In 2002 Byron C. Anderson googled the term 'Distance Education Degree' and was amazed when his search resulted in 1,100,000 links. I repeated this search: On October 22^nd, 2006 Google offered me 39,700,000 links, and today, August 1^st, 2006 the number has reached 82,400,000. Although not all references refer to online degrees and many references occur more than once and a large part of the results were due to the improved algorithms of the search engine, this growth is nevertheless astonishing.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a department of the U.S. Department of Education, is a rich source of data on the American college system, the courses it offers, distance education and the students of America. NCES reported in the Statistical Analysis Report February 2002 "Distance Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff" (Ellen M. Bradburn, NCES 2000-155)(43) that the USA had an impressive 16.5 million students, of which 3.3 million enrolled in at least one online course, that 5.9 % of courses were being offered as online courses (Distance Education, DE) and that 6% of the teaching staff at colleges offered at least one DE course. This would indeed not only be a significant number of students in eLearning and of online courses but also of dedicated teachers.

In the NCES Report "Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions" (2003-017) Tiffany Waits and Laurie Lewis estimate that the number of "credit-granting" distance learning courses offered at various college levels is 118,000. However 76% of these courses are designed for undergraduates. They estimate that 2,876,000 students enrolled in online courses, 82% of which are undergraduates (I will explain the meaning of 'undergraduate' in this context at a later point). Hans Weiler (2005)(55) who was previously a professor at Stanford University and co-founded the Viadrina University is also of the opinion that "the U.S. Distance Learning market has expanded rapidly in the last few years". Although he advises caution "the figures should be handled with care", he is, nonetheless, clearly impressed by their magnitude:

"But the dimensions and growth rates are striking: from 1997-98 to 2000-01 the number of students taking DE courses more than doubled to 2.8 million; almost all public colleges (97 %) now offer at least part of their courses online; in 2004 approximately 3 million students availed of some part of this service, 600,000 for their complete course of study".

In their report "Entering the Mainstream: The quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003 and 2004", carried out for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman reported that 1,602,970 students took at least one online course in 2002 and 1,971,397 in 2003. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) which is part of the Department of Education has published projections which forecast a tremendous increase of up to 20% in the number of students by the year 2013. This figure is sure to frighten many European education policy-makers involved in tertiary education.

How can NCES assume that the 16.5 million students in the USA are responsible for 3.3 million "enrollments in online courses"-which represents about 20% of all students-when the Chancellor's Office of California Community Colleges (CCC 2001)(10) assumes that in 1995 only 0.65% and in 2001 only 1.2% of courses were online courses?

I would like to discover what exactly is hidden behind these and similar figures. In the following I will decode these figures like a detective would, to make it easier for the reader to understand them. For this purpose I will make use of official data supplied by the following institutions:

Why is it so important to closely examine these statistics? They tell us something about the status and role of eLearning in the US education system. Due to the fact that essential elements of the American system are being imported to Europe the statistics can perhaps tell us something about future defects and ramifications of the European bachelor system. The following circumstances are worth mentioning and should be considered when interpreting these significant figures.

Firstly it must be considered that the term "enrollment" does not represent an individual student but a course that has been booked. The statistics know two different types of enrollment: the enrollment at traditional on-campus universities [1] which is counted per person and the enrollment in an online course (3.3 million) which counts the number of courses booked by a person. Thus students in a brick and mortaruniversity are counted only once, whereas the students who enroll for two or more courses are counted two or more times (CCC 2001)(10). This means we have to reduce the huge number of 3.3 million by at least half if we want to find the exact amount of individual students who book online courses although most students take only one DE course (CCC 2001b (11); Allen & Seaman 2003 (2)). That is why the statistics state "students that have booked at least one online course". The reasons for this study behaviour where students register at traditional on-campus universities and then take additional online courses will be dealt with later.

