Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue1.1997:

Learning lessons: why choose distance learning in
education management?

Sue Law
Pro fe sso r o f Educ atio n and He ad o f the De partme nt o f Se c o ndary and Te rtiary
Educ atio n at No ttingham Tre nt Unive rsity, No ttingham, UK
Examines an increasingly
important feature of further
and higher education provision: the development of
distance-learning opportunities for managers and teachers interested in education
management qualifi cations in
the context of a newly marketized education service in
England and Wales. Draws on
a university survey of
prospective distance-learning
“ clients” who had expressed
an interest in postgraduate
education management
courses – now a major growth
area – and analyses their
stated needs and concerns.

Considers, also, the impact of
the developing education
market on the professional
demand for distance learning,
and examines how far quality
provision and academic
excellence can be delivered
and maintained by institutions as the new “ value for
money” imperative, increasingly driving the “ professional
development business” ,
becomes further established
in further and higher education.

The author would like to
thank Dr Derek Glover for
undertaking some of the
data analysis used in this
paper.

Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f

Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,1 [ 1997] 1 4 –2 5
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]

[ 14 ]

As th e ba la n ce of r ela tion sh ips in th e edu ca tion ser vice in E n gla n d a n d Wa les a lter ed
follow in g th e E du ca tion Refor m Act 1988, we
h ave w itn essed a fu n da m en ta l m a r k etfocu sed tr a n sition – in sch ools, colle ges a n d
u n iver sities – wh ich h a s pr ogr essively be gu n
to dr ive in stitu tion a l r espon siven ess in edu ca tion tow a r ds cu stom er pr ior ities, clien t
con cer n s a n d cen tr a lized fu n din g pr ior ities.
A fu n da m en ta l pa r t of th is n ew “m a r k etized”
or ien ta tion (bu t, a r gu a bly on e of th e less
pu blicized a spects) h a s been th e str u ctu r a l
sh ift in th e n a tu r e of con tin u in g pr ofession a l
developm en t (CP D) a n d in -ser vice edu ca tion
a n d tr a in in g (IN SE T) for edu ca tion m a n a ger s
a n d tea ch er s.

Th is pa per exa m in es th e n a tu r e of “clien t
dem a n d” in th e developin g edu ca tion m a r k et
– a m a jor focu s for th ose in volved in m eetin g
pr ofession a l developm en t n eeds. In pa r ticu la r, it exa m in es con su m er in ter est in – a n d
con cer n s a bou t – dista n ce-lea r n in g edu ca tion a l pr ovision ; doin g so th r ou gh th e len s of
in ter est sh ow n in postgr a du a te edu ca tion
m a n a gem en t pr ogr a m m es (n ow a m a jor
gr ow th a r ea ) wh ich r esu lt la r gely fr om th e
devolu tion of fu n ds a n d a dm in istr a tion aw ay
fr om LE As tow a r ds “in cor por a ted” a n d “selfm a n a gin g” in stitu tion s (Ca ldwell a n d Spin k s,
1988, 1992). It in vestiga tes h ow poten tia l dista n ce-lea r n in g stu den ts eva lu a te pr ovider s
a n d deter m in e pr ior ities, th en br iefl y con sider s h ow th e im pa ct of m a r k etiza tion on
pr ovider -clien t r ela tion sh ips in th e n ew “pr ofession a l developm en t bu sin ess” r a ises qu estion s a bou t qu a lity a n d con sisten cy of pr ovision .

Reframing and restructuring
education
Th e expa n sion of dista n ce-lea r n in g pr ovision
h a s been fa cilita ted by a r estr u ctu r ed edu ca tion ser vice in E n gla n d a n d Wa les – in volvin g
n ot ju st sch ools, bu t a lso colle ges a n d u n iver sities in a r a n ge of in itia tives wh ich h ave
ch a n ged th e deliver y a n d fu n din g pa tter n s of

pr ofession a l developm en t. For exa m ple, th er e
is:
• th e on goin g r efr a m in g of “a ca dem ic” a n d
“voca tion a l” cu r r icu la on a w ide sca le;

• th e in tr odu ction a n d r eview of th e n a tion a l
cu r r icu lu m in sch ools (w ith h in ts of
n a tion a l cu r r icu la for h igh er a n d fu r th er
edu ca tion );
• th e in tr odu ction of n a tion a l voca tion a l
qu a lifi ca tion s (N VQs) a ccom pa n ied by a
focu s on “com peten cy” a t m a n a gem en t
levels, th r ou gh th e Ma n a gem en t Ch a r ter
In itia tive (MCI) for exa m ple;
• th e esta blish m en t of “in stitu tion a lly-cen tr ed” m a n a gem en t in sch ool a n d ter tia r y
sector s, w ith th e iden tifica tion of differ en tia l fu n din g pa tter n s between loca lly m a n a ged sch ools (LMS) a n d gr a n t m a in ta in ed
sch ools (GMS) a n d “in cor por a ted” fu r th er
a n d h igh er edu ca tion in stitu tion s; a n d
• th e in ception of n ew fu n din g r e gim es u n der
th e a u spices of th e F u n din g Agen cy for

Sch ools (FAS), th e F u r th er E du ca tion F u n din g Cou n cil (F E F C), th e Tea ch er Tr a in in g
Agen cy (TTA) a n d th e High er E du ca tion
F u n din g Cou n cil (HE F C).
We h ave a lso exper ien ced r a pid m oves
tow a r ds m a ss pa r ticipa tion in h igh er edu ca tion a ccom pa n ied by a n er osion of sta ffin g
r a tios; th e in cr ea sed cen tr a liza tion of pr ofession a l developm en t fu n din g pr ior ities w ith
th e Gr a n ts for E du ca tion Su ppor t a n d Tr a in in g (GE ST) sch em e (DfE , 1993a ) a ccom pa n ied
by dim in ish ed a n d r epr ofiled loca l edu ca tion
a u th or ity (LE A) r oles, br in gin g a m ove to
“a gen cy a r r a n gem en ts” str on gly focu sed on
m eetin g cu stom er n eed (Mor r is, 1990). E a ch
of th ese developm en ts a n d in itia tives h a s
h elped to n u dge pr ovider s, cu stom er s a n d
clien ts in to a r efr a m ed r ela tion sh ip – h oldin g
th e pr ospect of a ppa r en tly m or e cost-effective
tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g str a te gies in volvin g a
va r ia tion on “self-su ppor ted stu dy”, “in depen den t lea r n in g”, flexible or dista n ce edu ca tion – ea ch a str a te gic en deavou r to m a tch
dem a n d w ith often in cr ea sin gly str etch ed
r esou r ces.
E a ch gover n m en t-led in itia tive h a s, in tu r n ,

im pa cted on th e iden tifica tion a n d pr ior itizin g of per son a l, pr ofession a l a n d in stitu tion a l
developm en t n eeds a t a ll levels in in stitu tion s
– wh eth er a s “pu r ch a ser s” or “pr ovider s” of
ser vices. F u r th er m or e, ea ch developm en t is
con textu a lized in th e UK’s a ppa r en tly lon gla stin g r ecession a r y econ om ic clim a te – in its

