Content uploaded by Viktoria Petrova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Viktoria Petrova on Sep 27, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
The evolution of distance education – from
Caleb Philipps to the MOOC
Author: Viktoria Petrova
Abstract: Distance learning has been a method for acquiring education and further
qualifications for centuries, connected strongly with the development of technology and society.
This paper showcases the different phases of development of distance education and their
influence both on Bulgarian and international education.
Keywords: distance education; MOOC; Bulgarian distance education; history of distance
education
JEL: I21
INTRODUCTION
Distance learning is an educational method that has been used for centuries by
educators and institutions around the world that has evolved through many stages strongly
connected with the development the society. Through the years the different stages have also
influenced traditional education and have continued to shape themselves in accordance to the
technological advancements.
The following paper aims to summarize by the generally accepted periods in the
evolution of distance learning in order to be beneficial for researches, scholars and peers.
1. CORRESPONDENCE COURSES
The first mention of organized distance education dates back to 1728, when on March
20th in a published advertisement in the Boston Gazette Caleb Phillips, in which ‘Caleb Phillips,
a self-proclaimed “teacher of the new method of Short Hand” advertised his teaching. The
advertisement was aimed at “.... any person in this country, desirous to learn this Art, may, by
having several lessons sent weekly to them, be perfectly instructed, as those who live in
Boston.” (Cury, 2017).
In 1833, in Lund, Sweden another advertiser offered to the ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’
opportunities to study ‘Composition through the medium of the Post’ (Bratt, 1977).
Later evidence was found for organized correspondence teaching of foreign languages
in Germany in 1856 by Charles Toussaint and Gustaf Langenscheidt (Noffsinger, 1926).
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
Almost century after the ambitious advertisement by Phillips, the distance learning in XIX
century still relied on the development of postal services but has been practiced at least since
Isaac Pitman taught shorthand in Great Britain via correspondence in the 1840s (Moore &
Kearsley, 2012).
In the United States, the first dean of the University of Chicago greatly encouraged the
concept of correspondence school courses to promote further education, an idea that was later
put into practice by Columbia University (Levinson, 2005).
The first university in the UK to put the concept of distance learning to practice was the
University of London with the establishment of External Program in 1858 which was chartered
by Queen Victoria. With growing popularity and number of enrollments (Anderson, 2007), soon
such programs were adopted in other universities. Nowadays the Program is still active and
provides Postgraduate, Undergraduate and Diploma degrees University of London, 2018.
In Australia, the University of Queensland established its Department of
Correspondence Studies in 1911 (White, 1982).
2. BROADCAST RADIO AND TELEVISION
In the 1970 television had enormous popularity worldwide and was seen as a perfect
tool for universities, which provided distance education to reach to potential students (Woodley
and Simpson, 2013), radio and television were the tools that were able to add another
dimension to distance learning with the educator’s voice and image, teaching materials spread
nationally or even internationally (Schrag, 2014).
The Open University took the challenge and ran large-scale correspondence courses
through radio and television in the 1970s hoping to reach the working-class adults for which
full-time studying was not an option (Rice, 2013).
However, even before that, in 1936, more than 200 colleges, universities, school boards,
and proprietary schools had received licenses for radio broadcasting, and many offered radio
courses for credit (Pittman, 1986). In 1939 the University of Iowa’s television station had
broadcast nearly 400 educational programs (Moore and Kearsley, 1996).
Radio broadcasts and television were a short-lived form of distance education as the
costs for broadcasting turned to be too enormous for the HEIs, who also had to fight
entertainment and advertising industries for spots (Kember, 2007). Soon this method has
become outdated due to the new reaches of technology.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
3. OPEN UNIVERSITIES
A new phase of distance learning emerged in the 1960s and 1970s - the open
universities.
The first one - the British Open University also known as BOU, also became the most
successful of them, dedicated exclusively to distance education (Watkins and Wright, 1991).
Unlike the previous forms of distance learning, BOU combined many different kinds of media
in its course packages such as correspondence of lections and assessments, printed materials,
audio, video and computer media (Kember, 2007).
