‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT
Department of Education and Psychology, The Open University of Israel, P.O. Box

39328, Ramat-Aviv, 61392, Israel

Abstract. This article examines the distinct differences between ‘distance education’ and

‘e-learning’ in higher education settings. Since the emergence of the new information and
communication technologies (ICT), many have related to them as the new generation of
distance education, and some have referred to their implementation in academia as

challenging the very existence of campus-based universities. Many policy makers,
scholars and practitioners in higher education use these two terms interchangeably as
synonyms. But the fact is that distance education in most higher education systems is not

delivered through the new electronic media, and vice versa – e-learning in most univer-
sities and colleges all over the world is not used for distance education purposes. ‘Dis-
tance education’ and ‘e-learning’ do overlap in some cases, but are by no means identical.

The lack of distinction between ‘e-learning’ and ‘distance education’ accounts for much
of the misunderstanding of the ICT roles in higher education, and for the wide gap
between the rhetoric in the literature describing the future sweeping effects of the ICT on
educational environments and their actual implementation. The article examines the

erroneous assumptions on which many exaggerated predictions as to the future impact of
the ICT were based upon, and it concludes with highlighting the future trends of ‘dis-
tance education’ and ‘e-learning’ in academia.

Keywords: distance education, distance teaching universities, e-learning, higher educa-

tion, information and communication technologies

Introduction

Higher education systems all over the world are challenged nowadays
by the new information and communication technologies (ICT). These
technologies have had a huge impact on the world economy, corporate
management and globalization trends, and they bear a tremendous
potential to reshape the nature of study environments everywhere, of
both conventional and distance teaching institutions. Many have related
to the ICT as the new generation of distance education (Bates 1999,
2001; Garrison 1993, 1999; Niper 1989; Peters 2001). Already in 1989
Soren Niper (1989) in his classic analysis identified three generations of
distance education: the first was correspondence teaching; the second
was multi-media teaching – integrating the use of print with broadcast

Higher Education (2005) 49: 467–493 � Springer 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0



media, cassettes and to some degree computers; and the third generation
was identified with the new interactive communication technologies.

Many policy makers, scholars and practitioners in higher education
use the terms ‘distance education’ and ‘e-learning’ interchangeably as
synonyms, emphasizing the continuous blurring of boundaries between
conventional and distance education (AFT 2000, 2001; Arnold 1999;
Evans and Nation 2000; Ryan 2002; Selinger and Pearson 1999; Twigg
2001). A comprehensive report issued by The Pew Learning and Tech-
nology Program in the USA stated clearly that: ‘‘The terms ‘distance
learning’, ‘distance education’, ‘distributed learning’ and ‘online learn-
ing’ are used more or less interchangeably’’ (Twigg 2001, p. 4). It is
important to mention that the various forms of learning through ICT
are defined in the relevant literature by at least a dozen different terms,
such as web-based learning, computer-mediated communication, tele-
matics environments, e-learning, virtual classrooms, online instruction,
I-Campus, electronic communication, cyberspace learning environ-
ments, computer-driven interactive communication, distributed learn-
ing, borderless education. In this article, all forms of learning/teaching
through ICT are referred to as ‘e-learning’.

Some scholars even go to extremes and claim that the new technologies
challenge the very existence of campus-based universities. Arnold (1999),
for instance, argued that the new information technologies create the
appropriate scientific learning environments in the knowledge society,
and given this ‘it is an extremely small step that distance studies will take
the place of face-to-face studies in the future’ (ibid, p. 2). In the preface of
the book Virtual University – Educational Environments of the Future,
which provides an overview of the ICT implementation in European
universities, Henk van de Molen stated that: ‘‘In the network society it is
inescapable that the universities will have to deal with the information
and communication technologies (ICT), not only for research but also for
education. Some even think that universities as educational institutions
will become totally virtual…’’ (van der Molen 2001, p. vii).

However, distance education in most higher education systems is not
delivered through the new electronic media, and vice versa: e-learning in
most universities and colleges all over the world is not used for distance
education purposes (Bates 2001; Collis and Moonen 2001; Guri-
Rosenblit 2001a, b, 2002; Harley et al. 2002; Somekh and Davis 1997;
van der Wende 2002). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’ do overlap
in some cases, but are by no means identical. According to a recent
survey in the USA, for example, more than 85% of the students in post
secondary institutions use various forms of e-learning, but only 7.6% of

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT468



undergraduate students take some distance teaching courses, and only
2.2% of them study their whole degree program through distance edu-
cation (U.S. Department of Education 2002). The lack of a distinction
between ‘e-learning’ and ‘distance education’ accounts for much of the
misunderstanding of the ICT roles in higher education, and for the wide
gap between the rhetoric in the literature describing the sweeping future
effects of the ICT on educational environments and their actual
implementation.

This article discusses the distinct differences between ‘distance edu-
cation’ and ‘e-learning’ in higher education settings by comparing some
of their major characteristics. It examines the reasons why most distance
education on the university level all over the world is still provided
through the more ‘traditional’ media of print and broadcasting, in spite
of the many advantages e-learning provides for distance teaching pur-
poses. The article analyzes the erroneous assumptions on which many
exaggerated predictions as to the future impact of the ICT were based
upon, and it concludes by highlighting future trends of ‘distance edu-
cation’ and ‘e-learning’ in academia.

Distance education and e-learning at university level –– three

distinctive differences

Distance education at university level has existed since the early half of
the nineteenth century (Bell and Tight 1993). The idea of a distance
teaching university adopts the opposite course of a campus-based uni-
versity. Instead of assembling students from dispersed locations in one
place, it reaches out to students wherever they live or wish to study
(Guri-Rosenblit 1999). E-learning, on the other hand, is a relatively new
phenomenon and relates to the use of electronic media for a variety of
learning purposes that range from add-on functions in conventional
classrooms to full substitution for the face-to-face meetings by online
encounters. Below three distinctive differences between ‘distance edu-
cation’ and ‘e-learning’ are examined in relation to: remoteness and
proximity between the learner and teacher in the study process; relevant
target populations; and cost considerations.

On remoteness and proximity

‘Distance education’, by its very definition, denotes the physical sepa-
ration of the learner from the instructor, at least at certain stages of the

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 469



learning process. This applies to distance education at all levels, from
kindergarten to higher education. Holmberg, one of the leading
researchers in the field of distance education, defined ‘distance educa-
tion’ as characterized by non-contiguous communication, meaning that
the learner and teacher are separated not only in space but also in time.
According to Holmberg, the term ‘distance education’ covers ‘‘the
various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous,
immediate supervision of tutors present with their students at lecture
rooms or on the same premises’’ (Holmberg 1989, p. 3). But contiguous
education and pure distance education are extremes that rarely exist.
Many distance education providers use face-to-face tutorials, summer
schools and laboratory sessions, whereas many conventional universi-
ties utilize independent study and guided learning by tutors and a
variety of media. The advent of the new interactive communication
technologies enables synchronous communication between students and
teachers and in-between students from a distance.

