Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol12.Issue6.1998:
Distance learning: short-term gain, long-term
commitment – a case study
Cheryl Hunt
Dire c to r o f the MEd Pro gramme in Co ntinuing Educ atio n in the Divisio n o f Adult
Co ntinuing Educ atio n, Unive rsity o f She ffie ld, UK
Presents a case study illustrating practical management
and quality issues which have
underpinned the transition of
a Master of Education course
from a traditional to a distance learning format. The
background and development
of the course are described,
including the rationale for,
personal experience and some
consequences of, “ translating” traditional teaching into
text-based materials. A summary is given of criteria currently used to defi ne quality
within the course but concerns about maintaining
quality whilst also reacting to
changing external and internal constraints are highlighted. It is suggested that
the short-term gains of participating in the distance learning market are attractive,
increasing participation in a
course which might not otherwise be sustainable. However,
participation in this market
should not be regarded as a
means of doing more with
less. If quality is to be maintained, academic tutorial staff
need to make a long-term
commitment to refl ection on
their own practice, and
require support in this initiative from the managers of
educational institutions.
This paper is based on
material presented at a
conference entitled Quality
Assurance in Distance
Learning, hosted by the
Distance Learning Unit,
University of Sheffield,
September 1996.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [ 1998] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 270 ]
Background
Havin g r ecen tly com pleted a r eview of a postgr a du a te cou r se wh ich be ga n a s a tr a dition a l
ta u gh t cou r se bu t n ow r ecr u its on ly dista n ce
lea r n in g (DL) stu den ts, I w a s in ter ested to
r ea d Su e Law ’s (1997) a n a lysis of wh y stu den ts opt for DL in edu ca tion m a n a gem en t
cou r ses – th ou gh th e cou r se u n der r eview
w a s design ed for pr a ctition er s r a th er th a n
m a n a ger s in con tin u in g edu ca tion . Su ch
pr a ctition er s a n d cou r ses h ave h a d to
r espon d r a pidly to ch a n gin g policies a n d
pr a ctices over th e pa st deca de, in clu din g th e
gr ow th of DL itself. Ta k in g a lon gitu din a l
view of th is on e cou r se a s a ca se stu dy illu str a tes som e of th e pr a ctica l con sequ en ces of
“r ea ctive developm en t”. It a lso r a ises qu estion s a bou t th e obliga tion s of th ose wh o m a n a ge a n d deliver cou r ses, pa r ticu la r ly wh er e
th ese a r e design ed for pr a ctition er s wh o h ave
sim ila r r oles in oth er edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s. As Law (1997) a r gu es, DL m ay seem to
offer a ttr a ctive sh or t-ter m ga in s – bu t stu den t
su ccess a n d cou r se/ in stitu tion a l cr edibility
r est on th e r esolu tion of fu n da m en ta l a n d
lon ger -ter m qu a lity issu es. Th is pa per su ggests th a t a com m itm en t of sta ff tim e in
wh ich to u n der ta k e r efl ective pr a ctice is on e
su ch issu e.
Th e h istor y of th e ME d cou r se in Con tin u in g E du ca tion wh ich for m s th e ba sis of th is
stu dy h a s been in tim a tely bou n d u p both
w ith th a t of th e a ca dem ic depa r tm en t in
wh ich it is loca ted, a n d w ith th e ch a n gin g
im a ge a n d politica l for tu n es of con tin u in g
edu ca tion per se. Th a t it is cu r r en tly a ttem ptin g to r edefin e itself is a con sequ en ce both of
th e pr esen t in deter m in a te sta te of con tin u in g
edu ca tion in u n iver sities a n d of th e desir e of
m a n y pr a ctition er s in th is field to br in g a n
en d to r ea ctive developm en t a n d r ea sser t
th eir ow n pr ofession a lism .
La u n ch ed in 1979, th e cou r se w a s developed
in th e con text of th e politica l deba te wh ich
took pla ce du r in g th e la te 1970s a bou t th e
con cept of “lifelon g lea r n in g” a n d h ow th is
pr ocess m igh t best be fa cilita ted (a wh eel
wh ich n ow seem s to h ave tu r n ed a lm ost fu ll
cir cle). It a lso sign a lled th e du a l in ten tion of
th e fr esh ly-n a m ed Division of Con tin u in g
E du ca tion , for m er ly th e E xtr a -Mu r a l
Depa r tm en t of th e Un iver sity of Sh effield, to
expa n d its wor k in or der to m eet a n in cr ea sin g dem a n d for n ew for m s of con tin u in g
pr ofession a l edu ca tion , a n d to develop
r esea r ch in th e edu ca tion of a du lts. Th e la tter
w a s a t th a t tim e str u gglin g to esta blish its
r especta bility a s a fi eld of a ca dem ic stu dy.
Th e in tr odu ction of th e cou r se w a s clea r ly
politica lly a n d a ca dem ica lly sign ifica n t, w ith
fin a n cia l con sider a tion s a poor secon d.
Th e cou r se w a s in itia lly pr ovided th r ou gh
on e even in g cla ss per week in ter m -tim e over
a two-yea r per iod. Su ccessfu l com pletion of
th e a ssocia ted cou r se-wor k led to th e aw a r d of
a postgr a du a te diplom a ; a disser ta tion cou ld
be u n der ta k en in yea r th r ee a n d su bm itted
w ith th e ea r lier cou r se-wor k for con sider a tion for th e aw a r d of th e ME d. Recr u itm en t
took pla ce ever y two yea r s a n d com pr ised ten
fa ir ly loca l stu den ts, m a in ly fr om tr a dition a l
fu r th er / a du lt edu ca tion ba ck gr ou n ds. Th e
cou r se w a s co-or din a ted by on e fu ll-tim e
m em ber of sta ff w ith lectu r e/ tu tor ia l in pu t
fr om fou r oth er s.
Th er e w a s little ch a n ge in th is for m a t u n til
1986 wh en th e cou r se w a s in cor por a ted
w ith in a n ew Cen tr e for Con tin u in g Voca tion a l E du ca tion . Th ou gh th is w a s lin k ed
th r ou gh sta ff in ter ests to th e Division of Con tin u in g E du ca tion , th e Cen tr e w a s itself a
sign of th e en tr epr en eu r ia l 1980s, h avin g been
set u p a s a n a u ton om ou s self-fin a n cin g u n it.
Th e ME d cou r se w a s r edesign ed, r eta in in g its
th r ee-yea r for m a t bu t w ith th e old “liber a l
stu dies” m odel of even in g cla ss pr ovision
givin g w ay to a m or e bu sin ess-or ien ta ted dayr elea se pa tter n in ten ded to a ttr a ct fu ll-tim e
stu den ts, a s well a s pa r t-tim er s fr om a
br oa der geogr a ph ica l a r ea .
Despite a sh a r p fee in cr ea se to r eflect its
n ew self-fi n a n cin g sta tu s, th e cou r se
r ecr u ited r ea son a bly well, n ow on a n a n n u a l
ba sis, a ttr a ctin g 19 fu ll-tim e (m a in ly m a le)
a n d 23 pa r t-tim e (m a in ly fem a le) pa r ticipa n ts
in th e th r ee yea r s between 1986-89. Th is is n ot
th e pla ce to specu la te on th e gen der divide
between fu ll- a n d pa r t-tim e pa r ticipa tion , bu t
it sh ou ld be n oted th a t th e m a jor ity of stu den ts con tin u ed to be dr aw n fr om fu r th er a n d
a du lt edu ca tion a n d wer e su ppor ted by th eir
em ployer s, m a in ly loca l edu ca tion a u th or ities (LE As). Th e cou r se w a s m a n a ged by on e
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
fu ll-tim e sta ff m em ber wor k in g w ith a closely
in volved tea m of six oth er s, two of wh om h a d
tu tor ed som e of th e or igin a l even in g cla sses.
Transition to distance learning
Follow in g th e E du ca tion (N o.2) Refor m Act
(1988) wh ich a ffected th e sta tu s a n d oper a tion
of LE As, a n d th u s th e pr ovision of a du lt edu ca tion th r ou gh colle ges, sch ools, a n d oth er
ba ses in loca l com m u n ities, it beca m e eviden t
th a t th e tr a dition a l “m a r k et” fr om wh ich th e
ME d r ecr u ited m igh t n ot be su sta in a ble for
m u ch lon ger : poten tia l pa r ticipa n ts wer e
fin din g it in cr ea sin gly difficu lt to obta in
eith er day-r elea se or / a n d fi n a n cia l su ppor t
for th eir stu dies. Th e decision w a s th er efor e
ta k en to pu t th e cou r se in to a text-ba sed DL
for m a t in tim e for a pilot in ta k e in October
1989.
Two fu ll-tim e, 11 pa r t-tim e (day-r elea se) a n d
13 DL stu den ts r e gister ed for th e 1989/ 90
a ca dem ic yea r. Th e DL stu den ts wer e dr aw n
fr om a va r iety of loca tion s in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les. Collectively, stu den ts ca m e fr om a
br oa der r a n ge of edu ca tion a l settin gs, n ow
in clu din g th e volu n ta r y sector a n d h ea lth a n d
socia l ser vices; n ea r ly h a lf wer e self-fu n din g.
Sign ifica n tly, th e cou r se r eta in ed th e sa m e
sta ff a n d sta ffin g str u ctu r e a lth ou gh stu den t
n u m ber s wer e in cr ea sin g a n d tu tor s wer e
en ga ged in w r itin g DL m a ter ia ls a s well a s in
fa ce-to-fa ce tea ch in g, a n d in wor k in g ou t a
n ew m od u s opera n d i a ppr opr ia te to a
m a r k edly differ en t gr ou p of stu den ts.
Th is con sta n t pr essu r e to “do m or e w ith th e
sa m e” (a n d, in cr ea sin gly, w ith less) in ter m s
of sta ff tim e is a n ot on ly a sign ifi ca n t pa tter n
w ith in th is ca se stu dy bu t a lso in th e m a n y
edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s in wh ich stu den ts
wh o a r e en r olled on th e cou r se a r e wor k in g.
Wh ile th is cr ea tes a cer ta in em pa th y between
tu tor s a n d stu den ts, su ch a n en vir on m en t is
n ot con du cive to a n y for m of su sta in ed con tin u in g pr ofession a l developm en t for eith er
gr ou p.
It is a lm ost cer ta in ly beca u se of th is en vir on m en t th a t, w ith in fou r yea r s of in tr odu cin g th e DL for m a t, th e day-r elea se/ fu ll-tim e
m a r k et for th e ME d cou r se h a d effectively
colla psed. With m a n y poten tia l loca l pa r ticipa n ts in dica tin g th a t th e on ly w ay th ey cou ld
stu dy for a qu a lifi ca tion wou ld be w ith th e
k in d of flexibility pr ovided by DL, th e n u m ber of a pplica tion s to a tten d th e “ta u gh t”
cou r se beca m e too low to su sta in a gr ou p over
two yea r s (th ou gh it wou ld h ave been m or e
th a n a dequ a te in th e less cost-con sciou s
1970s). Sin ce 1993, a dm ission h a s been solely
to th e DL m ode of stu dy. Ha d it n ot m oved in to
th e DL m a r k et th e cou r se wou ld n ot h ave
su r vived.
Su r viva l h a s a lso n ecessita ted oth er
ch a n ges. In 1993/ 4, in r espon se to com petition
fr om sim ila r cou r ses, th e th r ee-yea r per iod
r equ ir ed for com pletion w a s r edu ced to two,
a n d m odu les wer e in dividu a lly cr edit-r a ted,
a llow in g stu den ts to select in dividu a l m odu les to stu dy a t th eir ow n pa ce r a th er th a n
follow in g th e u su a l “th r ou gh r ou te” a s pa r t of
a yea r -gr ou p. Wh ile th e a dva n ta ges to stu den ts a r e obviou s, issu es of qu a lity a n d dayto-day m a n a gem en t a ga in r evolve a r ou n d th e
u se of tim e: in dividu a l pa tter n s of stu dy a n d
differ in g tim esca les for com pletion h ave
im plica tion s for stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e,
br oa dly a ssocia ted w ith m on itor in g a n d m otiva tion , u n der pin n ed by m on ey.