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

ea r ly days vocifer ou sly lin k ed to gover n m en tled “ba ck to ba sics” ph ilosoph ies, w ith th eir
em ph a sis on per son a l r espon sibility r a th er
th a n sta te su ppor t. Wh eth er exa m in ed a t th e
level of sta ff a n d pr ofession a l developm en t or
in ter m s of u n der gr a du a te stu dies, th e locu s
of com m itm en t a n d fu n din g su ppor t h a s

sh ifted pr ogr essively tow a r ds th e in dividu a l
a n d aw ay fr om th e in stitu tion ; tow a r ds loa n s
a n d aw ay fr om gr a n ts; tow a r ds in str u m en ta list “tr a in in g” oppor tu n ities a n d aw ay fr om
br oa der “edu ca tion ” im per a tives. With th e
em er gen ce of a n in cr ea sin gly com petitive
postgr a du a te “qu a lifica tion s m a r k et”, we a r e
fa ced w ith a n ew cr eden tia list focu s, wh er e
a r gu a bly, in dividu a lized n eeds cou ld be m et
th r ou gh n e gotia ted cu r r icu la in a n ew lyen la r ged, post-bin a r y u n iver sity sector. It is
h er e, per h a ps, th a t th e n ewer u n iver sities
w ith th eir tr a dition a lly str on ger voca tion a l
pr ofile, h ave led th e w ay to developin g in n ova tive pr ofession a l qu a lifica tion s.
E a ch of th ese elem en ts h a s h elped to pr ovok e str u ctu r a l a n d m eth odologica l ch a n ges
in pr ofession a l developm en t pr ovision . It is
a n ir on y per h a ps th a t, wh ile th e tr en d is
tow a r ds self-su fficien cy in fu n din g w ith th e
r h etor ic of dem a n d focu sed on in dividu a l
cu stom er s, we a r e sim u lta n eou sly seein g
per son a l n eeds su bsu m ed by a n d w ith in in stitu tion a l n eeds. Accom pa n yin g th is, it h a s
been a r gu ed th a t we a r e m ovin g closer to a

“cu ltu r e of per son a l lea r n in g” (Ker r y, 1993)
wh ich is lea r n er -led a n d m a ter ia ls-cen tr ed,
r a th er th a n tea ch er -dir ected (F u ller et a l.,
1989). Th is focu s m ay in dica te a n a ttem pt a t
m a n a gin g th e difficu lt ba la n ce between m eetin g in dividu a l a gen da s wh ile sa tisfyin g in stitu tion a l dem a n ds – a poin t u n der pin n ed,
per h a ps, by th e in cr ea sin g u se of th e
la n gu a ge of “pa r tn er sh ip” between h igh er
edu ca tion , sch ools/ colle ges, a n d in dividu a l
tea ch er s, a n d n oted a s a possible focu s for
fu tu r e developm en t, for exa m ple, in th e Open
Un iver sity’s ow n pr ofession a l developm en t
wor k (Cr a ft, 1994).
Tr a dition a lly, site-ba sed, aw a r d-bea r in g
postgr a du a te oppor tu n ities in h igh er edu ca tion (i.e. Ma ster ’s de gr ees, a dva n ced diplom a s
a n d postgr a du a te cer tifica tes) h ave offer ed
stu den ts con tin u ity a n d depth of stu dy, pr ovided th r ou gh a focu sed a ca dem ic r esou r ce
ba se, dir ect lin k s in to a pr ofession a l “com m u n ity of sch ola r s”, a ccr edited lea r n in g pa th w ays, per son a lized tu tor cou n sellin g/ su ppor t
a n d, m or e r ecen tly, th e developm en t of flexible, m odu la r ized cou r se option s (Mor r ison ,
1993).
Mor e r ecen tly, h owever, cou r se pr ovider s –

especia lly th ose closest to th e pu blic sector
voca tion a l in ter fa ce – h ave been con fr on ted
by th e tw in pr essu r es of con su m er ism a n d

qu a lity a ssessm en t, wh ich a r e dr ivin g a
r efr a m in g of th eir a ctivities. In cr ea sin gly,
pr ovider s m u st sa tisfy “con su m er dem a n d”
in a con str a in ed econ om ic clim a te wh er e
gover n m en t-deter m in ed n a tion a l a n d loca l
fu n din g pr ior ities a r e im posed. In a ddition ,
th ey n eed to m eet th e “qu a lity” im per a tive:
en su r in g th a t cou r ses a r e deliver ed, m on itor ed a n d eva lu a ted w ith a focu s on h igh
qu a lity pr ovision – h owever th a t m ost elu sive
a n d va lu e-la den “qu a lity” con cept is defi n ed
(P feffer a n d Coote, 1991).
As well a s ch a n ged policy a n d a n ew le gisla tive fr a m ewor k , sever a l tr a in in g in itia tives
h ave en cou r a ged a r efr a m in g of pr ofession a l
(a n d in pa r ticu la r, m a n a gem en t) developm en t. Th e n eed for gr ea ter “site-ba sed” m a n a gem en t tr a in in g a n d su ppor t h a s been a r ticu la ted by, a m on g oth er s, th e Sch ool Ma n a gem en t Ta sk For ce (SMTF ) r epor t (DE S, 1990),
a n d th er e h a s a lso been con sider a ble pr essu r e to explor e com peten ce-ba sed m a n a gem en t tr a in in g a n d a ssessm en t – em a n a tin g
pa r ticu la r ly fr om th e Depa r tm en t of E m ploym en t (DOE ), Depa r tm en t for E du ca tion (DfE )

a n d th e Ma n a gem en t Ch a r ter In itia tive (E a r ley, 1992; E lliott, 1991; Gea ly, 1993; Wh itty a n d
Willm ott, 1991).
E a ch of th ese in itia tives h a s br oa den ed th e
deba te over ch a n gin g th e “lea r n in g clim a te”,
a lth ou gh it is in cr ea sin gly clea r th a t, in m a n y
ca ses, in su fficien t a tten tion h a s been pa id to
developin g wh a t m igh t be ca lled th e “lea r n in g su ppor t en vir on m en t”, in clu din g, for
exa m ple, th e pr ovision of libr a r y fa cilities for
dista n ce lea r n er s (Un w in , 1994). Poten tia l
stu den ts a r e th u s in cr ea sin gly en cou r a ged to
dem a n d m or e flexible-bu t-bespok e qu a lifica tion s – fr om a n in cr ea sin gly w iden in g
n a tion a l r a n ge of h igh er edu ca tion (HE )
cou r se por tfolios wh er e dista n ce is n o object
bu t su ppor t m ech a n ism s ca n n ot n ecessa r ily
be gu a r a n teed.
Un dou btedly, h owever, th e m ost im por ta n t
in fl u en ce on th is r efr a m in g of pr ofession a l
developm en t pr ovision h a s been th e ch a n ged
policy a n d fu n din g fr a m ewor k in wh ich HE ,
F E , LE As a n d pr iva te “con su lta n cy”

pr ovider s n ow oper a te. We h ave seen th e
effective “pr iva tiza tion of IN SE T” (Ha r la n d et
a l., 1993) w ith its developin g com petitive,
pr ice-cu ttin g bia s; th e disa ppea r a n ce of
tea ch er r elea se a n d secon dm en t (DfE , 1993b);
a n d a n a ssocia ted r ise in self-fu n ded, in com egen er a tin g developm en t. All th is h a s
occu r r ed in (a n d beca u se of) wh a t Dem pster
(1991) h a s ca lled a “qu a si-m a r k et econ om y in
in -ser vice edu ca tion a n d tr a in in g”. As a con sequ en ce, m or e diver sified tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g str a te gies for tea ch er pr ofession a l
developm en t h ave been u tilized to m a tch
in cr ea sed stu den t dem a n d a lon gside th e

