Module+03+Reflections

Reflections on Module 3
 The two components of the assignment 3 were: 1) the discussion, choice and description of a classification scheme for DE institutions within the study group; in order to show that the defined classification scheme works, it has to be applied to a chosen DE institution; 2) the research of six DE institutions in individual work based on the chosen classification scheme. **The study group activity** In our study group we chose the classification scheme according to institutional modes. There was a consensus in the group that this scheme is the most straight forward and manageable. My personal choice was based on the following arguments:  · I did not vote for the classification according to generations of technology, on one hand since I understand this scheme more as a diachronic description than as a synchronic classification. Speaking of “generations” obviously refers to some kind of evolution and not to different categories that may occur at the same time. On the other hand the different categories underlying this classification are overlapping and not at all discreet. This is certainly true for most proposed classification schemes but I think the overlapping is especially high in this case from a diachronic perspective as well as from a synchronic one. The change from one generation to another often takes some time. Besides so-called earlier generations of DE are not completely replaced by newer generations (which is somehow a contradiction to the diachronic point of view). In short, the high degree of overlapping categories makes this classification difficult to handle.  · The classification according to educational approaches sounds interesting to me but seems to me quite complicated since it is based on several criteria (technological, pedagogical and maybe even cultural and geographical, but this is to be discussed). Besides it seems to me as an “open” classification, i.e. that I cannot imagine that the different models mentioned are the only ones to identify according to this scheme.  · Finally the classification according to institutional modes seems to me quite clear, logical and easy to handle. It should be easy to classify institutions according to this model without too many overlappings. We then established further criteria for each category: the organizational structure, course development and student support. Each member of our group was assigned to describe one category for each institutional mode (single mode, dual mode, mixed mode and consortia), the fourth member was responsible for the editing of the different texts. The final classification scheme was tested with one DE institution, the UK Open University, which we chose because there is a lot of documentation available on this institution. Though I personally prefer individual work, the study group activity was an important experience during the course. It was impressive to experience that social contact to class mates is possible from a distance and that everybody was highly interested in a good collaboration. On the other hand there were also difficult situations. The amount of input from the different members was not always balanced despite of the good will of everybody which was due to everyone’s personal and professional situation. For me the starting was difficult since I had to travel during the Wimba live session and the first days of the study group activity. Later on I could not always participate in discussions and especially in live-chats because of our different time zones (I was five hours ahead). On the whole, I would have preferred a more compressed study group assignment and activity. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">**The individual research paper** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">When describing six different DE institutions according to our chosen and established classification scheme I became aware that the underlying criteria do not always allow an unambiguous categorization. The first criterion //organizational structure// allowed the clearest distinction between the four institutional modes even if the difference between dual mode and mixed mode may not always be clear-cut. The analysis of the six chosen institutions gave rise to the supposition that the support by pedagogical and technical advisers in DE //course development// becomes more and more important for all types of institutions. //Student support// also plays an important role in all institutions and seems more to be a general matter of quality assurance than of institutional mode. Finally, the application of the criteria certainly produces different results according to the economic development of the geographical region of a given institution. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">**Conclusions** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The different readings, the Wimba session (which I fortunately could listen to via recording), the study group activity and the individual research all contributed to a deep understanding of different classifications of DE institutions and their underlying criteria and to an overview of DE institutions in different parts of the world. Especially Sara Guri-Rosenblit’s presentation was very helpful for me. The study group activity was an important positive experience but occupied too much space. During the individual work I learned that the categories in our classification scheme are not discreet, that each DE institution has it's own specifities, even if tendencies allow to classify them according to the scheme of institutional modes, and that there is a lot of dynamic within these institutions. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The assignment **