On aver a ge, 26 stu den ts per yea r h ave been
a dm itted to th e ME d sin ce 1993: w ith a “ta ilba ck ” of stu den ts still r equ estin g th r ee (a n d
u p to six) yea r s in wh ich to com plete, th is
r epr esen ts m or e th a n 70 stu den ts in volved in
th e cou r se a t a n y on e tim e a n d r equ ir es th e
m a in ten a n ce of a da ta ba se to m on itor a n d
su ppor t th eir pr ogr ess.
Stu den ts a r e cu r r en tly dr aw n fr om
th r ou gh ou t th e UK a n d E ir e, in clu din g
r em ote r u r a l loca tion s, a n d wor k in a n
extr em ely w ide va r iety of edu ca tion a l con texts; th e m a jor ity a r e self-fu n din g a n d h ave
n o su ppor t (in tim e or m on ey) fr om th eir
em ployer s, despite th e pr essu r e m a n y clea r ly
feel to obta in a h igh er qu a lifi ca tion in or der
to m eet em ployer s’ expecta tion s in a n
in cr ea sin gly com petitive wor k in g en vir on m en t. It is th u s n o lon ger possible to a ssu m e
th a t stu den ts h ave a com m on cor e of k n ow ledge, of in stitu tion a l va lu es, n or even of
expecta tion s of th e cou r se. Addition a lly,
despite th r ee m eetin gs h eld in Sh effield ea ch
yea r, som e stu den ts a r e a ble to a tten d on ly
r a r ely (a n d a few n ot a t a ll).
Th e k in d of n etwor k in g a n d per son a l developm en t n or m a lly fa cilita ted th r ou gh fa ce-tofa ce m eetin gs ca n n ot, th er efor e, be ta k en for
gr a n ted, a n d n eith er ca n th e ba ck -u p su ppor t
of libr a r ies a n d oth er sou r ces of in for m a tion
wh ich a r e ava ila ble to m or e tr a dition a l stu den ts. In a ddition , th e m odu la r for m a t len ds
itself to a m u ch m or e “pr odu ct-or ien ta ted”
a ppr oa ch . Th is is som ewh a t pr oblem a tic in a
cou r se for edu ca tor s wh er e, u n lik e th a t of,
say, a h istor y or m a th em a tics cou r se, th e
pr ocess a n d con text of stu dy for m pa r t of th e
con ten t of stu dy, a n d per son a l developm en t is
a sta ted a im .
How best to su ppor t stu den ts in th is con text
is a live issu e for tu tor s, som e of wh om a r e
th em selves still com in g to ter m s w ith a
ch a n ged wor k in g en vir on m en t, in clu din g th e
loss of m u ch of th e tr a dition a l gr ou p wor k
[ 271 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
fr om wh ich th ey for m er ly der ived a la r ge
m ea su r e of th eir ow n job sa tisfa ction . Th is
loss h a s been com pou n ded by ch a n ges in th e
m a n a gem en t of th e cou r se wh ich h ave pa r a lleled, bu t a r e n ot a ll th e r esu lt of, th e developm en ts in DL. Th e k ey fa ctor h er e, a s I sh a ll
in dica te in a m om en t, seem s to be r ela ted to
th e m a n a gem en t of oppor tu n ities for th e
con tin u in g pr ofession a l developm en t of
cou r se tu tor s a s well a s of stu den ts.
Th ese issu es h ave been pa r tia lly a ddr essed
th r ou gh th e r ecen t in tr odu ction of a con tin u ou sly a ssessed m odu le en titled B ecom in g a
R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er. Its in ten tion is to r eca ptu r e som e of th e “pr ocess” elem en ts of
stu dy, even wh er e stu den ts a r e follow in g a
ver y in dividu a lised a n d in depen den t m odu la r pa tter n . Tu tor s wor k in g on th e m odu le
h ave esta blish ed th eir ow n r efl ective gr ou p
wh ich pr ovides a for u m for th e discu ssion of
a r a n ge of pr ofession a l issu es a n d th u s com pen sa tes to som e de gr ee for ch a n ges,
discu ssed in th e n ext section , in th e n a tu r e of
th e cou r se m a n a gem en t str u ctu r e.
Course structures and staf f
development
Th e cou r se is cu r r en tly dir ected by on e fu lltim e sta ff m em ber w ith a ver y loosely
in volved tea m of fou r oth er s (a ll of wh om
h ave oth er m a jor a ca dem ic r espon sibilities),
plu s fou r pa r t-tim e tu tor s wh o u n der ta k e
disser ta tion su per vision . On ly th e cou r se
dir ector, on e fu ll-tim e a n d on e pa r t-tim e tu tor
wer e in volved in th e or igin a l ta u gh t cou r se
a n d in itia l developm en t of th e DL m a ter ia ls.
Th er e is n ow a sen se of dista n ce, th er efor e,
n ot on ly between tu tor s a n d stu den ts bu t to
som e exten t between m em ber s of th e cou r se
tea m : sta ff h ave less of a sh a r ed h istor y, fewer
oppor tu n ities to wor k togeth er or w ith th e
sa m e stu den ts, a n d m ost h ave n o r ea l sen se of
ow n er sh ip of th e DL m a ter ia ls or of th e
cou r se in gen er a l.
Addition a lly, fr om bein g th e “fl a gsh ip”
postgr a du a te cou r se for its depa r tm en t, th e
cou r se is n ow m er ely on e of m a n y a n d is a
r ela tively “low ea r n er ” com pa r ed w ith th ose
wh ich r ecr u it fr om a fi n a n cia lly r ich er m a r k et. Th e ME d cou r se h a s u n dou btedly been a
seedbed for sever a l oth er s wh ich h ave dr aw n
on its m a ter ia ls, pr ocedu r es a n d th e exper tise
of sta ff wh o h ave wor k ed th r ou gh its va r iou s
m eta m or ph oses. However, in th e n ew, vola tile
a n d cost-con sciou s edu ca tion a l m a r k et, it is
h a r d n ot to fa ll in to th e tr a p of r e ga r din g a
cou r se wh ich gr ew ou t of a differ en t tr a dition
a s a n elder ly r ela tive wh o, despite a fa ce-lift
a n d even life-givin g in jection s of n ew m a ter ia ls, is less excitin g to spen d tim e w ith th a n
[ 272 ]
you n ger a n d wea lth ier m em ber s of th e fa m ily! Th is is clea r ly a n in stitu tion a l m a n a gem en t issu e wh ich r evolves a r ou n d th e w ay in
wh ich “m a in ten a n ce” is va lu ed a ga in st
“in n ova tion ”; wh er e sta ff a r e en cou r a ged to
pu t th eir en er gies; a n d wh er e th eir m otiva tion a n d job sa tisfa ction com e fr om .
In its ea r ly days th e n otion of sta ff developm en t w a s bu ilt in to th e cou r se. E a ch m odu le
w a s co-or din a ted by differ en t fu ll-tim e m em ber s of sta ff. Th ey wer e r espon sible for th e
tim eta ble, a ssessm en t a n d eva lu a tion of
“th eir ” m odu le a lth ou gh session s wou ld be
ta u gh t by va r iou s m em ber s of th e sta ff tea m .
Th e seven tea m m em ber s th er efor e m et a ll
th e stu den ts for a fu ll day’s tea ch in g sever a l
tim es in th e yea r a n d wou ld lia ise dir ectly
w ith in dividu a l stu den ts over a ssign m en ts on
topics wh ich th ey h a d set. In gen er a l, sta ff
a lso took it in tu r n s to a ct a s yea r tu tor to a
stu den t coh or t. Sta ff m et for m a lly a s a m a n a gem en t tea m a t lea st th r ee tim es a yea r to
discu ss m a tter s r ela tin g to th e cou r se in gen er a l a n d to th e pr ogr ess of in dividu a l stu den ts.
A design a ted cou r se secr eta r y ser viced
th ese m eetin gs a n d oth er w ise pr ovided tr a dition a l, fa ir ly low -k ey, secr eta r ia l ba ck -u p to
th e cou r se. Th is la tter r ole h a s ch a n ged
m a r k edly w ith th e in tr odu ction of DL a n d th e
con sequ en t n eed both to m a in ta in a da ta ba se
of stu den t a dm ission s a n d pr ogr ess a n d to
pr ovide “fr on t-lin e” con ta ct for stu den ts
wh ose m a in m ea n s of com m u n ica tion is by
teleph on e or letter. Most sign ifica n tly, th e
over view of th e cou r se a n d stu den ts on ce
collectively h eld by th e m a n a gem en t tea m
h a s n ow devolved a lm ost exclu sively to th e
cou r se secr eta r y a n d dir ector, w ith m a jor
im plica tion s for tu tor s’ sen se of “ow n er sh ip”
of, a n d in dir ectly th eir com m itm en t to, th e
cou r se.
Th e m a n a gem en t of th e cou r se w a s or igin a lly str u ctu r ed on th e pr em ise th a t a n y n ew
a ca dem ic sta ff cou ld be in du cted in to it gr a du a lly via tea ch in g sin gle session s, a n d th en ce
th r ou gh m odu le co-or din a tion – pr oba bly
in itia lly of a n option in th eir ow n specia lism ,
– to yea r tu tor in g. It w a s a lso in ten ded th a t
th e r ole of cou r se dir ector sh ou ld r ota te per iodica lly both to pr ovide n ew “vision ” for th e
cou r se a n d to a llow th e ou tgoin g dir ector to
a dopt a m or e m in or r ole in th e pr ogr a m m e in
or der to develop oth er in ter ests (see J oh n ston
(1990), for fu r th er ela bor a tion of th is m odel of
cou r se a n d sta ff developm en t).
In ter estin gly, th is str u ctu r e wea th er ed th e
tr a n sition to th e DL for m a t w ith a ca dem ic
m em ber s of sta ff ta k in g r espon sibility for
“tr a n sla tin g” ea ch of th eir ta u gh t session s
in to a text-ba sed u n it. Modu les con ta in ed
eigh t u n its, ea ch of a ppr oxim a tely 30 pa ges,
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
pr esen ted sim ply in a n A4 file. It w a s th e coor din a tor ’s job to en su r e th a t th e m odu le w a s
coh er en t, to w r ite th e in tr odu ction a n d to set
a ssign m en ts – th ou gh th ese con tin u ed to be
m a r k ed by th e a ppr opr ia te specia list sta ff
m em ber.
Sta ff h a d n o for m a l tr a in in g in w r itin g DL
m a ter ia ls bu t a gr eed th a t th e style wou ld be
in for m a l a n d a s close a s possible to wh a t th ey
wou ld “deliver ” both ver ba lly a n d in th e for m
of h a n dou ts in a on e-day ta u gh t session .
Wh er e th ey m igh t pa u se in su ch a session to
pose a qu estion for gr ou p discu ssion or r efl ection , “boxes” wou ld be in tr odu ced in th e text
wh er e DL stu den ts wou ld be en cou r a ged to
w r ite in a r espon se, to en ga ge in som e oth er
a ctivity, or sim ply to u n der ta k e fu r th er r ea din g befor e con tin u in g w ith th e u n it. In th is
w ay it w a s h oped th a t stu den ts wou ld be a ble
to in ter a ct, a s fa r a s is possible w ith pu r ely
text-ba sed m a ter ia ls, a n d a lso obta in th e
“flavou r ” of sta ff m em ber s’ in dividu a l tea ch in g styles a n d a ppr oa ch es to th eir su bjects.
Th ou gh a ll th is a ppea r ed to be qu ite
str a igh tfor w a r d in th eor y, th e pr a ctice w a s
in evita bly fa r m or e com plica ted. Alth ou gh –
wh er e it seem ed eth ica lly a ppr opr ia te to do so
or / a n d stu den ts’ per m ission cou ld be
obta in ed – exa m ples cou ld be in cor por a ted
in to th e w r itten m a ter ia ls fr om ea r lier discu ssion s w ith “ta u gh t” stu den ts, th e a bsen ce
of a ctive dia logu e w ith stu den ts wh o wou ld be
wor k in g fr om th e DL m a ter ia ls m ea n t th a t
tu tor s h a d to a n ticipa te a n d a n swer qu estion s
th r ou gh th eir w r itin g.