These universities were based on the most significant principles of distance education
that could be traced today in MOOCs – openness, and self-pacing. Despite their qualifications
and professional experience nearly anyone could enter a course in Open Universities and start
whenever he or she wanted while Universities provided their support through the process
(Moore and Kearsley, 1996). Compared to correspondence courses, Open Universities used
teams of professors, researchers, and scientists to develop the programs taught in the
universities (Mullaney, 2014).
Like today’s MOOCs, Open universities were successful in reaching a significant number
of students but also had high dropout rates: the BOU enrolled 24,000 students in its inaugural
class in 1971, and by 1996 it had 130,000 students taking courses each year (Moore and
Kearsley, 1996). Even with the introduction of advance student-tutor support systems there still
were high drop rates: in 1971 and 1972, roughly 40 percent of BOU students dropped out before
end-of-year examinations (Lumsden and Ritchie, 1975). Today, the open university model is
still the most successful distance learning, and it provided a critical foundation for the online
courses and schools of the future (Mullaney, 2014).
The example of UK’s Open University led to the creation of many similar institutions
across the world like Canada’s Athabasca University in 1970 (Byrne, 1989), Spain's National
University of Distance Education in 1972 (Centro Distancia, 2018), Germany's FernUniversität
in Hagen in 1974 (Fernuni-hagen.de, 2018).
Nowadays open universities have become one of the most prominent critics of MOOCs
stating that MOOCs are just a resource – whereas the open universities provide real teaching
with the necessary student support services, and award degrees (and hence are at least of
equal quality to face-to-face teaching) (Gaebel, 2014).
4. TELECONFERENCING
Teleconferencing was one of the more unpopular ways of distance education in Europe
but was the preferred model in North America (Kember, 2007). They delivered all content
through audio or visual communication where students could interact with their instructors,
similar to traditional face-to-face offerings at domestic or brick-and-mortar institutions
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
(Mullaney, 2014). Compared to other forms of distance education their popularity and reach
were limited, by 1996, only 15 percent of schools which provided distance education used this
form (Hashim and Jaafar, 1999).
The inability to gain popularity as a distance education form may come from the design
of the teleconferencing itself. As all the positives of having the same feeling as studying at a
full-time campus university, this form used only two-way communication which made the
interacting with significant volume of students impossible, the students didn’t have 24/7 access
and had to be on specific locations, which limited their abilities to engage in the process
(Kember, 2007).
5. ONLINE EDUCATION
As the internet has become more and more popular from the 1990s until now, even seen
as a must in every developed household, distance education has also “set foot” in the new
millennia using it to connect with students.
In the US, the University of Phoenix’s Online Campus, the largest for-profit online
education institution, was established in 1989; Jones International University, the first fully-
online university, was founded in 1993 and first regionally accredited in 1999; and Western
Governors University was founded in 1997 (Mullaney, 2014). This is also the phase of
development of distance education in which MOOCs appear.
Over the years different researchers have given various meanings of the term. One of
the definitions is provided by Kesim and Altınpulluk (2015), who state that in the most basic
definition, MOOCs are online education platforms accessed for free by great masses. Others,
like McAuley et al. (2010) agree and expand that stating that MOOCs are platforms that are
open, have open curriculums and are free to enroll. If a more general definition can be drawn
based on the observations of the different researchers mentioned above, MOOCs can be seen
as internet educational environments that provide the opportunity to take classes from different
universities, companies or institutions through learning with various resources such as videos,
lists, infographics, videos, presentations, etc. This can be done through open courses which
may be paid or free courses, in most cases with no formal degrees but with certification or
accreditation for the purpose of the self-development of skills and knowledge by individuals, no
matter their number, age and location.