Daniel’s (1990) interpretation of the term ‘distance education’
embraces all forms of instruction in which classroom sessions are
not the primary means of education. Distance education is mostly
homework, with occasional work in class; whereas conventional edu-
cation is mostly classwork with occasional work at home. In conven-
tional education the teachers teach; in distance education the institution
teaches. Keegan (1986) defined the quasi-permanent separation of
the teacher and the learner throughout the length of the learning pro-
cess, as well as the quasi-permanent absence of a learning group
throughout the length of the learning process, as two of the major
characteristics of distance education. In other words, in ‘distance
education’ students are usually taught as individuals, not in groups, and
are separated physically from both the teacher and other fellow stu-
dents. In some cases, groups of students are taught by a distant teacher,
mainly in the framework of teleconferencing and other broadcasting
media.

Although ICT facilitate the provision of distance education, and are
also defined by many as ‘distance learning technologies’ (Arnold 1999;
Garrison 1999; Garrison and Anderson 2000; Peters 2001), ‘distance’ is
not a defining characteristic of e-learning. The applications of electronic
media in distance teaching settings constitute only partial and limited
functions, out of their overall capabilities. By their very nature, the new
technologies are much more complex than the old distance teaching
media, and they open up possibilities to design new study environments
that were not feasible beforehand – for both on-campus and off-campus

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT470



students. The new ICT offer a rich plethora of uses in learning/teaching
processes far beyond the ability to transfer content of textbooks and
lectures to students at a distance. In fact, none of the ICT uses denotes
the physical separation of the learner from the teacher at any stage of
the study process. Many of the ICT qualities can be used most efficiently
to enrich and support lectures, seminar meetings and face-to-face
tutorials (Collis and Moonen 2001; Fetterman 1998; Guri-Rosenblit
2002; Harasim et al. 1995; Harley et al. 2002; Littleton and Light 1999;
Robinson and Guernsey 1999; Scott et al. 2002; Somekh and Davis
1997; van der Wende 2002).

The new technologies are applied in a variety of domains for infor-
mation retrieval from periodicals, books, newspapers and other infor-
mation resources; simulations and multi-media presentations;
communication with instructors in- and after-classes; communication
amongst students; drilling exercises and sample tests; reading notice
boards; class administration, etc. Furthermore, ICT have a huge impact
on other important areas of university activities, such as: library man-
agement; registration and loan administration; enhancement of research
communities; academic publishing; mobility and cooperation between
institutions. The applications of the technologies in the above men-
tioned areas have nothing in common with the traditional roles of
distance education.

In early 2000 the National Academies of the USA launched a study
on the implications of the information technologies for the future of the
nation’s research universities (National Research Council 2002). The
panel was composed of leaders drawn from industry, higher education
and foundations with expertise in the areas of information technologies,
the research university, and public policy. The members of the panel
purported to examine the implications of the new technologies on the
activities of teaching, research, service and outreach of the research
university, as well as on its organization, management, and impact on
the broader higher education enterprise. They concluded that the impact
of the information technologies on the research university will likely be
profound, rapid and discontinuous. The new technologies will not only
influence the intellectual activities of the university (learning, teaching
and research) but also change how the university is organized, financed,
and governed. Nevertheless, they emphasized that the campus, as a
geographically concentrated community of scholars and a center of
culture, will continue to play a central role. In other words, the impact
of the new technologies on the universities’ operation and on the ways
knowledge is generated and transformed will grow in the future, but

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 471



most of their applications will take place in the framework of campus-
based universities and not in distance or virtual settings.

Target clienteles

A second distinctive characteristic of distance education is its attention
to the needs of special clienteles that for a variety of reasons cannot
attend a face-to-face gathering, a school or a conventional campus.
Examples of intensive exchanges of letters for educational purposes
have been known since ancient times. Such is the correspondence be-
tween Plato and Cicero and their students, and the famous letters sent
by Apostle Paul to the early Christian communities. Since the nine-
teenth century correspondence institutions, extensions and distance
teaching universities have opened the gates of academia to diverse cli-
enteles for higher and continuing education. By doing so, the distance
teaching institutions fulfilled an emancipatory ethos (Morrison 1992), a
kind of barrier-removal mission. Time, space, prior level of education,
social class, working and family obligations were defined as barriers to
be overturned by special policies and mechanisms applied by distance
education institutes.

The target populations studying through distance education at post-
secondary level were considered as distinct and special, usually older
than the age cohorts at classical universities, and mostly ‘second chance’
students according to a variety of criteria. Such was the case of Prof.
Knight of St. Andrews University, the oldest Scottish university, who
decided that women were also entitled to higher education. He offered
between 1877 and 1931 an external higher education degree in arts
specifically designed for women scattered in over one hundred centers
world-wide (Bell and Tight 1993). Traditionally, distance education at
university level purported to overcome barriers and difficulties of stu-
dents that were unable to attend a conventional campus. The obstacles
which distance education has enabled to overcome include lack of
formal entry qualifications; physical/health constraints; geographical
barriers; working; family obligations; being held in closed institutions,
such as prisons and hospitals, etc.

Interestingly, even nowadays when millions of people use the Internet
and exploit its distance learning capacities, the profile of the students
studying all or most of their higher education programs through dis-
tance education methods still resembles the profile of the traditional
distance student. In a comprehensive survey published by the U.S.

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT472



Department of Education in November 2002 on A Profile of Partici-
pation in Distance Education 1999–2000, it was clearly found that stu-
dents who chose to take distance education programs were ‘‘those with
family responsibilities and limited time. They were more likely to be
enrolled in school part time and to be working full time while enrolled’’
(U.S. Department of Education 2002, pp. iii–iv). This survey was con-
ducted on all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in USA
post-secondary institutions during the 1999/2000 academic year.

Unlike distance education, e-learning is used by all types of students
on all educational levels, from kindergarten to doctoral studies.
E-learning offers attractive uses for learners of all ages and of various
interests and needs. Younger pupils enjoy its multi-media games and
fun activities in acquiring very basic literacy skills; older students use its
endless information resources for preparing homework, assignments
and examinations; and millions of people use e-mail, chat groups and
other formats of telecommunication as learners, and in their social and
working lives. E-learning is by no way exclusively meant for distance
learners. As argued earlier, it is used extensively by on-campus students
in the framework of their activities in classes, seminars, laboratories and
other academic assignments and projects.

Cost considerations

A third major characteristic of distance education at university level in
recent decades has been its ability to broaden access to higher education
by providing economies of scale. This has particularly become true since
the 1970s, when a new brand of large scale distance teaching universities
was established. The mega distance teaching universities followed the
model of the British Open University founded in 1969. There are about
30 such universities in various parts of the world. All of these large scale
universities were a product of governmental planning set to fulfill na-
tional missions, mainly – to absorb large numbers of students at a lower
cost as compared to traditional campus universities (Daniel 1996). This
goal has been achieved through an industrialist model of operation
(Peters 1994, 2001).

