Challenges for successful planning of open and distance learning (ODL): A template analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>How to plan an open and distance learning (ODL) unit in higher education is not clearly described in the literature. A number of ODL facilities at residential universities have not been successful because of a lack of planning or because of failure to ensure that all the different systems for ODL delivery were in place and functioning. This paper sheds light on how to plan strategically and how to implement an ODL unit at an existing university.</p><p>A template analysis was used to construct a road map for ODL planners. We used this analytical tool to organise data from a large collection of articles, books, and documents from 1980-2010. We purposefully chose template analysis as a document analysis process to foster the recurring themes found in published articles on planning and implementing ODL facilities in higher education.</p><p>The results indicate four main strategies for successful implementation of an ODL unit. The template consists of strategic planning, policies, systems, and challenges. It was concluded that the template for ODL planning offers new insight into distance education. It could be used as a foundation for ODL planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. We recommend further research on the template with the aim of theory construction for ODL planning and implementation.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".