Editor’s Note: This is an interesting paper, well-presented statistics and meaningful needs gap analysis. The Open Education System is considered in Turkey (and perhaps elsewhere) as an option for those who are not able to attend traditional campus-based institutions. The call for a well-functioning distance learning student support system is one that all distance learning operations must implement to be academically effective.

Assessment of Learner Support Services
in the Turkish Open Education System

Murat Ozoglu

Turkey

Abstract

This study examined the support service needs and preferences of distance learners studying at the Turkish Open Education System (OES) through a questionnaire. The questionnaire included a broad array of questions to collect data about participants’ demographic information, their perceptions about the importance and accessibility of available support services, and their support service needs at different stages of their study. It also included open-ended questions to allow participants to comment on factors that are most assistive and most impeding in their distance learning experience, and also to allow them to offer suggestions for improving and/or expanding the existing learner support services.

The results of this study revealed that several areas of support services need improvements in order to support OES students effectively in their learning experience. Particularly, the affective support needs of OES students are largely unmet. A large needs gap was identified for five of the six affective support services included in the questionnaire. The largest needs gap was for the counseling services to promote student motivation. Moreover, a large needs gap was identified for two of the ten cognitive support services included in the questionnaire. These were face-to-face academic counseling and communication with course instructor. In addition to affective and cognitive support services, a greater needs gap was identified for one of the six systemic support services, which is orientation to the course media/delivery format.

Keywords: learner support; student support; student services; advising; guidance; counseling; distance education; open and distance learning.

Introduction

Providing support for distance learners is a vitally important component of delivering quality distance education (Moore, 2003; Simpson, 2002). The significance of learner support in distance education has been discussed from various points of view. The most frequently cited benefit of learner support is its positive effect on the issue of student retention (Paul, 1988; Simpson). While it has been well-established that student retention in distance education is a multivariate issue involving various interrelated factors and variables (Garland, 1993; Morgan & Tam, 1999), there is some evidence to suggest that learner support can play a significant role in assisting learners to persist (Potter, 1998). Mills (2003) argued that “a greater emphasis on more focused learner support could have the more lasting impact on retention rates if approached in a holistic manner and integrated fully into the learning process” (p. 106).

The value of learner support has also been discussed in relation to the trend towards a more consumer-oriented approach to education, where education is considered as a commodity to be consumed and students as customers of services (teaching and learning services) and products (course materials) (Lentell, 2003; Rumble, 2000; Tait, 2003). With the proliferation of for-profit distance education providers, students, as customers, now have more options from which to choose. In order to become a competitor in such a competitive education marketplace, institutions have to meet the needs and expectations of learners so that they can attract more students (Tait, 1995; Rumble). Support services have a central role in meeting the unique and changing needs of the learners and, therefore, might add a competitive edge to distance institutions when implemented effectively (Mills, 2003). In fact, it’s the quality of learner support services “which provides the competitive edge as more and more learning materials become available from a wide range of providers” (Mills, p. 112).

Marketing—another aspect of the consumer oriented approach to education—can also be promoted by learner support. Mills (2003) suggested that feedback from customers is one of the major driving forces in marketing, and also that collecting valuable feedback from customers requires a medium that encourages customers to interact with the company. He argued that in distance education settings, support services can serve for that purpose. The increased interaction between support personnel and students through a well-designed learner support system can produce valuable feedback from learners about the program or, more specifically, about the course. Such feedback can be used by course designers or administrative personnel so as to improve the quality of the courses or administrative processes, which in turn might have a positive impact on recruitment. In fact, based on his personal experience, Mills argued that this is already happening in the British Open University.

Another valuable aspect of learner support is that it can contribute to the realization of the very basic premise of distance education, which is widening access and learning opportunities for those who were never able to participate in formal education due to unstable socioeconomic backgrounds, poverty, distant geographical settings, family/work commitments, and disabilities of different kinds (Mills, 2003). The challenge that comes with the widening of access is that an increasing number of less-experienced, less-motivated, and more socially and economically disadvantaged students will be participating in distance education programs (Sewart, 1993; Mills). Educators and practitioners suggest that learner support has a major role to play here, as these are learner groups who need more individual support to cope with the difficulty of returning back to formal education, with possibly less motivation and less educational experience (Kenworth, 2003; Mills, 2003; Sewart, 1993).