Th e pr ocess of w r itin g is ver y differ en t
fr om th e pr ocess of tea ch in g. In ta k in g m y
ow n idea s a n d tech n iqu es fr om on e sph er e to
th e oth er I be ga n to qu estion a ssu m ption s in
m y tea ch in g th a t m igh t oth er w ise h ave
r em a in ed h idden or been ign or ed. I a lso felt a
gr ea ter n eed to ju stify wh a t I w a s w r itin g
beca u se stu den ts wou ld n ot im m edia tely be
a ble to ch a llen ge m e a s th ey m igh t in a fa ceto-fa ce session . In con sequ en ce, I n ot on ly
sea r ch ed ou t m or e r efer en ces bu t, sittin g
a lon e in fr on t of m y com pu ter scr een , I be ga n
to tr y to expla in a n d defen d m y ow n va lu e
ba se in a w ay th a t h a d r a r ely been r equ ir ed of
m e in th e sem in a r r oom . Lik e a ll for m s of
r eflective pr a ctice, it w a s n ot en tir ely com for ta ble – a n d it w a s tim e-con su m in g.
N ever th eless, beca u se of th e “ta n gibility” of
th e w r itten wor d a n d th e n eed for a u n it to be
seen to be coh er en t a n d com plete, I som etim es feel th a t DL stu den ts get a better dea l
fr om m e in ter m s of “in pu t” th a n th eir
“ta u gh t” cou n ter pa r ts. I m igh t be tem pted to
a n swer a qu estion in a sem in a r, for exa m ple,
w ith th e stock , “Th a t’s a good qu estion bu t
per h a ps we cou ld com e ba ck to it la ter ” – on ly
to over look it or fi n d it over ta k en by oth er
issu es a s th e en d of th e session a ppr oa ch es.
However, I fin d it a lm ost im possible to let a
u n it go to pr in t w ith ou t givin g som e k in d of
r espon se to qu estion s th a t h ave been
br oa ch ed even ta n gen tia lly by wh a t I h ave
w r itten . Sim ila r ly, in com m en tin g in discu ssion th a t on a pa r ticu la r issu e “My ow n view
is ...”, th e n eed to ju stify th a t view seem s
m u ch less n ecessa r y th a n wh en I com m it it to
pa per.
Clea r ly, n ot a ll for m s of w r itin g or m a tter s
of con ten t r equ ir e su ch per son a l in tr ospection or com m en t. I h ave fou n d, th ou gh , th a t
th e pr ocess of tr a n sla tin g th e con ten ts of m y
ta u gh t session s in to DL m a ter ia ls – a n d
th er eby open in g th em u p for scr u tin y by
collea gu es a s well a s by stu den ts – h a s m a de
m e ver y con sciou s of th e n eed to fi ll ga ps in
m y k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g th a t I
m igh t oth er w ise h ave h a ppily glossed over.
In deed, on e ver y u sefu l con sequ en ce of dr aw in g a ll ou r m a ter ia ls togeth er in DL for m a t
w a s to m a k e th e wh ole a ca dem ic cou r se tea m
m u ch m or e aw a r e th a n h ith er to of in dividu a l
differ en ces in sta n dpoin t a n d style – a n d th u s
of wh er e ga ps a n d over la ps a ppea r ed in th e
tu tor in pu t to th e ME d pr ogr a m m e. Th e in tr odu ction of DL th er efor e h a d a “k n ock -ba ck ”
effect on th e ta u gh t cou r se wh ich ben efited
fr om n ew in sigh ts a n d m a ter ia ls.
Con ver sely, th e DL m a ter ia ls con tin u ed to
be u pda ted to in clu de issu es a r isin g fr om th e
sh a r in g of idea s in fa ce-to-fa ce session s. With
th e dem ise of th e ta u gh t cou r se, we a r e n ow
h avin g to con sider ca r efu lly h ow to k eep th e
DL m a ter ia ls “live”. Th is con sider a tion h a s
been com plica ted by r a pid sta ff ch a n ges over
th e pa st two yea r s wh ich h ave br ou gh t a n
a br u pt en d to th e m odel of cou r se a n d sta ff
developm en t wh ich u n der pin n ed th e pr ogr a m m e ten yea r s a go a n d wh ich fu r n ish ed
a ll sta ff w ith a clea r over view of th e cou r se
con ten t a n d stu den ts’ pr ogr ess. How to, a n d
wh o besides th e cou r se dir ector a n d a dm in istr a tive secr eta r y sh ou ld, m a in ta in th is
over view wh en a ll stu den ts wor k a t a dista n ce a n d h ave m in im a l or n o con ta ct w ith
som e m em ber s of th e cou r se tea m is th e su bject of con tin u in g deba te.
Sin ce m ost m odu les a r e n ow co-or din a ted
by sta ff wh o, th ou gh specia lists in th e topic
a r ea s, wer e n ot in volved in w r itin g th e or igin a l m a ter ia ls, qu estion s of h ow best to
in clu de com pletely n ew m a ter ia ls a n d, especia lly, h ow to u pda te a n d a m en d th ose w r itten
by collea gu es n o lon ger in volved in th e pr ogr a m m e a r e be gin n in g to r a ise oth er qu estion s a bou t con tin u ity, coh er en ce a n d copyr igh t. Su ch pr oblem s a r e h avin g to be
a ddr essed a t a tim e wh en a ll th e cor e sta ff
n ow con tr ibu tin g to th e pr ogr a m m e a r e
sim u lta n eou sly com m itted to developin g
[ 273 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
oth er pr ogr a m m es a n d in cr ea sin gly r espon din g to th e in ter n a lly a n d exter n a lly im posed
bu r ea u cr a tic pr ocedu r es a ssocia ted w ith
a ccr edita tion a n d qu a lity a ssu r a n ce.
Quality issues
Appen dix 1 su m m a r ises th e gen er a l issu es so
fa r discu ssed wh ich h ave a r isen fr om th e
som ewh a t r ea ctive developm en t of th e ME d
cou r se over 17 yea r s in wh ich pr ior ities in ,
m odels of, a n d fu n din g for, con tin u in g edu ca tion h ave been in a con sta n t sta te of ch a n ge.
All h ave obviou s im plica tion s for th e m a in ten a n ce of th e pr ogr a m m e’s qu a lity.
Th e ir on y of th e pr esen t em ph a sis on “m ea su r in g” qu a lity wh en sta ff a r e over str etch ed
a n d th in k in g tim e is a t a pr em iu m is
in esca pa ble. N ever th eless, a depa r tm en ta l
ch eck list of cr iter ia for defin in g qu a lity
tea ch in g h a s been devised. Th is is
su m m a r ised in Appen dix 2 wh ich a lso in dica tes th e exten t to wh ich th e ME d DL pr ogr a m m e m eets th e cr iter ia .
Reflective learning
Th e in for m a tion su m m a r ised a s Appen dix 2
w a s u sed in th e r ecen t r eview of th e ME d: on
su ch a ch eck list th e cou r se is dem on str a bly
doin g well. However, even a cu r sor y gla n ce a t
Appen dices 1 a n d 2 ca n n ot fa il to illu str a te
th e differ en ce in th e n a tu r e of th e poin ts
listed th ou gh both lists a r e clea r ly lin k ed to
th e qu a lity a n d n a tu r e of th e stu den t exper ien ce. So, wh a t is goin g on h er e?
Bor r ow in g Her zber g’s (1966) ter m s, th e
tea ch in g qu a lity ch eck list seem s pr im a r ily to
pr ovide a m ea su r e of th e cou r se’s “h ygien e
fa ctor s”: th ose wh ich en su r e th a t a n or ga n isa tion or pr ocess r u n s sm ooth ly bu t wh ich
becom e n oticea ble on ly wh en th ey be gin to
br ea k dow n . Th e issu es listed in Appen dix 1
seem , by con tr a st, to be m or e str on gly a ssocia ted w ith Her zber g’s “m otiva tor fa ctor s”:
th ose wh ich en cou r a ge or h in der people fr om
a ccom plish in g th e wor k in wh ich th ey a r e
en ga ged, in th is ca se tea ch in g/ lea r n in g.
Iden tifyin g th e h ygien e fa ctor s wh ich
u n der pin a cou r se of stu dy, a n d en su r in g th a t
th ey a r e in pla ce a n d oper a tion a l, is r a th er
lik e oilin g its wh eels. If “qu a lity” is a bou t
“fitn ess for pu r pose” a n d a cou r se’s pu r pose
is sim ply to r oll, th en a “qu a lity ch eck list”
lik e th a t sh ow n in Appen dix 2 is in va lu a ble. It
is in ter estin g to n ote, h owever, th a t th is pa r ticu la r list w a s in itia lly devised by a sm a ll
gr ou p of m a n a ger s wh o h a d n o k n ow ledge of
th e con ten t or oper a tion of th e ME d
pr ogr a m m e; a n d a lso th a t th e ch eck list is
[ 274 ]
in ten ded for u se in a w ide r a n ge of cou r ses
a n d pr ogr a m m es a t a ll levels of stu dy fr om
u n der gr a du a te cer tifica tes to h igh er de gr ees.
To con tin u e w ith m y ea r lier a n a logy, th er efor e, su ch a list m ay h elp to a ssu r e tr aveller s
of a sm ooth jou r n ey bu t it pays sca n t a tten tion eith er to wh er e th ey h ave com e fr om a n d
wh er e th ey a r e h opin g to go, or to th e con text
in wh ich th eir jou r n ey ta k es pla ce.
Th e expr essed pu r pose of th e ME d in Con tin u in g E du ca tion is to en a ble exper ien ced
a du lt edu ca tor s a n d tr a in er s to in te gr a te
th eor y w ith pr a ctice: in oth er wor ds, to
explor e a ca dem ic k n ow ledge (th e th eor y
wh ich exists “ou t th er e”) a n d th eir ow n pr ofession a l exper ien ce (th e u n der sta n din g
wh ich exists “in h er e” in th eir ow n th ou gh t
pr ocesses), a n d to a r ticu la te th e r ela tion sh ip
between th e two. As I h ave a lr ea dy in dica ted,
th e con ten t of th e pr ogr a m m e (th e w r itten
m a ter ia ls, r efer en ces, tu tor in pu t, etc.) is th u s
in extr ica bly lin k ed to th e con text in wh ich a ll
pa r ticipa n ts – stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e – a r e
oper a tin g a t a n y given tim e.
In con sequ en ce, fa ctor s su ch a s th ose listed
in Appen dix 1 n ot on ly in fl u en ce th e wor k in g
a n d lea r n in g en vir on m en t of cou r se pa r ticipa n ts bu t sim u lta n eou sly becom e th e su bject
of th eir stu dy. Th e pr ogr a m m e ca n n ot th er efor e fu lfil its pu r pose – i.e. its qu a lity is n ot
m ea su r a ble – w ith ou t r efer en ce to th ese fa ctor s. Yet it is vir tu a lly im possible to pr epa r e
a n a ll-pu r pose, on ce-a n d-for -a ll ch eck list, lik e
th a t r epr esen ted in Appen dix 2, sin ce su ch
fa ctor s a r e con sta n tly ch a n gin g a n d, in a n y
ca se, h ave a va r ia ble in fl u en ce on differ en t
in dividu a ls.
As I n oted ea r lier, on e w ay in wh ich som e
tu tor s on th e ME d h ave been a ttem ptin g to
squ a r e th is cir cle over th e la st th r ee yea r s is
th r ou gh th e pr ocesses of r eflective pr a ctice
(Br ook fi eld, 1995; Sch on , 1983), both on ou r
ow n a ccou n t a n d in fa cilita tin g stu den ts’
r efl ective pr a ctice. I h ave dr aw n a tten tion
elsewh er e to th e pr a ctica lities of oper a tin g a s
a r efl ective tu tor -gr ou p (Hu n t et a l., 1994) a n d
to th e im plica tion s of in cor por a tin g r eflective
pr a ctice a s a m a jor a ssessed elem en t of a
postgr a du a te cou r se (Hu n t, 1997, 1998). Th er e
is n ot th e spa ce to com m en t on th ese a ga in
h er e bu t su ffice it to say th a t, th ou gh n eith er
a ctivity is ea sy, ea ch is fa scin a tin g a n d
u n dou btedly con tr ibu tes to ou r per son a l
developm en t a s well a s to th a t of th e cou r se.
Addition a l DL m a ter ia ls h ave been w r itten
ea ch yea r to in cor por a te ou r ow n r ecen t
th in k in g on th e su bject togeth er w ith feedba ck a n d su ggestion s fr om stu den ts a n d n ew
r efer en ces to r eflective pr a ctice in th e a ca dem ic liter a tu r e.
