A power shift is occurring in higher education,=20 driven by two trends: (a) the increased freedom of learners to access,=20 create, and re-create content; and (b) the opportunity for learners to=20 interact with each other outside of a mediating agent. Information=20 access and dialogue, previously under control of the educator, can now=20 be readily fulfilled by learners. When the essential mandate of=20 universities is buffeted by global, social/political, technological, and educational change pressures, questions about the future of=20 universities become prominent. The integrated university faces numerous=20 challenges, including a decoupling of research and teaching functions.=20 Do we still need physical classrooms? Are courses effective when=20 information is fluid across disciplines and subject to continual=20 changes? What value does a university provide society when educational=20 resources and processes are open and transparent?

Kathleen Matheos

Issue

16(1) =

Introduction

After more than a century of pedagogical innovation and several=20 decades of technological advancements, higher education largely retains=20 the systemic structure of previous generations. This system is=20 increasingly mismatched to the needs of society and the affordances of=20 technology in fostering a new scholarship based on open participatory=20 practices.

What is done with information in a particular era is reflected in the institutions created to serve society (McNeely & Wolverton, 2008).=20 Higher education plays a pivotal role in society, and through research,=20 teaching, and service, seeks to transform and improve society. Since=20 their inception, universities have intersected, interacted, influenced,=20 and been influenced by, the societies in which they exist.

However, universities today face what may be their greatest challenge as they face globalization, expansion, and economic uncertainty,=20 overlaid by emerging technologies that enable the technologically savvy=20 student body to interact in new ways with content and with each other.=20 This confluence of factors requires the academy to rethink and=20 restructure, both what and how they teach and research, and how they=20 intersect with society.

Development of Universities and Roles Played in Society

Looking into the future of universities often requires a look to the=20 past in order to reflect on the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge=20 and how institutions served this purpose throughout history. While such=20 functions are seen as the purview of the contemporary academy, such=20 activities were undertaken long before the establishment of the first=20 European university.

From Where We Came

Universities, as we know them today, have been in existence for over=20 one millennium. However, textual knowledge was developed and=20 disseminated well before the conception of the idea of a university. The Library of Alexandria was established in the third century BCE, and=20 over the five centuries of its existence transformed a predominantly=20 oral, scholarly culture to portable and heritable written knowledge=20 (McNeely & Wolverton, 2008). Initially, the library was the=20 depository of Greek culture, but shortly after its establishment,=20 included Hebrew texts translated to Greek and subsequently Christian=20 texts.

Along with the library, which included a systematized catalogue of=20 information, a community of scholars was located within the museum. This community of scholars not only composed text, they also developed the=20 basis for scholarly critique (Heller-Roazen, 2002). It is also suggested that the scholars with the museum gave public lectures to those outside of the museum, disseminating knowledge and information (Argyle, 1974).=20 The library and the museum provided the foundation of university,=20 through the compilation, exploration, and dissemination of knowledge.

Nearly one thousand years later, the first degree-granting=20 universities in Europe were formed. The first of these universities were the University of Bologna (1088) and the University of Paris (c. 1150,=20 later associated with the Sorbonne). However, between the demise of the=20 library and museum of Alexandria and the emergence of the medieval=20 university, both monasteries and madrassahs were keepers and explorers=20 of knowledge. Makdisi (1981) stressed that the madrassahs of Islamic=20 Spain provided foundational elements to the medieval university, as well as provided a temporary home for culture and knowledge of the=20 Hellenistic World. One only has to look at the work of Ibn Rushd=20 (1126-1198), whose scholarly work is recognized in both the Arab Islamic and Western Worlds (Urvoy, 1991). He was one of the last=20 great thinkers of Islamic Spain, his lifetime spanning both the decline=20 of Islam on the Iberian Peninsula and the growth of the Western medieval university, with his works embodying both worlds.

McNeely and Wolverton (2008), in their discussion of medieval=20 universities, noted three differences from contemporary universities.=20 First, the Universities of Bologna and Paris were not founded. Rather,=20 they emerged around a group of scholars and students. Second, medieval=20 universities were situated in solely in urban centres. Third, there were no edifices; as essentially the word =E2=80=9Cuniversity=E2=80=9D was used= to refer to a group of scholars and students. Students, interested in the pursuit of=20 knowledge, gravitated to the community within their urban centre.=20 However, as the European economy improved in the eleventh and twelfth=20 century, so did mobility and interaction among communities. As a result, students often travelled to new cities to join a university.

