Running head: DISTANCE HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA
Distance Higher Education in Developing Countries:
In Support of Consortia
Cynthia P. Lyons
University of Maryland University College
DEPM 625
1
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
Distance Higher Education in Developing Countries:
In Support of Consortia
Higher education is on the move from its traditional brick and mortar environment,
available to people with the resources to afford materials, housing, and other living costs.
Today’s higher education institutions offer distance learning options via the Internet to
supplement face-to-face learning; as well as, to offer entire degree programs online. According
to Carr-Chellman (2005) online higher education provides access for learners around the globe
and provides opportunities for people everywhere to earn a degree. This “democratizing force in
education” (Carr-Chellman, p. 1) is a dramatic shift in the potential for the globalization of
higher education. As global organizations, governments, private businesses, and individuals
realize the impact of online learning, the promise of a brighter future is possible. Indeed, the
United Nations (UN) is committed to improving the living standards in poor nations. The
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) identifies higher education as a service to be
regulated on the international market as if it were a commodity. Research suggests that this
globalization, commercialization, or democratization of higher education may adversely affect
people in areas not able to participate (Knight, 2003). In other words, marketing higher
education as a capitalistic venture implies that the suppliers will focus on markets (i.e. people)
where there is a demand or where money can be made. Online higher education is a means for
meeting the needs of peoples separated by geography. According to Knight (2006) less than
10% of eligible people in India attend postsecondary institutions and less than 5% in sub-Saharan
Africa. This compares with a 50% benchmark in the developed world. The nature of online
education allows suppliers to broadcast content to a large group of people, thus enjoying
economies of scale.
2
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
The question to address is how can we deliver online higher education into countries
where barriers exist, such as strict governments and devastating poverty? Research shows that a
possible solution is to establish consortia to pool resources and oversee the credibility and
integrity of academic programs. This paper examines the barriers and risks associated with
distance education consortia in developing countries. The discussion begins with identifying
developing countries, defining terminologies, and examining barriers to implementation. After
discussing consortia, this paper looks at existing consortia to identify strengths and weaknesses.
Next the discussion focuses on the requirements, critical factors, and acceptance. As the paper
unfolds, readers will understand how GATS is crucial to the successful globalization of online
higher education. This paper attempts to answer the question: are consortia capable of closing
the gap between people who have access to education in developing countries versus those who
have access in developed countries?
Developing Countries – The Scope for this Paper
According to Todaro (2003) developing nations share similar characteristics beyond
geographic factors. Todaro (2003) states that the following traits are common among developing
countries: poverty, low productivity, high population growth rates, highly dependent on
agriculture or a single export commodity, imperfect markets, and subject to domination in
international relations (p. 46). According to Todaro (2003) developing countries are located in
Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and North and Sub-Saharan
Africa. The issues facing these countries make it very difficult to bring about improvement.
Citizens exist on low wages and are therefore less likely to use earnings to pay for education
(Todaro, 2003). Yet, without education and training, citizens are essentially stuck in the status
quo. Todaro (2003) says that the characteristics inherent to developing nations “reinforce and
3
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
perpetuate the pervasive problems of “poverty, ignorance, and disease” that restrict the lives of
so many people in the developing world (p. 57).
Governments play a critical role in the standard of living, but can be major obstacles in
efforts to improve the quality of life for developing countries. For example, governments in
developing countries may be unstable or controlling. Zondiros (2010) notes that globalization,
especially through the use of technology, threatens government’s control over individual and
private industrial activities. This can lead to risk and the possibility of retribution. Take, for
example, today’s case in Cuba. According to the Associated Press (2012), Alan Gross, an
employee of a Maryland company, was jailed by Cuban authorities for violating Cuba’s controls
over the Internet. The Cuban government claims that Gross was attempting to infuse democratic
ideals into Cuba in an attempt for Washington to exert control in Cuba (Associated Press, 2012).
One entity may not be able to overcome governmental, geographic, and financial hurdles; but, a
group of entities are likely to be successful.
What is a Consortium?
A consortium of universities is a partnership of two or more institutions operating to
achieve a common goal through the use of shared resources. Merriam-Webster (2012) defines
consortium as “an agreement, combination, or group (as of companies) formed to undertake an
enterprise beyond the resources of any one member”. Consortia are formed for a variety of
reasons; such as, to share resources, including financial, physical, and human resources. In
addition, members share knowledge and skills. Rumble and Latchem (2004) also note that
consortia may be formed to acquire a greater market share and to dominate the market. In some
cases consortia provide the means to broker learning opportunities and to recognize prior
learning achievements.