The term MOOC, however has started to separate itself into different categories – the
most prominent being cMOOC and xMOOC. According to Belleflamme, Jacqmin and Pays
(2014), cMOOC stands for ‘connectivist’ MOOC as the used approach puts more importance
on the interactions among the students themselves; meanwhile, the role of the course tutor is
to facilitate the student’s learning experience instead of providing learning content. Yuan and
Powell (2013), continue this line of thinking with stating that “cMOOCs emphasise connected,
collaborative learning and the courses are built around a group of like-minded ‘individuals’ who
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
are relatively free from institutional constraints on a platform which helps explore new
pedagogies beyond traditional classroom settings and, as such, tend to exist on the radical
fringe of HE”. On the roles in cMOOCs Venkatesh (2014), states that “ xMOOC is essentially
an extension of the pedagogical models practiced within an institution.”
xMOOCs, or as some sources call them, Coursera type MOOCs have become the single
referred concept regarding the term MOOC in most literature, despite cMOOCs being
established earlier (Kesim and Altınpulluk, 2015). According to Spoelstra (2015) xMOOCs are
course-based open learning environments that currently draw most attention and learners often
have adopted instructive-type pedagogies. Taken into consideration all of the above it can be
concluded that xMOOCs are a type of MOOC in which the more traditional learning approach
is utilized through video and other electronic materials for courses which are hosted by a MOOC
provider. The xMOOC courses are flexible, use blended learning and offer high-quality content.
Gaebel's (2014) brief history of MOOCs shows the courses’ development has started
ever since 2008, with some type of MOOC-format learning being available to close audience in
2006. According to Riel and Lawless (2015), since 2011, large-scale, Internet-based courses
began to dominate news headlines looked upon as a solution to 21st-century educational
challenges. As The New York Times declared 2012 as “The Year of the MOOC” (Pappano,
2012) non-profit and for-profit MOOC providers offered classes to millions of students all around
the globe. However, as the initial excitement has died down, many challenges for MOOCs has
also revealed regarding the model as an alternative platform for learning (Fowler, 2013).
Despite the high enrollment rates in MOOC courses, only a small percentage – 10-20%,
complete the courses. (DeBoer et al., 2013; Ho et al., 2014). Critics in the educational sector
also argue that vital things like interpersonal interaction, physical presence, and body language
are missing in MOOCs, which makes the educational process lesser compared to full-time
education. (Koller, 2012; Kolowich, 2013).
In one of its articles in their special report centered on Lifelong Education, The Economist
(2017), gives another angle of this historical period in which MOOCs peaked in 2012. Salman
Khan, an investment analyst, and creator of Khan Academy was featured on the Forbes
Magazine cover. Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity, predicted that the number of
universities would collapse to just ten worldwide. The sheer numbers of people flocking to some
of the initial courses seemed to suggest that an entirely new model of open access, free
university education was within reach (The Economists, 2017). Today these platforms still try
to find their place under the sky with experimenting, changing financial models and others but
still have not reformed and rebuild education from its core base.
One of the most famous MOOC providers worldwide, with popularity reaching beyond
the borders of distance education – Coursera was founded in 2012 by Stanford University
computer science professors Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng (Lewin, 2012).
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
Another platform - Udacity was established in 2011 based on the principle that the US
system of higher education is “broken with increasingly higher costs for both students and
society at large (Educationamerica.net, 2013).
Shortly after the launch of Coursera, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Harvard teamed up to create another new MOOC platform – edX, which would be a non- profit
alternative to Coursera and Udacity. The mission of the new MOOC provider was to establish
partnerships with other institutions of higher education to provide various MOOCs across the
curriculum (Bartolomeo, 2015). The platform has also introduced OpenedX which helped
intuitions to create MOOC courses and platforms themselves like France Université Numérique
(FUN), the first French MOOC portal (Gaebel, 2014). The platforms, together form the “Big 3”
in the MOOC world.
Such digitalization and involvement of various institutions and businesses in the
development of MOOCs and distance learning has helped Bulgarian HEIs, which have already
recognized the unique opportunity technology offers, with most of them adopting the open
sourced Moodle as their distance education platform. The globalization and close networking
between the national HEI’s and their international partners have made possible for the best
global practices to be adopted in many cases, one of which is the distance education. Of course,
the process towards a more opened education is not a quick nor easy one, so contrary to
international universities there are still no MOOCs provided in Bulgaria but national HEIs have
shown strong will to implement distance education in their practice.
MOOCs may have gained many supporters since their rise in popularity, but during this,
they have also gained many opponents that have given voice to several concerns, one of the
biggest being the MOOC quality.