Despite the metaphor of the =E2=80=9Civory tower=E2=80=9D, universities= have always=20 intersected with the society in which they are domiciled and have, to a=20 certain extent, changed with society, culminating in the contemporary=20 post-modern university. The fifteenth century brought the printing=20 press, which would create a turning point for the academy. Publishing=20 abounded, and libraries grew exponentially. The period of 1550-1750 was=20 one of =E2=80=9Cinformation explosion=E2=80=9D across Europe (Rosenberg, 20= 03). For=20 example, the field of botany, once a =E2=80=9Cfact-poor discipline=E2=80=9D= , developed=20 rapidly as naturalists classified and described thousands of plant=20 species and published papers and texts (Ogilvie, 2003).

Early European universities focused on teaching, serving a student=20 body of affluent males. Generally linked to the church, these=20 institutions formed the basis for new world colleges (e.g., Harvard or=20 Yale) and espoused the importance of both civic and religious life. In=20 the early nineteenth century, Americans returning from graduate study in Germany advocated for the German approach to scholarship and the=20 addition of research to the institution. Prior to this time research was not a primary focus of many universities.

As the universities evolved from church to secular institutions,=20 funded by the state but maintaining academic freedom, the university=20 continued to intersect with society. Moreover universities expanded=20 beyond Europe, predominantly within countries with whom colonial ties=20 existed (Bradby, 1939). Such universities can be characterized in two=20 ways, universities developed in countries where settlers were=20 transplanted, (United States and Canada), and universities developed in=20 countries with ancient civilizations which intersected with or had been=20 influenced by Europe (India).

Within the United States, the Land Grant Act (1861) and the Wisconsin Idea in the late nineteenth century within the US introduced service=20 aimed at transforming and improving the livelihood of the community=20 (Boyer, 1990). Ten Brook (1875), provides a extensive analysis of the=20 congressional allocation of lands for higher education, citing the=20 University of Wisconsin and defining institution in the future of higher education within the United States. Oxford University also maintained=20 an active extra mural program and built a relationship between=20 intellectuals and the working class, and has been attributed to creating the intelligentsia of labor in the first part of the 20th century=20 (Goldman, 1996). The university now encompassed teaching, service, and=20 research. The university had changed significantly from its medieval=20 roots of a community of scholars and students, where teaching was=20 paramount. The university, through this period of evolution, reflected=20 the changing needs and context of the society it sought to serve.

Higher education, with a mission of teaching, research, and service,=20 continued to grow, and participation increased rapidly in the 20th=20 century. The 1960s marked the greatest period of expansion and enrolment increases, and access became yet another mandate of most institutions.=20 That decade marked the entry into the post-secondary system of the=20 generation of children born immediately after World War II.

In Canada, this increased population of potential university students resulted in the establishment of several new universities, such as=20 Simon Fraser, York, Laurentian, and Trent. The increased population,=20 coupled with the Federal Student Loan system resulted in a larger, more=20 diverse student population. Simultaneously, Canadian universities saw=20 the emergence of units responsible for providing alternative delivery,=20 with a focus on accessibility. Correspondence and community-based=20 programs emerged, all with the aim of providing higher education to a=20 greater of the population (Rothe, 1986; Seaborne & Zukernick, 1986).

Changes in higher education reflected the economic, political, social,= and cultural changes of the mid to late 20^th century. The postwar economic growth provided more funding to=20 education, not only in terms of direct funding to institutions, but also support for participants from those populations normally excluded from=20 higher education. Human rights and integrations were at the forefront of this decade, translating into access to higher education. In the US,=20 Afro-American participation grew and Tribal Colleges were established.=20 In Canada, Teacher Education Programs (TEPS) to train Aboriginal=20 teachers were established: programs that are now found across Canadian=20 institutions. In the UK, the Open University was born, starting a trend=20 of open accessible education from which mega universities emerged=20 throughout the developing world. In addition to access, new areas of=20 study emerged, e.g., Aboriginal studies, gender studies, and Hispanic=20 studies. Higher education again reflected the changing society=20 surrounding it, with the exploration of knowledge in new areas,=20 recognizing multiple voices, and the inclusion of voices often absent in the Eurocentric academy.

In 1990, Ernest Boyer reflected on higher education within the US and recognized the competing priorities of teaching, research, and service, concluded that a new vision of scholarship was vital to higher=20 education to make the academy more relevant to society. In 1995, Boyer=20 suggested guidelines that would facilitate the implementation of the new vision of scholarship. He recognized a disconnect within the existing=20 system, and stressed the need to incorporate multiple scholarships in=20 the institution. He emphasized that institutions must change in order to= stay relevant to their constituency. He cited examples of enormous societal changes over the last decade,=20 e.g., collapse of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union, the Oslo Accord, and the succession of the ANC to power (Boyer, 1996). For Boyer, higher education=E2=80=99s evolution should be influenced by these significant=20 external changes.