Such behaviour can indeed be explained by the fact that students primarily register at traditional on-campus universities (CCC 2001 (10); AFT 2003 (1)): "The promise of greatly increased access to new student populations expressed in the early DE literature has not materialized. In fact, the vast majority of students taking online DE classes are actually enrolled in traditional brick-and-mortar campuses" (Heterick & Twigg, p. 4)(19). This can also be seen in the large-scale evaluations of the University of Central Florida [ http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite/impactevaluation.htm#Who ]: The majority (75%-80%) of their online students are registered at a brick-and-mortar campus. Robert Zemsky and William Massy 2004 (57) confirm this fact in a study of the University of Pennsylvania: "At the institutions participating in the study, more than 80 percent of their enrollments in 'online' courses came from students already on their campuses".

Thus many students are counted several times, when they register at an on-campus university and when they book an online course. The majority are primarily attendees of conventional colleges and not the new type of virtual student. According to the study carried out by Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman (2003)(2) that assumed that 1.6 million students took at least one online course in 2002, only 30% of these courses were taken by students who were doing all their courses online. One third can thus be identified as distance students who book more than one course, and, are therefore responsible for more than a third of all enrollments. It is therefore necessary to halve the 3.3 million registrations or perhaps reduce them even further to discover the real number of students as Hittelmann (CCC 2001b)(11) says: "These percentages are likely to be lower since students tend to take only one distance education course". However, this differentiation alone does not suffice as an explanation for these differences. We have to look for further reasons.

Secondly 82% of enrollments are for online courses at undergraduate level and only 18% for courses at graduate level, whereby the 2-year public colleges carry the main burden of the undergraduate courses:

The differentiation between courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates still does not suffice to tell us what this distribution signifies. Therefore another argument has to be presented.

Thirdly it can be determined that most of these online courses are offered by 2-year colleges or community colleges [2] where a course generally lasts two years and not by institutions that offer 4-year bachelor courses. This suggests that the bulk of the courses offered for undergraduates are mainly courses for Associate Degrees which is in fact the task of these colleges namely to award Associate Degrees [3] and to act as a bridge to bachelor programs:

Thus, more than half of all online students are attending 2-year colleges where they hope to get an Associate Degree (Allen & Seaman 2003)(2). What importance can be really placed on this information and who makes up the rest of the students is interesting and requires further differentiation.

Fourthly comparison shows that those studying for an Associates Degree make up the lions share in online education (50%) whereas those participating in Masters (21%) or PhD programs (16%) represent a smaller share. Bachelor programs, which in Germany spring to mind as the best candidates for online courses, represent only a very small share (8%): "The fewest online learners are in Baccalaureate (105,917 students), about an equal number in Masters and Doctoral/Research (272,096 and 209,512 respectively), and the largest number in Associates (653,600)" (Allen & Seaman 2003)(2).

Figure 1 - Origin of Distance Learners based on level of study (Allen & Seaman 2003)(2)

When interpreting American statistics it has to be taken into consideration that, in all college statistics, 2-year state colleges [5] (Junior Colleges, Community Colleges) are also included, which offer the vast majority of online courses (Allen & Seaman 2004 (3); Wirt, Choy et al 2004 (56)). However, it seems that these 2-year colleges are a substitute for the missing final year of secondary education in the U.S. Indeed, as can be found in a judgment made by the Bund-Länder Kommission (2004), "The course content is largely at the same level as that in the final year of a secondary school". This affects the nature of online courses that are either bridge courses or General Education courses which I shall explain in greater detail in the next section.

Fifthly, 82.9% of the enrollments are from students at public colleges whilst just 200,000 enrollments are from students at private colleges (Allen & Seaman 2004)(3). It can be seen in the data of the NCES 2004 on institutions with online enrollment, that there are more 4-year private colleges than 2-year and 4-year public colleges together (without even counting the private 2-year institutions!), but which offer less than 20% of all online courses.

This relation opens the floodgates for a wide array of speculations. One of which will be discussed here: Can it be that public colleges reacted to pressure from competitors too late and now have to offer online courses as an additional attraction, whilst the private colleges wish to reserve the conventional model as an attractive USP for paying clients? If the interests of students are mainly directed towards studying at an on-campus university as Arthur Levine (2003, p.26)(23), President of the Teachers College of Columbia University, believes, then he could be right when he expresses his fear that this opportunity could, in the future, be reserved for the privileged few:

"My greatest fear is that in years to come this experience will be available only to the most affluent, best, and brightest in the nation. Others will be forced into cheaper click education."

