Have a personal or library account? Click to login
30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum Design in Open and Distance Learning Cover

30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum Design in Open and Distance Learning

Open Access
|May 2020

References

  1. 1Barker, B and Hoskins, K. 2016. Five Propositions That Explain Why Schools Struggle to Improve Social Mobility. FORUM, 58(1): 7386. DOI: 10.15730/forum.2016.58.1.73
  2. 2Conrad, D. 2008. Situating prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) in an online learning environment. In: Anderson, T (ed.), The theory and practice of online learning, 7590. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
  3. 3Czerniewicz, L. 2018a. Inequality as higher education goes online. In: Dohn, NB, et al. (eds.), Networked Learning Reflections and Challenges, 95106. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_6
  4. 4Czerniewicz, L. 2018b. Unbundling and rebundling higher education in an age of inequality. EDUCAUSE Review, 1024. Available at https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/articles/2018/10/er186100.pdf [Last accessed 14 April 2019].
  5. 5Erdogan, S, Yildirim, DC and Tosuner, O. 2012. The Effect of Gender Inequality in Education on Health: Evidence from Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3): 18601866. DOI: 10.1080/13545700902893106
  6. 6Freire, P. 1976. Education, the practice of freedom. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.
  7. 7Gough, D, Thomas, J and Oliver, S. 2012. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic reviews, 1(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
  8. 8Heiler, P and Richards, W. 1988. By print and post: Vocational training for isolated women. In: Faith, K (ed.), Toward New Horizons for Women in Distance Education, 190204. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315174822-14
  9. 9Hipp, H. 1997. Women studying at a distance: what do they need to succeed? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 12(2): 4149. DOI: 10.1080/0268051970120205
  10. 10Jones, C. 2019. Capital, neoliberalism and educational technology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2): 288292. DOI: 10.1007/s42438-019-00042-1
  11. 11Knox, J. 2013. The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education technology. Open Praxis, 5(1): 2129. DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.36
  12. 12Lambert, SR. 2018. Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3): 225244.
  13. 13Marley, J. 2007. Gender differences and distance education: Major research findings and implications for LIS Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1): 1320.
  14. 14Noble, H and Smith, J. 2018. Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(2): 3941. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2018-102895
  15. 15Nylund, M, Rosvall, , Eiríksdóttir, E, Holm, AS, Isopahkala-Bouret, U, Niemi, AM and Ragnarsdóttir, G. 2018. The academic–vocational divide in three Nordic countries: Implications for social class and gender. Education Inquiry, 9(1): 97121. DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2018.1424490
  16. 16Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific. 2013. Women Empowerment. Available at https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/E.1-Women-empowerment.pdf [Last accessed 11 March 2020].
  17. 17Staton, M. 2012. Disaggregating the components of a college degree. In: American Enterprise Institute Conference “Stretching the Higher Education Dollar”, on 2 August 2012, 134.
  18. 18Stromquist, NP. 2015. Women’s empowerment and education: Linking knowledge to transformative action. European Journal of Education, 50(3): 307324. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12137
  19. 19Teddlie, C and Tashakkori, A. (eds.) 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  20. 20The Glossary of Education Reform. 2015. Curriculum, 8 December 2015. Available at https://www.edglossary.org/curriculum/ [Last accessed 9 February 2020].
  21. 21Therborn, G. 2009. The killing fields of inequality. Eurozine. Available at https://www.eurozine.com/the-killing-fields-of-inequality/ [Last accessed 10 June 2019]. DOI: 10.3898/136266209789024960
  22. 22Therborn, G. 2012. Disparities or inequalities: The killing fields of inequality. International Journal of Health Services, 42(4): 579589. DOI: 10.2190/HS.42.4.a
  23. 23Therborn, G. 2013. The killing fields of inequality. Cambridge: Policy Press.
  24. 24United Nations. 2015. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York, US: UN, 6 July 2015 https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf [Last accessed 8 February 2020].
  25. 25United Nations Development Programme. 2018. Gender Inequality Index (GII). UNDP. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii [Last accessed 5 May 2019].
  26. 26United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2002. Open and Distance Learning: Trends, Policy and Strategy Considerations. Paris: UNESCO.
  27. 27von Prümmer, C. 2015. Women and distance education: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge: London/New York.
  28. 28Weller, M, Jordan, K, DeVries, I and Rolfe, V. 2018. Mapping the open education landscape: Citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2): 109126. DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.822
  29. 29White, MD and Marsh, EE. 2006. Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1): 2245. DOI: 10.1353/lib.2006.0053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.553 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Language: English
Submitted on: Oct 24, 2019
Accepted on: Feb 22, 2020
Published on: May 11, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Suzan Koseoglu, Tugba Ozturk, Hasan Ucar, Engin Karahan, Aras Bozkurt, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.