The Contemporary University

Clearly, the university has evolved since that first library and=20 museum in Alexandria. However, over these last 2,000 years, the changes=20 have been incremental, with individual catalysts. The university of the=20 second millennium is faced with multiple confluent challenges:=20 globalization, mass expansion, and economic uncertainty, overlaid by new technologies connecting learners and content in new ways.

Over two thousand years after Alexandria, a thousand years after the=20 establishment of the University of Bologna, and six hundred years since=20 the printing press, the advent of the Internet has had an irrevocable=20 impact on all aspects of higher education, including teaching and=20 learning, research, and administration. Levine and Sun (2002) suggest=20 that the Internet will reconfigure the landscape of university education in North America, resulting in three types of institutions: brick,=20 click, and click-and-brick. The brick institutions are the traditional=20 universities that deliver only face-to-face instruction; the click=20 universities are virtual universities that deliver instruction=20 electronically; and click-and-brick institutions deliver programs=20 through a combination of traditional and e-learning modes.

It is not technology alone to which this turbulence is attributed.=20 Rather, this seismic shift, traumatic and fast-paced, is the result of a confluence of interlocking factors. In a recently published book, The= American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006) propose that universities are=20 experiencing a revolution=E2=80=94with tremendous consequences. They write,=

Everything is in play, as nearly every aspect of academic life is being driven by a host of inter-related developments: dazzling=20 technological advances, globalization that permeates academic=20 boundaries, rapid increase of tertiary students worldwide, expansion of=20 proprietary higher education, a blurring of (the) public/private=20 distinction, and entrepreneurial initiatives on and off campus. (p.=20 xvii)

Just over seven years ago, Preparing for the Revolution (Panel on the Impact of Information Technology on the Future of= the Research University, National Research Council, 2002) proposed that information technology will have a profound impact, take=20 place quickly, but in a discontinuous manner. Institutions need to=20 develop the capacity to adapt and change as new modes of knowledge=20 formation emerge. Clearly, the revolution has arrived, as has the time=20 for universities to respond. Gourley (2008) stated, =E2=80=9CScholarship in higher education in this century has to be= =20 irrevocably tied to the technology and knowledge media that constitute=20 such important drivers in the society of which we are a part=E2=80=9D=20 (Conclusion section, p. 1).

Despite the key role of the =E2=80=9Cdeveloped=E2=80=9D world in higher= education,=20 university participation rates in Asia far surpass that of North=20 America. There are approximately 140 million post-secondary students=20 globally, if part-time enrollments are included. China and India have=20 doubled enrollments in the past ten years, giving China the world=E2=80=99s= =20 largest higher education system, with some 25 million students (Daniel, Kanwar, & Uvalic-Trumbic, 2009, <= span style=3D"font-family: "Times New Roman";">p. 2). Moreover, with new wireless technologies, countries like India and=20 China have leapfrogged into the mobile world, in less than a decade.=20 Despite the shifting demographics, the developed world remains a pivotal force in higher education and a responsive change in the academy could=20 have profound impact on higher education around the world and provide a=20 model for the 21st century academy.p. = ;1), changes to patterns and habits around information suggest the prospect=20 of direct impact on universities. Universities hold a particularly=20 prominent place in society where learners "come from every quarter for= =20 every kind of knowledge" (Halsall, 1998, Section I, p. 11).Centre for Educational Research and Inn= ovation [CERI], 2008a). Governments are often called on to increase investment=20 in higher education during sustained periods of economic downturn=20 (Douglass, 2008).

Looking toward the future

Society creates information-based institutions that reflect the needs (and habits) of a particular era (McNeely & Wolverton, 2008). What= a society does with information determines the types of institutions that= are required. Plato=E2=80=99s Academy, Aristotle=E2=80=99s Lyceum, Alexandria=E2=80=99s= Library, monasteries, universities, and the development of scientific method all mirrored an=20 era=E2=80=99s need to organize and socialize around information.

The information cycle, regardless of the era, includes the following com= ponents:

Creation: Original research or publications
Validation: Research and texts are validated through peers
Dissemination: Articles, books, and other texts are published and=20 results are shared and disseminated through conferences and academic=20 forums
Re-creation: New research builds on existing publications and=20 incorporates ideas advanced by other researchers. Garfield=E2=80=99s (1972)= journal impact factor suggests the impact of articles=E2=80=94and= thereby journals=E2=80=94can be assessed by evaluating subsequent citation= s.
Context and overlay: Research is applied to various contexts within=20 society, generally referred to as =E2=80=9Cresearch commercialization=E2=80= =9D.

