INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distance education has paid little attention to its own history and to how this history has influenced its development over the years, and how it is still influencing current events. It is generally acknowledged that, living on a small planet, we have to work together if we want to be successful. In our case, this means sharing resources, assisting in implementing effective and efficient distance education and, possibly most important of all, learning from and with each other.If we discuss the international aspects of the history of distance education, it often refers to the distance education efforts in Europe and the United States. We all know at least something about the first efforts to implement distance education in the United States some 150 years ago, we are familiar with the history of the Open University in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, but we may not know that, at the same time in a country in Africa, distance education using print and audiovisual media had a modest but important beginning with the establishment of the Mauritius College of the Air. We are aware of the ever-growing number of universities and other institutions of education that offer distance education programs— or, as we may call it, distributed learning, online learning, or just-in-time learning—in Europe, Canada, and the United States. However, we are, perhaps, less familiar with developments in distance education in the Soviet Union in the twentieth century and its influence on the state of the art of distance education in today’s Russia. Mexico has managed to set up a quality distance education system in a short time, while Australia has a long history of distance education and has used this experience very well to blend distance education and traditional education. In France, distance education made important advances during the Second World War as the nation implemented its own education system even as it was occupied by Germany. From Canada comes an example of how difficult it sometimes is to bring continuity to distance education and how exciting it is if there is success. In Hong Kong, distance education is a daily reality, but still has to cope with many challenges.This special issue of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education does not look at distance education in one specific context, one particular country, or even one continent. It looks at the development of distance education worldwide. The contributions in this issue look not only at success stories (which is easy), but they also analyze why there was success and why there was failure—in short, what has been learned. In these contributions we recognize the difficulties that may be present in our own daily work environment and that may make it difficult to implement distance education. We read about the doubts and even aversions that some traditional educators voice; the push for technology; and the overly optimistic views of decision makers who may have made promises to offer education for all, but are unable to keep these promises and now turn to distance education as a guaranteed solution.We recognize the learning process of which we are all part of. We, as researchers, professors, practitioners, designers, and providers of distance education, should encourage a dialogue regarding distance education, a dialogue that is not restricted to research only, but one that looks at our common past, our common concerns, our common ideas, and our common—often not discussed—ideals.I am, as guest editor, very grateful to Mike Simonson and Charlie Schlosser for allowing this journal to help explore the international history of distance education. Charlie has been not only a good friend and colleague, but more than editors usually are, a keen and interested partner in the choices of countries and in the realization of this issue. I am equally excited that, from now on, the Quarterly Review of Distance Education will have a special section for contributions from international distance education practitioners and theorists. We will, in the next issue, offer an insight into how distance education in Indonesia has changed the educational view in an important, large country that consists of several thousand islands and a great variety of cultures. If you have contributions, or ideas for publications, do not hesitate to get in touch with me, Lya Visser, at: lvisser@learndev.org.Lastly, I want to thank all contributors to this issue. They have made this issue possible and I am truly grateful for their professionalism and their friendship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.511 | 0.414 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".