 |
 |
Chris Thanks for the reference. The bottom line is facilitating the student to take responsibility for their learning; renegotiating deadliness to meet their needs (cf wants) wherever possible. Regards....Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 10:21 AM Subject: RE: Deadlines & penalities for DL students > Clare > > You might like to call on the QAA guidelines on distance education re. the > quality quip. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/dlg/guidelin.htm#Guideline 6 > includes Precept 22: A providing institution should employ formative > assessment as part of the design of distance learning programmes of study. > and in general makes Tony's case that DL is different and quality in DL is > different. > > One option operated by Warwick (where I used to work) was that assignments > (which were all formative) had guide deadlines but no penalties for lateness > whilst the exam (or assignments that counted for the exam) had inflexible > deadlines. The OU (where I now work) operates a similar system in terms of > greater flexibility for assignments (summative but some but a pretty rigid > ECA (examinable component) deadline. > > Hope that that gives you some room for manoeuvre. > > Chris > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Clare Thomas [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 27 October 2000 09:52 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Deadlines & penalities for DL students > > > > Dear Tony > > This is just what I want to hear! > > We currently operate a system very similar to your own, but are now under > > pressure from the Faculty to 'come into line' with the full-time system, > > 'for the sake of quality assurance'. > > > > Many thanks for the info, I'll let you know what happens. > > Clare > > > > At 10:51 24/10/00 +0100, you wrote: > > >Hi Clare > > > > > >Our policy is somewhat different, but reflect our 'adult/open learner' > > >philosophy. > > > > > >Delegates are offered a schedule of what to submit by when, they can > > choose > > >whether to adhere to it or not. ie they can reset their own deadlines to > > >meet their needs. > > > > > >We considered penalties, but rejected them as the delegate is only > > scoring > > >an 'own goal' by being late ie the volume of work gets worse for them by > > >delaying work. Also who are we to judge the seriousness of the various > > >'life crises' our employed delegates have - from a workload blip to > > >bereavement > > > > > >Regards........Tony > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Clare Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> > > >To: <[log in to unmask]> > > >Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 1:53 PM > > >Subject: Deadlines & penalities for DL students > > > > > > > > >> Does anyone have any information they would be willing to pass on to me > > >> concerning your institution's regulations for assignment submission > > >> deadlines and penalities for students following part-time distance > > >learning > > >> programmes? > > >> > > >> I have been asked to collect information on this, including examples of > > >the > > >> practice in other institutions, for a discussion at Faculty level about > > >> this issue. It is in the context of applying the same rule to full-time > > >and > > >> distance learning students, regardless of the learner context, i.e. > > >setting > > >> deadlines for assignment submissions, and applying penalties (of > > reducing > > >> the mark by x%) for late submission. > > >> > > >> I'd be grateful for any info, > > >> Clare Thomas > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%