The growth of the social and participative web (Eskelsen, Marcus,=20 & Ferree, 2009, pp. 100=E2=80=93103; Organization for Economic Co-opera= tion=20 and Development [OECD], 2007) and communication technologies (Eskelsen=20 et al., 2009, pp. 1=E2=80=9314 & 59=E2=80=9362) have substantially alte= red the=20 information cycle. These advancements offer new modes of creating,=20 validating, disseminating, and reusing information. Open educational=20 resources, =E2=80=9Cteaching, learning, and research resources that reside= in=20 the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property=20 license=E2=80=9D (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007, p. 4), allow educator= s to=20 utilize existing resources in varying contexts.

Through social, networked technologies (see Figure 1), the=20 information cycle has moved from the control of journals and publishers=20 to individuals. Barriers to information access have been reduced due to=20 the development of digital resources. Open educational resources and=20 journals, as well as less formal methods found in blogs, podcasts,=20 wikis, and social networking sites, open wide the doors to engagement=20 with advanced research. Digital information can also be used as an=20 =E2=80=9Coverlay=E2=80=9D onto physical worlds (Maes & Mistry, 2009),= a trend=20 evident in location-based social networking services such as Gowalla and Foursq= uare.

Figure 1. Altered Information Cycle due to participatory technologies

The Impact on Universities

Universities "map the reality" of the societies in whi= ch they exist (Frank & Gabler, 2006). When control over information shifts from=20 organizations to individuals, considerations of new models in=20 universities is required, as evidenced by historical transitions of=20 information-based institutions. As an industry fundamentally concerned=20 with =E2=80=9Ccreating and communicating information=E2=80=9D (Carey, 2009,=

Current pressures of change
Higher education faces =E2=80=9Cunprecedented and ubiquitous change=E2= =80=9D=20 (Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008). The current era is one of =E2=80=9Cthe= =20 transforming university" (Poole, 2005). Multiple stakeholders are=20 involved in the credibility and success of e-learning: learners,=20 employers, instructors, higher education institution, accreditation=20 bodies, and so on (Wagner, Hassanein, & Head, 2008). The growth and=20 value of e-learning is directly related to the ability of institutions=20 to attend to the needs of each stakeholder member.

Global

Global change pressures are large-scale phenomenon, such as global=20 warming, globalization, economics, changing "power centres", impa= cting=20 all aspects of a society. Higher education has limited influence over=20 these trends, but must be aware of these developments to ensure=20 long-term survival. For example, universities in developed countries are responding to reduced enrolment (driven by slowing population growth in traditional learner markets) by seeking international students (OECD,=20 n.d.) The hegemony of higher education in western countries is being=20 challenged (Daniel, Kanwar, & Uvalic-Trubmic, 2006), raising the=20 need for increased university partnerships between established and=20 emerging economies. Universities are "at a historical juncture,=20 transitioning from the industrial era to the information era, and from a national perspective to a globalized one" (Freedman, 2006).

Social and political

Societal and political factors also contribute to the future of=20 universities. The participative, democratic ideals of open source=20 software are reflected in scholarship, such as Public Library of Science (PLoS ONE) and open educational resources. The process of knowledge=20 production is moving to more social models: "socially distributed=20 knowledge production" (Gibbons, 2002, p. 3), as businesses and=20 organizations are placing greater emphasis on distributed teams and=20 collaboration. Information and knowledge economies place greater=20 prominence of creative work in contrast with traditional manufacturing=20 work (Martin Prosperity Institute, 2009). Demographic changes also=20 contribute to policy shifts (

Technological<= /o:p>

Since its inception, the Internet has experienced tremendous growth=20 (OECD, 2008). The participative web (also known as Web 2.0), mobile=20 phones, social networking services, and netbooks have given individuals=20 greater control over information creation and sharing. Information=20 services like Google Search, Google Scholar, GPS-enabled devices, and=20 e-books, provide learners with improved access and communication=20 opportunities. Technological innovations in bandwidth, storage,=20 processing speed, and software directly impact education (Downes, 2009), creating new opportunities for learner-learner/educator and=20 learner-information interactions.

Educational

Educational change pressures are those specific to higher education.=20 Global, social, and technological change factors impact higher=20 education, but research specific to teaching and learning provides=20 greater direction into how the process of learning should best be=20 facilitated. In particular, the development of learning sciences=20 (Sawyer, 2005) as a field offers promise in assisting administrators,=20 educators, and designers in creating effective learning environments.=20 However, as with new and emerging fields, the emphasis on sciences=20 creates some unease among educators. Some researchers have turned to=20 complexity theory to advance education, suggesting that emphasis be=20 placed on the whole system rather than reductionist views often found in "mainstream science" (Mason, 2008). Increased collaboration in= a model=20 of "interlocking partnerships among researchers, among universities,= and across international borders=E2=80=9D (McFadden Allen, 2007, p. 3) promise= s a=20 new model of not only what it means to be an academic, but also what it=20 means to be an academic institution.