Rumble and Latchem (2004) provide the example of research
4
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
universities in British Columbia partnering with Open Learning Agency to recognize learners.
Consortia across borders can even provide opportunities for international students to meet
governmental requirements for entry (Rumble & Latchem, 2004). Indeed, the author of this
paper is employed at Towson University in the United States (US), which has numerous
international agreements with foreign institutions to promote and support international student
enrollments at Towson University.
Tritt (n.d.) asserts that a consortium is governed by a body separate from the constituents.
That is, none of the member institutions controls the activities of the consortium. This is an
important factor, particularly in developing countries. A consortium may be able to provide
programs, deliver content, and be more sustainable than an individual institution. Indeed, Tritt
(n.d.) notes that the members of a consortium enjoy advantages that may not be available to them
otherwise. For example, Tritt (n.d.) describes a scenario where one institution in a consortium
may offer a program that does not meet accreditation standards, but when teamed with another
institution’s program that is accredited, both institutions benefit. Khakhar (2001) elaborates a bit
and states that distance education consortia must be designed and managed extremely well to
ensure success. Effective leadership is needed to develop a clear plan and budget that outlines
specific details related to resources, maintenance, governance, quality, and so forth; even down
to the level of how students will register, how the consortia will monitor teaching, and other
tasks. However, there are challenges to developing a successful consortium.
Latchem (2005) observes that a major challenge to online higher education consortia is
the ability for constituents to work together to develop programs and to create a viable, common,
learning environment. Latchem’s (2005) research shows that members must be able to agree on
the management, administration, and resources used for the consortium. For example, how to
5
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
share expenses and profits, how programs will operate and how degrees will be awarded are
some of the factors to be considered when forming a consortium (Latchem, 2005). According to
Rumble and Latchem (2004), forming consortia can be extremely difficult due to several
challenges; such as: cultural differences, lack of cooperation, insufficient funding, and lack of
trust, poor planning, vague agreements, and others. Research invokes the question whether
developing countries are better served by consortia created using western influences; or, whether
consortia should consist of members representing the areas they serve. For example, is it better
for Universitas 21 to extend its reach into Sub-Saharan Africa? Or, is it more effective to build a
consortium of African institutions?
Examples of Consortia
There are a variety of consortia in existence today serving many different purposes. The
scope of services provided includes program level (such as a science), library, and institutional
level. For example, the University System of Maryland (2012) is a consortium of publicly
funded higher education institutions in the State of Maryland. Five Colleges, Inc. (2012) is a
successful consortium linking private liberal arts colleges in Massachusetts with the Amherst
campus of the Massachusetts university system. Consortia consisting of foreign entities include
Universitas 21, the African Council for Distance Education (ACDE), Teacher Education in SubSaharan Africa (TESSA), and many others.
Universitas 21 hails itself as the “leading global network of research universities for the
21st century” (Universitas, 2012). Members are located throughout Europe and the Americas,
with a few in Australia and Asia. The African Council for Distance Education (ACDE) is
associated with the International Council for Open and Distance Education. Current members
include 41 African institutions located throughout the region; such as, University of Nairobi,
6
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
University of Pretoria, and University of Zambia, to name a few. The mission of the ACDE is to
work to provide access using e-learning to the people in Africa (ACDE, 2011). Teacher
Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA) is a consortium of African universities using open
education resources (OER) to deliver course content. TESSA is hosted and supported by the
Open University UK and also partners with the Commonwealth of Learning. However, most of
the materials are created by African academic personnel (TESSA, 2011).
TESSA focuses on educating teachers in Africa on effective uses of OERs throughout
Africa, particularly using distance education. TESSA serves nine countries: Ghana, Kenya,
Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia (Thakrar, Zinn, &
Wolfenden, 2009). The flexible model that TESSA uses allows for countries to adapt the model
to meet their individual needs (Thakrar, et al., 2009). It seems likely that the TESSA model is
worth considering for closing the gap in educational access. Moreover, if TESSA has
established the infrastructure to deliver course content, the ACDE may be able to build on
TESSA’s success.
Not all consortia have been successful. According to Latchem (2005) Global University
Alliance (GUA) is based in Australia to provide online courses to global learners. However,
today’s research cannot ascertain that the GUA is still in existence. The website provided by
Latchem (www.gua.com) is not valid and an Internet search does not return a valid website.
