Part 3

Lessons of Experience

 3.2 What is the relationship between learner support and the distance

 education  programme as a whole? 

In Part 1 of this report we adopted a working definition of learner support as: 

• “the interface between the institution and its students” (Sewart, 1982) as developed for a particular population of learners within a particular context
• activities and interventions other than those which are mass produced and prepackaged
• interventions which may take place through a range of activities, a variety of mediums, a range of support staff, a variety of venues and at varying stages of a learner’s progress
• activities aimed at meeting the unique needs of the individual (although this may occur in groups) and which have as their specific goal counteracting disadvantage and ensuring opportunities for success and a quality educational experience.

 In arriving at the above definition, we remarked on the wide variety of perceptions of learner support that exist in practice and the limited range of publications dedicated to learner support in comparison with other aspects of distance learning such as course design. It was therefore not surprising to find very little in the way of documented definitions and statements about learner support in the programmes involved in the research. Most of what was learned about perceptions of learner support arose from interviews with programme stakeholders (learners and staff). The general impression gained was that learner support is perceived as “part and parcel of the course” (ACCESSDL&T: ECD) rather than a separate range of activities tacked on to a core programme, and that learner support therefore has to be built into programme planning from the start.

It is also clear from the case studies that learner support needs to embrace both academic support as well as personal support in dealing with challenges relating to personal problems, financial difficulties, etc. This raises once again the issue of the training of learner support staff, as discussed in Part 1, who can play both an academic tutoring and a personal counselling role. 

Most learners and programme tutors talk about learner support in terms of the types of activities and interventions that are offered rather than in terms of an underpinning concept or educational philosophy. However, the general impression gained from both tutors and learners can be expressed as “assisting learners to continue with their studies . . . to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills . . . [and] being available . . . in a manner that is required by the learners . . . not only during classes but whenever there are difficulties”, “What you need is guidance that you are on the right track” (UP: BCur). 

The UOFS BML case study offers an interesting perception that is quite different from the other case studies in that the programme is not seen as a distance course per se but rather as “a mode of intense delivery . . . that is interactive, flexible, and individualised and that involves part time study, on and off campus work and contact and resource-based learning”. 

This viewpoint is indicative of a resistance to the ‘distance’ implied in ‘distance learning’, as is explained by the Director’s belief that the programme does not have a main mode of delivery but “that modules, as well as the learner support structures, encourage interaction . . . with presenters, coordinators or peers.” 

It is clear from the case studies that in all six cases learner support can be broadly linked to our working definition above, with the caveats that some ‘prepackaged’ material is seen to have a support function (see 3.3) and that stakeholders (learners and staff) place a high premium on the need for “interaction”. The form(s) of learner support offered are determined by the programme’s purpose, the profile of the target audience, the underpinning educational philosophy of the institution and budgetary constraints. In the case of the WITS FDE programme, for example, the overall goal is to improve the quality of learning and teaching in classrooms and the course teams attempt to model the very practice they are trying to encourage by ensuring that each course is permeated by a recognition of prior learning, facilitation of reflection on these experiences and then offering extension of and alternatives to the lessons of this prior experience. See 3.10, recommendations 1 to 3.