This fear is not totally unfounded when one considers that 90% of public 2-year institutions and 89% of public 4-year institutions offer online courses but only 40% of the private universities (NCES 2004-077; Indicator 32; Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions)(56) although these private colleges are, in terms of figures, more strongly represented. These private colleges may possibly be the only place able to offer students hereafter a real social atmosphere-in return for payment, of course. It has also been speculated that the private institutions allow the public institutions to take on the role of pioneer, which entails conducting the first costly experiments and, of course, making the required investments.

This assumption seems to contradict the observation that virtual "for-profit" universities are pushing themselves onto the market, an observation that led Greg Capelli (2003, p.50)(9) from Credit Suisse First Boston to assume that "it was only a matter of time before the private, for-profit enterprise leaders began to realize the inefficiencies in the system for higher education and began to offer a redefined product designed with the demands of contemporary students in mind". If these newly defined companies with their modern products really will be more successful or offer a new standard of quality can be doubted (Schulmeister 2001)(30). Arthur Levine (2003, p.20)(23) currently sees a stand-off between traditional and virtual universities whereby a solution cannot be forecast. "Either the for-profit sector will buy bricks before traditional colleges develop the capacity to operate in the click environment, or just the opposite may occur" [6]. Derek Bok (2003, p. 169)(6) explicitly warns against the commercialization of virtual education: "educators follow a treacherous course if they try to use the Internet for profit, especially when they join with venture capitalists to achieve their ends".

In addition to these differentiations it should be considered that the distribution of online students in the colleges and institutions is uneven. This is shown in an overview of 14 colleges, compiled by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) 2004 (54), which contains the number of students and the percentage of which are online students, whereby the political reasons [7] for issuing this list are not of interest to me, but rather the data that cannot be found in any other American statistic:

This list gives food for thought [8]: GAO reported that 49,000 of the students at the University of Phoenix were distance students and 70% of the students at the State University of Maryland took at least one online course whereas all courses offered by the Western Governor's University and the Jones International University were online courses. If one can generalize this example, there is a large number of very small colleges which contribute little to the large figures and only a few colleges which lay the foundations for the large figures (Judith Eaton 2001 in her study for the Council for Higher Education Accreditation CHEA), whereby it has to be considered that the largest universities, namely the University of Phoenix Online and the University of Maryland really are special cases which cannot be compared to other universities [9]. It has been reported by the NCES that private colleges, most of which are still quite young, offer hardly any online courses (which is why private 4-year colleges are not contained in the statistics), whilst the public colleges, in particular the 2-year colleges, carry the main burden of development (see Table 3).

The Chancellors Office of California Community Colleges (CCC 2001)(10) presented its exciting but also very frank and detailed "Distance Education Report 2001" which established enlightening correlations among several variables and offers explanations (later reports which appeared on the internet no longer contained such unsupported views and appear to have been adjusted). The CCC presented the following figures for California Community Colleges in 2000:

Here, the figures are impressive again, in particular the growth rate, but how does the distribution really look like? If we calculate the figures as a percentage of the sum of all courses at the California Community Colleges it becomes clear that the base level is very low: The 1,500 courses in 1995 make up just 0.63% of the total courses offered. Although the percentage rate climbed to 1.2% in 2000, it is still a very low base level. Furthermore, we know from almost all statistics on growth rates, that, as a result of the ceiling effect, the growth curve levels out at some point and no longer increases. The NCES study which forecasts student data until the year 2013 (NCES 2004-013)(50) suggests a continued growth in the number of students and graduates. However, I dare to question whether in light of the obvious subordinate role of eLearning in the American educational system the rate of online courses will increase to over 10%.

