J-OMDE+608

Author: Stuart Adams Created: 9/12/2010 My post (#8)reflects my concern that a working definition of "Learner Support" is too mushy and diffuse, covering most everything in the realm of distance education. I prefer more a focus definition to a more inclusive one. Prof Brindley argues against technology being included in in the scope of Learner Support. My point wasn't to suggest that should be so included but illustrate the value of a more specific definition. In Maria LaPadula's paper she suggests a definition (" the assistance and guidance that students arte offered above and beyond the learning materials" - (my highlight)) that seems more workable. For me, a starting point would be that those activities that happen outside of the classroom in a campus-based learning environment are Learner Support to students in that environment. So, those same activities would also be Learner Support in a distance-based environment. I recognize that this leaves open the question of whether "equivalency" is an acceptable standard for DE; perhaps it's a minimum standard. But, as a working definition, this seems more useful to me.
 * OMDE 608 Learner Support in Distance Education and Training** - Fall 2010 ﻿   Defining "Learner Support"

A Model for Online Learner Support Author: Stuart Adams Created: 9/24/2010 On Sept 22, I posted this in the class conference: If I may broaden Nancy's (Wooten, a classmate) question just a bit to ask "how is any educational institution capable of providing [the] service[s] needed for their student population?" I found something rather visionary in M. Johnson's conclusion where she says "the future is one where the autonomous student uses these resources according their need and their preference in a way that suites them." The institutions meets students needs "by offering a dual medium range of materials from which students can pick and mix to create their own self help 'packages'." Using Johnson's OU UK model, the institution can:
 * Deliver a needed services;
 * Use a range of technologies that match the delivery modes (i.e.: print, online) that are native to the learner;
 * Offer the support services so that they can be used "just in time" that is, as the student recognizes the need for them; and
 * Maintain (and respect) the autonomy of the student.

I nominate this model as a prototype for our future consideration of various learner support services. No one in the class commented on this model. For the future, until something else comes along that I find more useful and effective, I will use this as my "ideal type" model for OLL Learner Support Services

Damn, Another Annotated Bibliography Assignment Author: Stuart Adams Created: 9/24/2010 My fourth "annotated bibliography" assignment and this one seems practically worthless. I really don't need more practice in writing A/Bs and this assignment seems to serve no purpose beyond requiring me to prove that I've read all of the required readings. I'm glad I won't have to do this for the rest of the course' readings. Sad that I have to take precious time away from thinking about and discoursing on these reading in the student conferences (or doing other reading on the subject). Rather dilutes the whole constructivist learning process, it seems to me.

Sorry…had to get that one off my chest so I could continue working on this Friday night. Is DE and Online Learning a Good Fit for K-12? Author: Stuart Adams Created: 10/31/2010 In a lively and entertaining conversation in this class, a number of classmates who are OLL instructors commented on how much more difficult DE/OLL is for both the instructor and the student. One student playfully suggested that it was time to go "kick some virtual butt" on those who thinl DE/OLL is a "walk in the park" compared to F2F teaching and learning. (LOL)

One student noted that "Online is demanding and not everyone is suited to this type of learning. " This statement, not a new or foreign idea, is noteworthy in considering models of DE/OLL as they might bu proliferated across the learning universe. This is a serious potential drawback, especially when I conceptualize OLL in the K-12 (perhaps more explicitly, the 6-12) world. It may not work, at least not for everyone. This is one reason why I think that a blended learning model, with instructor leading the class, is a must for K-12 OLL, especially in the public school environment. Summary of Learner Support for DE Author: Stuart Adams Created: 10/31/2010

I opened the “Rationale” section of my final paper in this class with this statement:

// It is an appropriate initial assumption that the ALTAS students, despite having real challenges with the learning process, are fully capable of learning. Any system that is designed to support these students’ learning, must put the student at the center of the learning process, and must take their challenges as a starting point. In addition to being student centered, the solution should be designed to fit within the context SSD and its values and constraints, ALTAS’ programmatic goals and values, and the students’ needs. Finally, the new system should be comprehensive, taking a broad, integrated approach to meeting the programmatic needs. //

These three attributes, student-centeredness, contextualization, and comprehensiveness, are the key issues in Learner Support.

The first is obvious: there really is no point in trying to develop a learner support program without making it about the students, their success in learning, their satisfaction with the learning program. No doubt, this can be harder that it might seem. When a learning institution sets out to support students, the many good intentions can be overwhelmed by practical realities or by long-standing institutional culture (see DEPM 604 – Leadership in Distance Education). Still, without a clear focus on the needs of the students, their characteristics and capabilities, their learning goals, their limitations, the program might end up failing.

The second issue, contextualization, takes off from learner centeredness. The needs of high school alternative learner s, as profiled in our case study are different from typical high school students. And high school students are much different than adult returning students. This is the issue of context and learner support must take cognizance of it. It is especially important to recognize that the online learner operates in a different context than the face to face learner.

The final attribute, comprehensiveness, speaks to the issue of dealing with the breadth of the students’ needs to the degree that is possible. A number of different models were presented in the class that attempted it identify and categorize the range of student services and measures that might be offered. Again, context may help to prioritize the services. But, if the services offered is limited or if too much emphasis is given to some forms of service and support over others, students in the program may suffer.

Other important issues were raised in this course. One is whether the costs of providing such services and resource are truly worthwhile. The consensus is that cost must be a variable in developing the implementation plan of the learner support program. It is unrealistic to make plans that cannot be supported but the available resources. But we did learn that there are many resources that might be creatively drawn on. Conversely, it is irresponsible, and unethical to implement a distance learning program that doesn’t provide adequate learner services. This especially true of the schools that are actively oriented towards not delivering a quality educational program while collecting high profits from failed students. Another (of real interest to me) is the degree to which student services can be offered to the online learner in a fully automated mode.

But the three issues seem to me to be the central concerns of learner support.