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
F a r fr om pr ovidin g a ch eck list to focu s th e
m in d on th e “wh eels” th a t k eep th e ME d
r ollin g in a n a ccepta ble m a n n er, u sin g th e
cou r se a s a veh icle in wh ich to develop ou r
u n der sta n din g a n d sk ills a bou t r efl ective
pr a ctice a n d its fa cilita tion fr equ en tly blow s
ou r m in ds. E n ga gin g in r efl ection for ces u s
a n d ou r stu den ts to a sk r epea tedly “Wh a t is
goin g on h er e?” in ou r r espective edu ca tion a l
pr a ctices a n d in stitu tion s a n d in ou r ow n
lea r n in g exper ien ces. Th e pu r pose of th e
ME d cou r se in its stu den ts’ lives, a n d th e
pu r pose of ou r r ole a s tu tor s on it, is th u s
open to con sta n t qu estion a n d r evision .
Ar gu a bly, th er efor e, th e qu a lity of th e cou r se
is m ea su r a ble n ot ju st in th e exten t to wh ich
“h ygien e fa ctor s” ca n be ch eck ed a n d m a in ta in ed – bu t in th e exten t to wh ich we a n d ou r
stu den ts a r e lea r n in g to r ecogn ise a n d dea l
w ith fa ctor s in ou r in stitu tion s a n d ou r
m in ds th a t m otiva te a n d h in der u s a ll a s
lea r n er s a n d tea ch er s.
Th is ca se stu dy su ggests th a t th e a dven t of
DL m ay, in deed, r epr esen t a sh or t-ter m ga in
in en a blin g a n existin g cou r se to su r vive.
However, wh en su ch a cou r se su bsequ en tly
a ctively en cou r a ges its stu den ts a n d sta ff to
a ddr ess issu es wh ich a r e politica lly a n d a ca dem ica lly sign ifi ca n t in th e lea r n in g en vir on m en t of th eir ow n in stitu tion s, it wou ld seem
to be ta ppin g in to r ea l “fu n da m en ta l a n d
lon ger -ter m qu a lity issu es” (Law, 1997) wh ich
go beyon d con sider a tion s of its ow n su r viva l,
con ten t a n d deliver y in to th ose of th e w ider
in stitu tion a l a n d politica l con text. In th is
con text “m a n a ger s” r a th er th a n edu ca tion a l
pr a ctition er s per se h ave tr a dition a lly been
th e decision m a k er s. Per h a ps th e cr u cia l
decision s n ow fa cin g th em a r e n ot on ly h ow
to cr ea te tim e a n d in cen tive for pr a ctition er s
to wor k r eflectively r a th er th a n r ea ctively, bu t
h ow to a ct u pon pr ofession a l in sigh ts th u s
obta in ed.
References
Br ook fi eld, S.D. (1995), B ecom in g a Cr itica lly
R efl ectiv e T ea ch er, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA.
Her zber g, F. (1966), Work a n d th e N a tu re of M a n ,
Wor ld P u blish in g Com pa n y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Hu n t, C. (1997), “Sh a dow s in th e sw a m p: dia logu es
in r efl ective pr a ctice”, in Ar m str on g, P.,
Miller, N. a n d Zu k a s, M. (E ds), Crossin g
b ord ers, b rea k in g b ou n d a r ies, resea rch in th e
ed u ca tion of a d u lts: a n in ter n a tion a l
con feren ce, P a per s fr om th e 27th An n u a l
SCUTRE A Con fer en ce, Un iver sity of Leeds,
Sta n din g Con fer en ce on Un iver sity Tea ch in g
a n d Resea r ch in th e E du ca tion of Adu lts
(SCUTRE A), pp. 235-9.
Hu n t, C. (1998), “Lea r n in g fr om Ler n er : r efl ection s on fa cilita tin g r efl ective pr a ctice”, J ou r -
n a l of Fu r th er a n d High er Ed u ca tion , Vol. 22
N o. 1, pp. 25-31.
Hu n t, C., E dw a r ds, C., McKay, A. a n d Taylor, W.
(1994), “Th e da n ce of th e tu m bleweed: r eflection s on esta blish in g a r efl ective pr a ctice
tu tor gr ou p”, in Ar m str on g, P., Br igh t, B. a n d
Zu k a s, M. (E ds), R efl ectin g on Ch a n gin g Pra ctices, Con tex ts a n d Id en tities, Proceed in gs of
th e 24th A n n u a l Con feren ce, Un iver sity of
Hu ll, Sta n din g Con fer en ce on Un iver sity
Tea ch in g a n d Resea r ch in th e E du ca tion of
Adu lts (SCUTRE A), pp. 53-5.
J oh n ston , R. (1990), “Modu la r isa tion : a n oppor tu n ity for sta ff developm en t”, In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Un iv ersity A d u lt Ed u ca tion , Vol.
XXIX N o. 2, pp. 14-21.
Law, S. (1997), “Lea r n in g lesson s: wh y ch oose
dista n ce lea r n in g in edu ca tion
m a n a gem en t?”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. II N o. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Sch on , D.A. (1983), T h e R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er:
How Profession a ls T h in k in A ction , Ba sic
Book s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Appendix 1 – Issues arising from “ reactive
development”
• in cr ea sin g stu den t n u m ber s
• in cr ea sin g dista n ce fr om u n iver sity ba se of
“dista n t lea r n er s” (som e in r em ote loca tion s w ith poor libr a r y/ IT su ppor t)
• la ck of su ppor t fr om m ost em ployer s (in
m on ey or tim e)
• less h om ogen eou s stu den t gr ou p – wor k in g
in m u ch w ider r a n ge of edu ca tion a l settin gs (cor e of com m on k n ow ledge/ expecta tion s ca n n o lon ger be a ssu m ed)
• pr essu r e on m a n y stu den ts to obta in a
h igh er de gr ee beca u se of em ploym en t
situ a tion (a ch ieve ta sk v. gr ow in g th r ou gh
pr ocess? exa cer ba ted by m odu la r
a ppr oa ch ?)
• tu tor s h ave less in pu t to, or dir ect k n ow ledge of, stu den ts’ lea r n in g or wor k in g
en vir on m en ts
• tu tor s a lso u n der sa m e pr essu r e a s m a n y
stu den ts to “deliver m or e w ith less”; less
tigh tly focu sed on pr ogr a m m e beca u se of
pr essu r e to design / develop oth er
pr ogr a m m es; in cr ea sin g u se of pa r t-tim e
tu tor s
• wh a t is th e r ela tion sh ip between stu den ts,
th ose wh o “w r ote dow n ” th eir tea ch in g in
a n oth er pla ce a n d tim e a n d n ew tu tor s wh o
m edia te between stu den ts a n d w r itten
m a ter ia ls wh en th e or igin a l a u th or s h ave
left? wh a t con stitu tes “qu a lity tea ch in g” in
th ese cir cu m sta n ces, a n d wh o ju dges?
• la ck of “qu a lity tim e” for r eflection by stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e
[ 275 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
[ 276 ]
Appendix 2 – Criteria for defi ning “ quality
teaching”
(S h ow in g th e ex ten t to w h ich th ese a re m et
w ith in th e M Ed DL progra m m e)
• Th e tu tor h a s th e n ecessa r y sk ills, k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g to en a ble stu den ts
to a ch ieve th e lea r n in g objectives of th e
cou r se
(A ll tu tors a re ex per ien ced a d u lt ed u ca tors
w h o tea ch on a va r iety of progra m m es; w h o
h a v e w ork ed in oth er settin gs; a n d a re
in volv ed in resea rch , som e a lso in con su lta n cy
a n d d ev elopm en t)
• Cou r se deta ils a r e explicit, clea r a n d com pr eh en sible to a pplica n ts a n d to stu den ts.
Cou r se objectives a n d th e n a tu r e of ta sk s
a n d a ssign m en ts a r e clea r
(B ook let ou tlin in g th e a im s, stru ctu re, con ten t
a n d n a tu re of th e progra m m e, en tr y requ irem en ts a n d a d m ission s proced u res sen t to
prospectiv e stu d en ts; in vita tion to d iscu ss th e
cou rse w ith a tu tor b efore for m a l a pplica tion .
“S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ” giv es d eta ils on presen ta tion a n d a ssessm en t of a ssign m en ts, in clu d in g
tu tors’ m a rk in g gu id elin es, a n d m in im u m
requ irem en ts for progression b etw een “lev els”
of th e progra m m e. R a n ge of a ssign m en ts
lin k ed to con ten t of ea ch m od u le su ggested ;
n egotia tion of in d ivid u a l title possible.
A im s/ ob jectiv es of ea ch m od u le giv en in w r itin g. B ook let of “Disser ta tion Gu id elin es”
issu ed givin g fu ll d eta ils of su per visor ’s a n d
stu d en t’s respon sib ilities a n d a ll su ppor t
m ech a n ism s.)
• Stu den ts a r e in volved in a ctive lea r n in g
a n d r eceive a ppr opr ia te a n d sen sitive feedba ck on th eir per for m a n ce
(A ll a ssessm en t b y cou rse-w ork ; w r itten feed b a ck giv en . Fu ll ten cred it m od u le w ith focu s
on refl ectiv e pra ctice (R P) ru n s th rou gh ou t th e
cou rse; person a l tu tor provid es w r itten feed b a ck on ea ch R P “in cid en t” su b m itted – u su a lly on ce per ter m – a n d teleph on e su ppor t a s
requ ired .)
• Assign m en ts a n d oth er ta sk s per for m ed by
stu den ts a r e r etu r n ed pr om ptly
(Proced u res/ tim esca les for h a n d in g in / retu r n
(w ith in 3 w eek s) ex plicit in “S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ”. Cou rse secreta r y is h u b of th e opera tion ,
h a n d les d a tab a se to “tra ck ” w h ereab ou ts of
a ssign m en ts, etc.)
• Stu den ts’ view s on th e cou r se con ten t a n d
on its deliver y a r e solicited in a system a tic
m a n n er, a n d u sed to r eview th e cou r se a n d
tu tor per for m a n ce
(S tu d en ts com plete a n d retu r n eva lu a tion
for m s a t th e en d of ea ch u n it, m od u le a n d d ay
sch ool; u sed b y m od u le co-ord in a tors in u pd a tin g m a ter ia ls ea ch yea r. Provision for v er b a l
feed b a ck a t d ay sch ools via tu tors a n d in session led b y stu d en t represen ta tiv e w h o sits on
for m a l m a n a gem en t tea m .)
• Tea ch in g ta k es pla ce in a n a ppr opr ia te
en vir on m en t a n d is su ppor ted by a ccess to
a ll n ecessa r y fa cilities a n d r esou r ces
(T h e latter problem atic, as n oted abov e; librar y
staff cu r ren tly in v estigatin g w ays of su ppor tin g
DL stu den ts better; acqu irin g teach in g space for
stu den ts w h o atten d on ly on ce each ter m is a
peren n ial problem – “ou t of sigh t” can m ean
v er y m u ch ou t of th e m in d of u n iv ersity staff n ot
directly in volv ed w ith DL program m es, especially adm in istrativ e “gatek eepers”.)
• Stu den ts k n ow wh o to tu r n to for h elp,
a dvice, or to r e gister com pla in ts a n d th a t
issu es th ey r a ise w ill be dea lt w ith sym pa th etica lly a n d effectively
(“S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ” lists n a m es/ role of a ll
sta ff in volv ed in progra m m e; a ll a ca d em ic a n d
su ppor t sta ff plu s stu d en t reps m eet a s m a n a gem en t tea m a t lea st on ce ea ch ter m . N a m ed
cou rse secreta r y often fi rst por t of ca ll for stu d en ts – ca n h a n d le m ost qu er ies im m ed ia tely
or red irect qu er ies.)
• Tu tor s r eflect on th eir pr a ctice a n d per for m a n ce a n d en ga ge in developm en t of th eir
sk ills a n d k n ow ledge
(Person a l tu tors w h o a ssist stu d en ts w ith R P
m od u le, plu s oth er in terested sta ff, m eet tw ice a
ter m a s a refl ectiv e pra ctice grou p.)
