Tratamiento Hormonal Sustitutivo

The review of documents in this dimension focused on documents that address: DDL authority, DL courses scheduling and provision of the needed DL programmes/degrees, marketing plans for DL and DL equivalency to TL.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of sufficient authority: in the Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan (2012:16) it was stated that “...the lack of clarity of the overall procedures that are introduced by the Ministry of Higher Education made it difficult for the DDL to have control over the multiple services that are provided by different DL service departments and colleges”. This document revealed the ambiguity of MOHE regulations concerning DL and highlighted the need for investigating the impact of this factor on the consistency of the DL regulations and DDL ability to foster collaboration between DL-related departments and colleges.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of adequate course scheduling and provision of the needed DL programmes/degrees: in an internal report titled

“Regarding the 2012-2013 Courses Schedule" (2012), shortage of students was cited as a problem which had an effect on presenting a change package. In this report, the modified new scheduling scheme showed that some of the classes were deferred to the next year. In the same vein, in a response to a written request from KAU authorities, the DDL response indicated that the foundation of new DL degrees was cancelled due to a shortage of registered students and the need for more faculty members to cover other expansions (Regarding the New Degrees Scheme, 2012). These findings revealed elements of inadequate course scheduling plans for the enrolled DL students and problems associated with the foundation of new DL degrees and programmes to meet the community needs. Accordingly, they provoked questions related to the influence of factors, like the shortage of students and faculty members, on the university‟s ability to found new degrees and reasons behind the inadequacy of the university scheduling plan for DL enrolled students.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of adequate marketing plan for DL: no document was found of any marketing schemes or procedures, apart from one reference to NCDL as the centre for future promotional schemes. However, in The Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan (2012) document, it was disclosed that the absence of national marketing schemes is one of the weak points of DL in the country. This documented evidence raised questions related to the impact of the absence of a national marketing scheme on the university marketing and its ability to promote the awareness and importance of DL for potential DL students and the community.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of DL equivalency to TL: the Uuniversity Procedures for The Development of E-courses (2010) document stipulated that DL programmes should meet the same traditional programme requirements as TL which includes content and outcomes. Nonetheless, in the review of two documents that were dedicated to addressing the policies related to DL certification (The University Policy of The Guarantees Given to The Students by The Deanship to Get The Degree Certificate, 2010; The University Policy of Recognition and Accreditation to Granted Distance Learning Certificate, 2012), no indication was provided of policies that address acceptance of those certificated by the university in any public or private institutions.

Although such documents revealed the implementation of the same traditional programme requirements to DL, they indicated the absence of policies that address DL certificate recognition and accreditation. Consequently, they put forward the need to investigate the influence of the lack of policies that address the acceptance of DL certificates on their recognition and accreditation in the country compared to TL certificates.

II. Technology dimension

The review of documents in this dimension centred on documents relevant to accessibility to DL delivery requirements, technological infrastructure and technical support.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of accessibility to DL delivery requirements: according to the Mechanisms for Implementing Distance Learning Electronic Applications (2012) document, it was indicated that a review of the usability and accessibility of the DL application was to be performed by the technical department, in cooperation with contracted companies. There was, however, no mention of feedback or cooperation with the concerned DL departments and colleges. Other evidence gathered from the Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan (2012, p.15) document disclosed, “The unavailability of regulations to organise an effective relationship between the deanship of distance learning and the concerned

distance learning departments and colleges” as one of the many obstacles that face the

technological department‟s success in making decisions related to the development of DL applications and learning materials. Such findings indicated the lack of cooperation between DL concerned departments and colleges and the technological department in the DDL.

Additionally, they emphasised the importance of examining the association between the lack of cooperation between the technological department in the DDL and the DL concerned departments/colleges and the university‟s ability to implement accessibility to DL delivery requirements.

Moreover, in the Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan (2012:13) document, it was specified that the „…lack of cooperation between the universities that provide distance learning in the country has a negative effect on the provision of a suitable electronic environment that utilises the other local reserves and services

provided by other universities‟. Here, findings identified the negative influence of the

lack of cooperation between the universities that offer DL in the country on the accessibility to a variety of electronic reserves and services provided to DL students.