While learner support affords economic and social advantages for distance institutions, viewing learner support only in terms of its economic and social benefits overshadows the critical role of learner support in the academic success of learners (Brindley, 1995). Moreover, such a view is problematic in the sense that it shifts the focus of learner support from assisting current students towards academic achievement to attract more new students (Brindley; Axelson, 2007).

Tait (2000) recognized the need to expand the view of learner support beyond the systemic and administrative processes. He offered a functional characterization of learner support that recognizes the pedagogic and motivational value of support services as well. He observed that learner support has three primary functions: cognitive, affective, and systemic. Cognitive support refers to facilitation of learning through mediation of standard and uniform elements of course materials for individual students. Affective support refers to establishment of a supportive learning environment that increases students’ commitment and self-esteem. Systemic support refers to establishment of administrative processes and information management systems that are effective, transparent, and user friendly. According to Tait, these functions are both necessary and interrelated. For example, in an institution that does not provide affective support, students may feel isolated and drop out. This is more likely to occur no matter how qualified the systemic and cognitive support tools.

Statement of Problem

Despite the aforementioned significance of learner support, learner support mechanisms are often underdeveloped or overlooked in most distance education institutions (Scheer & Lockee, 2003). Most distance institutions have an inadequate understanding of how to plan and organize quality learner support systems. Many researchers have acknowledged the pressing need for more research studies guiding us in the development and implementation of quality learner support systems in distance education (Moreland & Carnwell, 2000; Robinson, 1995; Visser & Visser, 2000).

Considering that learner support systems deal with the individual learner (Moore, 2003; Robinson, 1995), particularly needed are studies that focus on special concerns and needs of individual learners (Potter, 1998). Support systems that do not account for the opinions and preferences of target students would be incomplete and misguiding. The literature indicates that the most effective support services are those that have been re-designed from the learners’ perspective (Axelson, 2007; Visser & Visser, 2000). Tait (1995) has suggested that the first step for planning any kind of learner support is to determine who your students are and what their expectations are. Sewart (1993) followed the same line of reasoning by suggesting that “the management of learner support needs to take account of the needs of the learners as expressed by themselves or by the intermediaries” (p. 11).

Research that systematically reviews the learner’s support needs from the learner’s point of view is scarce (Potter, 1998; Reid, 1995). This study aimed to fill this gap and investigated the current state of learner support services at the Turkish Open Education System (OES) in Anadolu University from the learners’ perspective. Anadolu University OES was selected for this study because several related factors suggest that student support is a vital issue in OES and clearly deserves further investigation. First, like many other distance education institutions, OES has high attrition rates. About 40% of the students admitted to OES drop out during their first two years of study; also, graduation rates are as low as 25.4% in Bachelor degree programs and 49.5% in Associate’s degree programs (Latchem, Özkul, Aydin, & Mutlu, 2006).

Second, most students find the methods of OES—from initial registration and course selection through the various nontraditional delivery options—difficult, unusual, and confusing. The reason for this is that they are graduates of a teacher-centered primary and secondary school education in which teachers make most of the educational decisions and, therefore, the students’ independent and self-directed learning skills are underdeveloped (Gursoy, 2005; Murphy, 1991). The majority of students enjoy structure, stability and supportive relationships, and have less desire to control or manage their own learning. When these students begin their study in a system that emphasizes independent learning—primarily from textbooks—they might need extra support in order to navigate their way through a someVerdana confusing set of educational and administrative activities (Murphy).