There are many factors when it comes to the quality of MOOCs like teaching processes,
learning tools and platforms used and all of them are linked to the perceptions of the courses.
Given the nature of the subject, however, it is hard to state a clear conception of e-learning
quality and how the various MOOC platforms should be compared to each other.
Some feel that the educational and pedagogical quality of many MOOCs is fragile
(Alexander et al., 2014). Others think that students, the primary stakeholders in the subjects,
can easily assess the MOOCs’ quality since the courses are open for all to see. (The Economist
et al., 2014).
Cusumano (2016), states that: “at present, there is too much variance in the quality of
the MOOCs’ students and the educational experience is not the same. They should not get the
same degrees. Nonetheless, edX, Coursera and other MOOC platforms may themselves
evolve into degree-granting institutions”.
This is further confirmed by Hood and Littlejohn (2016), who state that given the various
types of MOOCs and the different level of complexity they offer, it is challenging to identify and
measure them in terms of quality, evermore that such measures are relative. There is still no
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
universal international standard that can provide established criteria for MOOC quality
measurements; thus, any discussion on the topic must “actively take into consideration the
diversity amongst MOOCs as well as the various, and often competing, frames of reference of
their stakeholders.” (Hood and Littlejohn, 2016).
According to Irina and Cristian (2015), the quality of MOOC may be associated with the
best learning achievements as the dimension of quality is perceived as very important among
e-learning providers, medium-sized institutions, academic environment, and universities.
One of the steps into a successful MOOC quality measurement was the creation of
OpenupEd, which positioned MOOCs as open education. Introduced in 2014, OpenupEd and
its partners developed a quality label for MOOCs tailored to both e-learning and open learning
with the mean to be used as an improvement tool, comparing institutional performances with
current best practices and leading to measures to raise the quality of its MOOCs and their
operation (Openuped.eu, 2018).
Given the significant hopes people and institutions have for MOOCs when it comes to
decreasing unemployment, lifelong learning, etc. and taking into consideration the growing
popularity of the courses and their inclusion of MOOCs in degree programs, credits transfer,
etc. a way to measure the quality should be developed. One of the main factors that cause
cautions in peers regarding the MOOC courses lies in the concerns of the quality of the
platforms and institutions that provide them and therefore the courses themselves.
When it comes to traditional education provided by HEIs, there are strict regulation and
laws both on a national and worldwide level. With strict government policies ensuring that
quality will be met HEIs constantly thrive to improve the courses and programs they provide.
In Bulgaria, the National Evaluation and Accreditation Agency serves as a government
body that evaluates, provides accreditation and monitoring of HEIs with the goal to monitor the
ability of institutions, their central units and branches to provide good quality of education and
scientific research through an internal quality assurance system (Neaa.government.bg, 2018).
MOOCs, on the other hand, are free of such regulations except for programs that issue
university credits and act as an alternative platform to acquire a degree.
6. DISTANCE EDUCATION IN BULGARIA
When it comes to the development of distance learning in Bulgaria one university can be
seen as a pioneer and establisher of the modern distance education in the country – New
Bulgarian University. As the political regimes in Bulgaria were changing, the University emerged
as an alternative to the already established HEIs in the country and was aiming to become a
center which provides new practices and approaches in the fields of research and education
that would be adequate for the changes that were occurring in the country after 1989
(Bogdanbogdanov.net, 1990).
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
In the beginning of the 1990’s the University established two central units that functioned
as faculties: The Free Faculty and the Faculty of Correspondence. Both of them offered courses
and qualification programs with regular or distance learning, with distance learning being a
precedent in Bulgarian education. The provided courses in the offered programs were
characterized by unrestricted freedom in choosing topics and attracting lecturers, content, and
forms of teaching, ways of attracting students (Nbu.bg, 2018).
NBU may have laid the foundations of distance education in the country but over the
years many of the Bulgarian HEIs have acknowledged that e-learning has the potential to
change the way peers teach and learn, a practice shared by the best universities in the world.
This has made them introduce distance learning options for their students which provide new
opportunities for raising standards, extending participation in lifelong learning, customizing the
learning process, and creating preconditions for enhancing the learning experience and
learning quality.