Although, according to the RMIT Australia (2000) website GUA is partnering with NextEd to
deliver the online courses.
The Consortium International Francophone de Formation a Distance (CIFFAD) is an
example of a failed consortium. In 1987 Canada established the CIFFAD to mirror the UK’s
Commonwealth of Learning. However, Canada did not acquiesce to local needs and instead
7
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
focused on delivering its own projects into foreign institutions. Unfortunately the CIFFAD was
not accepted and eventually folded (Perraton, 2007). Perraton’s (2007) research shows that
international efforts are more successful when they are not focused on “the development of
international policy for open and distance learning, or the establishment of specialized agencies,
or the development of common courses, or in international enrolment, but in accelerating and
easing the diffusion of innovations” (p. 181). This suggests that consortia are more effective if
the objectives are to address local needs. Moreover, it appears that national consortia may be
more successful than international consortia. In other words, consortia consisting of similar
members are more effective than attempts to create heterogeneous consortia consisting of
developed countries and developing countries. Indeed, there are even consortia dedicated to
distance higher education in place today.
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Today’s Market
Beaudoin (2009) describes several consortia in place to meet various needs. The InterAmerican Distance Education Consortium (CREAD) was formed to improve the standard of
living in the Americas by increasing the effective use of technology in distance higher education
(Beaudoin, 2009). A visit to the CREAD (2012) website shows that this consortium consists of
many institutions to address issues and the latest developments in distance higher education. The
consortium is nonprofit and develops projects intended to make distance higher education more
available to citizens in the Americas. Another consortium, CUMex, is designed to address the
research needs of various institutions in South America (Beaudoin, 2009). The author of this
paper is unable to access CUMex, but Wikipedia (2012) suggests that CUMex is rather exclusive
in that the members must meet strict criteria; such as, accreditation, ISO certification, 85% of
students enrolled in accredited programs, and other factors. While CREAD and CUMex appear
8
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
to represent different populations, neither seems adequate to address the fundamental issues
addressed by GATS and the UN. To that end Beaudoin (2009) examines Consorcio Clavijero.
The Consorcio Clavijero (CC) is a distance education consortium consisting of 64 private
and public institutions serving rural and impoverished areas of South America. The CC is
funded by state and private funds (Beaudoin, 2009). Beaudoin’s (2009) research into CC shows
mixed results. Lower income people cannot afford tuition or do not own computers; middleincome people are too busy working and do not have time to study; and high-income people can
afford to attend traditional institutions. However, several thousand students have benefited from
CC’s offerings. Beaudoin (2009) discovered a crucial factor impacting the success of any
distance education consortium. He maintains that no DE consortium is capable of meeting the
needs of all the impoverished regions due to the lack of basic literacy, technical, and academic
skills needed to administer the programs in these areas (Beaudoin, 2009). Indeed, addressing
these weaknesses may be the greatest challenge. The CC appears to be more representative of
what is needed in developing countries.
The CC is described as a means to educate citizens in Veracruz using online learning
(Beaudoin, 2009). However, CREAD and CUMex are more focused on sharing ideas and
innovations to further advance member institutions. The member institutions possess the ability
to survive without membership. Indeed, Beaudoin (2009) asserts that CC is in the business to
directly educate and improve the standard of living in Veracruz. Furthermore, its success relies
on the success of member institutions and vice versa. The member institutions would not be able
to continue without the CC’s support (Beaudoin, 2009). This type of consortium creates a more
cohesive and productive working relationship among the members without the competitive edge
9
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
found in other types of consortia (Beaudoin, 2009). Despite the various examples discussed thus
far, consortia are difficult to create.
Challenges in Consortia
Partner selection. It is necessary to understand the requirements and challenges for
creating a consortium. According to Pidduck and Carey (2006) selecting ideal partners is very
challenging. Their study of two Canadian consortia discovered that the partner selection
involves more than an analysis of resources, goals, and expectations. In addition, reputation is
important and a clear understanding of the goals and work involved in the consortium (Pidduck
& Carey, 2006). Success relies on the ability for the partners to work towards a common goal.
Membership is more than a status or credential to add to the institution’s website. Beaudoin
(2009) describes additional challenges facing consortia.
According to Beaudoin (2009) consortia members may be competitive, may lack trust in
other members, and may not be able to make substantial contributions to the consortia. In
addition, potential partners may resist forming a consortium for fear of losing autonomy and
independence (Beaudoin, 2009). However, Beaudoin (2009) cites that members often gain an
advantage; such as increased efficiencies, exposure to new markets, and cost savings. Latchem
(2005) even suggests a university-industry consortium model.