The division of the academic teaching responsibility into two sepa-
rate phases constitutes the essence of the industrial model of distance
education. The first phase is devoted to the development of high quality
self study materials by teams of experts. The production of such courses
is most expensive, since they are developed by a small number of

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 473



academics and other professionals and they undergo stringent quality
control mechanisms. Most of the course developers do not participate in
the second phase of the actual learning/teaching process. The underly-
ing assumption of this phase is that large numbers of students can study
the pre-developed materials through the didactic apparatus integrated
into the self study materials, and the assistance of lower ranks of faculty
(such as tutors and teaching assistants); and as the number of students
increases, the cost per student decreases. This simple formula constitutes
one of the main raisons d’être of the mega distance teaching universities
(Bates 1999; Curran 2001; Daniel 1996; Guri-Rosenblit 1999). The fact
is that the well-articulated study materials of the new brand distance
teaching universities have replaced ordinary textbooks and the low-level
correspondence courses, and are used extensively not only by students
in the distance teaching universities, but also by many students at
conventional universities in different national settings. Hence, many
distance teaching universities have gained additional revenues from
operating as highly respected academic publishing houses.

It seems that the simple formula of the industrial model upon which
the large scale distance teaching universities operate, accounts for part
of the misconception as to the economies of scale that ICT were ex-
pected to provide. The blurring of meanings between ‘distance educa-
tion’ and ‘e-learning’ led to expectations and predictions that through
the new interactive media dozens of thousands of students would be
able to join higher and continuing education programs at lower costs as
compared to classroom teaching in campus universities. But the
underlying premises of e-learning differ meaningfully from the industrial
model of distance education, as will be elaborated further on. Quite
frequently, effective e-learning costs more, not less, than conventional
face-to-face teaching (Bates 2001; Guri-Rosenblit 2001b; Matkin 2002;
Ryan 2002). The distinct differences between the industrial model of
distance education and e-learning explain why most of the large scale
distance teaching universities have so far incorporated the new ICT to a
very limited extent, in spite of their apparent suitability to distance
teaching.

Why is it difficult to implement e-learning in large distance

teaching institutions?

The new technologies are most attractive for distance teaching. They
have the potential to overcome three major problems of ‘traditional’

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT474



distance education: to rescue the isolated students from their loneliness
by providing interaction with teachers, professors and tutors, as well as
with other peer students throughout the study process; to provide easy
access to libraries and other information resources, which was nearly
impossible in the past; and to update the self study materials on an
ongoing basis. But, as aforementioned, the very basic infrastructure of
most large distance teaching universities hinders the wide scale imple-
mentation of the ICT. ‘Distance education’ as provided by the large
distance teaching universities and ‘e-learning’ are based on two different
teaching/learning paradigms. While the industrial model of ‘distance
education’ is based on teaching large numbers of students by a handful
of professors, most of whom do not communicate with the students at
all, efficient ‘e-learning’ encourages direct interaction between a small
number of students and expert teacher/s. ‘Distance education’ is aimed
at students who are located in dispersed places and are physically dis-
tant from their teachers and the teaching institution, whereas ‘e-learn-
ing’ can be easily utilized by both distant and on-campus students,
and even more effectively by the latter. ‘Distance education’ at univer-
sity level in the last thirty years has prided itself for providing economies
of scale as compared to campus universities, while well designed
‘e-learning’ environments tend to cost even more than comparable face-
to-face encounters. The advantages and problems which are associated
with the ICT use for communication, information access and course
update in the framework of distance teaching institutions are discussed
below.

Communication – merits and problems

The lack of direct teacher–student and student–student communication
has been the Achilles heel of distance education for centuries. The new
interactive technologies enable universities to overcome this shortcom-
ing. But intensive communication is, by its very nature, labor intensive.
Phoenix University and the University of Maryland University College
are two of the most successful USA universities that provide e-learning
(Ryan 2002; Trow 1999; Twigg 2001). Their online classes are restricted
from 8 to 15 students to guarantee high levels of interactivity. Phoenix
University charges more for its online programs than for tutorials in
study centers, since its operators found that the interactivity which
students value is not scaleable at marginal costs. It turns out that

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 475



students who study online are willing to pay the additional costs for
increased interactivity, but, to this date, the majority of Phoenix Uni-
versity’s students prefer to meet in face-to-face tutorials.

Thus, in theory, enhanced communication in distance education is
enabled by the ICT, but its actualization is much more complicated to
achieve. Small numbers of faculty are unable to communicate with
thousands or even with hundreds of students. Moreover, direct inter-
action between students and the faculty members who developed the self
study courses necessitates the involvement of the latter in the actual
learning/teaching process. In other words, it requires the abolishment of
the very basic characteristic of the industrial model of distance educa-
tion. Most, if not all, large distance teaching universities, cannot afford
to hire many more academics in order to facilitate student–professor
interaction in most of their large courses, often taken by thousands of
students. Interaction among students and between students and tutors
and lower ranks of academic staff has been enhanced in most distance
teaching universities, but the synchronous communication between the
senior faculty who are responsible for the overall structure and content
of any self study course and the students is either extremely limited or
non-existent.

It is no surprise therefore that distance education in most higher
education systems is still conducted through the ‘old’ technologies:
mainly print, but also through radio, TV and satellite broadcasts.
The USA is the exception – most of the distance education in the USA
is delivered through e-learning (Bradburn 2002; Gladieux and Swail
1999; U.S.A. Department of Education 2002), but not vice versa. Most
of e-learning in American higher education is not used for distance
teaching purposes (Guri-Rosenblit 2001b; Harasim et al. 1995; van der
Wende 2002). Developing countries, in particular, do not possess the
appropriate resources and technology infrastructure to make e-learning
available on a wide scale. Bates, who was asked by the International
Institute for Educational Planning of UNESCO to recommend national
strategies for implementing e-learning in post-secondary education
in various parts of the world, concluded that: ‘‘Those countries that
are not yet ready for the knowledge-based economy are probably
not yet ready for e-learning’’ (Bates 2001, p. 111), and he suggested
that those countries with large numbers of students unable to access
the final years of secondary or higher education should adopt the
industrial model of the distance teaching universities, that provides the
best route for mass education, rather than design e-learning frame-
works.

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT476



Information access – on equality and duplication

Access to libraries and other information resources through the Internet
has been used in the last decade at an accelerated pace by members of
both distance and campus universities. More and more libraries are
becoming digitalized and going online. But also in this domain of
information access, the mega distance teaching universities encounter
more difficulties as compared to campus universities. Many of their
students, particularly in developing countries, do not have ready access
to computers (Bates 2001; Guri-Rosenblit 2001b). The egalitarian phi-
losophy of most distance teaching universities, that requires that they
provide equality of opportunity to all of their students, also forces them
to continue developing their printed self contained study packages that
can be delivered to each student by mail. In other words, catering to
large numbers of students, many of whom lack the ability or opportu-
nity to reach Internet facilities and information resources, hinders the
distance teaching universities from substituting some of their courses, or
parts of any given course, with online materials, and with a built-in
reference mechanism in the pre-prepared textbooks. This accounts for
the duplication phenomenon. Many distance education institutes de-
velop currently both printed and online versions of courses, and enable
their students to choose their preferred mode of study. Such a policy
adds on substantial additional costs to the already very expensive
process of developing self study materials.