So u rce : Un iver sity of Sh effield, DACE : SelfAssessm en t Sta tem en t, October 1994)
commitment – a case study
Cheryl Hunt
Dire c to r o f the MEd Pro gramme in Co ntinuing Educ atio n in the Divisio n o f Adult
Co ntinuing Educ atio n, Unive rsity o f She ffie ld, UK
Presents a case study illustrating practical management
and quality issues which have
underpinned the transition of
a Master of Education course
from a traditional to a distance learning format. The
background and development
of the course are described,
including the rationale for,
personal experience and some
consequences of, “ translating” traditional teaching into
text-based materials. A summary is given of criteria currently used to defi ne quality
within the course but concerns about maintaining
quality whilst also reacting to
changing external and internal constraints are highlighted. It is suggested that
the short-term gains of participating in the distance learning market are attractive,
increasing participation in a
course which might not otherwise be sustainable. However,
participation in this market
should not be regarded as a
means of doing more with
less. If quality is to be maintained, academic tutorial staff
need to make a long-term
commitment to refl ection on
their own practice, and
require support in this initiative from the managers of
educational institutions.
This paper is based on
material presented at a
conference entitled Quality
Assurance in Distance
Learning, hosted by the
Distance Learning Unit,
University of Sheffield,
September 1996.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [ 1998] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 270 ]
Background
Havin g r ecen tly com pleted a r eview of a postgr a du a te cou r se wh ich be ga n a s a tr a dition a l
ta u gh t cou r se bu t n ow r ecr u its on ly dista n ce
lea r n in g (DL) stu den ts, I w a s in ter ested to
r ea d Su e Law ’s (1997) a n a lysis of wh y stu den ts opt for DL in edu ca tion m a n a gem en t
cou r ses – th ou gh th e cou r se u n der r eview
w a s design ed for pr a ctition er s r a th er th a n
m a n a ger s in con tin u in g edu ca tion . Su ch
pr a ctition er s a n d cou r ses h ave h a d to
r espon d r a pidly to ch a n gin g policies a n d
pr a ctices over th e pa st deca de, in clu din g th e
gr ow th of DL itself. Ta k in g a lon gitu din a l
view of th is on e cou r se a s a ca se stu dy illu str a tes som e of th e pr a ctica l con sequ en ces of
“r ea ctive developm en t”. It a lso r a ises qu estion s a bou t th e obliga tion s of th ose wh o m a n a ge a n d deliver cou r ses, pa r ticu la r ly wh er e
th ese a r e design ed for pr a ctition er s wh o h ave
sim ila r r oles in oth er edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s. As Law (1997) a r gu es, DL m ay seem to
offer a ttr a ctive sh or t-ter m ga in s – bu t stu den t
su ccess a n d cou r se/ in stitu tion a l cr edibility
r est on th e r esolu tion of fu n da m en ta l a n d
lon ger -ter m qu a lity issu es. Th is pa per su ggests th a t a com m itm en t of sta ff tim e in
wh ich to u n der ta k e r efl ective pr a ctice is on e
su ch issu e.
Th e h istor y of th e ME d cou r se in Con tin u in g E du ca tion wh ich for m s th e ba sis of th is
stu dy h a s been in tim a tely bou n d u p both
w ith th a t of th e a ca dem ic depa r tm en t in
wh ich it is loca ted, a n d w ith th e ch a n gin g
im a ge a n d politica l for tu n es of con tin u in g
edu ca tion per se. Th a t it is cu r r en tly a ttem ptin g to r edefin e itself is a con sequ en ce both of
th e pr esen t in deter m in a te sta te of con tin u in g
edu ca tion in u n iver sities a n d of th e desir e of
m a n y pr a ctition er s in th is field to br in g a n
en d to r ea ctive developm en t a n d r ea sser t
th eir ow n pr ofession a lism .
La u n ch ed in 1979, th e cou r se w a s developed
in th e con text of th e politica l deba te wh ich
took pla ce du r in g th e la te 1970s a bou t th e
con cept of “lifelon g lea r n in g” a n d h ow th is
pr ocess m igh t best be fa cilita ted (a wh eel
wh ich n ow seem s to h ave tu r n ed a lm ost fu ll
cir cle). It a lso sign a lled th e du a l in ten tion of
th e fr esh ly-n a m ed Division of Con tin u in g
E du ca tion , for m er ly th e E xtr a -Mu r a l
Depa r tm en t of th e Un iver sity of Sh effield, to
expa n d its wor k in or der to m eet a n in cr ea sin g dem a n d for n ew for m s of con tin u in g
pr ofession a l edu ca tion , a n d to develop
r esea r ch in th e edu ca tion of a du lts. Th e la tter
w a s a t th a t tim e str u gglin g to esta blish its
r especta bility a s a fi eld of a ca dem ic stu dy.
Th e in tr odu ction of th e cou r se w a s clea r ly
politica lly a n d a ca dem ica lly sign ifica n t, w ith
fin a n cia l con sider a tion s a poor secon d.
Th e cou r se w a s in itia lly pr ovided th r ou gh
on e even in g cla ss per week in ter m -tim e over
a two-yea r per iod. Su ccessfu l com pletion of
th e a ssocia ted cou r se-wor k led to th e aw a r d of
a postgr a du a te diplom a ; a disser ta tion cou ld
be u n der ta k en in yea r th r ee a n d su bm itted
w ith th e ea r lier cou r se-wor k for con sider a tion for th e aw a r d of th e ME d. Recr u itm en t
took pla ce ever y two yea r s a n d com pr ised ten
fa ir ly loca l stu den ts, m a in ly fr om tr a dition a l
fu r th er / a du lt edu ca tion ba ck gr ou n ds. Th e
cou r se w a s co-or din a ted by on e fu ll-tim e
m em ber of sta ff w ith lectu r e/ tu tor ia l in pu t
fr om fou r oth er s.
Th er e w a s little ch a n ge in th is for m a t u n til
1986 wh en th e cou r se w a s in cor por a ted
w ith in a n ew Cen tr e for Con tin u in g Voca tion a l E du ca tion . Th ou gh th is w a s lin k ed
th r ou gh sta ff in ter ests to th e Division of Con tin u in g E du ca tion , th e Cen tr e w a s itself a
sign of th e en tr epr en eu r ia l 1980s, h avin g been
set u p a s a n a u ton om ou s self-fin a n cin g u n it.
Th e ME d cou r se w a s r edesign ed, r eta in in g its
th r ee-yea r for m a t bu t w ith th e old “liber a l
stu dies” m odel of even in g cla ss pr ovision
givin g w ay to a m or e bu sin ess-or ien ta ted dayr elea se pa tter n in ten ded to a ttr a ct fu ll-tim e
stu den ts, a s well a s pa r t-tim er s fr om a
br oa der geogr a ph ica l a r ea .
Despite a sh a r p fee in cr ea se to r eflect its
n ew self-fi n a n cin g sta tu s, th e cou r se
r ecr u ited r ea son a bly well, n ow on a n a n n u a l
ba sis, a ttr a ctin g 19 fu ll-tim e (m a in ly m a le)
a n d 23 pa r t-tim e (m a in ly fem a le) pa r ticipa n ts
in th e th r ee yea r s between 1986-89. Th is is n ot
th e pla ce to specu la te on th e gen der divide
between fu ll- a n d pa r t-tim e pa r ticipa tion , bu t
it sh ou ld be n oted th a t th e m a jor ity of stu den ts con tin u ed to be dr aw n fr om fu r th er a n d
a du lt edu ca tion a n d wer e su ppor ted by th eir
em ployer s, m a in ly loca l edu ca tion a u th or ities (LE As). Th e cou r se w a s m a n a ged by on e
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
fu ll-tim e sta ff m em ber wor k in g w ith a closely
in volved tea m of six oth er s, two of wh om h a d
tu tor ed som e of th e or igin a l even in g cla sses.
Transition to distance learning
Follow in g th e E du ca tion (N o.2) Refor m Act
(1988) wh ich a ffected th e sta tu s a n d oper a tion
of LE As, a n d th u s th e pr ovision of a du lt edu ca tion th r ou gh colle ges, sch ools, a n d oth er
ba ses in loca l com m u n ities, it beca m e eviden t
th a t th e tr a dition a l “m a r k et” fr om wh ich th e
ME d r ecr u ited m igh t n ot be su sta in a ble for
m u ch lon ger : poten tia l pa r ticipa n ts wer e
fin din g it in cr ea sin gly difficu lt to obta in
eith er day-r elea se or / a n d fi n a n cia l su ppor t
for th eir stu dies. Th e decision w a s th er efor e
ta k en to pu t th e cou r se in to a text-ba sed DL
for m a t in tim e for a pilot in ta k e in October
1989.
Two fu ll-tim e, 11 pa r t-tim e (day-r elea se) a n d
13 DL stu den ts r e gister ed for th e 1989/ 90
a ca dem ic yea r. Th e DL stu den ts wer e dr aw n
fr om a va r iety of loca tion s in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les. Collectively, stu den ts ca m e fr om a
br oa der r a n ge of edu ca tion a l settin gs, n ow
in clu din g th e volu n ta r y sector a n d h ea lth a n d
socia l ser vices; n ea r ly h a lf wer e self-fu n din g.
Sign ifica n tly, th e cou r se r eta in ed th e sa m e
sta ff a n d sta ffin g str u ctu r e a lth ou gh stu den t
n u m ber s wer e in cr ea sin g a n d tu tor s wer e
en ga ged in w r itin g DL m a ter ia ls a s well a s in
fa ce-to-fa ce tea ch in g, a n d in wor k in g ou t a
n ew m od u s opera n d i a ppr opr ia te to a
m a r k edly differ en t gr ou p of stu den ts.
Th is con sta n t pr essu r e to “do m or e w ith th e
sa m e” (a n d, in cr ea sin gly, w ith less) in ter m s
of sta ff tim e is a n ot on ly a sign ifi ca n t pa tter n
w ith in th is ca se stu dy bu t a lso in th e m a n y
edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s in wh ich stu den ts
wh o a r e en r olled on th e cou r se a r e wor k in g.
Wh ile th is cr ea tes a cer ta in em pa th y between
tu tor s a n d stu den ts, su ch a n en vir on m en t is
n ot con du cive to a n y for m of su sta in ed con tin u in g pr ofession a l developm en t for eith er
gr ou p.
It is a lm ost cer ta in ly beca u se of th is en vir on m en t th a t, w ith in fou r yea r s of in tr odu cin g th e DL for m a t, th e day-r elea se/ fu ll-tim e
m a r k et for th e ME d cou r se h a d effectively
colla psed. With m a n y poten tia l loca l pa r ticipa n ts in dica tin g th a t th e on ly w ay th ey cou ld
stu dy for a qu a lifi ca tion wou ld be w ith th e
k in d of flexibility pr ovided by DL, th e n u m ber of a pplica tion s to a tten d th e “ta u gh t”
cou r se beca m e too low to su sta in a gr ou p over
two yea r s (th ou gh it wou ld h ave been m or e
th a n a dequ a te in th e less cost-con sciou s
1970s). Sin ce 1993, a dm ission h a s been solely
to th e DL m ode of stu dy. Ha d it n ot m oved in to
th e DL m a r k et th e cou r se wou ld n ot h ave
su r vived.
Su r viva l h a s a lso n ecessita ted oth er
ch a n ges. In 1993/ 4, in r espon se to com petition
fr om sim ila r cou r ses, th e th r ee-yea r per iod
r equ ir ed for com pletion w a s r edu ced to two,
a n d m odu les wer e in dividu a lly cr edit-r a ted,
a llow in g stu den ts to select in dividu a l m odu les to stu dy a t th eir ow n pa ce r a th er th a n
follow in g th e u su a l “th r ou gh r ou te” a s pa r t of
a yea r -gr ou p. Wh ile th e a dva n ta ges to stu den ts a r e obviou s, issu es of qu a lity a n d dayto-day m a n a gem en t a ga in r evolve a r ou n d th e
u se of tim e: in dividu a l pa tter n s of stu dy a n d
differ in g tim esca les for com pletion h ave
im plica tion s for stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e,
br oa dly a ssocia ted w ith m on itor in g a n d m otiva tion , u n der pin n ed by m on ey.
On aver a ge, 26 stu den ts per yea r h ave been
a dm itted to th e ME d sin ce 1993: w ith a “ta ilba ck ” of stu den ts still r equ estin g th r ee (a n d
u p to six) yea r s in wh ich to com plete, th is
r epr esen ts m or e th a n 70 stu den ts in volved in
th e cou r se a t a n y on e tim e a n d r equ ir es th e
m a in ten a n ce of a da ta ba se to m on itor a n d
su ppor t th eir pr ogr ess.