We can only use the period from 1995 to 2000 where online enrollments and courses almost doubled to benchmark future predictions in the area of online education. If we assume that these figures double every 5 years, we will reach a proportion of 4.8% of all courses in the USA by 2010. This is still not that much. But even if growth continued to increase exponentially or accelerated over the next few years, we have to expect that there will be a limit to the share online learning has in the education system. This will not be 100% or 50% but considerably lower. Even if this is pure speculation, the question of how high the limit will be is justified. Is it 10% or even 20%? Furthermore, what effects would these figures have on the education system?

Further observations put the significance of these numbers into perspective:

In other words, eLearning forms "clumps" in the education system and is definitely not an integral part of training evenly distributed throughout all types of colleges, college levels or faculties. This may also give cause for concern: If the number of enrollments is divided by the number of courses the result is an average of 28-30 students per course which means that there must be numerous very large courses offset by a lot of very small courses. This can be applied to both the data from the California Community Colleges and from the NCES. Indeed numbers of up to 200 students per online course can be found in some reports, dramatic numbers which demonstrate that online courses for economics will be as full as face-to-face courses which does not, in any way, comply with our visions of quality improvement.

The absolute figures of courses offered and booked as well as the numbers of registered students do not say anything about the factors responsible for the rapid development in the eLearning sector. One has to look beyond the figures to discover the reality of eLearning. I would now like to explore a slightly different line of thought by analyzing the reasons why students book online courses.

If one assumes that originally virtual colleges emerged to compete with traditional colleges or as an extension of distance education with a different technology (Schulmeister 2001)(30) and should have tempted students away from on-campus universities or even attract new students to online learning, then we can now say that this objective has not been achieved or only partly achieved because it turns out that most students who enrolled in online courses are registered at on-campus universities and are not reacting to the enticements of new technologies (CCC_Dist-Ed_2001)(10).

Under the heading "who are distance learners" the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) commented their explanations on Distance Education as follows [ http://www.wiche.edu/ ]: [11]

"Distance learners are people who, because of time, geographic, or other constraints, choose not to attend a traditional classroom. Financial considerations, family obligations, or work requirements may point to distance education as an appropriate way to meet their educational goals."

These are all only assumptions, not unreasonable and in accordance with my observations, but are they really true? There is a fairly solid evaluation of the "reasons for choosing an online course" by the California Community College (2001)(10):

Figure 2 - Reasons to choose DE

Convenience is the biggest reason to choose an online course followed by fulfilling requirements for an Associate Degree and for the transfer to a bachelor program. The author of this study regrets that the reputation of the teaching staff did not play a major role in attracting people to eLearning. The results were similar two years later, only the position of some items changed slightly. The most important reasons for taking a DE course are its convenience (n = 3,208) followed by the need to fulfill requirements for an Associate Degree (n = 2,349) or fulfill requirements for transfer (n = 2,309) (CCC 2003)(12). Both items meaning the transfer to a bachelor program are at the top of the "reasons to choose a DE course" in the statistics. Europeans will find these statistics difficult to understand. I will try to interpret them. I will address the reason "convenience" first and deal with the reasons "requirements for transfer" and "requirements for AA /AS" in the next section.

The pressure the American system of study puts on students trickles down through the educational system. Most universities use the SAT [18] to test their applicants, a test which is made up of a verbal competency part (maximum 800 points) and a mathematical part (also maximum 800 points). The skills measured by this test can be trained which is one of the reasons why, in the history of the SAT, the national average of college applicants has increased constantly.

This has led to pupils training at a young age for the university entrance test. Frontline [ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ ], a current affairs programme which is a part of the channel PBS [ http://www.pbs.org ] and is one of the few critical news magazines in the USA, made an informative short film [ http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/wgbh/pages/frontline/excerpts/1802.rm ] on the subject of pupils and SAT scores. This short film gives clear insight into the pressure put on 13 and 14 year old pupils to train, with the aid of stupid drills, for a SAT score of at least 1500 points. At this point I would like to quote the most significant passages from the film:

Figure 4 - Scenes from the Frontline film "Secrets of the SAT" (Video)

SECRETS OF THE SAT

Written, produced and directed by Michael Chandler

A Frontline Movie

Presumably, not all parents who would have liked to send their kids to college can afford this type of SAT training, which takes years, and who wants to spend an afternoon every week doing this type of additional training. This shows how far the expectations of the bachelor society have already infiltrated the minds of young pupils.