Update of study materials – potential and difficulties

One of the major problems associated with the development of expen-
sive high quality materials for distance education is the difficulty in
updating them. It is tremendously difficult to amend, change and revise
materials produced over several years and used in a standardized
manner over many years (Daniel 1996; Guri-Rosenblit 1999). Unques-
tionably, the new technologies and the availability of desktop publish-
ing provide a partial remedy by substantially reducing the time of course
production and making the updating of materials less fraught. But in
order to be able to update the materials on an ongoing basis, the course
developers have to be part of the actual learning/teaching process. Here
again the ICT challenge the organizational infrastructure of the distance
teaching universities and demand a major overhaul of their whole
operation (Bates 1999, 2001; Guri-Rosenblit 2001b; Peters 2001).

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 477



In campus universities the individual lecturer or tutor in any class-
room may alter and redefine reading lists, and set assignments and study
tasks in light of the teaching dynamic. However, teaching faculty at
most distance teaching universities do not have any latitude whatsoever
to make such alterations. The principles of sameness and uniformity
apply to assignments and exams as they do to content. In order to
employ flexible updating mechanisms, the distance teaching universities
have to redefine and restructure their overall teaching mechanisms. The
teaching responsibility in most distance teaching universities is distrib-
uted among many actors, and exempts most of the senior academic
faculty from involvement in the actual study phase. As difficult as the
updating task seems to be, the distance teaching universities will have to
undertake it, incurring also the additional associated costs of such a
process.

To sum up this section, it seems that in spite of the apparent
advantages and merits of the new ICT for distance education, many of
the distance teaching institutions lack the appropriate infrastructure
and necessary conditions, as well as the human capital, to utilize the full
potential of the ICT. To integrate the electronic media more fully and
efficiently into their learning/teaching processes a whole restructuring of
their operation is required, and such a process will take time and will
necessitate totally new agreements between the large scale distance
teaching universities and the national governments that sponsor them.

Some erroneous assumptions as to e-learning applications

A few years ago, many economic analysts, policy makers and practi-
tioners projected that dramatic changes would take place in the aca-
demic world and in professional training from the new technology push
and the emergence of the new information economy. Several years on,
the euphoria surrounding high technology industries and their sweeping
effects on training markets and higher education has subsided. A large
scale comparative study on the applications of ICT in 174 higher edu-
cation institutions in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, the USA,
Australia, Norway and Finland (Collis and van der Wende 2002) was
presented in an international conference on ‘The New Educational
Benefits of ICT in Higher Education’, that took place in Rotterdam in
September 2002. The final conclusions of this study were: ‘‘Change in
relation to the use of ICT has been gradual and unsystematic. Many
experiments and pilot projects have been launched leading to interesting

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT478



innovations, which are, however, generally not well disseminated. ICT is
used mainly to increase flexibility in on-campus delivery of education.
Institutions turned out to be only moderately focused on new target
groups, such as lifelong learners and international students. Competi-
tion from foreign or corporate providers does not seem to be a major
driving force for institutional ICT policy’’ (CHEPS 2002, p. 2).

There are very good reasons for the piecemeal adaptation of the ICT
in higher education settings. Most of the predictions as to the sweeping
effects of the ICT on higher education have been based on several
erroneous assumptions which are examined below.

Space and time as barriers to overcome

One of the erroneous assumptions as to the fast spread of e-learning was
based on the notion that the need to attend a physical campus at given
times is perceived as a barrier to overcome by most students. This
perception is echoed in many publications. In a recent report issued by
USA National Academies of Science, for example, it was stated that the
new technologies ‘‘will erode, and in some cases obliterate, higher
education’s usual constraints of space and time’’ (National Research
Council 2002, p. 2). But the fact is that most students, and particularly
those of traditional college age, enjoy attending the physical campus
and meeting their peers in the framework of classrooms, lecture halls
and seminar rooms for reasons that go far beyond the acquisition of
knowledge and skills.

The need of humans to socialize is essential, not only in higher
education. Alvin Toffler (1980) coined in his famous book on the Third
Wave the term ‘‘electronic cottage’’. He predicted a return to the cottage
industry on a new, higher, electronic basis, and a new emphasis on the
home as the center of society. In reality his predictions have not
materialized. Some business firms decentralized their work, and a
handful of professionals like to work at home, but still most people
prefer to work outside their homes, because of their immense need for
social interaction. This social need applies to higher education settings
as well.

Many studies in the last decade show clearly that most students
prefer to attend classes even when provided with the opportunity to get
video-taped lectures, exercises and intimate tutoring through the elec-
tronic media. For instance, a large scale study was conducted at UC
Berkeley from September 2000 to June 2002 on the use of technology

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 479



enhancement in some large undergraduate courses in chemistry (Harley
et al. 2002). This study found that only 16% of the students would be
willing to watch lecture webcasts entirely online instead of going to the
lecture hall. 84% of the students indicated that they prefer to attend
face-to-face encounters, even though they could have studied all the
materials, conducted all of the experiments and watched the video-taped
lectures at home.

A wide national project in Israel to enhance the use of the ICT in
Israeli universities through special funding and incentives provided by
the Israeli Council for Higher Education, was joined by many aca-
demics. A study showed that at Tel-Aviv University more than 1000
faculty members have utilized various forms of e-learning in their classes
in the last 3 years, but only 1% of them used electronic media to sub-
stitute for class encounters (Guri-Rosenblit 2002). Many more studies
substantiate this trend (CHEPS 2002; Collis and van der Wende 2002;
Collis and Moonen 2001; Curran 2001; Fetterman 1998; Somekh and
Davis 1997; van der Molen 2001; van der Wende 2002).

Not only students in campus universities, but also students in dis-
tance teaching institutions express a high demand for personal inter-
action with academics and other students. One of the main lessons from
the running of distance teaching universities underlines the importance
of the social interaction. Contrary to some initial theories which as-
sumed that adult students choosing to study via distance methods prefer
to learn on their own and to interact only from time to time with
academic staff, the experience of the large distance teaching universities
shows that many prefer frequent contact, both with academic faculty
and fellow students (Guri-Rosenblit 1999). In some places, where dis-
tance does not present a real physical obstacle, like in Israel, more than
80% of the distant students urged the Israeli Open University to provide
weekly meetings with their tutors in study centers.

At the University of Phoenix, a subsidiary of the giant Apollo
Group, the largest accredited private distance teaching university in the
USA that has operated since 1976, only about 10% of its student
population are registered for online programs (Ryan 2002). The Uni-
versity of Phoenix appears to have no intention of downscaling its
physical learning centers in favour of online provision. On the contrary,
a ‘‘bricks and clicks’’ model, offering both an online and distributed
face-to-face option is regarded as the best solution for the working adult
market.