Stu den ts a r e cu r r en tly dr aw n fr om
th r ou gh ou t th e UK a n d E ir e, in clu din g
r em ote r u r a l loca tion s, a n d wor k in a n
extr em ely w ide va r iety of edu ca tion a l con texts; th e m a jor ity a r e self-fu n din g a n d h ave
n o su ppor t (in tim e or m on ey) fr om th eir
em ployer s, despite th e pr essu r e m a n y clea r ly
feel to obta in a h igh er qu a lifi ca tion in or der
to m eet em ployer s’ expecta tion s in a n
in cr ea sin gly com petitive wor k in g en vir on m en t. It is th u s n o lon ger possible to a ssu m e
th a t stu den ts h ave a com m on cor e of k n ow ledge, of in stitu tion a l va lu es, n or even of
expecta tion s of th e cou r se. Addition a lly,
despite th r ee m eetin gs h eld in Sh effield ea ch
yea r, som e stu den ts a r e a ble to a tten d on ly
r a r ely (a n d a few n ot a t a ll).
Th e k in d of n etwor k in g a n d per son a l developm en t n or m a lly fa cilita ted th r ou gh fa ce-tofa ce m eetin gs ca n n ot, th er efor e, be ta k en for
gr a n ted, a n d n eith er ca n th e ba ck -u p su ppor t
of libr a r ies a n d oth er sou r ces of in for m a tion
wh ich a r e ava ila ble to m or e tr a dition a l stu den ts. In a ddition , th e m odu la r for m a t len ds
itself to a m u ch m or e “pr odu ct-or ien ta ted”
a ppr oa ch . Th is is som ewh a t pr oblem a tic in a
cou r se for edu ca tor s wh er e, u n lik e th a t of,
say, a h istor y or m a th em a tics cou r se, th e
pr ocess a n d con text of stu dy for m pa r t of th e
con ten t of stu dy, a n d per son a l developm en t is
a sta ted a im .
How best to su ppor t stu den ts in th is con text
is a live issu e for tu tor s, som e of wh om a r e
th em selves still com in g to ter m s w ith a
ch a n ged wor k in g en vir on m en t, in clu din g th e
loss of m u ch of th e tr a dition a l gr ou p wor k
[ 271 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
fr om wh ich th ey for m er ly der ived a la r ge
m ea su r e of th eir ow n job sa tisfa ction . Th is
loss h a s been com pou n ded by ch a n ges in th e
m a n a gem en t of th e cou r se wh ich h ave pa r a lleled, bu t a r e n ot a ll th e r esu lt of, th e developm en ts in DL. Th e k ey fa ctor h er e, a s I sh a ll
in dica te in a m om en t, seem s to be r ela ted to
th e m a n a gem en t of oppor tu n ities for th e
con tin u in g pr ofession a l developm en t of
cou r se tu tor s a s well a s of stu den ts.
Th ese issu es h ave been pa r tia lly a ddr essed
th r ou gh th e r ecen t in tr odu ction of a con tin u ou sly a ssessed m odu le en titled B ecom in g a
R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er. Its in ten tion is to r eca ptu r e som e of th e “pr ocess” elem en ts of
stu dy, even wh er e stu den ts a r e follow in g a
ver y in dividu a lised a n d in depen den t m odu la r pa tter n . Tu tor s wor k in g on th e m odu le
h ave esta blish ed th eir ow n r efl ective gr ou p
wh ich pr ovides a for u m for th e discu ssion of
a r a n ge of pr ofession a l issu es a n d th u s com pen sa tes to som e de gr ee for ch a n ges,
discu ssed in th e n ext section , in th e n a tu r e of
th e cou r se m a n a gem en t str u ctu r e.
Course structures and staf f
development
Th e cou r se is cu r r en tly dir ected by on e fu lltim e sta ff m em ber w ith a ver y loosely
in volved tea m of fou r oth er s (a ll of wh om
h ave oth er m a jor a ca dem ic r espon sibilities),
plu s fou r pa r t-tim e tu tor s wh o u n der ta k e
disser ta tion su per vision . On ly th e cou r se
dir ector, on e fu ll-tim e a n d on e pa r t-tim e tu tor
wer e in volved in th e or igin a l ta u gh t cou r se
a n d in itia l developm en t of th e DL m a ter ia ls.
Th er e is n ow a sen se of dista n ce, th er efor e,
n ot on ly between tu tor s a n d stu den ts bu t to
som e exten t between m em ber s of th e cou r se
tea m : sta ff h ave less of a sh a r ed h istor y, fewer
oppor tu n ities to wor k togeth er or w ith th e
sa m e stu den ts, a n d m ost h ave n o r ea l sen se of
ow n er sh ip of th e DL m a ter ia ls or of th e
cou r se in gen er a l.
Addition a lly, fr om bein g th e “fl a gsh ip”
postgr a du a te cou r se for its depa r tm en t, th e
cou r se is n ow m er ely on e of m a n y a n d is a
r ela tively “low ea r n er ” com pa r ed w ith th ose
wh ich r ecr u it fr om a fi n a n cia lly r ich er m a r k et. Th e ME d cou r se h a s u n dou btedly been a
seedbed for sever a l oth er s wh ich h ave dr aw n
on its m a ter ia ls, pr ocedu r es a n d th e exper tise
of sta ff wh o h ave wor k ed th r ou gh its va r iou s
m eta m or ph oses. However, in th e n ew, vola tile
a n d cost-con sciou s edu ca tion a l m a r k et, it is
h a r d n ot to fa ll in to th e tr a p of r e ga r din g a
cou r se wh ich gr ew ou t of a differ en t tr a dition
a s a n elder ly r ela tive wh o, despite a fa ce-lift
a n d even life-givin g in jection s of n ew m a ter ia ls, is less excitin g to spen d tim e w ith th a n
[ 272 ]
you n ger a n d wea lth ier m em ber s of th e fa m ily! Th is is clea r ly a n in stitu tion a l m a n a gem en t issu e wh ich r evolves a r ou n d th e w ay in
wh ich “m a in ten a n ce” is va lu ed a ga in st
“in n ova tion ”; wh er e sta ff a r e en cou r a ged to
pu t th eir en er gies; a n d wh er e th eir m otiva tion a n d job sa tisfa ction com e fr om .
In its ea r ly days th e n otion of sta ff developm en t w a s bu ilt in to th e cou r se. E a ch m odu le
w a s co-or din a ted by differ en t fu ll-tim e m em ber s of sta ff. Th ey wer e r espon sible for th e
tim eta ble, a ssessm en t a n d eva lu a tion of
“th eir ” m odu le a lth ou gh session s wou ld be
ta u gh t by va r iou s m em ber s of th e sta ff tea m .
Th e seven tea m m em ber s th er efor e m et a ll
th e stu den ts for a fu ll day’s tea ch in g sever a l
tim es in th e yea r a n d wou ld lia ise dir ectly
w ith in dividu a l stu den ts over a ssign m en ts on
topics wh ich th ey h a d set. In gen er a l, sta ff
a lso took it in tu r n s to a ct a s yea r tu tor to a
stu den t coh or t. Sta ff m et for m a lly a s a m a n a gem en t tea m a t lea st th r ee tim es a yea r to
discu ss m a tter s r ela tin g to th e cou r se in gen er a l a n d to th e pr ogr ess of in dividu a l stu den ts.
A design a ted cou r se secr eta r y ser viced
th ese m eetin gs a n d oth er w ise pr ovided tr a dition a l, fa ir ly low -k ey, secr eta r ia l ba ck -u p to
th e cou r se. Th is la tter r ole h a s ch a n ged
m a r k edly w ith th e in tr odu ction of DL a n d th e
con sequ en t n eed both to m a in ta in a da ta ba se
of stu den t a dm ission s a n d pr ogr ess a n d to
pr ovide “fr on t-lin e” con ta ct for stu den ts
wh ose m a in m ea n s of com m u n ica tion is by
teleph on e or letter. Most sign ifica n tly, th e
over view of th e cou r se a n d stu den ts on ce
collectively h eld by th e m a n a gem en t tea m
h a s n ow devolved a lm ost exclu sively to th e
cou r se secr eta r y a n d dir ector, w ith m a jor
im plica tion s for tu tor s’ sen se of “ow n er sh ip”
of, a n d in dir ectly th eir com m itm en t to, th e
cou r se.
Th e m a n a gem en t of th e cou r se w a s or igin a lly str u ctu r ed on th e pr em ise th a t a n y n ew
a ca dem ic sta ff cou ld be in du cted in to it gr a du a lly via tea ch in g sin gle session s, a n d th en ce
th r ou gh m odu le co-or din a tion – pr oba bly
in itia lly of a n option in th eir ow n specia lism ,
– to yea r tu tor in g. It w a s a lso in ten ded th a t
th e r ole of cou r se dir ector sh ou ld r ota te per iodica lly both to pr ovide n ew “vision ” for th e
cou r se a n d to a llow th e ou tgoin g dir ector to
a dopt a m or e m in or r ole in th e pr ogr a m m e in
or der to develop oth er in ter ests (see J oh n ston
(1990), for fu r th er ela bor a tion of th is m odel of
cou r se a n d sta ff developm en t).
In ter estin gly, th is str u ctu r e wea th er ed th e
tr a n sition to th e DL for m a t w ith a ca dem ic
m em ber s of sta ff ta k in g r espon sibility for
“tr a n sla tin g” ea ch of th eir ta u gh t session s
in to a text-ba sed u n it. Modu les con ta in ed
eigh t u n its, ea ch of a ppr oxim a tely 30 pa ges,
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
pr esen ted sim ply in a n A4 file. It w a s th e coor din a tor ’s job to en su r e th a t th e m odu le w a s
coh er en t, to w r ite th e in tr odu ction a n d to set
a ssign m en ts – th ou gh th ese con tin u ed to be
m a r k ed by th e a ppr opr ia te specia list sta ff
m em ber.
Sta ff h a d n o for m a l tr a in in g in w r itin g DL
m a ter ia ls bu t a gr eed th a t th e style wou ld be
in for m a l a n d a s close a s possible to wh a t th ey
wou ld “deliver ” both ver ba lly a n d in th e for m
of h a n dou ts in a on e-day ta u gh t session .
Wh er e th ey m igh t pa u se in su ch a session to
pose a qu estion for gr ou p discu ssion or r efl ection , “boxes” wou ld be in tr odu ced in th e text
wh er e DL stu den ts wou ld be en cou r a ged to
w r ite in a r espon se, to en ga ge in som e oth er
a ctivity, or sim ply to u n der ta k e fu r th er r ea din g befor e con tin u in g w ith th e u n it. In th is
w ay it w a s h oped th a t stu den ts wou ld be a ble
to in ter a ct, a s fa r a s is possible w ith pu r ely
text-ba sed m a ter ia ls, a n d a lso obta in th e
“flavou r ” of sta ff m em ber s’ in dividu a l tea ch in g styles a n d a ppr oa ch es to th eir su bjects.
Th ou gh a ll th is a ppea r ed to be qu ite
str a igh tfor w a r d in th eor y, th e pr a ctice w a s
in evita bly fa r m or e com plica ted. Alth ou gh –
wh er e it seem ed eth ica lly a ppr opr ia te to do so
or / a n d stu den ts’ per m ission cou ld be
obta in ed – exa m ples cou ld be in cor por a ted
in to th e w r itten m a ter ia ls fr om ea r lier discu ssion s w ith “ta u gh t” stu den ts, th e a bsen ce
of a ctive dia logu e w ith stu den ts wh o wou ld be
wor k in g fr om th e DL m a ter ia ls m ea n t th a t
tu tor s h a d to a n ticipa te a n d a n swer qu estion s
th r ou gh th eir w r itin g.