The oldest HEI in Bulgaria – Sofia University, has introduced distance e-learning in 2012
(TechNews.bg, 2012). At the beginning eight of the university’s faculties started distance
learning projects with the financial support of the Operational Program for Human Resources
Development, co-financed by the European Union.
For such ambitious projects Sofia University needed strategies to be adopted when it
comes to distance learning which were based on the experience and expertise of researchers
from Sofia University, who specialized in the field of electronic and distance learning and the
application of information and communication technologies in education. The University
encouraged teachers to engage in eLearning activities where appropriate and applicable, by
showing, supporting and publicizing such opportunities.
Another HEI, sometimes marked as SU’s main competitor – The University of National
and World Economy in Sofia has introduced distance education to its students in December
1996 through the establishment of Institute for Postgraduate Qualification (IPgE) (Pavlova,
2011). There were several reasons made the start of distance learning in UNWE such as the
lack of experience and traditions in Bulgaria when talking about distance education, which was
just introduced in the country and the lack of financial resources to fund the programs. The
negative beliefs when it comes to the quality of distance learning compared to regular or part-
time education also played a role in the rough start and uncertainty when it comes to distance
education.
Soon after the establishment of the distance learning in UNWE, the first results motivated
the university management to intensively tend to the specific need of the students while using
their position as an educational leader (Pavlova, 2011)
In another part of the country – Varna - the University of Economics – Varna has
introduced in 2012 distance learning as an option by signing a contract for the implementation
of the project "Distance learning - a modern approach in the system of academic education for
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
improving the quality of human resources" which was implemented with the financial support of
the Operational Program "Human Resources Development," (Ikonomicheski Universitet -
Varna, 2018). This led to the creation of the Digital and Distance Learning Center is an
independent service unit within the structure of the UE-Varna and operates in accordance with
the Higher Education Act, the Ordinance on the State Requirements for Organizing Distance
Learning at Higher Education Institutions of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Regulations of the
University of Economics - Varna. In 2016 the University has introduced its e-learn platform
which acts as a complementary service to the students in regular form of education.
All of this shows that Bulgarian HEIs have steadily taken the road of modern education
and are trying to increase the prospects of distance education in the country. The globalization
and close networking between the national HEI’s and their international partners have made
possible for the best global practices to be adopted in many cases, one of which is the distance
education.
The main platforms that the Universities have trusted in adopting distance education is
Moodle. Of course, as it can be seen, there the regulations, objectives and measures for each
university are not the same and there is a wide variety of usage of e-learning tools even in
different departments in the same university, for example, the Theology faculty compared to
the Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology in Sofia University. Of course, the process
towards a more opened education is not a quick nor easy one, so contrary to international
universities there are still no MOOCs provided in Bulgaria.
According to some, E-learning cannot replace teachers, but in combination with existing
traditional methods, it can improve quality and enrich their teaching. Made in a distance form,
e-learning creates prerequisites for reaching learners at a time and place they choose
(Peytcheva-Forsyth et al., 2018). This broadens the range of categories of learners who are
able to gain access to training and education - a factor of particular importance in the context
of a market economy and information society, having in mind the competition in the education
services market and lifelong learning requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
The development of distance learning is far from complete. As education has always
been strongly connected with the evolution of society distance learning would continue this
trend and evolve further with the development of technology.
As MOOCs need to satisfy a diverse number of student needs, it will continue to split by
the example of xMOOC, cMOOC, MOOR and other sub groups.
The demographic and financial changes may become one of the reasons why
universities will continue to make efforts to develop their distance learning programs in order to
attract as many students as possible.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, B. et al. (2014) ‘The Hope & Hype of MOOCs’, NextSpace, (23), pp. 1–7.
Available at: www.oclc.org/nextspace
2. Anderson, T. (2007). History lessons at the people's university.
[online]Web.archive.org. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070921184124/http://www.guardianabroad.co.uk/educat
ion/article/283 [Accessed 6 May 2018].