Funding. According to Schiller and Leifer (2007) the government is the primary source
of funding for higher education in many countries. Introducing private industry into the equation
may create a problem with performance. Specifically, a private business may provide funding
only if the university offers programs that benefit the industry. Similarly, the government can
also demand the university adhere to governmental policies and ideals or else the government
can withdraw funding. On one hand governmental oversight can ensure academic standards and
10
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
enhance the institution’s credibility. However, if the government is too controlling, particularly
with regard to Internet use (as is the case with Cuba noted earlier in this report), higher education
is severely restricted.
Schiller and Leifer (2007) identify a significant difference between the purpose of higher
education in developing countries and developed countries. The authors state that in developing
countries, higher education is needed to develop human capital and to transfer knowledge from
developed countries (Schiller & Leifer, 2007). Thus, a university-industry consortium model is
an ideal solution to meet the funding needs, build human capital, and provide educated workers.
However, this logic is somewhat flawed. First, it implies that developed countries are the
creators of knowledge, or innovators. Secondly, it implies that developing countries are
dependent upon developed countries to transfer knowledge to the developing countries. But,
aside from Schiller’s and Leifer’s (2007) rather elitist approach, the university-industry
consortium is worth considering. The caveat is to build relationships between universities and
industries without commercializing higher education and without overstepping governmental
controls. There are no clear results that globalization of distance higher education results in
commercialization, but the GATS initiative suggests that concerns are valid.
Access. According to the ICDE (2009), typically 2-5% of the people in Africa and Asia
have Internet access. In Brazil it is mostly the more affluent population who has Internet access
and only about 5.7% of the poorest segment have access (ICDE, 2009). Bridging the digital
divide is a massive task that will require governmental support. Again, institutions working
together as a consortium may be in a better position to petition for the infrastructure needed.
According to Daniel, Kanwar, and Uvalic-Trumbic (2007) large developing countries such as
China and India will need to resort to online learning to meet the growth in postsecondary
11
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
education. Furthermore, Daniel et al. (2007) state that in developing countries it is mostly the
more affluent population who are able to access tertiary education. A consortium may be able to
expand access to include more people.
Quality. Quality is a concern, particularly for online programs. In addition, online
learning is relatively new to developing nations and so it is difficult to ascertain the reputation of
providers (Daniel et al., 2007). A consortium is in a position to represent its member institutions
as reputable institutions. For example, Lawson (2012) posed the question as to why students
have confidence in the University of Maryland University College (UMUC). Responses indicate
that some students are enrolled at UMUC because it is part of the University System of
Maryland, an accredited and reputable consortium in the United States.
Target. A consortium provides some safety from possible foreign takeover. According
to Knight (2002) “trade creep” occurs as the commercialization of education becomes more of a
market commodity. An institution acting on its own may easily be overpowered by the promises
of private industry. However, a consortium provides a network of strength and a more powerful
presence than an institution acting on its own. This prowess may be effective in keeping the
fortune-hunting, for-profit, and disreputable organizations from usurping developing nations’
resources.
Copyrights. According to Khakhar (2001) copyright and ownership are critical issues
for distance education consortia. The consortium’s agreement must clearly state who owns the
rights to materials developed and used in distance education. Some agreements may stipulate
that the material is owned by whoever creates it; may be owned by the institutions employing the
individuals; or, some other arrangement. The risk here is what should happen if the consortium
loses permission to the copyright if the owner withdraws from the consortium. The risk is even
12
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
greater if the owner is a foreign entity that is unable to sustain business in the developing
country.
Brain drain. According to the International Council for Open and Distant Education
(ICDE) (2009), developing countries are very concerned about the potential for their most
promising students to leave the country and not return. According to Archibugi and Pietrobelli
(2003), in 1999 27% of doctorates held by scientists and engineers in the US are foreign-born. In
addition, the authors use the term “exploitation” to describe the impact of more technologically
advanced nations on developing countries. In the long run, this brain drain significantly hinders
progress in developing nations (Archibugi & Pietrobelli, 2003). While a domestic consortium
may reduce the risk when compared to an international consortium, the risk does not disappear
completely. However, a consortium can provide learners the opportunities and resources that
may not be available from a single institution. The nature of a consortium is intended to meet
the needs of its stakeholders. Furthermore, a well-designed and managed consortium should be
familiar with what those needs are (Khakhar, 2001). According to the ICDE (2009) poorer
nations are very concerned about the possibility of “foreign competitors overpowering poorly
funded domestic higher education systems…” (p. 7). This may be alleviated, in part, by
domestic consortia.