Enrolment in online learning is growing at a significantly faster=20 pace than traditional higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2008), and=20 the impact of Europe=E2=80=99s Bologna Process (Alderman, 2009; Keeling, 20= 06)=20 now draws increased attention on the state=E2=80=99s role in universities.<= /p>

How are universities around the globe respon= ding?

Universities provide three key value points for learners and society=20 (see Figure 3): content creation and navigation, interactions between=20 learners and faculty, and accreditation. Initiatives, such as MIT=E2=80=99s OpenCourseWare, Yale=E2=80=99s Open Learn, and Open University=E2=80=99s Open Learn, advance a view that content is no longer strategic value point for=20 higher education. Instead, universities assert that the real point of=20 value in education is the interaction that occurs between students and=20 faculty. Recent large-scale open courses (Siemens & Downes, 2008)=20 suggest that conversations and connections can also be handled in open=20 formats, potentially reducing this as a key value claim for=20 universities.

Evaluation and accreditation remains a key stronghold for=20 universities, but, if teaching and evaluating (accreditation) were=20 separated=E2=80=94as is evident in software certification where training on= =20 software and assessment of competence are often handled by separate=20 organizations=E2=80=94a new value point would be required for higher educat= ion.=20 The view that =E2=80=9Cfaculty members must examine their own students=E2= =80=9D is being questioned, resulting in calls for a =E2=80=9Cnew division of labor in hig= her=20 education=E2=80=9D (Daniel et al., 2009, The Triangle section, p. 2), separating teaching and evaluation.

Figure 2. Value points in higher education

A model of future Universities

Universities are integrated into the core of society. Fundamental=20 systemic change in higher education has been slow to develop,=20 particularly with regards to the key mandates of research, teaching and=20 learning, and accreditation. Many activities that occur under these=20 three mandates are potentially transformed due to new modes of=20 information interaction and communication opportunities. Part of the=20 answer may be found in designing intelligent and innovative buildings to take advantage of new technologies (Everett, 2009). This view, however, fails to account for systemic change possible due to open educational=20 resources, emerging technologies, and participatory pedagogies.

It is highly unlikely that one exclusive model of universities will=20 emerge. Instead, as suggested by Centre for Educational Research and=20 Innovation (2006), various scenarios may unfold, including global=20 university networks, universities that emphasize service to their local=20 community, new public responsibilities and governance, and increased=20 corporatization of higher education.

The idea of several models co-existing is not new to higher=20 education, as reflected in the co-existence of monastic and medieval=20 university structures for learning. Following the demise of the library=20 and museum of Alexandria, remnants of this knowledge and information=20 were guarded and explored within monasteries. The rise of the first=20 degree-granting institutions, intersected with the monastic learning,=20 sharing texts and teachers, as well as a religious affiliation of these=20 institutions. Despite the secular of contemporary higher education,=20 religious colleges are still components of many universities.

Contemporary higher education also reflects both open/distance and=20 traditional systems with students moving between the two systems either=20 within one institution or between institutions to between or among=20 institutions. As more institutions have moved to multiple delivery=20 modes, a convergence of these two systems is apparent.

Within the developing field of open education, a potential scenario=20 of particular importance is the fragmentation of university roles and=20 the increased reliance on technology and distributed organization (see=20 Figure 3).

Figure 3. Future Universities: Areas of concern

Governance and funding of research, teaching and learning, and=20 accreditation will continue to rely on government involvement.=20 Universities, after all, have a key role of outreach and engagement =E2=80= =93=20 interacting with, responding to, and serving the needs of society.

Future higher education models, while continuing to rely on=20 government research and service to society, will likely develop in=20 response to global, social and political, technological, and educational trends. Research models and accreditation, largely beyond the scope of=20 this article, provide context to new teaching and learning models.

Online learning has impacted the landscape of higher education. While technology has become pervasive in institutions, wireless access,=20 online library materials, electronic submission of assignments, and=20 learning management systems are all =E2=80=9Cnon-disruptive=E2=80=9D or =E2= =80=9Csafe=E2=80=9D=20 technologies, allowing faculty to teach in much the same way as they=20 have done for decades. Universities are both comfortable and safe with=20 this use of technology, but do these institutions reflect the society?=20 The world has moved far beyond email and websites. Social networking=20 technologies are pervasive.

Emerging technologies offer faculty additional opportunities to=20 increase engagement with colleagues and learners (Siemens and=20 Tittenberger, 2009). A spectrum of online, blended, and physically-based learning centres, each advocating a participatory approach to pedagogy, can serve the needs of all learners (from highly motivated and=20 self-directed to those who prefer greater structure and guidance).=20 Additionally, the =E2=80=9Climitless dimensions=E2=80=9D of learning (Canad= ian Council=20 for Learning, p. 4, 2008) can be related to accreditation through=20 personal learning environments and networks (PLE/N). Recognition of only formal learning is a needlessly limiting mindset currently held by=20 higher education.