[ 15 ]

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

[ 16 ]

in stitu tion a l r a tion a liza tion of tea ch in g su ppor t in a con str a in ed fin a n cia l clim a te. Th er e
is, in sh or t, a n in cr ea sed em ph a sis on open ,
flexible a n d dista n ce lea r n in g – w ith th e
Open Un iver sity fa cin g a n a lbeit lim ited
ch a llen ge to wh a t h a s been , for m or e th a n 20
yea r s, its ow n “flexible lea r n in g m on opoly”.
Aside fr om lon g-ter m pr ofession a l developm en t cou r ses a n d pr ogr a m m es, th e cu r r en t
com petitive eth os h a s a lso pr essu r ed pr ovider s to offer, in te gr a te (a n d, im por ta n tly,
a ccr edit) h a lf- a n d on e-day “lea r n in g
episodes” (Day, 1991) – th e k in d of
pr ofession a l su ppor t n ow less ea sily m et by
r estr u ctu r ed LE As. Th e r esea r ch eviden ce on
wh ich th is a r ticle is ba sed sh ow s th a t in dividu a l tea ch er s a s “edu ca tion clien ts” w ith sign ifica n t bu yin g power a r e in cr ea sin gly a doptin g pr a gm a tic, pr a ctica l a n d ca r eer -r ela ted
pr ofession a l per spectives, der ivin g in la r ge
pa r t fr om ch a n ges in fu n din g a t both per son a l a n d in stitu tion a l level wh ich a r e a fea tu r e of th e m a r k etiza tion of edu ca tion . Tea ch er s, m or e th a n ever befor e, a r e n ow pr epa r ed
to sea r ch for cost-effective a n d ta ilor -m a de
postgr a du a te pr ogr a m m es wh ich m a tch th eir
ow n per son a l n eeds – a n d pock ets. Wh ile
m a n y m ay con tin u e to opt for th eir loca l
pr ovider, th is is n o lon ger a n in evita ble decision : a sign ifi ca n t n u m ber a r e pr epa r ed to
“play th e field” befor e ch oosin g a cou r se.
Con fr on ted w ith a bu yer ’s m a r k et, a n d in
or der to secu r e or if possible expa n d th eir
“clien t” ba se, pr ovider s a r e n ow k een er to be
seen a s ca ter in g for th ose w ish in g to a dopt a
“lifelon g lea r n in g” focu s a n d com m itted to
gr a spin g “flexible lea r n in g” oppor tu n ities.
Su ch str a te gies do, h owever, m ea n th a t
pr ovider m en u s a r e in cr ea sin gly fr a m ed by
a n on goin g in sta bility (pa r ticu la r ly a s pr ofession a l developm en t policy is su bjected to
r a pid ch a n ge u n der th e a u spices of th e
Tea ch er Tr a in in g Agen cy), even if th ey
en a ble clien ts to ta k e r espon sibility for th eir
ow n lea r n in g a n d pr ofession a l developm en t,
a n d to develop br oa der a n d m or e per son a lly
sa tisfyin g tr a n sfer a ble sk ills.
Th is is a pa r ticu la r ly im por ta n t developm en t for wh a t con tin u es to be a r ela tively
u n der pa id a n d im m obile tea ch in g for ce – on e
wh ich is often lim ited in option by econ om ic
r ecession a n d poten tia lly r estr ictive ca r eer
developm en t pr ospects (N a tion a l Com m ission on E du ca tion , 1993, pp. 221-3). P u t
cr u dely, th e option s for u n iver sities a r e
becom in g m or e a n d m or e clea r : expa n d a n d
diver sify you r pr ovision in to “n ich e” a r ea s if
n ecessa r y, over com e you r tr a dition a l geogr a ph ica l con str a in ts, or r isk a poten tia l
con tr a ction of you r stu den t m a r k et.
For th e older (i.e. n on -polytech n ic) u n iver sities, th e developm en t of flexible-lea r n in g

cou r se pr ogr a m m es m ay seem a difficu lt
pr ospect beca u se of th e per ception th a t tr a dition a l n otion s of “a ca dem ic excellen ce” n eed
to be m a in ta in ed a n d defen ded fr om “flexibility”. Th is con ception of r ole h a s, som eh ow, to
be r econ ciled w ith th e “m a r k et-dr iven ” n eed
to esta blish cr edible lea r n in g str a te gies for
th e n ew en tr epr en eu r ia l clim a te, m ost of
wh ich a r e a lr ea dy cu r r en t in th e best fl exible/ dista n ce-lea r n in g in stitu tion s (Dixon ,
1987; Hodgson et a l., 1987; P a in e, 1989; Ra ce,
1986).
For older u n iver sities th e focu s h a s r ested
on r eta in in g wh a t is per ceived to be qu a lity
pr ovision a n d a ca dem ic r epu ta tion , wh ile
m a xim izin g stu den t a u ton om y a n d lea r n er dir ectedn ess. N ewer u n iver sities, in m a n y
r espects, fa ce th e opposite pr oblem s: a CNAA
ba ck gr ou n d a n d a ca dem ica lly br oa d-ba sed
stu den t popu la tion s h ave en cou r a ged m or e
h igh ly diver sified lea r n in g str a te gies, wh ile
th e som etim es lim ited r esea r ch ba se in expolytech n ics h a s in itia ted qu estion s a bou t
th e n a tu r e, qu a lity a n d depth of th eir “a ca dem ic excellen ce”. As a w ay of explor in g fu r th er som e of th ese issu es, th e n ext section
exa m in es th e pr ior ities a n d con cer n s of
poten tia l cu stom er s for dista n ce-lea r n in g
pr ovision in edu ca tion m a n a gem en t.

Developing diversity: identifying
the issues
Keele Un iver sity, wh er e th e a u th or w a s Dir ector of In -ser vice E du ca tion , w a s on e of th e
fir st tr a n ch e of older u n iver sities in E n gla n d
a n d Wa les to join th e dista n ce-lea r n in g edu ca tion m a r k et a t th e en d of th e 1980s. Its MBA
edu ca tion , la u n ch ed in 1991, w a s th e fir st
pa r t-tim e, dista n ce-lea r n in g MBA in E n gla n d
specifica lly design ed for edu ca tion ists. It w a s
followed, a yea r la ter, by a sim ila r ly str u ctu r ed MA (edu ca tion m a n a gem en t) pr ogr a m m e ta r geted a t th e n eeds of m iddle a n d
a spir in g m a n a ger s in edu ca tion .
A r a n dom sa m ple of 200 en qu ir er s wh o h a d
r equ ested in for m a tion r e ga r din g postgr a du a te dista n ce-lea r n in g, edu ca tion m a n a gem en t cou r ses du r in g la te su m m er / a u tu m n
1994, w a s la ter a sk ed to com plete a follow -u p
qu estion n a ir e. Th e qu estion n a ir e str u ctu r e
w a s k ept deliber a tely sim ple a n d w a s con cer n ed pr im a r ily to exa m in e th e “pu blic
im a ge” of dista n ce-lea r n in g pr ovision in
gen er a l; a n d secon d, to obta in feedba ck on
th e per ceived im por ta n ce of dista n ce lea r n in g a s opposed to site-ba sed pr ovision to
poten tia l “cu stom er s”. F in a lly, it w a s h oped
to ga in som e “m a r k et in telligen ce” on th e
im pa ct of ou r ow n dista n ce-lea r n in g in for m a tion pa ck to in for m fu tu r e str a te gic pla n n in g.