Domestic Consortia
A possible solution to avoid unwanted foreign influences and to streamline
implementation is to form a domestic consortium. The African Council for Distance Education
(ACDE) is a consortium that is comprised of African institutions and is dedicated to providing
online higher education throughout the continent by building infrastructure and finding funding
resources. Their website lists two future projects: to establish a partnership with China and to
13
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
build teacher competency/quality assurance in online higher education in Africa. The ACDE
seems to be on the right track. A local consortium with experience in the target area seems more
plausible than an international model. Once established, this type of model can be an
intermediary step to global inclusion. For example, once the African consortium is firmly in
place, the consortium may choose to open up membership to neighboring countries. Additional
benefits of the domestic consortium are that the courses, teaching methods, and other cultural
aspects of learning are familiar to the members, faculty, and learners. Khakhar (2001) identifies
several issues associated with mixed partnerships; such as, cultural differences, language, and
unfamiliar teaching methods. Moreover, according to Khakhar (2001) distance education
agreements involve issues such as jurisdiction, accreditation, and ownership. Again, a domestic
consortium lessens the risk of such issues impeding progress.
The consortium does not operate in a vacuum. Simply because the consortium is
domestic does not mean it is excluded from worldwide developments and innovations. The
consortium’s infrastructure, assets, and other resources can be used for developing open
schooling, learning centers, and mobile learning. The consortium model can in effect be the
driving force to support other learning methods as needed to various remote regions.
Furthermore, a consortium consisting of regional members may be more likely to promote
growth than foreign members who must deal with the cultural, political, and social challenges.
Commercialization of Higher Education
The purpose of GATS is to open trade of services such as higher education among
nations (Knight, 2006). Prior to the technological advancements in education, institutions
enjoyed the luxury of control. That is, students seeking tertiary education to obtain employment
had no choice but to attend the university. Now that the playing field is wide open due to the
14
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
dramatic growth of online learning, institutions can no longer sit comfortable knowing that they
will continue to operate. Today, the competition is fierce and institutions must market their
programs to do business. Even public-funded institutions advertise their programs. With GATS
supporting internationalization of higher education, developing nations are even more at a
disadvantage as larger and more prosperous nations attempt to infiltrate their economies.
Altbach (2004) refers to this as the “McDonaldisation” of higher education (p. 3). This is a
major reason for developing countries to try to avoid consortia with more powerful and
developed nations. Furthermore, more industrialized nations are not likely to be interested in
forming consortia with poorer nations that do not have the resources to meet standards, pay
tuition, and employ the professionals needed to sustain the project.
Interestingly, the US imposes restrictions on its agreements when entering foreign
markets. For example, Knight (2003) states that the US requires that programs offered by US
institutions are subject to US rates, admission requirements, and are to remain autonomous in
foreign nations. Yet, the US asks that Egypt, India, Mexico, Philippines, and Thailand remove
ownership limitations on joint ventures with local partners in their countries (Knight, 2003).
Indeed, Knight (2003) provides a list of similar requests made by the US to remove barriers
related to joint ventures in several countries. These actions raise doubt as to the US’s intentions
in marketing higher education in foreign countries. It is not reasonable to expect Thailand to
remove barriers and then allow the US to enter Thailand’s market imposing US restrictions.
Herein lies a fundamental flaw with international consortia: trust. Furthermore, Knight (2003)
provides evidence that South Africa is concerned with western influences seeking profits in their
regions. Commercializing higher education may impact the ability for domestic institutions to
meet the needs of its citizens; thus, further subjecting developing countries to domination by
15
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
more industrialized nations. One of the major risks here is the potential for disaster if the
supplier leaves the country.
Conclusion
Developing countries struggle with limited resources, unstable governments, geographic
barriers, devastating poverty, high population growth, and many other issues. Yet, these regions
are prime targets for marketing distance higher education. Developing nations are skeptical
about allowing developed countries to enter their markets for fear of domination by the more
powerful nations. Therefore, the cultural differences and the different teaching methods support
a smaller scale consortium, a domestic model, suited to meet the citizens’ needs. Despite the
challenges outlined earlier in this report, a viable consortium can be established in developing
countries. However, research shows that homogeneous models are preferable; as in the TESSA
consortium or the ACDE model. This can be accomplished by pooling resources to accomplish a
common goal. Governments and institutions are turning to the consortia model to fill financial,
human, and knowledge gaps. In the same way, these entities can form consortia to effectively
distribute online higher education throughout poor and remote regions of the globe. Closing the
gap in access to education moves civilization closer to satisfying the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights that Hilary Perraton (2004) includes in his chapter on resources: “Everyone has
the right to education” (p. 100). Consortia can be the driving force to open access for all citizens
as a means for efficiently delivering content to large populations and remote regions, particularly
in developing countries.