Third, OES is not considered an alternative to mainstream education; rather, it is usually considered a last-resort option for those who are not able to attend traditional campus-based institutions due to their lower scores in the university entrance examination (Askar, 2005; Gursoy, 2005). In this sense, for most of the recent high school graduates, the decision to attend OES is not an informed one based on their needs, values, motivations and qualifications. Rather, they choose to continue their post-secondary education at OES because there is no other option for them (Gursoy). Therefore, most of these students do not question appropriateness of and requirements for studying at a distance before they enroll. After enrolling, many find that they are unprepared for studying at a distance. A well-functioning student support system is needed to help this uninformed student population develop attitudes and skills associated with distance learning success.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this research study was to examine and identify support service needs and preferences of distance learners studying at the Turkish Open Education System (OES). In order to fulfill this purpose, views and perceptions of OES students on importance, availability, and accessibility of student support services at the OES were investigated. The research question formulated to guide this study was as follows: What are the support services that OES students perceive as needed in order to become successful distance learners? The following sub-questions were formulated to guide the researcher in answering this broad research question:

1.  What are the perceptions of OES students about the importance and accessibility of learner support services that they receive?

2.  At which stages of the distance learning process do OES students need support most? And what particular services do they need?

3.  What suggestions do OES students make about improving the existing learner support services at OES?

Methodology

A mixed methods approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative methods was used for data collection. Data collection took place in two distinct phases. In the first phase of the study, available learner support services were identified through literature review, investigation of institutional artifacts, and interviews with the institutional representatives. Institutional artifacts reviewed for this study were the OES website, registration handbook, textbooks, TV/radio programs, e-learning portal, and program brochures. Interviews included one administrator from the central office, two instructors from regional tutoring centers, and one support personnel from a regional administrative bureau.

In the second phase of the study, a questionnaire was designed based on findings of the first phase and administered to OES students. The format of the questionnaire was adapted from the survey tool developed by Potter (1997) to investigate the need, importance, availability, and accessibility of learner support services in three bimode Canadian universities. The questionnaire included a broad array of questions to collect data about participants’ demographic information, their perceptions about the importance and accessibility of available support services, their support service needs at different stages of their study. The questionnaire was administered to OES students during and after the supplementary face-to-face tutoring sessions in three different providences of Turkey: Eskisehir, Kayseri, and Ankara. Out of 450 questionnaires distributed, 363 questionnaires were returned. Fifty-two of the returned questionnaires were incomplete and, therefore, discarded from the analysis.

An overwhelming majority (93%) of the questionnaire participants in this study were age 25 or younger. The largest single age group was 18-21 (59%). The second largest single age group was 21-25 (34%). Approximately 58% of the participants were female, 30% were employed, and only 6% were married. This study documented a low participation rate of those who are over the age of 25, employed and married. In terms of their prior education attainment, 90% of the participants reported having a high school diploma. In terms of study time, approximately 29% of the participants were freshman, 40% were sophomores, 26% were juniors and 6% were seniors. For the overwhelming majority of participants (94.9%), OES was their first distance learning experience.

Two different strategies were followed to increase the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. First, two institutional representatives knowledgeable about the provision and development of current learner support services reviewed the questionnaire. The purpose was to ensure that all Open Education System (OES) provided learner support services are accurately represented and included in the questionnaire. This process also ensured that the wording/language for each of the services was correct and could be easily understood by student participants. Moreover, two experts knowledgeable about Turkish distance education and fluent in Turkish and English languages reviewed the questionnaire in order to polish the translation of the instrument and make modifications. All the concerns noted by institutional representatives and experts were addressed. Second, prior to administration of the questionnaire, it was pilot tested with a group of five OES students to check the clarity of the instructions and questions, and to identify possible problems participants might face in understanding what kinds of answers were expected, or in providing answers to the questions as posed. Students’ feedbacks and recommendations were used to modify or validate the questions on the questionnaire.

Quantitative data obtained through the questionnaire were analyzed using the SPSS. Statistical computations of frequency distributions were performed to analyze participants’ demographic profile. A 5-point Likert-type scale of zero (unimportant/not accessible) to 4 (very important/ highly accessible) was used for students’ ratings of support services in terms of their importance and accessibility. Importance and accessibility mean scores were calculated for each support service to rank the services in terms of their importance and accessibility. Moreover, a needs-gap analysis was performed to identify the gap between importance rating and accessibility rating for each support service. A needs-gap mean score was calculated for each support service by subtracting the accessibility rating of each case from importance rating and calculating the mean of the differences.

