Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differentiating between distance/open education systems-parameters for comparison

  • Articles
  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A wide range of institutions all over the world utilize various forms of distance and/or open learning. This paper suggests eight parameters for categorizing distance/open education systems: (1) target population; (2) dimensions of openness; (3) organizational structure; (4) design and development of learning materials; (5) use of advanced technology; (6) teaching/tutoring system; (7) student-support system; and (8) inter-institutional collaboration. These parameters provide criteria for comparing a broad spectrum of distance/open learning institutions, and assist in depicting the unique characteristics of each distance/open education system. The discussion is preceded by a conceptual examination of the relations and interrelations between thedistance education andopen learning terms.

Zusammenfassung

Eine große Anzahl von Institutionen in der ganzen Welt wendet verschiedene Formen von Fernunterricht oder offenem Lernen an. In diesem Artikel werden acht Parameter zur Kategorisierung von Fernunterricht und offenem Lernen vorgeschlagen: (1) Zielgruppe; (2) Dimensionen des Zugangs; (3) organisatorische Struktur; (4) Design und Entwicklung von Lernmaterialien; (5) Anwendung fortgeschrittener Techniken; (6) Lehr- und Überprüfungssystem; (7) System zur Unterstützung der Studenten; und (8) Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Institutionen. Diese Parameter stellen Kriterien für den Vergleich eines breiten Spektrums von Institutionen im Bereich des Fernunterrichts und des offenen Lernens zur Verfügung und helfen bei der Identifikation einzigartiger Eigenheiten jedes betreffenden Systems. Der Diskussion geht eine konzeptionelle Untersuchung der Beziehungen zwischen den BegriffenFernunterricht undoffenes Lernen voraus.

Résumé

Un grand nombre d'institutions de par le monde utilise diverses modalités d'apprentissage ouvert et/ou à distance. Le présent article suggère huit paramètres pour classer les systèmes d'enseignement ouvert ou à distance: (1) la population cible, (2) les dimensions de l'ouverture, (3) la structure organisationnelle, (4) la conception et la mise en oeuvre des matériaux didactiques, (5) l'utilisation de technologies modernes, (6) le système d'enseignement et de tutorat, (7) le système de soutien aux élèves et (8) la collaboration interinstitutionnelle. Ces paramètres fournissent des critères de comparaison pour un grand nombre d'institutions diversifiées d'enseignement ouvert ou à distance, et permettent de décrire les caractéristiques majeures de chacun de ces systèmes. Un examen conceptuel des relations et interrelations entre les termes d'enseignement à distance et d'apprentissage ouvert, précède cette discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, D. 1989. Guidance and Counselling in Work-Based Open Learning. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (332–349). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, B. O., Frisbie, A. G. and Kenneth, R. F. 1989. Broadening the Definition of Distance Education in the Light of New Telecommunications Technologies.The American Journal of Distance Education 3(1): 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. 1989. Delivery and New Technology. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (290–304). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R. 1990. Open Learning: An Imprecise Term.ICDE Bulletin 22: 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casas-Armengol, M. and Stojanovich, L. 1990. Some Problems of Knowledge in Societies of Low Development: Different Conceptions and Utilization of Advanced Technology in Distance Education. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (130–133). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, J. 1989. The Basis for Effective Collaboration: 1+1=3. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (277–289). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coldevin, G. and Amundsen, C. 1985. The Use of Communication Satellites for Distance Education: A World Perspective.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 14(1): 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J. S. 1988. Distance Education and National Development. In: D. Sewart and J. S. Daniel, eds.,Developing Distance Education (21–30). Oslo: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1989. The Worlds of Open Learning. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (48–59). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1990. Distance Education and Developing Countries. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (101–110). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G. M. 1989.Distance Education for the University of Swaziland. A Report Prepared at the Request of The Commonwealth of Learning. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, F. and Li, W. 1990. Speeding Up the Development of China by Distance Education. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (40–42). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. and Shale, D. G. 1989. Mapping the Boundaries of Distance Education. In: M. G. Moore and G. C. Clark, eds.,Readings in Principles of Distance Education (1–8). University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N. 1990. Open School Scheme. New Ways of Supporting Distance Learners in India. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (46–48). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guri-Rozenblit, S. 1989. Providing Higher Education to Socially Disadvantaged Populations.Studies in Higher Education 14(3): 321–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1990. The Potential Contribution of Distance Teaching Universities to Improving the Learning/Teaching Practices in Conventional Universities.Higher Education 19: 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1991. Distance/Open Learning — Trends and Developments as Reflected in Recent Literature.Studies in Higher Education 16(1): 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guri, S. 1987. Quality Control in Distance Learning.Open Learning 2(2): 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F. 1988. Distance Education and Computer Assisted Education.Prospects 18(1): 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, B. 1985.Status and Trends of Distance Education. Lund: Lector Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • —1986.Growth and Structure of Distance Education. Beckenham: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • —1989.Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. 1989. The Open School. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (170–187). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. E. 1990. Developing Distance Education Materials for International Use: Issues in Course Design. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (321–323). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S. 1988. Developing Instructional Materials for Distance Education: A ‘Concerns Based Approach’.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 17(3): 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1990. Computer Conferencing and Distance Education Towards Global Access in Higher Education. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (282–285). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, N., ed., 1989.Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parer, M. S., ed., 1989.Development, Design and Distance Education. Victoria: Center for Distance Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, O. 1983. Distance Teaching and Industrial Production: A Comparative Interpretation in Outline. In: D. Sewart, D. Keegan and B. Holmberg, eds.,Distance Education: International Perspectives (95–113). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, W. D. 1989.Taking the University to the People: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperative Extension. Ames, IA: Iowa University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti, A. 1989. Open Learning and the Youth Training Scheme. In: N. Paine, ed.,Open Learning in Transition: An Agenda for Action (232–244). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumble, G. 1989a. On Defining Distance Education.American Journal of Distance Education 3(2): 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1989b. ‘Open Learning’, ‘Distance Learning’ and the Misuse of Language.Open Learning 4(2): 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine, K. 1990. The World as a Classroom: Telecommunications and Global Education. In: M. Croft, I. Mugridge, J. S. Daniel and A. Hershfield, eds.,Distance Education: Development and Access (329–331). Caracas: ICDE proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Sarah Guri-Rozenblit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guri-Rozenblit, S. Differentiating between distance/open education systems-parameters for comparison. Int Rev Educ 39, 287–306 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102409

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102409

Keywords

Search

Navigation