Th e pr ocess of w r itin g is ver y differ en t
fr om th e pr ocess of tea ch in g. In ta k in g m y
ow n idea s a n d tech n iqu es fr om on e sph er e to
th e oth er I be ga n to qu estion a ssu m ption s in
m y tea ch in g th a t m igh t oth er w ise h ave
r em a in ed h idden or been ign or ed. I a lso felt a
gr ea ter n eed to ju stify wh a t I w a s w r itin g
beca u se stu den ts wou ld n ot im m edia tely be
a ble to ch a llen ge m e a s th ey m igh t in a fa ceto-fa ce session . In con sequ en ce, I n ot on ly
sea r ch ed ou t m or e r efer en ces bu t, sittin g
a lon e in fr on t of m y com pu ter scr een , I be ga n
to tr y to expla in a n d defen d m y ow n va lu e
ba se in a w ay th a t h a d r a r ely been r equ ir ed of
m e in th e sem in a r r oom . Lik e a ll for m s of
r eflective pr a ctice, it w a s n ot en tir ely com for ta ble – a n d it w a s tim e-con su m in g.
N ever th eless, beca u se of th e “ta n gibility” of
th e w r itten wor d a n d th e n eed for a u n it to be
seen to be coh er en t a n d com plete, I som etim es feel th a t DL stu den ts get a better dea l
fr om m e in ter m s of “in pu t” th a n th eir
“ta u gh t” cou n ter pa r ts. I m igh t be tem pted to
a n swer a qu estion in a sem in a r, for exa m ple,
w ith th e stock , “Th a t’s a good qu estion bu t
per h a ps we cou ld com e ba ck to it la ter ” – on ly
to over look it or fi n d it over ta k en by oth er
issu es a s th e en d of th e session a ppr oa ch es.
However, I fin d it a lm ost im possible to let a
u n it go to pr in t w ith ou t givin g som e k in d of
r espon se to qu estion s th a t h ave been
br oa ch ed even ta n gen tia lly by wh a t I h ave
w r itten . Sim ila r ly, in com m en tin g in discu ssion th a t on a pa r ticu la r issu e “My ow n view
is ...”, th e n eed to ju stify th a t view seem s
m u ch less n ecessa r y th a n wh en I com m it it to
pa per.
Clea r ly, n ot a ll for m s of w r itin g or m a tter s
of con ten t r equ ir e su ch per son a l in tr ospection or com m en t. I h ave fou n d, th ou gh , th a t
th e pr ocess of tr a n sla tin g th e con ten ts of m y
ta u gh t session s in to DL m a ter ia ls – a n d
th er eby open in g th em u p for scr u tin y by
collea gu es a s well a s by stu den ts – h a s m a de
m e ver y con sciou s of th e n eed to fi ll ga ps in
m y k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g th a t I
m igh t oth er w ise h ave h a ppily glossed over.
In deed, on e ver y u sefu l con sequ en ce of dr aw in g a ll ou r m a ter ia ls togeth er in DL for m a t
w a s to m a k e th e wh ole a ca dem ic cou r se tea m
m u ch m or e aw a r e th a n h ith er to of in dividu a l
differ en ces in sta n dpoin t a n d style – a n d th u s
of wh er e ga ps a n d over la ps a ppea r ed in th e
tu tor in pu t to th e ME d pr ogr a m m e. Th e in tr odu ction of DL th er efor e h a d a “k n ock -ba ck ”
effect on th e ta u gh t cou r se wh ich ben efited
fr om n ew in sigh ts a n d m a ter ia ls.
Con ver sely, th e DL m a ter ia ls con tin u ed to
be u pda ted to in clu de issu es a r isin g fr om th e
sh a r in g of idea s in fa ce-to-fa ce session s. With
th e dem ise of th e ta u gh t cou r se, we a r e n ow
h avin g to con sider ca r efu lly h ow to k eep th e
DL m a ter ia ls “live”. Th is con sider a tion h a s
been com plica ted by r a pid sta ff ch a n ges over
th e pa st two yea r s wh ich h ave br ou gh t a n
a br u pt en d to th e m odel of cou r se a n d sta ff
developm en t wh ich u n der pin n ed th e pr ogr a m m e ten yea r s a go a n d wh ich fu r n ish ed
a ll sta ff w ith a clea r over view of th e cou r se
con ten t a n d stu den ts’ pr ogr ess. How to, a n d
wh o besides th e cou r se dir ector a n d a dm in istr a tive secr eta r y sh ou ld, m a in ta in th is
over view wh en a ll stu den ts wor k a t a dista n ce a n d h ave m in im a l or n o con ta ct w ith
som e m em ber s of th e cou r se tea m is th e su bject of con tin u in g deba te.
Sin ce m ost m odu les a r e n ow co-or din a ted
by sta ff wh o, th ou gh specia lists in th e topic
a r ea s, wer e n ot in volved in w r itin g th e or igin a l m a ter ia ls, qu estion s of h ow best to
in clu de com pletely n ew m a ter ia ls a n d, especia lly, h ow to u pda te a n d a m en d th ose w r itten
by collea gu es n o lon ger in volved in th e pr ogr a m m e a r e be gin n in g to r a ise oth er qu estion s a bou t con tin u ity, coh er en ce a n d copyr igh t. Su ch pr oblem s a r e h avin g to be
a ddr essed a t a tim e wh en a ll th e cor e sta ff
n ow con tr ibu tin g to th e pr ogr a m m e a r e
sim u lta n eou sly com m itted to developin g
[ 273 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
oth er pr ogr a m m es a n d in cr ea sin gly r espon din g to th e in ter n a lly a n d exter n a lly im posed
bu r ea u cr a tic pr ocedu r es a ssocia ted w ith
a ccr edita tion a n d qu a lity a ssu r a n ce.
Quality issues
Appen dix 1 su m m a r ises th e gen er a l issu es so
fa r discu ssed wh ich h ave a r isen fr om th e
som ewh a t r ea ctive developm en t of th e ME d
cou r se over 17 yea r s in wh ich pr ior ities in ,
m odels of, a n d fu n din g for, con tin u in g edu ca tion h ave been in a con sta n t sta te of ch a n ge.
All h ave obviou s im plica tion s for th e m a in ten a n ce of th e pr ogr a m m e’s qu a lity.
Th e ir on y of th e pr esen t em ph a sis on “m ea su r in g” qu a lity wh en sta ff a r e over str etch ed
a n d th in k in g tim e is a t a pr em iu m is
in esca pa ble. N ever th eless, a depa r tm en ta l
ch eck list of cr iter ia for defin in g qu a lity
tea ch in g h a s been devised. Th is is
su m m a r ised in Appen dix 2 wh ich a lso in dica tes th e exten t to wh ich th e ME d DL pr ogr a m m e m eets th e cr iter ia .
Reflective learning
Th e in for m a tion su m m a r ised a s Appen dix 2
w a s u sed in th e r ecen t r eview of th e ME d: on
su ch a ch eck list th e cou r se is dem on str a bly
doin g well. However, even a cu r sor y gla n ce a t
Appen dices 1 a n d 2 ca n n ot fa il to illu str a te
th e differ en ce in th e n a tu r e of th e poin ts
listed th ou gh both lists a r e clea r ly lin k ed to
th e qu a lity a n d n a tu r e of th e stu den t exper ien ce. So, wh a t is goin g on h er e?
Bor r ow in g Her zber g’s (1966) ter m s, th e
tea ch in g qu a lity ch eck list seem s pr im a r ily to
pr ovide a m ea su r e of th e cou r se’s “h ygien e
fa ctor s”: th ose wh ich en su r e th a t a n or ga n isa tion or pr ocess r u n s sm ooth ly bu t wh ich
becom e n oticea ble on ly wh en th ey be gin to
br ea k dow n . Th e issu es listed in Appen dix 1
seem , by con tr a st, to be m or e str on gly a ssocia ted w ith Her zber g’s “m otiva tor fa ctor s”:
th ose wh ich en cou r a ge or h in der people fr om
a ccom plish in g th e wor k in wh ich th ey a r e
en ga ged, in th is ca se tea ch in g/ lea r n in g.
Iden tifyin g th e h ygien e fa ctor s wh ich
u n der pin a cou r se of stu dy, a n d en su r in g th a t
th ey a r e in pla ce a n d oper a tion a l, is r a th er
lik e oilin g its wh eels. If “qu a lity” is a bou t
“fitn ess for pu r pose” a n d a cou r se’s pu r pose
is sim ply to r oll, th en a “qu a lity ch eck list”
lik e th a t sh ow n in Appen dix 2 is in va lu a ble. It
is in ter estin g to n ote, h owever, th a t th is pa r ticu la r list w a s in itia lly devised by a sm a ll
gr ou p of m a n a ger s wh o h a d n o k n ow ledge of
th e con ten t or oper a tion of th e ME d
pr ogr a m m e; a n d a lso th a t th e ch eck list is
[ 274 ]
in ten ded for u se in a w ide r a n ge of cou r ses
a n d pr ogr a m m es a t a ll levels of stu dy fr om
u n der gr a du a te cer tifica tes to h igh er de gr ees.
To con tin u e w ith m y ea r lier a n a logy, th er efor e, su ch a list m ay h elp to a ssu r e tr aveller s
of a sm ooth jou r n ey bu t it pays sca n t a tten tion eith er to wh er e th ey h ave com e fr om a n d
wh er e th ey a r e h opin g to go, or to th e con text
in wh ich th eir jou r n ey ta k es pla ce.
Th e expr essed pu r pose of th e ME d in Con tin u in g E du ca tion is to en a ble exper ien ced
a du lt edu ca tor s a n d tr a in er s to in te gr a te
th eor y w ith pr a ctice: in oth er wor ds, to
explor e a ca dem ic k n ow ledge (th e th eor y
wh ich exists “ou t th er e”) a n d th eir ow n pr ofession a l exper ien ce (th e u n der sta n din g
wh ich exists “in h er e” in th eir ow n th ou gh t
pr ocesses), a n d to a r ticu la te th e r ela tion sh ip
between th e two. As I h ave a lr ea dy in dica ted,
th e con ten t of th e pr ogr a m m e (th e w r itten
m a ter ia ls, r efer en ces, tu tor in pu t, etc.) is th u s
in extr ica bly lin k ed to th e con text in wh ich a ll
pa r ticipa n ts – stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e – a r e
oper a tin g a t a n y given tim e.
In con sequ en ce, fa ctor s su ch a s th ose listed
in Appen dix 1 n ot on ly in fl u en ce th e wor k in g
a n d lea r n in g en vir on m en t of cou r se pa r ticipa n ts bu t sim u lta n eou sly becom e th e su bject
of th eir stu dy. Th e pr ogr a m m e ca n n ot th er efor e fu lfil its pu r pose – i.e. its qu a lity is n ot
m ea su r a ble – w ith ou t r efer en ce to th ese fa ctor s. Yet it is vir tu a lly im possible to pr epa r e
a n a ll-pu r pose, on ce-a n d-for -a ll ch eck list, lik e
th a t r epr esen ted in Appen dix 2, sin ce su ch
fa ctor s a r e con sta n tly ch a n gin g a n d, in a n y
ca se, h ave a va r ia ble in fl u en ce on differ en t
in dividu a ls.
As I n oted ea r lier, on e w ay in wh ich som e
tu tor s on th e ME d h ave been a ttem ptin g to
squ a r e th is cir cle over th e la st th r ee yea r s is
th r ou gh th e pr ocesses of r eflective pr a ctice
(Br ook fi eld, 1995; Sch on , 1983), both on ou r
ow n a ccou n t a n d in fa cilita tin g stu den ts’
r efl ective pr a ctice. I h ave dr aw n a tten tion
elsewh er e to th e pr a ctica lities of oper a tin g a s
a r efl ective tu tor -gr ou p (Hu n t et a l., 1994) a n d
to th e im plica tion s of in cor por a tin g r eflective
pr a ctice a s a m a jor a ssessed elem en t of a
postgr a du a te cou r se (Hu n t, 1997, 1998). Th er e
is n ot th e spa ce to com m en t on th ese a ga in
h er e bu t su ffice it to say th a t, th ou gh n eith er
a ctivity is ea sy, ea ch is fa scin a tin g a n d
u n dou btedly con tr ibu tes to ou r per son a l
developm en t a s well a s to th a t of th e cou r se.
Addition a l DL m a ter ia ls h ave been w r itten
ea ch yea r to in cor por a te ou r ow n r ecen t
th in k in g on th e su bject togeth er w ith feedba ck a n d su ggestion s fr om stu den ts a n d n ew
r efer en ces to r eflective pr a ctice in th e a ca dem ic liter a tu r e.