In addition to importance and accessibility ratings, the questionnaire asked students to specify the stage(s) throughout their study (pre-enrollment, starting courses/program, moving through courses/program, finishing courses/program) in which each support service was most needed. An option of “never needed” was also given for students to indicate if they never needed the service. Students were given the option to specify as many stages as they wanted. Frequency distributions were calculated for each stage in SPSS to identify the support services most needed in each stage.

Open-ended questions were also included in the questionnaire to allow participants to comment on factors that are most assistive and most impeding in their distance learning experience, and also to allow them to offer suggestions improving the existing learner support services. A total of 237 participants answered at least one of these questions. Responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed using the structural analysis technique, including the following essential sub-processes: coding and categorizing the factors/suggestions and counting how many participants mentioned each factor/suggestion (enumeration).

Results

Assessment of Support Services

Questionnaire participants rated the importance and accessibility of twenty-two different support services. The functional support service categories suggested by Tait (2000) were used to cluster support services into three categories: cognitive (academic), affective (emotional), and systemic (administrative). Out of twenty-two support services rated, ten were clustered into the cognitive support service category, six were clustered into the affective support service category, and six were clustered into the systemic support service category.

Importance and accessibility ratings of support services in each category are discussed below. Moreover, the results of the needs-gap analysis—performed to identify the gap between the importance rating and accessibility ratings for each support service—are provided. Table 1 displays importance, accessibility and needs-gap mean scores for all support services.

For the purpose of this study, a mean score of 3.00 or higher is assumed to indicate a high level of importance/accessibility, a mean score of 2.00 to 2.99 to indicate a medium level of importance/accessibility, and a mean score of 1.99 or less to indicate a low level of importance/accessibility. A needs-gap mean score of 1.00 or higher is assumed to indicate a large needs gap, a needs-gap mean score of 0.50 to 0.99 to indicate a moderate needs gap, and a needs-gap mean score of 0.49 or less to indicate a small needs gap.

Table 1

Importance and Accessibility of Support Services

Cognitive Support Services

Participants evaluated ten cognitive support services: local study centers, face-to-face academic counseling, online academic counseling, academic support through TV programs, academic support through radio programs, educational software produced by OES, local computer labs for student use, e-learning portal, online practice questions, and communication with course instructor.

Importance. Participants assigned the highest level of importance to face-to-face academic tutoring (M = 3.44, SD = 0.74) and online practice questions/tests (M = 3.43, SD = 0.73), and assigned the lowest level of importance to TV programs (M = 1.98, SD = 1.18) and radio programs (M = 1.05, SD = 1.01). The rest of the cognitive services were given a medium level of importance.

Accessibility. One half of the ten cognitive support services were perceived to have a medium level of accessibility, and the other halves were perceived to have a low level of accessibility. Services that were assigned a low level of accessibility were local computer labs for student use (M = 1.30, SD = 0.97), communication with course instructors (M = 1.54, SD = 0.95), radio programs (M = 1.62, SD = 0.95), local study centers (M = 1.80, SD = 0.95), and educational software produced by OES (M = 1.82, SD = 0.90).

Needs-gap analysis. A large needs gap was identified for two academic support services: communication with course instructors (M = 1.33, SD = 1.24) and face-to-face academic counseling services (M = 1.23, SD = 1.10). Online practice questions/tests (M = 0.95, SD = 1.07), local computer labs (M = 0.87, SD = 1.50), local study centers (M = 0.85, SD = 1.31), and OES-produced educational software (M = 0.52, SD = 1.18) were four cognitive services with a moderate needs gap. A negative needs-gap mean score was identified for three cognitive services as a result of participants’ overall accessibility rating surpassing the overall importance ratings. These services are online academic counseling (M = ?0.11, SD = 1.20), TV programs (M = ?0.19, SD = 1.18), and radio programs (M = ?0.57, SD = 1.23).

Affective Support Services

Participants rated six affective support services: promoting students' self-confidence, promoting students’ motivation, overcoming students' concerns about their education, promoting social interaction among OES students, and communication with other OES distance learners.

Importance. Participants’ ratings indicated that all affective and community support services were moderately important for them. While the most important affective support service was counseling services that promote student motivation (M = 2.90, SD = 0.97), the least important service was communication among students (M = 2.22, SD = 1.14).