Many of the assumptions that inform higher education today =E2=80=93 suc= h as=20 classrooms, textbooks, physical space, co-location of educators and=20 learners, pairing of research and teaching, bounded curriculum =E2=80=93 ar= e=20 called into question by emerging learning theories and technologies.=20 Global and distributed teaching and learning activities are possible due to development of applications (such as Elluminate) that allow for=20 virtual classrooms that permit audio, video, presentations, and break=20 out rooms. Social media such as blogs, social networking software,=20 podcasts, wikis, and others, permit learners to connect with each other=20 (and with educators) from around the world.

Conclusion

The system of higher education was formed before many of the=20 technological developments that now permit global and continual=20 connectivity. Changed information cycles, new opportunities for social=20 cohesion unrestrained by geography, and distributed research labs offer a prospect for a new era of education. New approaches to research,=20 teaching and learning, and accreditation are possible. The affordances=20 of technology outpace the existing system of education.

Universities have, in the past, reflected society both temporally and geographically, including how information and knowledge is examined and disseminated. The 1960s resulted in both greater number of physical=20 structures, and increased access of students, beyond what was the=20 traditional body of upper class elite students. Higher education became=20 accessible to individuals from groups often excluded from higher=20 education, transition programs, mature learner support, and student=20 services grew to ensure that these individuals had adequate support=20 during their studies. Access to and completion of the credential were=20 key for these groups of students. Where alternative delivery methods=20 were employed these were primarily correspondence and community-based=20 learning. The highest rates of participation in higher education were in North America, Europe and Australia.

The current landscape of higher education reflects both an=20 exponential growth and demographic shift of student participation, with=20 China and India having the greatest number of participants. Other areas=20 such as the Middle East and Africa the higher education institutions are taxed to the limit, and will be unable within the existing structures=20 to meet the demand. Open and distance learning, in the immediate future, appear to be able to alleviate some of the pressures.

However as education in the developed world moves in new directions,=20 we must be cognizant of how this move impacts the learners in the=20 developing world. How will learners in these areas access, explore and=20 contribute to the creation of knowledge? Will social networking=20 technologies, and the emergence of next generation technologies further=20 exclude the greatest number of undergraduate learners. Will this new=20 reality result in too few voices connecting and validating knowledge?=20 How can non-Eurocentric voices be heard? One must ensure that there is=20 some democracy in this new model.

Educators and leaders in academia are confronted with important=20 questions. How should institutions of learning be designed to serve the=20 needs participative, social, and global information cycle? What=20 assumptions about the system of higher education need to be abandoned=20 due to technological advancements? How can the vital roles of research=20 and teaching and learning be addressed through distributed means? How=20 can accreditation be broadened to include the full spectrum of formal=20 and informal learning activities?

Addressing these questions will require a significant period of=20 exploration, research, and discourse. Society=E2=80=99s learning institutio= ns=20 reflect the needs of a particular era. Libraries, monasteries,=20 universities, and research labs all developed in response to new needs,=20 often driven by technological advances such as the printing press or=20 conceptual advances such as the scientific method. Weller (2009) argues=20 that online technologies and learning enable higher education to=20 comprehend and respond to the changing world and thus remaining relevant to the 21^st Century society. Failure to recognize the=20 pivotal role of digital technologies will result in institutions at odds with the world in which they operate.

If history serves as a guide, future learning institutions will=20 emerge to reflect how a society creates and shares information,=20 communicates important concepts to those new to a field of study, and=20 generates spaces of discourse for disseminating and extending existing=20 boundaries of knowledge.

References

Alderman, C. (2009, April). The Bologna process for U.S. eyes: Re-lea= rning higher education in the age of convergence. Retrieved May 4, 2009= from http://www.ihep.org/assets/f= iles/EYESFINAL.pdf

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online educat= ion in the United States. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from = http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf

Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. D. (1999). Adopting=20 disruptive technologies in traditional universities: Continuing=20 education as an incubator for innovation. Canadian Journal of University= Continuing Education, 25(1), 13=E2=80=9330.

Argyle, A. W. (1974). The ancient University of Alexandria. The Class= ical Journal, 69(4), 348-350. Retrieved from JSTOR database.

Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achie= vements, challenges, and new opportunities. Retrieved Apri= l 30, 2009 from http= ://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the-open-educat= ional-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change. San Francisco= : Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the profess= oriate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boyer, E. (1996). From scholarship revisited to scholarship assessed. Quest, 48, 129=E2=80=93139. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://www.vet.utk.edu/enh= ancement/pdf/feb11new.pdf

Bowman, I. (1971)= . A Design for Scholarship. Retrieved May 6, 2010 from http://books.g= oogle.ca/books?id=3DHjFj4U_G18AC&pg=3DPP1&dq=3DA+Design+for+Scholar= ship&cd=3D1#v=3Donepage&q&f=3Dfalse

Canadian Council on Learning. (2008). State of Learning in Canada: To= ward a Learning Future. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Rep= orts/StateofLearning/

Carey, K. (2009). What colleges should learn from newspapers' de= cline. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i30/30a02101.htm=

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2008b). Trends shapin= g education. OECD Publishing.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2006). Four future= scenarios for higher education. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_37031944_1= _1_1_1,00.html

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2008a). Higher educa= tion to 2030 (Vol. 1): Demography. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from= http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_= 41788555_1_1_1_1,00.html

Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator=E2=80=99s dilemma. Boston,= MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Connectivity Scorecard. (n.d.). Canada connectivity scorecard: Popula= tion density slows growth of Canadian connectivity. Retrieved February= 20, 2009 from http:= //www.connectivityscorecard.org/countries/canada

Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trubmic, S. (2006, July). A tect= onic shift in global higher education. Retrieved February 1, 2009 from= http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/sub.asp?k= ey=3D98&subkey=3D1841

Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2009). Breaking hig= her education's iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Retrieve= d on April 30, 2009 from http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/full= -...

David, P. A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspect= ive on the modern productivity paradox. The American Economic Review, 80= (2), 355=E2=80=93361.

Davis, A., & Matheos, K. (2004). Borderless learning: Policy impl= ications for institutions. Paper presented at International Conference= on Open and Distance Education, Hong Kong.

Douglass, J. A. (2008). College vs. unemployment= : Expanding access to higher education is the smart investment during econo= mic downturns. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from University of Calif= ornia, Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROPS.Douglass.CollegeVsUnemp.= 12.8.08.pdf

Downes, S. (2009). The future of learning: Ten years on. Retrieve= d February 20, 2009 from http://www.downes.ca/files/future2008.doc

Erskine, A. (1995). Culture and power in ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and= Library of Alexandria. Greece & Rome, Second Series, 42(1), 38= =E2=80=9348. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/postgra= duate/taught/power_and_culture/d...

Eskelsen, G., Marcus, A., & Ferree, W. K. (2009). The digital eco= nomy fact book (10th ed). Retrieved April 30, 2009 from htt= p://pff.org/issues-pubs/books/factbook_10th_Ed.pdf

Everett, R. (2009). Building a better future =E2=80=93 planning= and designing innovative, intelligent educational buildings. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/e_arti= cle001321590.cfm

Frank, D., & Gabler, J. (2006). Reconstructing the university: Wo= rldwide shifts in academia in the 20th century. Chicago: Stanford Unive= rsity Press.

Freedman, G. (2008). Unlocking the global education imperative: Core= challenges & critical response. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from= http://www.blackboard.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3D6032f8df-b6ba-451= 0-81d2-3198459529dc

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation.= Science, 178(4060), 471-479.

Gibbons, M. (2002). Globalization and the future of higher education. In= Globalisation: What Issues are at Stake for Universities? Retrieved= February 20, 2009 from http://www.bi.ulaval.ca/Globalisation-Universities/pages/actes/Gibbon= sMichael.pdf

Goldman, L. (1996). Dons and workers: Oxford and= adult education since 1850. New York: Oxfo= rd University Press.

Gourley, B. (2008, September 26). Scholarship in the digital age, Vic= e-Chancellor's speech to council. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://www.open.ac.uk/vice-chancellor/Spe= eches_3a00_Publications/Speech/Scholarship_in_the_Digital_Age,_Vice-Chancel= lor%27s_Speech_to_Council.html

Halsall, P. (1998). Modern history sourcebook: John Henry Newman: The= idea of a University, 1854. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman/newman-university.html

Heller-Roazen, D. (2002, Spring). Tradition's destruction: On the= library of Alexandria. Obsolescence, 100, 133=E2=80=93153. Retrieve= d from JSTOR database.

Housewright, R., & Schonfeld, R. (2008). Ithaka=E2=80=99s 2006 st= udies of key stakeholders in the digital transformation of higher education= . Retrieved on April 30, 2009 from http://tinyurl.com/5r5wb6

Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna process and the Lisbon research=20 agenda: The European Commission=E2=80=99s expanding role in higher educatio= n=20 discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 55, 203=E2=80=93223= .

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chic= ago: University of Chicago Press.