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

Respon den ts r a n k ed a list of gen er a l fea tu r es of dista n ce-lea r n in g cou r ses a n d gave
str u ctu r ed r espon ses on th e qu a lita tive
a spects of cou r ses a s th ey per ceived th em
th r ou gh th e liter a tu r e th ey h a d r eceived.
F u r th er, m a n y took u p oppor tu n ities to
r espon d to open -en ded qu estion s. Th e qu estion n a ir e a lso in vited th em to give th eir
a ddr ess/ geogr a ph ica l loca tion a n d gen der if
th ey w ish ed.
Of th e 60 r espon ses r eceived (r epr esen tin g a
30 per cen t r espon se r a te), 25 r etu r n s ca m e
fr om m a les, 22 fr om fem a les a n d 13 wer e of
u n specified gen der. N o r em in der s wer e sen t.
Wh er e r esu lts a r e r epor ted in th is a r ticle,
per cen ta ges a r e pr ovided a lon g w ith n u m ber s
in or der to a llow for com pa r ison . Clea r ly,
h owever, it is vita l to n ote th a t a n y con clu sion s dr aw n wh ich a r e ba sed on per cen ta ge/
n u m er ica l r esu lts n eed to be tr ea ted w ith
som e ca u tion .
Respon ses wer e r eceived fr om a s fa r a fi eld
a s E xeter to th e Sh etla n d Isla n ds, a lth ou gh
on e-fifth of r etu r n s wer e fr om poten tia l stu den ts livin g w ith in 30 m iles of th e Un iver sity.
Th is a r ticle su m m a r izes th e r esea r ch fin din gs in th e belief th a t, fi r st, th ey m ay h elp
fu r th er th e n a tion a l deba te a bou t th e n a tu r e
of effective lea r n in g str a te gies a n d, secon d,
th ey m ay con tr ibu te to a better u n der sta n din g of stu den t m otiva tion , su ccessfu l cou r se
or ga n iza tion a n d th e desider a ta of qu a lity
m a ter ia ls (Th or pe a n d Gr u geon , 1989). It is
a lso r ecogn ized th a t th e gr ou p su r veyed wer e
effectively “self-selected” poten tia l dista n ce
lea r n er s, sin ce th ey h a d a lr ea dy r equ ested
in for m a tion on dista n ce-lea r n in g pr ogr a m m es a n d wer e obviou sly ser iou sly con tem pla tin g su ch a lea r n in g str a te gy.
Un dou btedly a str on g r a tion a le r em a in s for
site-ba sed oppor tu n ities bu t th is a r ticle
posits th a t, in th e n ea r fu tu r e, tr a dition a l
pr a ctices w ill be in cr ea sin gly in flu en ced in
th eir cou r se m eth odologies, a tten da n ce
r equ ir em en ts a n d a ssessm en t str a te gies, by
a n expa n din g dista n ce-lea r n in g m a r k et. We
n ow br iefly exa m in e th e con text w ith in
wh ich n ew dista n ce edu ca tion developm en ts
a r e ta k in g pla ce.

The context for distance
education developments
Wh ile th e dista n ce edu ca tion tr a dition is
r ela tively lon gsta n din g w ith in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les – esta blish ed la r gely th r ou gh th e
dyn a m ic of th e Open Un iver sity – th e gr ow in g
br ea dth a n d va r iety of pr ovision w ith in
Br itish u n iver sities is a r ela tively r ecen t
ph en om en on . Per h a ps u n der sta n da bly – a n d
in com m on w ith exper ien ce elsewh er e in th e

wor ld – n o sin gle a n d a gr eed defin ition of
“dista n ce edu ca tion ” exists. Holm ber g (1993)
su ggests th a t it “cover s th e va r iou s for m s of
stu dy a t a ll levels wh ich a r e n ot u n der th e
con tin u ou s, im m edia te su per vision of tu tor s
pr esen t w ith th eir stu den ts in lectu r e r oom s
or on th e sa m e pr em ises, bu t wh ich n ever th eless ben efi t fr om th e pla n n in g, gu ida n ce a n d
tu ition of a tu tor ia l or ga n iza tion ”. F u r th er m or e, h e a sser ts, “th er e a r e differ en t k in ds of
dista n ce edu ca tion , a n d it is im por ta n t to
r ea lize th a t even seem in gly pa r a llel system s
in clu de differ en t com pon en ts a n d m edia ”
(Holm ber g, 1995, p. 202).
Th e difficu lty in settlin g on on e u n iver sa l
defin ition is r eflected in th e fa ct th a t a r a n ge
of ter m s is u sed in ter ch a n gea bly. Th e con cept
of “open lea r n in g” is in cr ea sin gly u sed a s a n
a lter n a tive ter m to both dista n ce edu ca tion
a n d dista n ce lea r n in g w ith in th e Br itish
con text a n d th is a ppr oa ch , a t lea st to som e
de gr ee, r efl ects th e im pa ct of th e Open Un iver sity’s r ole on pu blic a n d edu ca tion a l per ception s (Th or pe, 1988, p. 56). Th is pa per, for
exa m ple, u ses th e ter m “dista n ce lea r n in g”
in ter ch a n gea bly w ith “dista n ce edu ca tion ”.
Som e w r iter s con sider th a t dista n ce edu ca tion is sim ply a su bdivision of open lea r n in g
(Lew is a n d Spen cer, 1986, p. 8), a lth ou gh th is
view h a s been ch a llen ged on th e ba sis th a t
n ot a ll dista n ce edu ca tion is n ecessa r ily
“open ” (Holm ber g, 1993). However, Da n iel
(1993) a r gu es th a t “open lea r n in g is a goa l or
a n idea l; dista n ce edu ca tion is n eu tr a l, it ca n
eith er be open or closed, flexible or in fl exible,
depen din g on th e cou r se or th e system ”.
Mor eover, th er e is a lon gsta n din g deba te
r e ga r din g pr ecisely wh a t con stitu tes th e
bou n da r ies of dista n ce tea ch in g, dista n ce
lea r n in g a n d dista n ce stu dy. Holm ber g (1985),
for exa m ple, su ggests th a t wh ile “dista n ce
stu dy” cen tr es on th e stu den t a ctivities, “dista n ce tea ch in g” focu ses on tu tor in g a n d tu tor ia l or ga n iza tion .
Th e two k ey elem en ts n or m a lly a ssocia ted
w ith th e dista n ce edu ca tion pr ocess – th a t of
pr e-pr odu ced cou r se m a ter ia ls a n d stu den ttu tor com m u n ica tion – a r e cen tr a l fea tu r es in
m a n y cou r se str u ctu r es. Despite con cer n s
th a t dista n ce edu ca tion m ay be too r ea dily
focu sed on k n ow ledge tr a n sfer a n d fa ct
a ssim ila tion (Fox, 1983, p. 15), a n in cr ea sin g
body of eviden ce in dica tes th a t dista n ce edu ca tion h a s th e poten tia l to pr om ote effective
lea r n in g in th a t it is a ble to en ga ge stu den ts
fu lly – to th e ben efit of both th eir in tellectu a l
a n d em otion a l developm en t (Kee ga n , 1993;
Lock wood, 1995).
Wh ile dista n ce edu ca tion is fr equ en tly
u tilized a s a m edia tor for pr ofession a l tr a in in g, th e n a tu r e of th e m a ter ia ls bein g u sed
a n d th e m eth od of com m u n ica tion between

