4-Module+Three

Classification schemes.

This module focused on the organization and administartion of distance education and specifically on DE **classification schemes**/typologies. The three schemes we examined were: The table here includes a brief definition of each. After identifying the different classification schemes for DE institutions, it was easy to see how they overlapped (for example an institution may be defined by its institutional mode and generation of technology). DE leaders have many factors to consider when establishing a distance educ institution in regard to costs, desired level of autonomy, channels of distribution, etc. After moving beyond basic definitions and characteristics in this module, my main goal had been to understand why one classification may be more appropriate or effective for an institution. For example, a single mode structure tends to be more common with large student populations, since costs and delivery can be more manageable utilizing that mode for a student base that goes into 100,000 or more.
 * **institutional modes**: single, dual, multi, and consortia
 * **generations of technology**: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
 * **educational approach**: exam prep model, correspondence, multiple (mass) media model, group DE model, autonomous learner model, network based DE model, technologically-extended classroom teaching model, and hybrid models.
 * =//INSTITUTIONAL MODES //= ||
 * Single || All teaching at a distance. ||
 * Dual || Classes taught online OR in the classroom ||
 * Multi || Classes taught online AND in the classroom. ||
 * Consortia || Multiple universities or institutions get together in a collaborative venture. ||
 * =//EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES //= ||
 * Exam prep model || The university holds exams, but does not teach classes. ||
 * Correspondence || Basically exam prep + teaching by using printed texts and using assignments. Oldest model and still used extensively. ||
 * Multiple (mass) media model || Combines radio, television, and printed materials. ||
 * Group DE model || A “technically extended campus” where students attend mandatory classes and work with an instructor to discuss and complete assignments based on lectures received via TV or radio. ||
 * Autonomous learner model || Students are independent learners/thinkers. They organize their learning, take on curricular tasks, determine objectives, and select material/content. Professors are advisors. ||
 * Network based DE model || Delivered via the Internet, web-based ||
 * Technologically-extended classroom teaching model || Classroom instruction transmitted to two or more classes by satellite TV, cable, video-conferencing (live and synchronous) ||
 * =//GENERATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY //= ||
 * First generation || Correspondence based on print material ||
 * Second generation || Primarily radio and television (satellite) – audio and video ||
 * Third generation || Internet and computers are added, Telecommunications technology added ||

I see the benefit in utilizing group activities or projects from time to time in DE classes as it can increase discussion and reflection on learned topics. It's not always my preferred way to work. since scheduling my own time is tough enough in my MDE program. Logging on and joining others in discussions, at set times, makes it more challenging.
 * __Study group project__**

The dynamics for our group were pretty good and even though each person "hung back" at various points, the contributions were generally well split. The draft submission with feedback definitely allowed us to submit a stronger final paper. __That process worked well__ and I can see using something similar at work. I am not sure each group member applied as critical an eye in the final QC (quality check) process for the draft or final paper so I would probably shift or outline more expectations on that next time. For example, when someone on my team (at work) writes a test or training module, I expect they will have others QC it and when they do, I have them assign specific QC roles (e.g., one QCs for accuracy, one for grammar, one for form or instructional integrity, etc). I don't think our initial paper had as good a flow as it could have if we assigned more targeted QC roles (//this task always is more valuable when time is an issue//).

I waited to post thoughts on this last module because they centered on how the group interacted to publish our papers and not so much on how this new knowledge could translate to any experiences outside of class. My main target in pursuing this degree is to see how I can apply learned concepts in my business environment. That has correlated strongest in module 2 (specificallly with discussions on reflective learning), however, for this module I had not made any appreciable link to classification schemes and DE in a business environment until I completed my individual paper (i.e., showing how 6 DE intitutions operate based on the four institutional modes - single, multi, dual, and consortia).
 * Applying concepts from Module 3...**

For this paper, I researched the varying levels and types of student support, the multiple methods of delivery for course materials, and the different ways in which course materials are developed. That was valuable. In a world of "fast, easy, grab, go" there is often not the time or resources to build courseware or set up student support as wanted. My research made it clear that consortiums do not stand alone in utilizing team approaches and shared resources in how they operate. There are programs we have at work that are very strong, yet we often look for better and better ways to follow up with students to ensure a stronger transfer of knowledge and an ability to apply and synthesize what was learned beyond the basics. This includes module 2 (reflective learning/thinking), but also module 3 because it will take more than 1-2 people to mange this support. Utilizing a model like CCRTV where tutors work to provide ongoing student support is something we have not tapped on an organized or sstructured level and I think we could.

__**Module 3 summary**__ 
 * **Go back again to your original definition of DE. What aspects of this module further influenced your understanding of DE? Based on what you have learned so far in this course, revise your original definition accordingly---and explain why you have changed your definition in the way you have.** I don't think my definition has changed, but I am learning more about the characteristics and considerations when establishing or running a distance education institution. I that will continue to evolve for me as I read about more distance education programs/institutions throughout the world, as new approaches are incorporated based on technological advances, and as I learn more about costs, learner support, teaching in DE, etc.
 * **Consider also the overall course objectives. Were all or most of these objectives achieved? If so, in what ways and to what degree?** We did meet all objectives for this module. The group and individual work we did allowed us to define various schemes and see how those schemes were applied to varied DE institutions throughout the world. The word limit on our papers made it a challenge to hit all key points well and thoroughly. I can see that is something that I need to give myself more time for in the future. Regardless, the readings, discussions, conference threads, and thought process required to complete the assignments allowed us to work through all objectives for this module and class overall.