Levine, A., & Sun, J. C. (2002). Barriers to Distance Education.= American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis Retrieved on= April 30, 2009 from http://www.= acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-06.pdf

Maes, P., & Mistry, P. (2009). TED talks unveiling the "S= ixth Sense," game-changing wearable tech [Video]. Retrieved May 4, 200= 9 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_= sixth_sense.html

Makdisi, G. (1981). The rise of colleges: Institutions of learning in= Islam and the West. New York: Columbia University Press. =

Makdisi, G. (1989). Scholasticism and humanism in classical Islam and th= e Christian West. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 109(2),= 175=E2=80=93182.

Martin Prosperity Institute. (2009, February). Ontario in the creativ= e age. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://martinprosperity.org/media/pdfs/MPI%20Ontario%20Re= port%202009%20v3.pdf

Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. = Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4=E2=80=9318. doi: 10.1111/j.= 1469-5812.2007.00412.x

Matheos, K. (2002). Rethinking residency in an age of online learning= . Retrieved May 4, 2009 from http://www.cvu-uvc.ca/documents/residencyReport.pdf

McFadden Allen, B. M., (2007). Global collaboration: Benefits and=20 challenges in developing partnerships. In B. M. McFadden Allen, A.=20 Welch, & Z. Zhen (Eds.), Realizing the global university: Part five= (pp. 3=E2=80=935). Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://wiche= .edu/attachment_library/Global%20University%20pdfs/Global%20University_Part= _5.pdf

McNeely, I. F., & Wolverton, L. (2008). Reinventing knowledge= . New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Ogilvie, B. W. (2003). The many books of nature: Renaissance naturalists= and information overload. Journal of the History of Ideas, 64, 29-4= 0.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008). The fu= ture of the Internet economy: A statistical profile. Retrieved on Febru= ary 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/56/40827598.pdf

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d). Austra= lia: World class universities or a world class university system? Retri= eved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40341478= _1_1_1_1,00.html

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Parti= cipative web: User-created content. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf?co= ntentId=3D38393116

Panel on the Impact of Information Technology on the Future of the Resea= rch University, National Research Council. (2002). Preparing for the rev= olution: Information technology and the future of the research university.= Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Poole, D. (2005). The possibilities of university transformation. In R.= Nata (Ed.), Issues in higher education (pp. 195=E2=80=93216). Haupp= auge, NY: Nova Science.

Rosenberg, D. (2003). Early modern information overload. Journal of= the History of Ideas, 64(1), 1=E2=80=939. doi: 10.1353/jhi.2003.0= 017.

Rothe, P. J. (1986). An historical perspective. In I. Mudgridge & D.= Kaufman (Eds.), Distance education in Canada (pp. 4-24).= Kent, ON: Croom Helm.

Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge handbook of learning sciences<= /i>. Retrieved from http://www.cambr= idge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=3D9780511217685

Schumpeter, J. A. (1975). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. N= ew York: Harper.

Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, J. J. (2006). The American facult= y: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: The= Johns Hopkins University Press.

Seaborne, K., & Zukernick, A. (1986). Course design and development.= In I. Mugridge & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Distance education in Canada (pp. 37-49). Kent, ON: Croom Helm.

Siemens, G., & Downes, S. (2008). Connectivism and connective=20 knowledge course. Delivered at University of Manitoba, September to=20 November, 2008. Available from http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/

Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging tech= nologies for learning. Retrieved on April 30, 2009 from h= ttp://umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf

Statistics Canada. (2008, June 12). Canadian Internet use survey. The= Daily. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from htt= p://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080612/dq080612b-eng.htm
Ten Brook, A. (1875). American state universities, their origin= and progress. Retrieved May 5, 2010 from http://books.google.com/books?id=3DTZVDAAAAIAAJ&printsec= =3Dfrontcover&dq=3Dhistory+of+american+universities&hl=3Den&ei= =3DDXrdS_GiEqaaMruHrYUI&sa=3DX&oi=3Dbook_result&ct=3Dresult&= ;resnum=3D1&ved=3D0CEAQ6AEwAA#v=3Donepage&q&f=3Dfalse

Urvoy, D. (1991). Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (Trans. O. Stewart). Londo= n: Routledge.

van der Wende, M. C. (2003). Globalisation and access to higher educatio= n. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 193.= doi: 10.1177/1028315303007002006

Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible=20 for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders=E2=80=99 analysi= s. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26=E2=80=9336.

Weller, Martin (2009). Using Online Learning as a Metaphor for Education= al Change. On the Horizon, 17 (3), 181-189 retrieved May 6, 2010 fro= m http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType= =3DArt...

Willis, R., & Brubacher, J. S. (1997). Higher education in transi= tion: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.).= Levittown, NY: Transaction Publishers.