Furthermore, this drew the study‟s attention to investigating the effect of this factor on the other dimensions.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of sufficient technological infrastructure: in a university bylaw that addressed the provision of an adequate technological infrastructure (Bylaw of Assigning Responsibilities for Technological Provision, 2011) it was disclosed that DDL holds full responsibility for providing an adequate technological infrastructure which includes a technical department, hardware and software, course development and training schemes. However, the archiving and restoration of the DL courses was not included in the DDL responsibilities and no indication of adequate course archiving was present as part of the technological infrastructure plan. Related to this, it was disclosed in an internal report, sent from the DDL to the university high authority that, after a full review of the DL infrastructure requirements, the university technological infrastructure has the capacity to offer DL to up to 50,000 students with well-equipped and up to date facilities (Regarding the Distance Learning Institution Capacity, 2011). In another document, however, the high dependability on outsourced companies, was described as a weakness point in the DDL internal environment (Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan, 2012). These two pieces of evidence revealed the absence of the restoration and archiving operations from the DDL technological responsibilities and the high dependability on outsourced companies as negative factors to the implementation of sufficient technological infrastructure. Furthermore, these findings raised the need to examine the effect of the aforementioned factors on the university‟s ability to provide sufficient technological infrastructure.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of efficient technical support: in a request that was sent by the general technical support centre in the university to the technical department at DDL (Request for Staff Transfer, 2012), it was revealed that the university general technical support centre strives to cope with the inquires related to DL and skilled staff should be transferred from the DDL technical department to the university general technical support centre. Furthermore, in a document issued by DDL that addresses the provision of technical assistance to DL users (Help and Assistance Manual, 2012), it was disclosed that only two choices were provided to DL users. The first was to contact the general technical centre through the designated phone line; the second was to visit the general technical centre. The same document revealed that no technical support centre was designated to deal with DL inquiries.

These findings revealed elements of inefficient technical support which included: the need for skilled staff in the general technical support centre, the inadequate technical support times and the communication options provided to DL recipients as well as the unavailability of a designated technical support centre. Additionally, this documented evidence helped to form questions that address the influence of these previous three findings on the university‟s ability to implement efficient technical support.

In the same vein, but concerning the inclusion of the DL budget in the university budget cycle as part of the provision of the needed financial aid to support DL technological needs, the budget review section of the Annual Plan for the 2012 Financial Year (2012) did not refer to the inclusion of DL in the university budget cycle and no mention of DL was found in the document. This document revealed the university‟s failure to include the DL budget in the university‟s budget cycle. The consequences of the university‟s failure to do this provoked questions related to its impact on the implementation of adequate support for the technical infrastructure, which, in turn, may have an impact on the implementation of quality DL in the other dimensions.

III. Instructional support dimension

The review of the documents in this dimension was focused on documents related to the

development process for DL courses and the provision of instructional delivery requirements.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of efficient development process for DL courses: in a document titled “University Procedures for the Development of E- courses” (2010) it was indicated that DL courses must be developed by means of a cooperative effort between the assigned instructor in a related department and the DDL development department, in order to develop courses that coincided with the

instructors‟ styles. In the same document it was recommended that the outcomes of the courses should be reviewed by the course-related department to verify the course outcomes and contents. It has been specified that DL courses‟ outcomes should correspond with the outcomes of courses delivered traditionally. Although this document revealed features of efficient development process for DL courses that include the involvement of faculty members in the development of the DL courses and the verification of DL courses‟ outcomes and content by the course-related department, it is important to examine its positive/negative impact from the perspective of the administrators and faculty members.

 Issues related to implementing criteria of adequate provision of instructional delivery requirements: in a document titled “Mechanisms for Providing Technical Support for Distance Learning” (2011, p.6), it was stated that “…training courses for DL recipients on DL aspects are to be initiated and scheduled by the technological department in the deanship of distance learning on request from the concerned

colleges”. Moreover, in the DDL strategic plan, the lack of regulations that support faculty members‟ involvement in activities related to DL was described as a hindrance to faculty members‟ ability to deliver DL instructions in the country (Deanship of Distance Learning Second Strategic Plan, 2012). The evidence from these two documents indicated that training on the technical aspect of DL is provided so the means exist to implement an effective delivery process using technology, but nevertheless, it revealed lack of support for faculty members‟ involvement in activities related to DL, which is a downside to implementing effective delivery process using technology. This posed questions relating to the efficiency of the provided training, given the lack of cooperation between the technological department in the DDL and the DL concerned college that was documented earlier in the technological dimension. Moreover, it highlighted the need to investigate the negative impact of the lack of support for faculty members‟ involvement in activities related to DL on the implementation of effective delivery process using technology.