As if this not enough, from their first day of school, pupils whose parents can afford this are used to taking extra lessons in addition to their school lessons. Now, because it is cheaper, they are receiving these extra lessons from tutors organised in call centres in India in the form of e-lessons, e-tutoring or e-mentoring live via the internet:

Figure 5 - An Indian call center for tuition and tutors and 2 pupils.
[New York Times online]

Figure 6 - International Herald Tribune 8.9.2005, p.14
[Reprint of a New York Times article]

It has become clear: The rules of the BA/MA system relocate the pressure down, in biographical terms, to earlier learning phases. At the same time it is also a costly investment for both parents and students to keep pace with. I do not hesitate to refer to these latest political developments in education as a new form of social Darwinism.

American math students also do not want to miss out on the reasonably priced services of the Indians who are known for their mathematical expertise. The Indian press is pleased by the demands of American students and about the additional sources of income for the country, as reported in some newspapers in August 2005:

Figure 7 - Middle East Times Online 29.08.2005

The tuition services offered by Indian math experts can only be topped by the "professional" advice offered "Thesis and Dissertation Advisors on Call" [ http://www.dissertationadvisors.com/ ] or "dissertations.com" [ http://www.dissertations.com ] (not to be confused with the publisher of dissertations, dissertation.com) on whose website thank you letters from near failed PhD students testify to the beneficial effects of these tutoring agencies.

Figure 8 - Consultancy service for Doctorates.

There are not only diversities between working students and employees who study or between students at 2-year colleges and students at 4-year colleges and universities but also other, quite different diversities. A look at the role of ethnicity in Distance Education gives further reason to exercise caution when interpreting American statistics. It is not new that discrimination exists both in society and the education system, be it based on reasons of social class, ethnicity or disability. Many scientists and lecturers who were involved with eLearning from an early stage shared the expectation that societal discrepancies could be reduced by eLearning. However, it is a new barrier which has produced the differences between groups of students which led to discrimination in the education system. It refers to the impression that students are at an additional disadvantage because they do not have access of computer aided courses. The digital divide seems to be getting bigger.

"The data for August 2000 from the NTIA study show that divides still existed between different racial and ethnic groups, old and young, single- and dual-parent families, and those with and without disabilities" (NTIA 2000)(28).

But, most probably, this is not an access problem alone. It is a predominantly social and cultural phenomenon, and there are some indicators confirming this. The U.S. Census Bureau (2003) stated in its report on college degrees of the various ethnic groups acquired over the age of 25, that 50% of Asian students have achieved a bachelor degree, whereas only 30% of White students and 17% of Black students and only 10% of Hispanic students are successful. It must be noted that age groups are included in this sample (25 and over), for example those over 50, to whom a degree did not mean as much as to younger students between 25 and 29.

Figure 9 - Bachelor graduates according to age and ethnicity.

If we only look at the data for the 25 to 29 year olds, i.e. the sample of those who have just graduated, it is obvious that the proportion of Asian students increases to 62%, whereas the results for the other groups stagnate. This suggests that Asian students are on the fast track and have not yet realized their fullest potential. This impression is strengthened when High-School data is compared to College data:

Figure 10 - School and bachelor graduates according to ethnicity (U.S. Census Bureau 2004)

The distinctiveness of the Asian sample becomes even clearer when compared to high school diploma data. I am not referring to the fact that the number of college degrees is lower than that of high school diplomas-that goes without saying-but I am referring to the observation that the figures for high school diplomas are relatively close for the different ethnic groups (apart from Hispanic), but the groups drift apart when it comes the level of college degree achieved.

The Asians have the same position as the Whites in high school but take the lead in college, whereas the numbers of Black or African American students, 80% of whom achieved their High School Diploma, sharply decrease in college. Hispanic students did not do very well in high school and do even less well in college. The Asian students have, by far, overtaken all other groups. As a result of this comparison the head start earned by the Asian students at high school level becomes even more significant. If the proportion of citizens of Asian descent in the American population were higher than it is, then this result would not please conservative Americans.