[ 17 ]

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

tu tor a n d stu den t h ave a sign ifica n t im pa ct
on th e effectiven ess of th e a ctivity a n d ben efits to stu den ts. Th e da n ger w ith lin ea r focu sed a n d over ly self-con ta in ed cou r se texts
is th a t th ey do n ot en cou r a ge, fa cilita te or
even pr ovide a ccess to a lter n a tive sou r ces of
idea s a n d a r gu m en t. N ever th eless, wh ile
cou r se pr ovider s clea r ly n eed to pay close
a tten tion to both th e a ccessibility a n d th e
va r iety of th e cou r se su ppor t m a ter ia ls th ey
pr ovide, Byn n er (1986) h a s poin ted to th e
effectiven ess of dista n ce edu ca tion a t Ma ster ’s level w ith in u n iver sities.
Clea r ly, in esta blish in g th eir pr ogr a m m es,
dista n ce edu ca tor s h ave to a ddr ess th e n eeds
of both gr ou ps a n d in dividu a ls. However,
a ccor din g to Holm ber g (1995):
th er e is n o eviden ce th a t dista n ce stu den ts
sh ou ld be r e ga r ded a s a h om ogen eou s
gr ou p. Th e on ly com m on fa ctor is th a t, w ith
few exception s, th ese stu den ts a r e a du lts
a n d con sequ en tly a r e ga in fu lly em ployed
a n d/ or look a fter th eir fa m ilies (p. 12).

Wh a t Holm ber g (1993) ca lls “gr ou p th in k in g”
(wh er e stu den ts stu dyin g a t a dista n ce a r e
tr ea ted a s pa r t of a gr ou p) ten ds to lea d to a
m or e con tr ol-or ien ted m odel of tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g – w ith fixed sta r tin g-poin ts, a ssign m en t dea dlin es, cou r se du r a tion a n d exa m in a tion s (Leslie, 1979). Th e a lter n a tive str a te gy, wh er eby in dividu a l stu den ts a r e
r e ga r ded a s tota lly a u ton om ou s – e.g. deter m in in g th eir ow n stu dy pr ogr a m m es, tim eta bles, su bm ission dea dlin es a n d level of com m u n ica tion s w ith th e tea ch in g or ga n iza tion –
is a lso u tilized a n d is pr oba bly th e m ost com m on a ppr oa ch in ter n a tion a lly (Gr a ff a n d
Holm ber g, 1988).
Wh ile a n “in dividu a lized” focu s m ay pr edom in a te on a globa l sca le, it is n ot u n u su a l
for th e two str a te gies to be u tilized in a n over la ppin g m a n n er (Holm ber g, 1985, pp. 8-10) a n d
th er e is eviden ce th a t, wh ile m or e a u ton om ou s in dividu a ls a r e lik ely to be pa r ticu la r ly
a ttr a cted to dista n ce edu ca tion , th ey do n ot
n ecessa r ily r eject gu ida n ce (Moor e, 1976,
cited in Holm ber g, 1993). Over a ll, r esea r ch
(e.g. F lin ck , 1980; Gla tter a n d Wedell, 1971;
Woodley, 1983) in dica tes th a t a du lt stu den ts
often pr efer dista n ce edu ca tion over ca m pu sba sed a ppr oa ch es la r gely beca u se of th e:
con ven ien ce, flexibility a n d a da pta bility of
th is m ode of edu ca tion to in dividu a l stu den ts’ n eeds. A pr edilection for en tir ely
in dividu a l wor k is fr equ en tly r efer r ed to…
a ppa r en tly a m a jor ity of stu den ts in developed cou n tr ies, wh ich do offer r ea l ch oices,
ch oose dista n ce edu ca tion beca u se th ey
gen u in ely pr efer it to oth er m odes. Th is is,
of cou r se, to be expected fr om a du lts wh ose
fa m ily, pr ofession a l a n d socia l com m itm en ts
m a k e fa ce-to-fa ce tea ch in g, bou n d by a fixed

[ 18 ]

tim eta ble, less a ttr a ctive or u n r ea listic
(Holm ber g, 1995).

In a ddition , wh ile r ecen t developm en ts in
m edia tech n ologies, e.g. telecon fer en cin g,
h ave stim u la ted in cr ea sed in ter est in th e
poten tia l of dista n ce edu ca tion a m on g poten tia l pr ovider s, th er e is eviden ce th a t stu den ts
still pr efer in dividu a lized stu dy – pr edom in a n tly u tilizin g pr in ted stu dy m a ter ia l (Ga r r ison , 1990, p. 15).

Analysing the results
Rating distance-learning provision
Respon den ts wer e a sk ed to r a n k seven fea tu r es of dista n ce lea r n in g in or der of im por ta n ce to th em selves. Th e r esu lts sh ow th a t
th er e is a m a r k ed bu n ch in g of r espon ses for
ea ch fea tu r e, u su a lly w ith th r ee a djoin in g
r a n k position s a ccou n tin g for th e m a jor ity of
r espon ses. Th ese a r e given in Ta ble I.
Oth er r ea son s wer e given in n in e
r espon ses, w ith fou r com m en tin g on th e la ck
of loca l oppor tu n ity, two on th e n eed to u tilize
in depen den t lea r n in g sk ills, a n d a fu r th er
th r ee seein g th e pr ovision a s r eleva n t to per son a l pr ofession a l n eeds. Th e m a jor str en gth
of dista n ce lea r n in g is seen by r espon den ts a s
bein g in th e a bility to wor k a t h om e a t th eir
ow n pa ce. Su bsequ en t com m en ts a lso su ggest
th a t flexible sta r t-da tes a r e a n im por ta n t
con sider a tion a s poten tia l postgr a du a tes
a ttem pt to ba la n ce stu dy pr ogr a m m es w ith
pr ofession a l r oles a n d r espon sibilities.
Bou d (1990, p. 6) a sser ts th a t “lea r n in g for
m ea n in g a n d tigh t tea ch er con tr ol sit
u n ea sily togeth er. Lea r n er s m u st m a k e th eir
ow n m a ps of k n ow ledge”. However, th e fin e
ba la n ce of pr essu r es between en cou r a gin g
stu den t a u ton om y a n d pr ovidin g a tigh t
cou r se str u ctu r e ca n be difficu lt to a tta in : a s
on e su r vey r espon den t com m en ts: “Th e
str u ctu r e is r ea lly im por ta n t to m e. I w a n t
som eth in g to k eep m e goin g bu t w ith ou t too
m u ch fr eedom or I m igh t n ot do it”. Th e issu e
of a ch ievin g th is ba la n ce h a s been r eviewed
by Da n iel a n d Ma r qu is (1979):
If a system h a s, a s its ch ief pr ior ity, r espect
for th e fr eedom a n d a u ton om y of th e in dividu a l stu den t, it w ill a llow h im [sic] to
be gin a cou r se wh en ever h e ch ooses a n d to
fin ish it a t h is con ven ien ce. Th e stu den t
pa ces h im self a n d th er e a r e n o exter n a l
con str a in ts a lth ou gh th e good cor r espon den ce sch ool, wh ose m odel th is is, w ill h ave
a system of w r itten r em in der s, en cou r a gin g
ph on e ca lls a n d even fin a n cia l in cen tives to
in cite h im to k eep a t it. N ever th eless th e
dr op ou t, or n on -com pletion r a te, w ith su ch
a fr ee a ppr oa ch is u su a lly h or r en dou s (over
50 per cen t) if th e stu den ts a r e h u m a n s
r a th er th a n a n gels (p. 34).