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
F a r fr om pr ovidin g a ch eck list to focu s th e
m in d on th e “wh eels” th a t k eep th e ME d
r ollin g in a n a ccepta ble m a n n er, u sin g th e
cou r se a s a veh icle in wh ich to develop ou r
u n der sta n din g a n d sk ills a bou t r efl ective
pr a ctice a n d its fa cilita tion fr equ en tly blow s
ou r m in ds. E n ga gin g in r efl ection for ces u s
a n d ou r stu den ts to a sk r epea tedly “Wh a t is
goin g on h er e?” in ou r r espective edu ca tion a l
pr a ctices a n d in stitu tion s a n d in ou r ow n
lea r n in g exper ien ces. Th e pu r pose of th e
ME d cou r se in its stu den ts’ lives, a n d th e
pu r pose of ou r r ole a s tu tor s on it, is th u s
open to con sta n t qu estion a n d r evision .
Ar gu a bly, th er efor e, th e qu a lity of th e cou r se
is m ea su r a ble n ot ju st in th e exten t to wh ich
“h ygien e fa ctor s” ca n be ch eck ed a n d m a in ta in ed – bu t in th e exten t to wh ich we a n d ou r
stu den ts a r e lea r n in g to r ecogn ise a n d dea l
w ith fa ctor s in ou r in stitu tion s a n d ou r
m in ds th a t m otiva te a n d h in der u s a ll a s
lea r n er s a n d tea ch er s.
Th is ca se stu dy su ggests th a t th e a dven t of
DL m ay, in deed, r epr esen t a sh or t-ter m ga in
in en a blin g a n existin g cou r se to su r vive.
However, wh en su ch a cou r se su bsequ en tly
a ctively en cou r a ges its stu den ts a n d sta ff to
a ddr ess issu es wh ich a r e politica lly a n d a ca dem ica lly sign ifi ca n t in th e lea r n in g en vir on m en t of th eir ow n in stitu tion s, it wou ld seem
to be ta ppin g in to r ea l “fu n da m en ta l a n d
lon ger -ter m qu a lity issu es” (Law, 1997) wh ich
go beyon d con sider a tion s of its ow n su r viva l,
con ten t a n d deliver y in to th ose of th e w ider
in stitu tion a l a n d politica l con text. In th is
con text “m a n a ger s” r a th er th a n edu ca tion a l
pr a ctition er s per se h ave tr a dition a lly been
th e decision m a k er s. Per h a ps th e cr u cia l
decision s n ow fa cin g th em a r e n ot on ly h ow
to cr ea te tim e a n d in cen tive for pr a ctition er s
to wor k r eflectively r a th er th a n r ea ctively, bu t
h ow to a ct u pon pr ofession a l in sigh ts th u s
obta in ed.
References
Br ook fi eld, S.D. (1995), B ecom in g a Cr itica lly
R efl ectiv e T ea ch er, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA.
Her zber g, F. (1966), Work a n d th e N a tu re of M a n ,
Wor ld P u blish in g Com pa n y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Hu n t, C. (1997), “Sh a dow s in th e sw a m p: dia logu es
in r efl ective pr a ctice”, in Ar m str on g, P.,
Miller, N. a n d Zu k a s, M. (E ds), Crossin g
b ord ers, b rea k in g b ou n d a r ies, resea rch in th e
ed u ca tion of a d u lts: a n in ter n a tion a l
con feren ce, P a per s fr om th e 27th An n u a l
SCUTRE A Con fer en ce, Un iver sity of Leeds,
Sta n din g Con fer en ce on Un iver sity Tea ch in g
a n d Resea r ch in th e E du ca tion of Adu lts
(SCUTRE A), pp. 235-9.
Hu n t, C. (1998), “Lea r n in g fr om Ler n er : r efl ection s on fa cilita tin g r efl ective pr a ctice”, J ou r -
n a l of Fu r th er a n d High er Ed u ca tion , Vol. 22
N o. 1, pp. 25-31.
Hu n t, C., E dw a r ds, C., McKay, A. a n d Taylor, W.
(1994), “Th e da n ce of th e tu m bleweed: r eflection s on esta blish in g a r efl ective pr a ctice
tu tor gr ou p”, in Ar m str on g, P., Br igh t, B. a n d
Zu k a s, M. (E ds), R efl ectin g on Ch a n gin g Pra ctices, Con tex ts a n d Id en tities, Proceed in gs of
th e 24th A n n u a l Con feren ce, Un iver sity of
Hu ll, Sta n din g Con fer en ce on Un iver sity
Tea ch in g a n d Resea r ch in th e E du ca tion of
Adu lts (SCUTRE A), pp. 53-5.
J oh n ston , R. (1990), “Modu la r isa tion : a n oppor tu n ity for sta ff developm en t”, In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Un iv ersity A d u lt Ed u ca tion , Vol.
XXIX N o. 2, pp. 14-21.
Law, S. (1997), “Lea r n in g lesson s: wh y ch oose
dista n ce lea r n in g in edu ca tion
m a n a gem en t?”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. II N o. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Sch on , D.A. (1983), T h e R efl ectiv e Pra ctition er:
How Profession a ls T h in k in A ction , Ba sic
Book s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Appendix 1 – Issues arising from “ reactive
development”
• in cr ea sin g stu den t n u m ber s
• in cr ea sin g dista n ce fr om u n iver sity ba se of
“dista n t lea r n er s” (som e in r em ote loca tion s w ith poor libr a r y/ IT su ppor t)
• la ck of su ppor t fr om m ost em ployer s (in
m on ey or tim e)
• less h om ogen eou s stu den t gr ou p – wor k in g
in m u ch w ider r a n ge of edu ca tion a l settin gs (cor e of com m on k n ow ledge/ expecta tion s ca n n o lon ger be a ssu m ed)
• pr essu r e on m a n y stu den ts to obta in a
h igh er de gr ee beca u se of em ploym en t
situ a tion (a ch ieve ta sk v. gr ow in g th r ou gh
pr ocess? exa cer ba ted by m odu la r
a ppr oa ch ?)
• tu tor s h ave less in pu t to, or dir ect k n ow ledge of, stu den ts’ lea r n in g or wor k in g
en vir on m en ts
• tu tor s a lso u n der sa m e pr essu r e a s m a n y
stu den ts to “deliver m or e w ith less”; less
tigh tly focu sed on pr ogr a m m e beca u se of
pr essu r e to design / develop oth er
pr ogr a m m es; in cr ea sin g u se of pa r t-tim e
tu tor s
• wh a t is th e r ela tion sh ip between stu den ts,
th ose wh o “w r ote dow n ” th eir tea ch in g in
a n oth er pla ce a n d tim e a n d n ew tu tor s wh o
m edia te between stu den ts a n d w r itten
m a ter ia ls wh en th e or igin a l a u th or s h ave
left? wh a t con stitu tes “qu a lity tea ch in g” in
th ese cir cu m sta n ces, a n d wh o ju dges?
• la ck of “qu a lity tim e” for r eflection by stu den ts a n d tu tor s a lik e
[ 275 ]
Che ryl Hunt
Distanc e le arning: sho rt-te rm
gain, lo ng-te rm c o mmitme nt –
a c ase study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 6 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 7 0 –2 7 6
[ 276 ]
Appendix 2 – Criteria for defi ning “ quality
teaching”
(S h ow in g th e ex ten t to w h ich th ese a re m et
w ith in th e M Ed DL progra m m e)
• Th e tu tor h a s th e n ecessa r y sk ills, k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g to en a ble stu den ts
to a ch ieve th e lea r n in g objectives of th e
cou r se
(A ll tu tors a re ex per ien ced a d u lt ed u ca tors
w h o tea ch on a va r iety of progra m m es; w h o
h a v e w ork ed in oth er settin gs; a n d a re
in volv ed in resea rch , som e a lso in con su lta n cy
a n d d ev elopm en t)
• Cou r se deta ils a r e explicit, clea r a n d com pr eh en sible to a pplica n ts a n d to stu den ts.
Cou r se objectives a n d th e n a tu r e of ta sk s
a n d a ssign m en ts a r e clea r
(B ook let ou tlin in g th e a im s, stru ctu re, con ten t
a n d n a tu re of th e progra m m e, en tr y requ irem en ts a n d a d m ission s proced u res sen t to
prospectiv e stu d en ts; in vita tion to d iscu ss th e
cou rse w ith a tu tor b efore for m a l a pplica tion .
“S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ” giv es d eta ils on presen ta tion a n d a ssessm en t of a ssign m en ts, in clu d in g
tu tors’ m a rk in g gu id elin es, a n d m in im u m
requ irem en ts for progression b etw een “lev els”
of th e progra m m e. R a n ge of a ssign m en ts
lin k ed to con ten t of ea ch m od u le su ggested ;
n egotia tion of in d ivid u a l title possible.
A im s/ ob jectiv es of ea ch m od u le giv en in w r itin g. B ook let of “Disser ta tion Gu id elin es”
issu ed givin g fu ll d eta ils of su per visor ’s a n d
stu d en t’s respon sib ilities a n d a ll su ppor t
m ech a n ism s.)
• Stu den ts a r e in volved in a ctive lea r n in g
a n d r eceive a ppr opr ia te a n d sen sitive feedba ck on th eir per for m a n ce
(A ll a ssessm en t b y cou rse-w ork ; w r itten feed b a ck giv en . Fu ll ten cred it m od u le w ith focu s
on refl ectiv e pra ctice (R P) ru n s th rou gh ou t th e
cou rse; person a l tu tor provid es w r itten feed b a ck on ea ch R P “in cid en t” su b m itted – u su a lly on ce per ter m – a n d teleph on e su ppor t a s
requ ired .)
• Assign m en ts a n d oth er ta sk s per for m ed by
stu den ts a r e r etu r n ed pr om ptly
(Proced u res/ tim esca les for h a n d in g in / retu r n
(w ith in 3 w eek s) ex plicit in “S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ”. Cou rse secreta r y is h u b of th e opera tion ,
h a n d les d a tab a se to “tra ck ” w h ereab ou ts of
a ssign m en ts, etc.)
• Stu den ts’ view s on th e cou r se con ten t a n d
on its deliver y a r e solicited in a system a tic
m a n n er, a n d u sed to r eview th e cou r se a n d
tu tor per for m a n ce
(S tu d en ts com plete a n d retu r n eva lu a tion
for m s a t th e en d of ea ch u n it, m od u le a n d d ay
sch ool; u sed b y m od u le co-ord in a tors in u pd a tin g m a ter ia ls ea ch yea r. Provision for v er b a l
feed b a ck a t d ay sch ools via tu tors a n d in session led b y stu d en t represen ta tiv e w h o sits on
for m a l m a n a gem en t tea m .)
• Tea ch in g ta k es pla ce in a n a ppr opr ia te
en vir on m en t a n d is su ppor ted by a ccess to
a ll n ecessa r y fa cilities a n d r esou r ces
(T h e latter problem atic, as n oted abov e; librar y
staff cu r ren tly in v estigatin g w ays of su ppor tin g
DL stu den ts better; acqu irin g teach in g space for
stu den ts w h o atten d on ly on ce each ter m is a
peren n ial problem – “ou t of sigh t” can m ean
v er y m u ch ou t of th e m in d of u n iv ersity staff n ot
directly in volv ed w ith DL program m es, especially adm in istrativ e “gatek eepers”.)
• Stu den ts k n ow wh o to tu r n to for h elp,
a dvice, or to r e gister com pla in ts a n d th a t
issu es th ey r a ise w ill be dea lt w ith sym pa th etica lly a n d effectively
(“S tu d en t Ha n d b ook ” lists n a m es/ role of a ll
sta ff in volv ed in progra m m e; a ll a ca d em ic a n d
su ppor t sta ff plu s stu d en t reps m eet a s m a n a gem en t tea m a t lea st on ce ea ch ter m . N a m ed
cou rse secreta r y often fi rst por t of ca ll for stu d en ts – ca n h a n d le m ost qu er ies im m ed ia tely
or red irect qu er ies.)
• Tu tor s r eflect on th eir pr a ctice a n d per for m a n ce a n d en ga ge in developm en t of th eir
sk ills a n d k n ow ledge
(Person a l tu tors w h o a ssist stu d en ts w ith R P
m od u le, plu s oth er in terested sta ff, m eet tw ice a
ter m a s a refl ectiv e pra ctice grou p.)
So u rce : Un iver sity of Sh effield, DACE : SelfAssessm en t Sta tem en t, October 1994)