3. Bartolomeo, J. (2015) ‘The Discourse Among Community College FacultyRegarding
the Integration of Massive Open Online Courses’, ProQuestDissertations and Theses,
(May 2003), p. 200. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1669917503?accountid=14624%5Cnhttp://resolve
r.rero.ch/unige?url_ver=Z39.882004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genr
e=dissertations+&+theses&sid=ProQ:ProQuest+Dissertations+&+Theses+A&I&atitle=
&title=The
4. Belleflamme, P., Jacqmin, J. and Pays, R. (2014) ‘Business Models and Impacts on
Higher Education’.
5. Bogdanbogdanov.net. (1990). ЗА НОВ БЪЛГАРСКИ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ. [online]
Available at: http://bogdanbogdanov.net/pdf/83.pdf [Accessed 25 Apr. 2018].
6. Bratt, I. (1977). Engelskundervisningens framxäxt i Sverige. Tiden före 1850.
Föreningen för svensk undervisningshistoria.
7. Byrne, T. (1989). Athabasca University: The Evolution of Distance Education. Calgary,
Alberta: Univ. Pr.
8. Cury, W. (2017) ‘Caleb Phillips, a pioneer shorthand teacher.’
9. Cusumano, M. A. (2016) ‘The High Costs of “Free” Online Education’, From Books to
MOOCs?: Emerging Models of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, pp. 105–
114.
10. DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Seaton, D., Ho, A., Pritchard, D. E., & Breslow, L. (2013).
Bringing student back- grounds online: MOOC user demographics, site usage, and
online learning. In S. D’Mello, R. Calvo, & A. Olney (Eds.), Proceedings of Educational
Data Mining (EDM) 2013 (pp. 312–313).
11. Fernuni-hagen.de. (2018). Learning has accompanied Life – for over 30 Years - Three
Decades - English - FernUniversität in Hagen. [online] Available at: http://www.fernuni-
hagen.de/english/profile/3decades/learning.shtml [Accessed 6 May 2018].
12. Fowler, G. (2013). An Early Report Card on Massive Open Online Courses. [online]
WSJ. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-early-report-card-on-massive-open-
online-courses-1381266504 [Accessed 6 May 2018].
13. Gaebel, M. (2014) ‘MOOCs Massive Open Online Courses, January 2014’, pp. 1–35.
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kft286.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
14. Hashim, Y. and Jaafar, I. (1999). Systematic use of teleconferencing in distance
education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), pp.117-124.
15. Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I.
(2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses.
16. Hood, N. and Littlejohn, A. (2016) Quality in MOOCs: Surveying the Terrain. doi:
http://hdl.handle.net/11599/2352.
17. Irina, M. and Cristian, S. G. (2015) ‘Standardized quality in MOOC based learning’,
Oeconomics of Knowledge, 7(2), pp. 14–25. Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1676421328?accountid=15299%5Cnhttp://sfx.cbu
c.cat/uoc?url_ver=Z39.88-
18. Kember, D. (2007). Reconsidering Open and Distance Learning in the Developing
World: Meeting Students' Learning Needs. Taylor & Francis.
19. Kesim, M. and Altınpulluk, H. (2015) ‘A Theoretical Analysis of Moocs Types from a
Perspective of Learning Theories’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier
B.V., 186(Wclta 2014), pp. 15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.056.
20. Koller, D. (2012). How Online Courses Can Form a Basis for On-Campus Teaching.
[online] Forbes.com. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/coursera/2012/11/07/how-online-courses-can-form-a-
basis-for-on-campus-teaching/ [Accessed 6 May 2018].
21. Kolowich, S. (2013). Why Professors at San Jose State Won't Use a Harvard
Professor's MOOC. [online] The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Professors-at-San-Jose/138941 [Accessed 6
May 2018].
22. Levinson, D. (2005). Community colleges. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
23. Lewin, T. (2012). Consortium of Colleges Takes Online Education to New Level.
[online] Nytimes.com. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/education/consortium-of-colleges-takes-online-
education-to-new-level.html?_r=0 [Accessed 5 May 2018].
24. Lumsden, K. and Ritchie, C. (1975). The Open University: A survey and economic
analysis. Instructional Science, 4(3-4), pp.237-291.
25. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens,, G. and Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model For
Digital Practice.
26. Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont,
CA.:
27. Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
28. Mullaney, T. P. I. (2014) ‘Making Sense of MOOCs : A Reconceptualization of
HarvardX Courses and Their Students’, (March), p. 117. Available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2463736.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
29. Nbu.bg. (2018). Fakultet za distantshionno, elektronno i produlzhavashto obuchenie
[online] Available at: https://www.nbu.bg/bg/fakulteti/fakultet-za-distancionno-
elektronno-i-prodylzhavashto-obuchenie [Accessed 25 Apr. 2018].
30. Neaa.government.bg. (2018). Home. [online] Available at:
https://www.neaa.government.bg/en/ [Accessed 8 May 2018].
31. Noffsinger, J. (1926). Correspondence schools, lyceums, Chautauquas. [Noffsinger
Press].
32. Openuped.eu. (2018). Quality label - OpenupEd. [online] Available at:
http://www.openuped.eu/quality-label [Accessed 4 May 2018].
33. Pappano, L. (2012) ‘The Year of the MOOC’, The New York Times, pp. 1–7. Available
at:
http://www.edinaschools.org/cms/lib07/MN01909547/Centricity/Domain/272/theYearoft
heMOOC NYTimes.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2018].
34. Pittman, V.V., Jr. (1986). Pioneering instructional radio in the U.S.: Five years of
frustration at the
35. Rice, J. (2013) ‘What I Learned in MOOC’, College Composition and Communication.
National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 695–703. doi: 10.2307/43490787.
36. Riel, J. and Lawless, K. A. (2015) ‘Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and the
technologies that support learning with them’, Encyclopedia of Information Science and
Technology, pp. 7529–7537. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.
37. Schrag, p. G. (2014) ‘Moocs and legal education: valuable innovation or looming
disaster?’, (83), pp. 83–134.
38. Spoelstra, H. (2015) Collaborations in Open Learning Environments; Team Formation
for Project-based Learning; Siks Dissertation Series 2015-04. Available at:
http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/6024
39. TechNews.bg. (2012). SU vavezhda elektronno obutchenie. [online] Available at:
https://technews.bg/article-28200.html [Accessed 29 Apr. 2018].
40. The Economist et al. (2014) ‘The Economist 28 June 2014’.
41. The Economist. (2017). Established education providers v new contenders. [online]
Available at: https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21714173-alternative-
providers-education-must-solve-problems-cost-and [Accessed 6 May 2018]
42. University of Iowa. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 297104)
43. Venkatesh, N. (2014) ‘Analysis on Massive Open Online Courses ( MOOC ):
Opportunities and Challenges towards 21st Century Online Education’, International
Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), 3(7), pp.
203–220.
44. Watkins, B. and Wright, S. (1991). The Foundations of American Distance Education:
A Century of Collegiate Correspondence Study. Kansas: University of Kansas.
45. White, M. (1982). Distance education in Australian higher education — a history.
Distance Education, 3(2), pp.255-278.
VANGUARD SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN MANAGEMENT, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, ISSN 1314-0582
46. Woodley, A. and Simpson, O. (2013) Student Dropout: the elephant in the room,
Online distance education: towards a research agenda. doi:
10.15215/aupress/9781927356623.01 Cover
47. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013) ‘MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher
Education’, Cetis, p. 19. doi: http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667
48. Ikonomicheski Universtitet - Varna. (2018). Tshentar za elektronno i distantshionno
obuchenie [online] Available at: https://ue-varna.bg/bg/article.aspx?catid=59 [Accessed
30 Apr. 2018].
49. Pavlova, V. (2011). Traditshii I perspektivi za razvitie na distantshionnoto obuchenie v
Universtiteta za natshionalno I svetovno stopanstvo. Ikonomicheski alternativi
50. Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Bozhnakova, R., Kovachev, В. and Kovacheva, E. (2018).
Strategiya za razvitieto na elektronnoto I distantshionnoto obuchenie v Sofiiski
universitet [online] Sofia: Sofia University. Available at: https://www.uni-
sofia.bg/index.php/bul/content/download/54417/453800/version/2/file/e-learning.pdf
[Accessed 28 Apr. 2018].