Let us turn to the differences between Whites and Blacks as well as Whites and Hispanics. This is where the Digital Divide becomes apparent. Even if the national performance trend has been slowly increasing as stated in the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress NAEP study known as "The Nations report card" [ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ ], the gap between Whites and Blacks and Hispanics has more or less remained constant. The Long Term Trend Assessment carried out by the NAEP in 2004 does not include Asian students in its analysis. However, according to the analysis made by William Bowen and Derek Bok 1998 (7), we can expect an even less favorable forecast: "Most troubling of all, a recent study suggests that the black-white gap in test scores among high schools seniors may actually widen over the next few years." (p.23)

These findings are not restricted to the USA. Similar results, for various ethnic groups, can be found in other Anglo Saxon countries belonging to the Commonwealth. Josef Hvorecky, a Slovakian college lecturer from Bratislava who gave online courses for the University of Liverpool, reported on his 7 online courses, in which 109 students from 18 countries participated, and on the impact virtual courses had on the digital divide:

"Despite the large variety of countries and the students' good study results, the author becomes more and more convinced that the Digital Divide is widening".

How does Josef Hvorecky come to this conclusion? The largest group of students came from England. More than half came from different countries, of which only 4 were developing countries, each represented by 1 student (China, Iran, Jamaica and Tanzania). If one considers the nationality of theses students, we get a different picture. The number of nationalities is smaller than the number of countries. In total, 22 students came from developing countries but lived in England. Josef Hvorecky sees this as an indication to the existence of a "brain drain". In other words, eLearning does not achieve the aim of giving students from developing countries the opportunity to study.

Apart from ethnic diversity and the digital divide between rich and third world countries, there is also an institutional barrier. The NPEC (2004)(26) spoke about the "Postsecondary Educational Digital Divide" and speculates that because 4-year universities have bigger capacities than smaller institutions, they could, therefore, out maneuver them, because "according to NCES, technology-mediated distance education was related to institutional size; distance education courses were more likely to be offered by medium and large institutions than by small institutions". In my opinion this concern has yet to be proven. But it is worth considering that smaller institutions might specialize on a high standard of face-to-face teaching in order to remain competitive whereas, with the aid of eLearning support, larger institutions might triy to modernize the teaching of the masses.

Even though the picture painted by American statistics of eLearning is very different to what we expected, does at least the quality of eLearning in America meet our expectations? There are a number of factors which could be considered as an indication of didactical quality. I count the type of media support, the academic qualifications and the status of the teaching staff, the attrition rates and the retention rates as well as the satisfaction of students with their online courses as criteria for quality. I will try to find statistical data which supports some of the above mentioned indicators in order to paint a more precise picture of the quality of eLearning.

(1) AFT: American Federation of Teachers. Higher Education Department: Technology Review. Key Trends, Bargaining Strategies and Educational Issues. 2003 [ http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/Tech.pdf ] (last check 2006/11/17)

(2) Allen, I.E.; Seaman, J.: Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States 2002 and 2003. Sloan-C 2003.

(3) Allen, I.E.; Seaman, J.: Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States 2003 and 2004. Sloan-C 2004.

(4) Anderson, B.C.: Digital Education: The Legitimacy of the Higher Education Virtual Campus Accountability, Credibility and Accreditation. In: DESIEN vol. 7 v. 6. Juli 2002 [http://www.uwex.edu/disted/desien/2002/0207/full.htm]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(5) Berker, A.; Horn, L.: Work First, Study Second: Adult Undergraduates Who Combine Employment and Postsecondary Enrollment (NCES 2003-167).

(6) Bok, D.: Universities in the Marketplace. The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, Princeton University Press 2003.

(7) Bowen, W.G.; Bok, D.: The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998.

(8) Bradburn, E.M.; Hurst, D.G.: Community College Transfer Rates to 4-Year Institutions Using Alternative Definitions of Transfer. In: Education Statistics Quarterly ed. NCES, 3, 2001, Issue 3, Topic: Methodology.

