{
Lone wolf model (see Bates, 2000). Individual faculty members are given exclusive
control over the online creation and distribution of their educational materials.
{
Silo model--Each department/school/faculty is given exclusive control over the design,
development, and delivery of online learning. In this model, infrastructure costs become
redundant and standardization of online educational materials is poorly controlled.
{
Integration model-- Online learning infrastructure is placed at the core of the academic
enterprise. This placement of the online learning enterprise at the core of academic
administrative processes enables maximum quality and standardization of quality with
minimal redundancy and cost.
z
Writing in a chapter in The Design & Management of Effective Distance Learning Program,
Diane A. Matthews addressed the emerging “players in distance education.” (Discenza, R.,
Howard, C., & Schenk, K; 2002). She described three emerging players as consortia or
collaborative, contracted or brokered arrangements, or virtual universities. Consortia or
collaboratives represent cooperative pooling and sharing arrangements among institutions, which
she found to be typically, traditional colleges and universities. These institutions joined together
to provide distance education usually on a statewide or regional basis, or already had a consortium
established for cooperative programming. However, the authority to award degrees and credits
remained with each member institution and does not shift to the consortium as a separate
established degree granting entity. Contracted or brokered arrangements according to Matthews
are configurations of institutions, faculty, or other providers brought together solely for the
purpose of delivering distance education. In this arrangement the authority to award degrees and
credits rests with the contracting or organizing entity, not with the originating institution. Virtual
universities here are naturally institutions that offer most or all of their instruction via
technological means and are distinguished by their nearly exclusive use of technology as the
educational delivery device.
z
Carlinger has described in more detail the possible arrangements for universities offering distance
learning “courses” in an alliance (“partnership for Carlinger). (2001). He found three models to be
“most common.” One model is the remote classroom arrangement whereby all of the locations
involved are administered by the same school and, therefore, operate under the same
administrative policies and procedures. Here one university broadcasts its courses to other
classrooms so students can learn and this delivery is merely an extension of the same classroom,
course, and university. In a cross-enrollment model students from the participating universities
take courses at the sponsoring (offering) university (usually there are no similar courses taught
among the participating universities) and the course transfers back to the participating
universities. While students enroll through their home institution, the course operates under the
policies and procedures of the teaching institution. There can also be a joint offering whereby a
course taught by one university is broadcast, web cast, etc. to another university and students in
each university enroll through their own institutions, but are governed by the policies and
procedures for their home institutions.
z
Lee, Chun, Im, and Heo undertook a s earch for an academic and organizational model for “e-
Universities” by conducting a comprehensive cross analysis of a diverse set of information
including literature review, analysis of e-universities, survey of expert opinions, benchmark
analysis of e-Learning enterprises, and survey of four e-universities. They conducted extensive
analysis of the academic administration and organization in four international digital distance
universities: University of Phoenix Online, Penn State World Campus, University of Maryland,
University College, and University of Southern Queensland. They then proposed an academic
administration and organizational model “appropriate for enhancing the educational quality of
digital distance universities.” They believe that d istance education “should not be viewed as a
supplementary function of an existing university” and that “introducing a new set of departments,
equipment, staff, rules and regulations is necessary to raise the level of efficiency and
effectiveness.”
z
In their ongoing work to study barriers to implementing distance training and education in
organizations, Cho and Berge believe that a “ centralized policy-making, or administrative
structure, in the organization is critical to implementing a distance education programs in a
consistent, effective, and efficient manner.” (2002). Furthermore they believe that “successful