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

Th e Keele pr ogr a m m e en deavou r s to ca pita lize on both con tr ol a n d a u ton om y str a te gies.
It does so, on th e on e side, by pr ovidin g ea ch
coh or t of stu den ts (i.e. th ose join in g a t th e
sa m e tim e) w ith a clea r ly str u ctu r ed tea ch in g
a n d a ssessm en t fr a m ewor k ca pa ble, for exa m ple, of m a xim izin g gr ou p n etwor k in g a n d
su ppor t oppor tu n ities. However, on th e oth er,
it a lso fa cilita tes in dividu a l stu den t a u ton om y by offer in g th e poten tia l for per son a lized
a n d flexible pr ogr a m m e design a n d th r ou gh
oppor tu n ities to a dopt a slow tr a ck in g
a ppr oa ch wh en , for pr ofession a l a n d/ or fa m ily r ea son s, stu den ts m ay becom e sepa r a ted
fr om th eir or igin a l coh or t or su ppor t gr ou p.
Over a ll, r espon den ts see oppor tu n ities for
h om e-ba sed stu dy a s th e m ost a ttr a ctive fea tu r e of dista n ce edu ca tion , com m en tin g on ,
for exa m ple, “th e avoida n ce of tr a ffic” a n d
“th e n eed to fin d a cou r se wh ich is com pa tible
w ith th e n eed to r em a in a t h om e”. A h igh er
per cen ta ge of fem a les em ph a size th e im por ta n ce of h om e-ba sed stu dy – 78 per cen t com pa r ed w ith 68 per cen t of m a les a n d, fu r th er m or e, n in e of th e 12 loca l r espon den ts wer e
fem a le, su ggestin g per h a ps a n a ttem pt to
explor e flexible, loca l oppor tu n ities so th a t
th e ben efits of both loca lity a n d dista n ce
lea r n in g ca n be exploited fu lly. P r ospective
stu den ts a r e a lso a ttr a cted by “wor k in g w ith
pr estigiou s or ga n isa tion s”, th e ava ila bility of
“cou r ses wh ich a r e ben eficia l in con ten t” a n d
th e “oppor tu n ity of u sin g in depen den t lea r n in g sk ills”.
P r ospective stu den ts con sider ed th a t th e
secon d m ost a ttr a ctive fea tu r e w a s th e a bility
to deter m in e on e’s ow n tim eta ble. Per cen ta ge
r espon ses for m en a n d wom en wer e sim ila r,
w ith tim e bein g con sider ed on ly sligh tly
m or e im por ta n t in r a n k in g th a n bein g a ble to
u n der ta k e a cou r se w ith ou t a tten din g fr equ en t cou r se session s. Wh ile dista n ce edu ca tion saves stu den t tim e a n d ca n be effective
for lea r n in g, it does, n ever th eless, in cr ea se
th e n eed to pr ovide “m or e tim e, sk ill a n d
a pplica tion on th e pa r t of th e tu tor th a n m ay

Table I
Ranking o f distanc e -le arning fe ature s
Rank order
Features
Home-based study
Setting own time/ pace
Course cost
No need to attend frequently
Assessment related to role
Good quality materials
Support from institution

High value
1
2
33
6
6
5
5
5
0

10
18
7
8
8
4
0

3

4

5

6

5
10
6
14
10
8
2

4
12
4
11
7
14
1

3
8
12
9
11
8
5

3
2
7
7
11
9
11

Low value
7
8
0
0
9
9
5
5
30

0
0
0
0
0
0
4

n or m a lly be fou n d in ‘essay m a r k in g’ on
ca m pu s” (E lton , 1988).
Con cer n a bou t th e qu a lity of cou r se m a ter ia ls is r efl ected in r espon ses to la ter su r vey
qu estion s, bu t, su r pr isin gly per h a ps, is n ot
given a h igh r a n k in g a s a fea tu r e of dista n ce
lea r n in g pr ovision by r espon den ts. In r eflectin g on dista n ce-lea r n in g a s a con cept, h ow ever, r espon den ts pla ce cost a n d a ssessm en t
r ela ted to wor k / pr ofession a l r ole a s even less
im por ta n t. Alth ou gh th ey a lso r a n k su ppor t
in th e br oa dest sen se fr om th eir ow n in stitu tion lea st im por ta n t of a ll, a t th is sta ge it is,
n ever th eless, a ctu a lly seen a s a n im por ta n t
fa ctor in deter m in in g wh eth er to em ba r k on a
cou r se. Th e defin ition of “su ppor t” en com pa sses both tim e a lloca tion a n d fin a n cia l
su ppor t in r espon den ts’ open com m en ts, bu t
does n ot n ecessa r ily im ply a n a bdica tion of
in stitu tion a l r espon sibility or con tr ol.
Th e issu e of th e ba la n ce between su ppor t
for lea r n in g a n d th e n a tu r e of in stitu tion a l
r espon sibility r em a in s a com plex on e.
Gillia r d (1991) a r gu es th a t “lea r n in g in dista n ce edu ca tion is su per vised bu t n ot in vigila ted, or ga n ised bu t n ot con tr olled, stu den t
cen tr ed bu t n ot a n a r ch ic”. However, Peter s
(1973) a r gu es th a t th e con cept of dista n ce
edu ca tion does n ot n ecessa r ily dispel th e
power r ela tion sh ip between th e in stitu tion
a n d th e lea r n er, sin ce it is n ot “dom in a n cefr ee lea r n in g”.
Th e n otion of su ppor t h a s been a k ey elem en t in esta blish in g dista n ce-lea r n in g
cou r ses in edu ca tion m a n a gem en t a t Keele.
In a ddition , th e cou r se ph ilosoph y in cor por a tes th e n otion of em pa th y – defin ed by
Holm ber g (1993) a s th e “power of pr ojectin g
on eself in to a n d u n der sta n din g som eon e
else’s th in k in g a n d feelin g” – a s fu n da m en ta l
in developin g effective dista n ce edu ca tion
pr ogr a m m es, w ith cou r se in for m a tion
en deavou r in g to com m u n ica te th a t em pa th y
a n d stu den t su ppor t a s a r e k ey a spects of
Keele’s pr ofession a l eth os.

