas Oliver
OMDE 601 Section 9041
October 14, 2014
Distance Education: Contrasting Models in Canada and the Philippines
Distance Education: Contrasting Models in Canada and the Philippines
Douglas Oliver
University of Maryland University College
Author Note
Douglas Oliver, Graduate School of Management and Technology, University of Maryland
University College
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas Oliver, Graduate School
of Management and Technology, University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, MD
20783. Contact: doliver18@student.umuc.edu
Turnitin Originality Score: xx%
2
Introduction
This paper will contrast a Distance Education (DE) institution in Canada against a DE
institution in the Philippines, to provide comparisons of DE in a developed versus a developing
country. It will examine dimensions such as mission and population served, history, reason(s)
for existence, values inherent to each organization, systems of operation, models of teaching and
learning, and utilized technologies for both institutions. The point is to highlight specific traits
and processes in each institution that are typical of developed and developing countries. This
paper is written under the premise that DE in developed and developing countries can be
effective regardless of national, cultural, and economic factors. Models, theories and content
will differ from country to country, but quality and effectiveness are more relevant to the
institutional philosophy and staff than to conditions in respective countries.
Defining the terms “developed” and “developing” (nations) is important to this
discussion. Precise definitions are often subjective, with factors such as Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), government stability, population affluence, average education level and other factors
occasionally applied. For narrative purposes, a developed country is one with a functioning
economy, political stability and a higher standard of living (Canada). A developing country has
an unstable economy and political/security situation and a lower standard of living (the
Philippines).
Two Institutions, Two Missions
Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada is the institution representing a developed
country and University of the Philippines Open University in Los Banos, Laguna, Luzon,
Philippines is the institution representing a developing country. Both of these are open
universities, meaning that students can enroll without emphasis on previous grades or
3
achievements. Contrasting two open universities ensures that the basic institutional model is
used for each example.
Athabasca University (AU) opened in mid 1970, originally offering traditional (oncampus) education programs. It transitioned to an open, distance university two years later as
part of a pilot project. It has grown and developed, serving over 40,000 students world wide as
of 17 months ago (Athabasca University, 2013). Its stated mission is to remove barriers that
impede adult participation in and successful completion of university level students. AU is
committed to excellence in teaching, research, and scholarship, and providing quality service to
the general public (Athabasca University, 2013).
The University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) was established as a DE
institution in early 1995. It’s stated mission is to “provide wider access to quality education.” It
strives to uphold the highest standards of academic excellence and social responsibility amongst
staff and students (University of the Philippines Open University, 2014).
Populations Served
Both institutions are open, and are intended to serve their respective national populations,
as well as overseas students. The open model means that any student can enroll, regardless of
status. Within the general population framework, however, there are some subsets that each
institution specifically targets. As of 2000, AU’s student body consisted of 85% part-time
students, 75% age 25 and older, 67% female and 5% residing in countries other than Canada
(Davis, 2001, p. 1-2). These demographics show that AU’s typical student is Canada-based
student who takes courses only part of the time. The age and gender factors imply that the
majority of students are working professionals, several years out of high school, or stay-at-home
4
mature adults, looking to complete degree programs while simultaneously pursuing other
endeavors (career, home-making).
Precise demographics similar to those quoted for AU are not openly available for UPOU,
but there is some information. As of 2012, 2,800 students on average enroll each term
(Villamejor-Mendoza, 2013, p. 135). The institution is advertised open to “all potential learners,
regardless of age, ethnicity, religion” and makes learning available to groups such as political
prisoners, Overseas Foreign Workers (OFWs), elderly and women (Villamejor-Mendoza, 2013,
pp. 141-142). While this may not be representative of UPOU’s entire population served, it does
show that the school appears to cater to more disadvantaged elements of society.
Institution Histories
Some elements of institution history are covered in the “Two Institutions” section of this
paper. AU has been providing DE to students for approximately 25 years longer than UPOU.
AU was originally established as a traditional learning facility, but converted to an open DE
model through a pilot project. In the 1980’s, it began using computers as an online delivery
medium and today it serves more than 40,000 all over the world (Athabasca University, 2013).
UPOU was established in February 1995 as the fifth autonomous (and first distance)
institution in the University of the Philippines system. Its roots are in the 1950’s era rural radio
and School of the Air (SOA) formats from the University of the Philippines Los Banos campus
(Jamandre, 2011, p. 91). Since 2001, it has added an online tutorial model to its course delivery
methods and incorporated a learning management system and virtual classroom (Secreto, 2013,
p. 436).