(9) Capelli, G.: E-Learning in the Postsecondary Education-Market: A View from Wall Street. In: M.S. Pittinsky (Hrsg.): The Wired Tower. Perspectives on the Impact of the Internet on Higher Education. Pearson Education - Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003, S. 41-63.

(10) CCC: California Community Colleges: Distance Education Report. Fiscal Years 1995-1996 through 1999-2000, presented by the Educational Services and Economic Development Division and the Chancellor's Office, 2001

(11) CCC: California Community Colleges: Distance Education Report Fiscal Years 1995-1996 through 1999-2000, August 2001, summarized by Martin Hittelman, 2001

(12) CCC: California Community Colleges (2003): Distance Education Report 7.2. May 5-6, 2003, presented by the Board of Governors. An Update and adjusted version of the very open statements from a report presented by CCC (2001), 2003.

(13) CCC: Distance Education Report: Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2003-04. Educational Services Division, M. Davies/L. Woodyard/K. Nather, Board of Governors Meeting, May 2, 2005 [ http://www.cccco.edu/executive/bog/agendas/attachments%5F0705/0505%5Fde%5Freport.ppt ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(14) CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation: Distance Learning in Higher Education 1999.

(15) CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation: Monograph Series 2001, Number 1: see Eaton (2001).

(16) CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation: Monograph Series 2002, Number 1: Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Distance Learning.

(17) Eaton, J.S.: Distance Learning: Academic and Political Challenges for Higher Education Accreditation. CHEA Monograph Series 2001, Number 1.

(18) Epper, R.M.; Garn, M.: Virtual College & University Consortia. A National Study. State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) and the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET) 2003 [ http://www.wcet.info/resources/publications/vcu.pdf ]. (not available 2006/11/17)

(19) Heterick, B./Twigg, C. (2003): The Learning MarketSpace. 1 February 2003 [ http://www.center.rpi.edu/LForum/LM/Feb03.html ].

(20) Hvorecky, J.: Can E-learning break the Digital Divide? [http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Hvorecky.htm]. , 2004 (last check 2006/11/17)

(21) Kvavik, R.B.; Caruso, J.B. et al: ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control, 2004 [Summary; http://www.educause.edu/ResearchStudies/1010 ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(22) Kvavik, R.B./Caruso, J.B.: ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control, and Learning. vol 6, 2005 [http://www.educause.edu/ecar]. (last check 2006/116/17)

(23) Levine, A.: Higher Education: A Revolution externally, Evolution internally. In: M.S. Pittinsky (Hrsg.): The Wired Tower. Perspectives on the Impact of the Internet on Higher Education. Pearson Education: Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ 2003, S. 13-39.

(24) Lorenzo, G.: Distance Education in Canada. In: Educational Pathways July/August 2004 [ http://www.edpath.com/canada.htm ]. (last check 2006/116/17)

(25) Mayer, H.O.; Treichel, D.: Handlungsorientiertes Lernen und eLearning. Oldenbourg: München, Wien 2004.

(26) NPEC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. How Does Technology Affect Access in Postsecondary Education? What Do We Really Know? (NPEC 2004-831), prepared by Ronald A. Phipps for the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Access-Technology. Washington, DC 2004.

(27) NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): Falling Through The Net: Defining The Digital Divide. A Report on the Telecommunications and Information Technology Gap in America. July 1999 [ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(28) NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): Falling Through The Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. A Report on Americans' Access to Technology Tools. October 2000 [ http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(29) Resnick, M.: Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. -In: G. Kirkman (Hrsg.): The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked World. Oxford University Press 2002 [ http://www.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/wef.pdf ] und [ http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch03.pdf ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(30) Schulmeister, R.: Virtuelle Universität - Virtuelles Lernen. Oldenbourg: München 2001.

(31) Sloan Consortium: Sloan-C View ISSN 1541-2806 Volume 2 Issue 2 - April 2003

(32) Sloan-C: The Sloan Consortium: Sizing the Opportunity. The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003.