Checking the market and choosing a
course
Respon den ts wer e a sk ed to r a n k u p to ten
fea tu r es of cou r se pr ovision wh ich m igh t
in fl u en ce th eir decision to ch oose a pa r ticu la r cou r se, w ith th e iden tifica tion of th e fea tu r es bein g ba sed on cu r r en t best pr a ctice.
Gen der -r ela ted r etu r n s to th is section of th e
qu estion n a ir e sh owed few differ en ces
between m a le a n d fem a le r espon den ts. How ever, th er e is a ga in a clea r gr ou pin g of
r espon ses a r ou n d th r ee con tigu ou s r a n k
or der s wh ich su ggests th a t th e view s of com pa r a tive im por ta n ce m u st be a sign ifica n t
in dica tor of opin ion . Resu lts a r e given in
Ta ble II.
[ 19 ]

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

Addition a l r ea son s offer ed by ten poten tia l
stu den ts in clu ded th e “com m itm en t” r equ ir em en t of a given cou r se, its pr eviou s sta tu s
a n d r ecor d, a n d its r eleva n ce to pr om otion a l
a n d pr ofession a l developm en t n eeds. Th e
im por ta n ce of cou r se con ten t is su m m a r ized
by on e r espon den t a s its “r eleva n ce to m y
exper ien ce a n d m y fu tu r e n eeds”.
Respon den ts r e ga r ded cou r se costs a s a n
im por ta n t fa ctor in ch oosin g between
cou r ses, a lth ou gh th er e is a spr ea d of r a n k in g
on th is a s a fa ctor. Th e cost effectiven ess of
pr ovision fr om a stu den t’s per spective ca n
on ly be iden tified by deter m in in g pr ecisely
wh a t is offer ed w ith in th e dista n ce edu ca tion
pa ck a ge. Holm ber g (1995) poin ts ou t th a t
“pu r e cor r espon den ce stu dy, r elyin g exclu sively on th e w r itten wor d a s its m ediu m , ca n
be ver y in expen sive if it is offer ed on a la r ge
sca le, so th a t th e cost of ea ch cou r se ca n be
spr ea d ou t over sever a l th ou sa n d stu den ts”,
bu t n otes th a t m or e com plex or soph istica ted
system s br in g h igh er costs. Com m en ta r ies in
su r vey r espon ses in dica te th a t a n u m ber of
pr ospective stu den ts u n der ta k e a fa ir ly com plex cost-ben efi t a n a lysis to deter m in e th e
cou r se th ey w ill follow. Th e on goin g deba te
over th e econ om ics of dista n ce edu ca tion
(Kee ga n , 1990; Per r a ton , 1982; Ru m ble, 1986),
r eflects th e fa ct th a t th e com plexities of costben efit a n a lyses a r e a lso cr u cia l issu es for
pr ovidin g in stitu tion s:
It is possibly on ly to cla im th a t th er e a r e
cir cu m sta n ces in wh ich dista n ce tea ch in g
look s a ttr a ctive fr om a n econ om ic poin t of
view. E con om ies of sca le a r e possible. Bu t
dista n ce edu ca tion ch a r a cter istica lly h a s
h igh fixed costs a n d, w ith r ela tively low
stu den t n u m ber s, its costs ca n be h igh er
th a n th ose of con ven tion a l edu ca tion . (Per r a ton , 1982, p. 61)

Respon ses r e ga r din g th e n eed for cou r se
a tten da n ce wer e w idely spr ea d in ter m s of
r a n k in g, a lth ou gh a n u m ber of r espon den ts
believe th a t it ca n “give th e oppor tu n ity to
r edu ce th e isola tion you feel in doin g you r
Table II
Ranking o f influe nc e s o n c o urse c ho ic e

ow n wor k ”. Oth er s, h owever, con cu r w ith th e
com m en t th a t “a tten da n ce destr oys th e r ea l
m ea n in g of dista n ce lea r n in g”. Th e n a tu r e of
th e stu dy pr ogr a m m e, th e per ceived qu a lity
of m a ter ia ls a n d th e cla r ity a n d depth of
cou r se in for m a tion a r e less sign ifica n t ch oice
fa ctor s over a ll. In a ddition , tu tor su ppor t, a
stu den t su ppor t n etwor k a n d cou r se office
ba ck u p, a r e a ll r a n k ed a s m u ch less im por ta n t in ch oosin g between cou r ses, a lth ou gh
sever a l open com m en ts do r efer to “th e ava ila bility of som e system of su ppor t fr om oth er
stu den ts”, a n d th e idea th a t th e “fi r st poin t of
con ta ct tells you so m u ch ”.
Ch oice between cou r ses is ba sed, a bove a ll,
on cou r se con ten t. Th er ea fter, it a ppea r s th a t
stu den ts focu s on cost issu es, often in volvin g
som e k in d of cost-effectiven ess eva lu a tion .
Th is poin ts to th e n eed for pr ovider s to u tilize
pu blicity m a ter ia ls str essin g both th e ta n gible a n d in ta n gible ben efits of cou r ses. Over a ll, su r vey r esu lts in dica te th a t r espon den ts
a r e seek in g self-con ta in ed a n d well-str u ctu r ed cou r ses, w ith a s m a n y poten tia l cu stom er s a ttr a cted by a r esiden tia l elem en t a s
in h ibited by th e n eed to a tten d cou r se session s.
Respon den ts h a d con ta cted w idely va r yin g
n u m ber s of in stitu tion s in or der to secu r e
in for m a tion , a s sh ow n in Ta ble III. Alth ou gh
th e m a jor ity h a d con ta cted th r ee or m or e
pr ovider s, 12 h a d con ta cted on ly th eir n ea r est
u n iver sity – w ith in th e 30-m ile r a diu s –
r efl ectin g wh a t m igh t be ca lled a “m odified
dista n ce-lea r n in g w ish ”.
Widely differ in g opin ion s exist r e ga r din g
th e n a tu r e of cou r se in for m a tion sen t by
pr ovider s in r espon se to en qu ir ies. Ha lf of
r espon den ts fou n d dista n ce-lea r n in g in for m a tion pa ck s m or e im pr essive th a n th ose
offer ed for m or e tr a dition a l pr ovision
beca u se of th e “com pr eh en siven ess of deta il”,
pr esen ta tion a n d cla r ity of expla n a tion , a n d
th e “u ser -fr ien dly a ppr oa ch ”.
On e-fifth of r espon den ts felt th a t th er e wer e
m a jor deficien cies in som e of th e in for m a tion
pa ck s th ey h a d r eceived, in clu din g “la ck of
in for m a tion on r esiden tia ls”, “little eviden ce
of pr eviou s su ccess” a n d “w ide va r ia tion in