Even in the business world, many prefer hybrid courses. There is
apparent resistance by many students to the notion of exclusively online

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT480



education. One demographic group targeted by many universities is the
busy professional, unwilling to commit to weekly classes and highly
mobile in work patterns. Specifically for this group, a hybrid model has
emerged, combining online communication/resources supporting
intensive residential periods on campus to engender group cohesion and
social learning. A recent European study found that only 15% of
companies using e-learning preferred a stand-alone approach, with the
majority opting for greater online interaction and use of e-learning to
prepare for and reinforce face-to-face provision (Ryan 2002).

In other words, space and time constitute barriers for those students
that because a variety of constraints cannot attend a campus or a res-
idential school at specific times. These are the students who have tra-
ditionally been attracted to distance education, and their numbers will
grow in the future, as will be discussed below. But space and time do not
constitute a universal problem for most students, particularly for the
traditional age cohorts that attend school and university.

The urge of universities to extend their student population

A second erroneous assumption regarding the impact of the new elec-
tronic media on the academic world was based on the notion that most
universities have an urge to expand their boundaries and to extend their
student clienteles, if only possible. The fact is that most campus uni-
versities have no good reason to increase their student body and to
utilize distance teaching methods. The elite research universities, in
particular, are, by their very nature, less interested in widening access to
large numbers of students. They are inclined to remain selective for the
few and well-to-do students. MIT is a leading institution in ICT
applications. It currently runs nearly forty projects related to various
uses of the new technologies (Olsen 2002). Nevertheless, its president,
Charles Vest, stated firmly in his 2000/01 annual report that: ‘‘The
residential university will remain an essential element of our society,
providing the most intense, advanced, and effective education. Ma-
chines cannot replace the magic that occurs when bright, creative young
people live and learn together in the company of highly dedicated fac-
ulty’’ (Vest 2001). MIT is currently developing its Open Courseware
project for ‘academic philanthropy’ purposes, but not for its own stu-
dents. The Open Courseware project will give interested students and
faculty members all over the world a glimpse of the MIT curricula of
about 2000 courses. But by no means does MIT intend to enroll large

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 481



numbers of students, or offer online courses from MIT professors for
credit (Olsen 2002).

In an international comparative study on the applications of ICT in
174 institutions in seven different countries, that was aforementioned, it
was found that most universities do not reach out to new student cli-
enteles either in their national settings or in the international domain
(Collis and van der Wende 2002). Part of the reason is that it is a
complicated and demanding task to design study programs for distant
students by academics that have been accustomed to teach on-campus
students. The teaching faculty are required to comprehend the unique
qualities of various media for shaping new learning environments that
are more learner-centered and enhance dialogue with students situated
afar. For promoting such programs there is a need to develop a new
infrastructure for course design and student support services. The full-
fledged distance teaching universities have invested a huge amount of
energy, money and human efforts for establishing special mechanisms
suited for teaching at a distance. Most campus universities are relatively
novices in the field of distance education, and are not appropriately
equipped when confronted with distance learning concerns.

In spite of the apparent difficulties to operate distance teaching by
campus universities, a growing number of universities use the ICT to
export a variety of programs as a commodity for profit. Many new
consortia have been founded in the last decade, most noticeably by
Australian, Canadian and British universities that export professional
and academic programs for international students located mainly in
third world countries. These consortia purport to generate more funds
for the ongoing operation of the participating universities (Ryan 2002;
van der Wende 2002). Most of the exported programs are aimed at
graduate and postgraduate students, and have greatest success in pro-
fessional training. But the majority of the new student populations are
not considered an integral part of the main student body of these uni-
versities.

Harvard, Dartmouth, John Hopkins and Brown universities in the
USA, have been investing in recent years in for-profit college companies
(Blumenstyk 2003). The programs that the for-profit companies offer
have nothing in common with the traditional core curricula of these elite
research universities. Harvard University, for example, is the biggest
institutional investor in a $590 million fund run by Boston’s Charles-
bank Capital partners, which made its foray into the sector in April
2002 by investing in a school that trains automobile and motorcycle
technicians (ibid) – not exactly typical Harvard students. In other

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT482



words, most of the well-based campus universities are in no rush to
significantly expand their student body. Their reaching out to additional
student clienteles is mainly conducted for profit, and mostly in profes-
sional training areas.

Lack of clear problems as a problem

A third erroneous perception regarding the impact of the new technol-
ogies on higher education was based on the hidden assumption that the
advantages of the ICT are self evident, and there is no need to define
them. In other words, the merits of the new technologies are so great,
that they will be adopted easily and eagerly by policy makers and
practitioners in the academic world without any need to define a clear
vision of problems they might solve or what parameters in higher edu-
cation they could improve. The new electronic media were introduced
into the academic world like a sudden thunderstorm without taking the
time to define what purposes and functions they could fulfill or substitute
for. The lack of clear problems turned out to be an acute problem in the
adaptation process of the new technologies in universities and colleges.

The old and traditional distance education media were defined by
very clear parameters. Their main goal was to deliver study content to
students that, for a variety of reasons, were unable to attend a face-to-
face classroom. Print, radio and television have clear-cut and trans-
parent characteristics. It is totally clear what the self study materials and
the communication channels stand for, and what kind of functions in
the learning/teaching process they replace. This is not the case with the
new technologies.

Unlike the clear obstacles and barriers which traditional distance
teaching technologies were designed to overcome, the new technologies
offered multiple uses with no clear relation to any existent or future
problem in the teaching/learning processes in campus universities. The
reactions of many academics asked to incorporate the new technologies
into their classrooms have been of the type: ‘‘If it ain’t broke, why fix it?’
or ‘‘Technology is the answer – but what are the questions?’’ (Guri-
Rosenblit 2002).

The UC Berkeley study, mentioned earlier, constitutes an interesting
example of the impact of problem definition on institutional decision
making (Harley et al. 2002). In the process of conducting the study, it
was found that technology-enhanced classes in chemistry can save both
faculty time and space. Instructors spent less time answering routine

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 483



questions because students were able to find some of the necessary
information online. And it was found that laboratory sessions could
hypothetically be reduced from four hours to three to better utilize lab
space. Such a finding has been most interesting for the UC policy
makers is face of Tidal Wave II, namely the fact that the University of
California ten-campus system is facing an increased enrollment of about
63,000 full-time students, a 43% increase in the coming years. If through
the use of technology it is possible to save from 10% to 20% of space and
faculty time, technology becomes a strategic solution to absorb more
students, although it does not save money (ibid).