(33) Sloan-C: The Sloan Consortium: Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003 and 2004.

(34) Terry, N.: Assessing Enrollment and Attrition Rates for the Online MBA. -In: The Journal Online. Februar 2001 [ http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3299.cfm ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(35) Thomas, U. et al.: Anytime, Anywhere - IT-supported learning in the USA. Report of a study trip to the USA, published by Neue Medien in der Bildung 2001.

(36) Thompson, M. M.: Distance Learners in Higher Education. In: C. C. Gibson (ed): Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing, 1998, S. 10-18 [ http://www1.worldbank.org/disted/Teaching/Design/kn-02.html ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(37) Timmis, S.; O'Leary, R. et al.: Different Shoes, Same Footprints? A Cross-Disciplinary Evaluation of Students' Online Learning Experiences: Preliminary Findings from the SOLE Project. In: Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2004 [ http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/13 ]. ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(38) Twigg, C.: Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Quality, Cost and Access: The Case for Redesign. In: M.S. Pittinsky (Hrsg.): The Wired Tower. Perspectives on the Impact of the Internet on Higher Education. Pearson Education: Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003, S. 111-143.

(39) U.S. Department of Commerce: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. A Report on the Telecommunications and Information Technology Gap in America. 1999.

(40) U.S. Department of Commerce: Economic and Statistics Administration: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: Falling Through the Net. Toward Digital Inclusion. A Report on Americans' Access to Technology Tools. 2000.

(41) U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration: U.S. Census Bureau (2004): Educational Attainment in the United States: Population Characteristics 2003.

(42) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-98. NCES 2000-013, by Laurie Lewis, Kyle Snow, Elizabeth Farris, Douglas Levin. Bernie Greene, project officer. Washington, DC: 1999.

(43) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Distance Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998, NCES 2002-155, by Ellen M. Bradburn. Project Officer: Linda Zimbler. Washington, DC: 2002.

(44) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Teaching Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions: Fall 1998, (NCES 2002-209), by Xianglei Chen. Project Officer: Linda J. Zimbler. Washington, DC: 2002.

(45) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: A Profile of Participation in Distance Education, NCES 2003-154, by Anna C. Sikora. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2002.

(46) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: The Condition of Education 2003, NCES 2003-067, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003.

(47) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001, NCES 2003-017, by Tiffany Waits and Laurie Lewis. Project Officer: Bernard Greene. Washington, DC: 2003.

(48) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Work First, Study Second: Adult Undergraduates Who Combine Employment and Postsecondary Enrollment, NCES 2003-167, by Ali Berker and Laura Horn. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2003.

(49) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation, and Outcomes, NCES 2003-164, by Gary Hoachlander, Anna C. Sikora, and Laura Horn. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2003.

(50) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Projections of Education Statistics to 2013 (NCES 2004-013) by Debra E. Gerald and William J. Hussar. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 2003.

(51) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 2004. see: Wirt, Choy et al 2004.

(52) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 2004.

(53) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: The Condition of Education 2005 (NCES 2005-094). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

(54) U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO): Distance Education. Improved Data on Program Costs and Guidelines on Quality Assessments Needed to Inform Federal Policy. February 2004 [ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04279.pdf ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(55) Weiler, H.:Reform of third level education and und digitalization. Challenges for teaching, Management, knowledge transfer and research. Keynote to workshop dialog for the Rectors of the universities in Nordrhein-Westphalia on "The Digital future of universities: potential for innovation and structural change" in Hagen 4. October 2005 [ http://www.stanford.edu/people/weiler ]. (last check 2006/11/17)

(56) Wirt, J.; Choy, S. et al: The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Additional statistics, 2004:
• Indicator 29 Employees Who Study;
• Indicator 30 Top 30 Postsecondary Courses;
• Indicator 31 Remedial Course taking;
• Indicator 32 Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions.

(57) Zemsky, R.; Massy, W.F.: Thwarted Innovation. What Happened to e-learning and Why. A Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania, 2004 [ http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html ]. (last check 2006/11/17)