Accessibility. All affective support services received a low accessibility mean score (1.99 or less). The affective services that received the lowest accessibility mean scores were counseling services that promote students’ motivation (M = 0.96, SD = 0.84) and counseling services that overcome students' concerns (M = 0.95, SD = 0.80). The most accessible affective service was information about OES activities (M = 1.61, SD = 0.85).

Needs gap analysis. A large needs gap was identified for all affective support services but communication with other OES students. The largest needs gap was identified for counseling services that promote student motivation (M = 1.93, SD = 1.15).

Systemic Support Services

Participants rated six systemic support services in the questionnaire: help with the admission/ egistration process, assistance in overcoming technical problems, orientation to the course media/delivery format of OES, administrative services provided at the local OES bureaus, administrative services provided on the internet, and mobile-quest information service.

Importance. Except for mobile-quest information service, all the systemic services were perceived to be moderately important for participants. Participant ratings indicated that the most important systemic support service was orientation to course media/delivery format of OES
(M = 2.84, SD = 0.79) and the least important systemic support service was mobile-quest information service (M = 1.56, SD = 1.17).

Accessibility. Two systemic support services were perceived to have a low level of accessibility, and the rest were perceived to have a medium level of accessibility. The least accessible systemic support service was orientation to the course media/delivery format of OES (M = 1.31, SD = 0.90). The most accessible one was administrative services provided on the internet (M = 2.71, SD = 0.91).

Needs-gap analysis. A large needs gap was identified for orientation to course media/delivery format of OES (M = 1.53, SD = 1.00), and a medium needs gap was identified for assistance in overcoming technical problems (M = 0.87, SD = 1.05). A negative needs-gap mean score was identified for three cognitive services as a result of participants’ overall accessibility rating surpassing the overall importance ratings. These are administrative services provided on the internet (M = -0.09, SD = 1.13) and mobile-quest information service (M = -0.55, SD = 1.33).

Program Stages when Support Services are Needed

The questionnaire also asked students to specify the stage(s) throughout their study (pre-enrollment, starting courses/program, moving through courses/program, and finishing courses/program) in which each support service was needed. An option of “never needed” was also given for students to indicate if they never needed the service. Students were given the option to specify as many stages as they want. Frequency distributions were calculated for each stage to identify the support services most needed in each stage (Table 2). Services needed in each stage are summarized below.

Pre-enrollment. What participants needed most at this stage were support services that will help them get started with the distance education program. While a majority of these services fall into the systemic/administrative service category, some of them are affective support services. The most desired systemic services at this stage were help with the admission/registration process and administrative services provided at the local OES bureaus. Approximately 75% of the participants indicated the need for these services. Moreover, approximately one-half of the participants indicated the need for orientation to the course media/delivery format of OES at this stage. The most desired affective support services before or during enrollment time were counseling to promote student motivation, activities to promote social interaction, and communication among OES students. Approximately one-third of the participants indicated the need for each of these affective services. Only a small number of participants indicated that they needed cognitive support before or during enrollment time.

Beginning of the Program. Participants indicated that the most support was needed at this stage of the program. Four out of six systemic services, eight out of ten cognitive support services, and all the affective services were identified as needed by at least one-third of the participants. Administrative services provided by the local OES offices and orientation to the delivery format continued to be the most desired systemic services at the beginning of the course/program. Moreover, the need for administrative services provided on the internet and help on technical problems increased at this stage.

The need for all affective support services increased at the beginning of the program. Counseling to promote student motivation continued to be the most desired affective service at this stage. Not surprisingly, the need for cognitive support services increased while engaging in the coursework. Face-to-face counseling was perceived to be most needed support service at this stage, with over one-half of the participants indicating the need for this service. Moreover, approximately one-half of the participants noted that they needed communication with instructors, the e-learning portal, and online practice tests at this stage.

Table 2.