Many studies in the field of the ICT implementation claim that the
time has come for both governments and institutions to become more
focused and strategic in their policies regarding the use of the ICT
(Bates 1999, 2001; CHEPS 2002; Collis and van der Wende 2002; Guri-
Rosenblit 2001b, 2002; Harley et al. 2002; Laurillard 2001; Matkin
2002; National Research Council 2002; Trow 1999; van der Molen 2001;
van der Wende 2002). A macro level organizational effort is needed to
consolidate the multiple findings of the ICT uses into a coherent body of
knowledge, available to decision makers in higher education settings.
Laurillard (2001) in her widely acclaimed book on ‘Rethinking Uni-
versity Teaching’ emphasizes the pressing need of higher education
institutions, both campus-based and distance education providers, to
meet the demands of the knowledge society by taking full advantage of
the rich possibilities the new technologies present to move teaching and
learning into a new era. For making the learning/teaching processes
interactive, reflective, adaptive, and discursive, high rank policy makers
play a crucial role as resource allocators and as system designers.

E-learning as a profit making activity

A fourth erroneous assumption regarding the ICT implementation in
higher education was based on its fast profit making capabilities. A few
years ago many analysts, such as Morgan Keegan (2000), projected
billion dollar e-education and e-training markets globally. Virtual net-
works of colleges and universities became a marker of a new economy.
Several years later costly experience has caused many higher education
institutions to question the increasing costs of their commitments to
digitization and wired campus programs (Matkin 2002; Ryan 2002).

It seems that three major reasons account for this misconception
regarding the fast and easy profit from e-learning. First, as explained

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT484



earlier, the economies of scale provided by the large distance teaching
universities, operating on the basis of the industrial model, led many to
believe that any distance teaching technology is by its very nature cost
effective. Second, substantial cuts in training costs that took place in the
corporate world as a result of cutting out flights and hotel expenses on
training caused many to assume that such money saving will also occur
at universities employing e-learning. Obviously, it is more economical to
bring training programs to the work place rather than sponsor the
sending of workers for days to remote conference sites and training
sessions. It is no wonder then that most of the profit-making claims
came from the business and corporate world. But cuts in hotel and flight
expenses have no relevance at all for students and faculty in the aca-
demic world. Third, the high expenses of setting up an appropriate
infrastructure for e-learning, its ongoing maintenance, and its wastage
management, were heavily downscaled.

Setting up an appropriate infrastructure for the effective utilization
of the ICT in any university or college requires large investments. The
computer hardware is still quite expensive, and its rapid change and
the need for its frequent replacement increase the expense entailed. The
initial costs of the basic infrastructure needed for operating e-learning is
by no means a trivial issue. Bates stressed in his report on ‘National
Strategies for E-learning in Post-secondary Education and Training’
that: ‘‘E-learning is heavily dependent on appropriate technological
infrastructure already being in place for commerce or government
reasons. Stable electricity and reliable and moderately priced Internet
access is a necessary condition for e-learning’’ (Bates 2001, p.113). Until
there is a basic and reliable infrastructure in place, e-learning is unlikely
to be a realistic or practical choice for learners.

Not only the infrastructure, but also the maintenance of e-learning is
costly. It is of tremendous importance to establish support systems for
both students and teachers who use the ICT. The induction of the
teaching faculty into the new technologies necessitates ongoing profes-
sional and technical support and the establishment of special centers for
course development (Bates 1999, 2001). Ongoing support is also needed
for students, particularly weak students (Collis and Moonen 2001; Guri-
Rosenblit 1999; Littleton and Light 1999; Scott et al. 2002; Somekh and
Davis 1997).

Sir John Daniel who served until 2001 as the Vice-Chancellor of the
UK Open University already stressed in 1996 that the potential success
of the innovative electronic technologies depends to a great extent on
the ability to provide individual learners with adequate backup

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 485



throughout their studies. Daniel asked: ‘‘Can we through electronic
mail, computer conferencing and the World Wide Web, provide the
level of individual student support that we think necessary? We are
experimenting with that, but despite all the arm waving, I think the jury
is still out. If the jury comes back and declares us guilty of being able to
provide effective, personal, tutorial support to students on a large scale,
then all sorts of things become possible’’ (Daniel 1996, p. 38). It seems
that since Daniel phrased this question, the jury has brought in its
verdict – such support is possible when teaching online very small
numbers of students, and such a mode of teaching is extremely costly.

In addition to the high expenses associated with setting up an
appropriate infrastructure for e-learning and keeping up its mainte-
nance, the wastage of the outdated hardware turns to be an unexpected
additional cost. Getting rid of outdated computers poses financial,
environmental and ethical challenges (Carlson 2003). Last year the
University of Minnesota, for instance, spent more than $100,000 for the
demanufacturing of old computers – to pull out valuable steel, alu-
minium, copper and the chips that contain gold, and to get rid, in an
appropriate way, of the many poisons it contains. During the boom of
technology in education, colleges bought computers by the truckload.
Now the institutions have to be careful when they throw those aging
computers away. In some USA states, such as California, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, legislators have
proposed or passed laws that ban the disposal of electronic waste and
outline how to treat large quantities of hazardous materials which in-
clude computer monitors, televisions and other electronics. Electronic
waste is now regarded as the next big environmental issue. Old com-
puters compose 10% of the solid-waste stream in the USA, but com-
puter related waste is growing as three times as fast as any other kind.
The number of computers retired in 2002 was 40 million, and the
number of obsolete computers is believed to be nearly 300 million in
2004 (ibid). Many universities and colleges have not yet decided how to
deal with their electronic waste and how to sponsor this activity. In sum,
it is definitely not easy to turn e-learning into a profit making activity.

On the future of ‘distance education’ and ‘e-learning’ in higher

education – concluding remarks

This article examined the distinct differences between ‘distance educa-
tion’ and ‘e-learning’ in higher education, and clarified the erroneous

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT486



assumptions on which many exaggerated predictions as to the sweeping
effects of the new electronic media were based. Though it is likely that in
the upcoming decade more and more providers of distance education
will incorporate various forms of e-learning in their learning/teaching
apparatus, still the differences between ‘distance education’ and
‘e-learning’ will remain noticeable. The boundaries between ‘distance
education’ and ‘e-learning’ will blur in some areas, but they will never
totally merge. Both phenomena will grow in the future, but mostly for
different reasons and in different directions.

How will distance education at university level evolve in the future?

Distance education at university level will grow in the coming years and
will attract new student clienteles. It will be provided more and more by
mixed-mode institutions and consortia in addition to stand-alone dis-
tance teaching institutions; and its mode of operation will depend
greatly on the technological infrastructure of various national settings.

Initially, most distance teaching institutions were mainly designed for
older part-time students. Throughout the last two decades more diverse
student clientless have joined distance study frameworks, and it is likely
that the future student cohorts, both in distance and campus-based
universities will be more heterogeneous. More younger students will join
distance education. The desire of many high school students to gain
academic credits concurrently with their high school studies, as well as
their attraction to highly demanded fields of study, to which admission
is difficult at a conventional university, haven drawn, and will continue
to draw, young students to highly acclaimed and reputable distance
education providers.