16
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
References
African Council for Distance Education. (2012). About ACDE. Retrieved from
http://www.acde-africa.org/
Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world.
Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1023/B:TEAM.0000012239.55136.4b
Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalisation of technology and its implications for
developing countries windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 861-883. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(02)00409-2
Associated Press. (2012, November 17). Man jailed in Cuba sues ex-employer. The Carroll
County Times, p. 3A.
Beaudoin, M.F. (2009). Consortia - a viable model and medium for distance education in
developing countries? Open Learning, 24(2), 113-126. doi:10.1080/02680610902879437
Carr-Chellman, A.A. (Ed.). (2005). Global Perspectives on E-Learning, Rhetoric and Reality.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Consortium. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster online. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consortium
CREAD. (2012). The inter-American distance education consortium. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolofed.nova.edu/cread/institutional.htm
CUMEX. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUMEX
Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2007). Mass tertiary education in the developing
world: Distant prospect or distinct possibility? Europa World of Learning. Retrieved
from http://www.col.org/
17
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
Five Colleges, Inc. (2012). The consortium. Retrieved from
https://www.fivecolleges.edu/consortium
International Council for Open and Distance Education. (2009). Global trends in higher
Education, adult and distance learning. Retrieved from http://www.icde.org/
Khakhar, D. (2001). A framework for open distance learning – organization and management.
Department of Informatics, Lund University. Retrieved from
http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/vu/pdf/vu_ch3.pdf
Knight, J. (2002). Trade creep: Implication of GATS for higher education policy. International
Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text002.htm
Knight, J. (2003). GATS, trade and higher education. The Observatory on Borderless Education.
Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac.uk
Knight, J. (2006). Higher education crossing borders: A guide to the implications of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for cross-border education. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
Latchem, C. (2005). Towards borderless virtual learning in higher education. In A.A. Carr
Chellman (ED.), Global perspectives on e-learning, rhetoric and reality (179-197).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lawson, C. (2012). Social issues in virtual universities of developing nations. Virtual
Universities. Document posted in University of Maryland University College DEPM 625
9040 online classroom, archived at: http://webtycho.umuc.edu
Perraton, H. (2004) Resources. In H.D. Perraton & H. Lentell (Eds.), Policy for open and
distance learning (pp.100-112). London: RutledgeFalmer.
18
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
Perraton, H. (2007). Open and distance learning in the developing world (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Pidduck, A.B., & Carey, T. (2006). Partner power: A study of two distance education consortia.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/
RMIT University. (2000). Global alliance to deliver on-line education. Retrieved from
http://131.170.40.30/browse;ID=uogdrnmvnx
Rumble, G., & Latchem, C. (2004) Organisational models for distance and open learning. In
H.D. Perraton & H. Lentell (Eds.), Policy for open and distance learning (pp. 117-140).
London: RutledgeFalmer.
Schiller, D., & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher education funding reform and university-industry links
in developing countries: The case of Thailand. Higher Education, 54(4), 543-556.
doi:1.1007/s10734-006-9011-y
TESSA. (2011). About TESSA. Retrieved from http://www.tessafrica.net/about-tessa
Thakrar, J., Zinn, D., & Wolfenden, F. (2009). Harnessing open educational resources to the
challenges of teacher education in sub-saharan Africa. International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 10(4), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
Todaro, M. P., Smith, S.S. (2003). Diverse structures and common characteristics of developing
nations. In Economic development (pp. 33-71). (8th ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley.
Tritt, P.L. (n.d.). What is a consortium anyway? Committee on Accreditation of Educational
Programs for the EMS Professions. Retrieved from www.coaemsp.org
19
Distance Higher Education Consortia in Developing Countries
Universitas 21. (2012). About Universitas 21. Retrieved from
http://www.universitas21.com/about/
University System of Maryland. (2012). About USM. Retrieved from
http://www.usmd.edu/about_usm/
Zondiros, D. (2010). Online, distance education and globalisation: Its impact on educational
access, inequality and exclusion. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/
20