Reasons for Existence
5
Both institutions exist to bring quality DE opportunities to national and overseas students,
regardless of work/life situation or academic history. Both institutions have additional reasons
for existence. AU seeks “to remove barriers to undergraduate and graduate education.”
(Athabasca University, 2013). This shows a purpose to reform DE programs, specifically by
making education available to those who would not otherwise have access. Another reason for
UPOU’s existence is to improve the quality of instruction in Philippine universities by
developing and sharing innovative course materials and technical tools (University of the
Philippines Open University, 2014). There are other reasons for both institutions’ existence, but
these are two different reasons each was established.
Values Inherent to Each Organization
AU cites values such as excellence, openness, learning, scholarly research, diversity, and
accountability (Athabasca University, 2013). UPOU does not specifically identify values but
elements such as innovation, academic excellence and freedom, social responsibility, and ethical
behavior are cited in its vision and mission statements (University of the Philippines Open
University, 2014). These institutions share most inherent values, and the respective nations
developed or developing status does not appear to significantly impact this.
Systems of Operation
DE systems encompass the individual elements that comprise the entire program,
including philosophy, teaching, learning, staff, students, and technology. AU’s system consists
of flexible, multi-dimension learning elements, including online and media technologies. It
emphasizes both individualized and group learning, extensive student support services and with
strong research support (Athabasca University, 2013). UPOP’s system has similar components,
6
with a strong emphasis on technology for delivery and quality assurance assessments to verify
the sustained accuracy and relevance of course offerings (Jamandre, 2011, p. 92).
Models of Teaching and Learning
AU uses a couple of different DE delivery models. The primary is individual study,
where the student receives the instructional material and works at his/her own pace, with tutor
support, completing all requirements within a 6-12 month window. Other courses are offered as
grouped study, where a group of students are led by an instructor, either online or in a face-toface classroom session at a partner facility, using a traditional semester schedule (Athabasca
University, 2013).
UPOU’s model is slightly different, based on the in-country situation, where technology
is not quite as advanced as in Canada. All courses are online, in a generally asynchronous model
(Jamandre, 2011, p. 92). Although E-Learning in the Philippines is generally associated with
online learning (Dela Pena Bandalaria, 2009, p. 495) there is a higher level of face-to-face
interaction between student and tutor, than in AU’s model. This is one area where the developed
versus developing nation situation has an impact.
Utilized Technologies
AU offers Internet technology to deliver most course material; students work in a virtual
classroom, with teaching web pages for learning material and activities. Some courses, such as
the Master of Distance Education (MDE) use only limited technology (teleconferencing and
email), with print material packages the primary method (Davis, 2001, p. 2). It also uses
learning centers to supplement the online instruction with live tutoring and advising.
UPOU also uses online technology, but not as robustly as AU. There is also less
individual activity. UPOU uses learning and testing centers for students to participate in tutor-
7
led study sessions, collaborate with classmates, receive course materials and take exams
(Jamandre, 2011, p. 92). Technology is blended with live participation here.
Conclusion
The available data shows many similarities in how both universities are established and
operate. This paper has also identified elements that differ, but not enough to effectively
contradict that premise that a DE institution can operate a successful program regardless of
whether it is based in a developed or developing nation. Both AU and UPOU are examples of
established, successful DE providers.
8
References
Athabasca University (2013). About AU. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca
Dela Pena-Bandalaria, M. M. (2009). E-learning in the Philippines: Trends, directions, and
challenges. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(4), 495-510. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org
Davis A. (2001). Athabasca University: Conversion from traditional distance education to online
courses, programs and services. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org
Jamandre, N.F. (2011). Quality assurance in distance education achieved in the Philippines.
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 90-97. Retrieved from
http://www.asiandje.org
Secreto, P. V. (2013). Gender equality in online learning: The case of UP Open University.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 103(13th International Educational
Technology Conference), 434-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.357
University of the Philippines Open University (2014). Vision and mission. Retrieved from
http://www2.upou.edu.ph/
Villamejor-Mendoza, M.F. (2013). The openness of the University of the Philippines Open
University: Issues and prospects. Open Praxis 5(2), 135-150. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.2.26