In the future distance education is likely to attract several new adult
student constituencies. Today, lifelong learning has become the leitmotif
and dominant slogan of most higher education institutions worldwide.
Grosso modo, lifelong learning is based on part-time education pro-
ceeding throughout the whole life cycle. Part-time students are typically
adults in full or partial employment and/or having family and social
commitments. Among the older students at least three distinct groups
can be identified: second-chance students; professional workers; and
adults seeking to broaden their education in order to become better
acquainted with new fields of knowledge. The proportion of students
joining distance education for professional upgrade and for recreational
purposes will grow immensely in the future.

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 487



A large proportion of students in any higher education institution,
but particularly in distance teaching programs, will be studying towards
various diplomas and continuing education courses, rather than to-
wards full degree programs. International students, composed mainly of
young professionals working in international corporations, will be a
growing component in distance education institutions. Being highly
mobile they will expect to continue studying as they move within or
between different national jurisdictions.

The status of the mega distance teaching universities will remain
stable, and their main mandate will continue to be to widen access to
higher education by reaching out to students who cannot attend or gain
access to conventional universities. They will continue to operate on the
industrial model paradigm which produces economies of scale and en-
ables them to enroll large numbers of students at relatively low marginal
costs well below those of campus universities or e-learning providers.
Print and mass media will continue to serve as the main media in these
large distance teaching institutions, though part of their courses will be
enhanced by e-learning components.

New leading models of distance education will be provided by mixed-
mode institutions and consortia-type ventures. The mixed-mode enables
students to study concurrently on-campus and through distance edu-
cation. Consortia type ventures, in which a number of universities join
forces, either within national higher education systems or as an inter-
national enterprise, will offer a rich variety of distance teaching pro-
grams. Some of the consortia have been created, and will continue to
operate, as partnerships between universities and the corporate world.
Many of the mixed-mode institutions and consortia offering distance
teaching courses will utilize the communication capabilities of the new
interactive media.

The technological divide between developing and developed coun-
tries will be clearly reflected in the mode of distance education delivery.
Most developing countries do not possess the resources and skilled
workforce necessary to make e-learning feasible and available on a wide
scale. Bates (2001) claimed that only a handful of developing countries
will be able to move partially into e-learning through a growing indig-
enous high-tech sector, a rapidly developing middle class and export of
academic programs from developing countries. However, in developed
countries as well, the new electronic media applications will be used in
the large distance teaching universities mainly as add-ons to the core
curricula that will continue to be based, by and large, on printed self
study materials and mass media. Nevertheless, the production of the self

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT488



study courses and their ongoing update will undergo drastic changes.
Communication among students and between students and tutors in the
study process will be greatly enhanced by the new electronic media.

How will e-learning at university level evolve in the future?

The impact of the new technologies on higher education environments
will grow dramatically in the future, and will affect all domains of
academic activity – research, teaching and learning, organization, fi-
nance and government policy. Unquestionably, the new technologies
have the potential to provide new exciting possibilities to improve the
quality of the study process, and affect the generation and delivery of
knowledge both in campus and distance teaching universities. However,
the provision of distance education will constitute a partial function of
e-learning applications, while the campus will remain a center of uni-
versity culture, knowledge generation, and the locus of students–faculty
interaction. The new technologies are not likely to endanger the exis-
tence of the campus universities, but rather enrich, support and enhance
many of their activities.

E-learning will greatly contribute to growing flexibility in academic
study patterns (Bates 2001; Collis and Moonen 2001; Collis and van der
Wende 2002). Flexible learning offers students many opportunities to
adjust their interests, needs and learning styles to a variety of learning
settings and media combinations. Hybrid courses, combining various
components of face-to-face encounters with online provision will
emerge as a growing pattern in academic institutions. However, online
teaching as a stand-alone pedagogy will be used to a very limited extent,
and most e-learning will be employed for add-on functions in teaching/
learning processes. The majority of students attending campus univer-
sities will prefer to attend classes, or will choose to distribute their
college experience among residential campuses, commuter colleges and
online courses. More graduate or postgraduate students will study on-
line, whereas the majority of undergraduates will prefer the more con-
ventional face-to-face encounters.

E-learning will promote the growth of both academic trade and aca-
demic philanthropy. More universities and new for-profit companies will
export academic and professional programs as a commodity to a variety
of student populations. There are already some noticeable differences
among national policies in this domain. Australia, the UK and Canada
are more oriented to the international market (Ryan 2001). Many of their

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 489



universities try to export their higher education as a commodity to third
world countries. American universities are more directed inwards, gen-
erally preferring campus-based integration of ICT, with a few examples
of purchases and partnerships in physical campuses overseas.

Concurrently with the growing use of e-learning for profit and
commercial purposes, academic philanthropy through the utilization of
the ICT capabilities will grow as well. The MIT’s Open Courseware
project constitutes an excellent example in this domain. It demonstrates
how a leading private university can practice intellectual philanthropy in
the world of academic teaching. Higher education institutions all over
the world will be able to adapt content and ideas from the MIT courses
for their benefit. Also Carnegie Mellon and Princeton universities are
currently involved in experiments to make course materials public on
the Web (Olsen 2002). The Open Knowledge Initiative constitutes an
additional example of academic generosity. This is a collaborative effort
led by MIT, Stanford University with six other institutions of devel-
oping free and open technical specifications of learning management
systems and related infrastructures (ibid).

E-learning will unquestionably enhance globalization trends. ‘Inter-
nationalization’ and ‘globalization’ are new buzz words in higher edu-
cation and practice. These two terms draw attention to the undeniable
fact that boundaries of what were relatively closed national systems are
increasingly being challenged by common international trends (Enders
and Fulton 2002). Universities are at present engaged in becoming
partners in inter-institutional schemes and pushing forward in the drive
towards globalization. Students, academic staff and curricula are
transferred and exchanged between institutions; accreditation agencies
ensure promptness in accrediting previous experiential learning and
previous academic studies; governments append their signatures to
cooperative projects in higher education. Strengthening agreements
between academic institutions within a particular country and across
national borders will be central to the mobility of adult students.

E-learning exerts global outreach. In an international market, stu-
dents are able, and will be more so in the future, to approach any
university where access policy encourages and extends to international
students. This will be particularly true in professional training and
postgraduate fields. The outreach of universities to international student
clienteles on a global level could be activated at different levels, ranging
from enrolling individual students from different countries, through
collaborative ventures with other institutions (universities or business
enterprises), to cooperative undertakings with governments, interna-

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT490



tional corporations and intergovernmental organizations. The involve-
ment of such central bodies is essential for the systematic implementa-
tion of the new technologies into higher education systems efficiently
and on a large scale.

References

AFT (2000). Distance Education: Guidelines for Good Practice. Washington D.C.:
American Federation of Teachers.

AFT (2001). A Virtual Revolution: Trends in the Expansion of Distance Education.
Washington D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.

Arnold, R. (1999). ‘Will distance disappear in distance studies? Preliminary consider-

ations on the didactic relevance of proximity and distance’, Journal of Distance
Education 14(2), 1–9.