Rank order
Features
Course content
Attendance requirement
Course cost
Quality of materials
Study programme
Course information
Tutor support
Office support
Student support

[ 20 ]

High value
1
2
32
11
10
5
2
1
0
0
0

14
13
8
4
11
2
2
2
1

3

4

5

6

7

6
12
10
7
13
3
3
1
0

5
10
7
8
10
8
5
1
2

1
4
4
18
11
8
5
1
0

0
4
6
7
5
17
6
5
3

0
1
4
4
1
10
23
5
5

Low value
8
9
0
0
3
3
0
5
5
14
21

0
0
1
1
1
2
1
21
19

Table III
Numbe r o f institutio ns c o ntac te d fo r
info rmatio n
Institutions

Contacted by

1
2
3
4
5
M ore than 5

12
15
16
12
2
1

Sue Law
Le arning le sso ns: why c ho o se
distanc e le arning in e duc atio n
manage me nt?
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 1 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 4 –2 5

str u ctu r e, deta il a n d in for m a tion ”. N ot su r pr isin gly, th e m or e in for m a tion r espon den ts
h a d obta in ed, th e gr ea ter th e ten den cy to see
a va r ia tion between m a ter ia l. However, com m en ts sh ow th a t con ten t, r a th er th a n th e
im pa ct of th e m a ter ia l w a s r e ga r ded a s th e
m ost im por ta n t fa ctor.
Good m a ter ia l w a s com m en ded for its cla r ity, u ser -fr ien dlin ess a n d con sisten cy
between section s of th e in for m a tion . Wh ile
poten tia l stu den ts seek clea r pr esen ta tion ,
th ey a r e a lso a n xiou s to h ave com pr eh en sive
deta ils expr essed in a n u n der sta n da ble w ay
w ith ou t too m u ch con cen tr a tion on a ssessm en t pa tter n s. Th ey wou ld lik e to k n ow wh a t
oth er stu den ts follow in g th e cou r se h ave
a ch ieved a n d wh a t th e stu dy pr ogr a m m e
m ea n s in ter m s of tim e dem a n ds.

Provider reputation and institutional image
Cou r se r e gistr a tion decision s a ppea r to h ave
been m a de n ot sim ply on th e ba sis of pu blish ed in for m a tion , bu t a lso on oth er k n ow ledge a bou t a pr ovidin g in stitu tion . Appr oxim a tely h a lf of r espon den ts r efer r ed to th e
im por ta n ce of th e pr ovider ’s r epu ta tion a s a n
in flu en ce on cou r se com m itm en t decision s,
a lth ou gh m or e th a n th r ee-qu a r ter s offer ed a t
lea st a n im plicit r efer en ce to elem en ts of
r epu ta tion , in dica tin g a su bcon sciou s a ssessm en t of qu a lity. Ta ble IV su m m a r izes th ese
elem en ts of r epu ta tion .
Com m en ts on pr ovider r epu ta tion in clu ded
r efer en ces to th e “lea der sh ip a n d sta n din g of
u n iver sity sta ff ”, a n d its “good pa st lin k s
w ith th e loca l edu ca tion a u th or ity”, wh ile a
fu r th er two n oted th e im por ta n ce of “th e
r esea r ch r ecor d”.
Respon ses in dica ted over a ll th a t loca l a n d
n a tion a l “people n etwor k s” a r e sign ifica n t,
pa r ticu la r ly wh er e r epu ta tion is ba sed on
pr eviou s stu den t exper ien ce: 20 r espon den ts
h a d lea r n ed a bou t cou r se r epu ta tion by wor d
of m ou th – th r ou gh collea gu e n etwor k s, fr om
pr eviou s cou r se m em ber s a n d th ou gh wor k in g w ith th e in stitu tion in oth er w ays. Fou r teen h a d ga in ed th eir in for m a tion fr om jou r n a ls a n d th e pr ess – w ith th e T im es Ed u ca tion
Table IV
Ele me nts o f re putatio n liste d by re spo nde nts
Element

Times
mentioned

Status, tradition, “established”
Academic credibility
Quality of staff
Quality of course, materials, support
Distance-learning experience
Assessment and qualifications

12
9
7
6
3
3

S u pplem en t (T ES ) em er gin g a s a k ey in for m a tion sou r ce.
P r eviou s a ssocia tion w ith a pa r ticu la r
pr ovider is con sider ed a ver y im por ta n t
fa ctor. For exa m ple, on e r espon den t com m en ts th a t wer e “both m y ch ildr en th er e”,
wh ile a n oth er poin ts to “m y pr eviou s exper ien ce of th e u n iver sity” a s a m a jor r ea son to
r etu r n . Yet a n oth er r efer s to “k n ow ledge of
th e fir st de gr ee r equ ir em en ts wh ich
su ggested sta n da r ds wer e h igh ”. Th r ee
r espon den ts h a d a ctu a lly visited ea ch of th e
th r ee in stitu tion s th a t th ey h a d con ta cted for
in for m a tion – despite th e fa ct th a t th ey wer e
in ten din g to wor k a t a dista n ce; th e m otive
m ay be seen in th e com m en t “so th a t I cou ld
get to k n ow som eth in g of th e people”. In open
com m en ts, on e poten tia l stu den t su ggested
th a t sa m ple m a ter ia ls wou ld be a h elp in
decidin g on a cou r se, wh ile oth er s com m en d
th e w a r m th of r espon se to th eir en qu ir ies
even a t th e in itia l en qu ir y sta ge.
Respon den ts wer e a lso a sk ed to r a n k per ceived n e ga tive a spects of cou r se pr ovision in
a n a ttem pt to a bstr a ct th e r ea son s for ch oice
wh ile avoidin g lea din g qu estion s. F r om th is
in for m a tion it is possible to a ssess m a in m otiva tin g fa ctor s in even tu a l cou r se ch oice.
Ta ble V su m m a r izes eva lu a tion s of th e n e ga tive a spects of cou r se offer s: th ese r espon ses
a r e m u ch m or e spr ea d th a n in pr eviou s qu estion s. Alth ou gh , a s two r espon den ts su ggest,
th e qu estion m ay h ave a ppea r ed a m bigu ou s,
it is a lso lik ely th a t in dividu a l r ea son s for
r ejectin g a pa r ticu la r cou r se a r e m u ch m or e
com plex a n d r espon den ts’ a n swer s r evea l th e
in ter a ction of a n u m ber of ch oice fa ctor s.
Th ese figu r es sh ow th a t r espon den ts h ave
con sider ed cou r se costs (in clu din g th e a ddition a l costs of book s a n d cou r se a tten da n ce)
a s th e m ost sign ifi ca n t fin a l ch oice fa ctor.
Th is is followed by a dislik e of th e r esiden tia l
elem en t, w ith seven fem a les givin g th is a s
th eir m ost n e ga tive elem en t a n d a fu r th er
th r ee a s th e secon d m ost n e ga tive fa ctor.
Con cer n over tim e dem a n ds a n d th e possibility th a t a cou r se m ay be in a ppr opr ia te is
spr ea d th r ou gh ou t th e r a n k in gs, a n d com m en ts su ggest th a t th er e