Bates, A.W. (1999). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for Academic Leaders.
San-Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bates, A.W. (2001). National Strategies for E-learning in Post-secondary Education and
Training. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.

Bell, R. and Tight, M. (1993). Open Universities: A British Tradition. Buckingham: The

Society of Research into Higher Education & The Open University Press.
Blumenstyk, G. (2003). ‘For-profit colleges attract a gold rush for investors’, The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 March 2003.

Bradburn, E.M. (2002). Distance Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and
Staff at Degree-Granting Institutions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-155.

Carlson, S. (2003). ‘Old computers never die – they just cost colleges money in new
ways’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 14.

CHEPS (2002). ‘Successful conference on ICT in Rotterdam’, CHEPS Unplugged 2(3),
2.

Collis, B. and Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experience and
Expectations. London: Kogan Page.

Collis, B. and van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of Technology and Change in Higher

Education: An International Comparative Survey on the Current and Future Uses of
ICT in Higher Education. University of Twente: CHEPS.

Curran, C. (2001). ‘Universities and the Challenge of E-Learning: What Lessons from

the European Universities?’ Presented at the University Teaching as E-Business,
October 2001, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California at
Berkeley.

Daniel, J.S. (1990). ‘Distance education in developing countries’, in Croft, M., Mug-
ridge, I., Daniel, J.S. and Hershfield A. (eds.), Distance Education: Development and
Access, Caracas: ICDE Proceedings, pp. 101–110.

Daniel, J.S. (1996). The Mega-Universities and the Knowledge Media. London: Kogan

Page.
Enders, J. and Fulton, O. (eds.) (2002). Higher Education in a Globalising World:

International Trends and Mutual Observations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-

lishers.

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 491



Evans, T. and Nation, D. (eds.) (2000). Changing University Teaching: Reflections on
Creating Educational Technologies. London: Kogan Page.

Fetterman, D.M. (1998). ‘Webs of meaning: Computer and Internet resources for
educational research and instruction’, Educational Researcher 27(3), 22–31.

Garrison, D.R. (1993). ‘Multifunction computer enhanced audio teleconferencing:

Moving into the third generation of distance education’, in Harry, H., John, M. and
Keegan, D. (eds.), Distance Education: New Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.
200–208.

Garrison, D.R. (1999). ‘Will distance education disappear in distance studies? A reac-

tion’, Journal of Distance Education 14(2), 10–13.
Garrison, D.R. and Anderson, T. (eds.) (2000). Changing University Teaching: Reflec-

tions on Creating Educational Technologies. London: Kogan Page.

Gladieux, L.E. and Swail, W.S. (1999). The Virtual University and Educational Oppor-
tunity: Issues of Equity and Access for the Next Generation. Washington, D.C.: The
College Board.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Distance and Campus Universities: Tensions and Interactions –
A Comparative Study of Five Countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press & The Interna-
tional Association of Universities.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2001a). ‘The Tower of Babel syndrome in the discourse on infor-
mation technologies in higher education’, Global E-Journal of Open, Flexible and
Distance Education 1(1), 28–38.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2001b). ‘Virtual universities: Current models and future trends’,

Higher Education in Europe XXVI(4), 487–499.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2002). ‘A top down strategy to enhance information technologies

into Israeli higher education’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Education 2(2).
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. and Turrof, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field

Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harley, D., Henke, J., Lawrence, S., Maher, M., Gawlik, M. and Muller, P. (2002). An
Analysis of Technology Enhancement in a Large Lecture Course at UC Berkeley:
Costs, Cultures, and Complexity. A Final Report, UC Berkeley, Center for Studies in
Higher Education.

Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.
Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Keegan, M. (2000). E-Learning: The Engine of the Knowledge Economy. New York:

Keegan.
Laurillard, D. (2001). Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd edition. London: Routledge

Falmer.

Littleton, K. and Light, P. (eds.) (1999). Learning with Computers: Analysing Productive
Interaction. London: Routledge.

Matkin, G.W. (2002). The Whys and Hows of Online Education at UC: A Dean’s Pers-

pective, UC TLtC News & Events. http://www.uctltc.org/news/2002/06/matkin.html.
Morrison, T.R. (1992). ‘Learning, change and synergism: The potential of open uni-

versities’, Presented at the Annual Asian Association of Universities, Seoul, Korea,
Proceedings, pp. 19–54.

National Research Council (2002). Preparing for the Revolution: Information Technology
and the Future of the Research University. Washington, D.C.: The National Acad-
emies Press.

SARAH GURI-ROSENBLIT492



Niper, S. (1989). ‘Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing’, in
Mason, R. and Kaye, A. (eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Dis-

tance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 63–73.
Olsen, F. (2002). ‘MIT’s open window – putting course materials online, the university

faces high expectations’, The Chronicle of Higher Education 6 December 2002.

Peters, O. (1994). ‘Distance education and industrial production: A comparative
interpretation in outline’, in Keegan, M. (ed.), Otto Peters on Distance Education.
London: Routledge, pp. 107–127.

Peters, O. (2001). Learning and Teaching in Distance Education: Analysis and Interpre-

tations from an International Perspective. London: Kogan Page.
Robinson, S. and Guernsey, L. (1999). ‘Microsoft and MIT to launch I-Campus’,

International Harold Tribune 6 October 1999.

Ryan, Y. (2002). Emerging Indicators of Success and Failure in Borderless Higher Edu-
cation. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Scott, H., Chenette, J. and Swartz, J. (2002). ‘The integration of technology into

learning and teaching in liberal arts’, Liberal Education (Spring) 2002, 30–35.
Selinger, M. and Pearson, J. (eds.) (1999). Telematics in Education: Trends and Issues.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Somekh, B. and Davis, N. (eds.) (1997). Using Information Technology Effectively in
Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.

Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow.
Trow, M. (1999). ‘Lifelong learning through the new information technologies’, Higher

Education Policy 12(2), 201–217.
Twigg, C. (2001). Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond the no Significant

Difference. Troy, N.Y.: The Pew Learning & Technology Program.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). A Profile of Participation in Distance Education:
1999–2000. Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES
2003-154.

van der Molen, H.J. (ed.) (2001). Virtual University? Educational Environments of the
Future. London: Portland Press Ltd.

van der Wende, M.C. (2002). The Role of US Higher Education in the Global E-Learning
Market. Research and Occasional Paper Series: Center for Studies in Higher Edu-

cation. 1.02, Higher Education in the Digital Age Project, University of California at
Berkeley.

Vest, C.M. (2001). Disturbing the Educational Universe: Universities in the Digital Age –

Dinosaurs or Prometheans? Report of the President for the Academic Year 2000-1,
MIT.

Address for correspondence: Sarah Guri-Rosenblit, Department of Education and

Psychology, The Open University of Israel, P.O. Box 39328, Ramat-Aviv 61392, Israel
Phone: þ972-3-6460394; Fax: þ972-3-6465468; E-mail: saragu@openu.ac.il

DISTANCE EDUCATION AND E-LEARNING 493