Program Stages When Support Services Are Needed

Moving Through the Program. While the need for cognitive services increased enormously, an overall decrease in the need for systemic and affective support services was observed while moving through the program. More than 85% of participants indicated the need for face-to-face counseling and online practice tests at this stage. Additionally, the e-learning portal and communication with instructor continued to be important support services needed at this stage. In regard to systemic and affective support, services provided at the local OES offices and on the internet, counseling to promote student motivation, and counseling to overcome educational concerns were perceived to be needed by approximately one third of the participants at this stage.

End of the Program. The need for most of the support services declined by the end of the program. Two services stayed important at this stage: services provided at the local OES offices and online practice tests.

Never Needed. Five support services were perceived to never be needed by over one-half of the participants. These were mobile-quest information services, radio programs, TV programs, local computer labs, and information about OES activities. Only three support services were considered never needed by less than 10% of the participants. These were services provided at the local OES offices, face-to-face counseling, and online practice tests.

Open-Ended Questions

There were three open-ended questions included in the questionnaire to allow participants to elaborate on their distance learning experiences. The first and second questions asked participants to indicate the most assistive and most impeding factors in their distance learning experience, respectively. The third question asked participants to provide suggestions for improving the existing support mechanism. Participants’ responses to these questions were discussed below.

Assistive Factors

Participants were asked to comment on factors that assist them most in their distance learning experience. A total of 223 participants answered this question. A total of fourteen different assistive factors were identified from the participants’ responses. These factors were classified under three categories: cognitive/academic, affective/motivational, and situational/personal.

Assistive factors that were mentioned most frequently fell into the cognitive/academic category, which accounts for approximately 86% of the total mentions. Within this category, OES face-to-face academic tutoring was the most frequently mentioned assistive factor (105 mentions). Many participants indicated that it was impossible for them to learn everything just following the textbooks, and face-to-face academic tutoring helped them simplify and clarify the topics they could not understand from the text. Moreover, some participants indicated that face-to-face tutoring helped them stay on track. This was reflected well by one of the participants comments: “Not everyone has the self-study and time management skills to follow the courses on a regular basis. Face-to-face tutoring helps these students to stay on track.”

The second and third most frequently mentioned assistive factors were private supplementary textbooks (74 mentions) and private supplementary tutoring (51 mentions)respectively. Participants indicated that supplementary textbooks by private institutions were assistive due to their brief presentation of subjects and inclusion of more practice tests. Others reported that supplementary tutoring offered by private organizations was assistive because it took place in small classes where little distraction took place and more student-teacher interaction was possible. Moreover, it was reported that OES did not provide face-to-face tutoring for most upper-class courses and, therefore, those students who could afford it chose to supplement OES textbooks through private tutoring.

Personal factors were the second most frequently mentioned factors. Seventeen participants recognized the significance of self-commitment and individual efforts in their success. Twelve participants acknowledged the importance of frequently revisiting the course materials and memorization of important parts. Several participants reported that their time management skills and familiarity with the subject they studied were important factors in their success. In addition to academic and personal factors, participants reported some affective factors that assisted them in their distance learning experience. Self-confidence and motivation were the most frequently mentioned affective factors. Some participants also acknowledged the value of support from family and friends.

Impeding Factors

In response to the question regarding impediments to learning at a distance, 163 participants provided comments. A total of 25 different impeding factors identified from the participants’ responses. These factors were classified under four categories: cognitive/academic, affective/motivational, self/personal, and administrative.

Similar to the assistive factors, impeding factors that were mentioned most frequently fell into the cognitive/academic category, which accounts for approximately 65% of the total mentions. Interestingly enough, the majority of the academic impeding factors were related to face-to-face academic tutoring. The most frequently cited impeding factor was lack of face-to-face tutoring for all courses (40 mentions). As indicated previously, OES provides face-to-face tutoring for the ten most common and relatively difficult courses.

The second most frequently cited impeding factor was inefficient and uncomfortable face-to-face tutoring settings (39 mentions). Participants mentioned that classrooms are very crowded and noisy. Twenty-two participants commented that face-to-face tutoring hours were inadequate for some courses to cover the whole curriculum. Some indicated that due to time limitations, instructors either went over some topics very quickly or skipped others. Twelve participants reported that face-to-face tutoring hours and/or days were inconvenient for them.

In addition to face-to-face academic tutoring, participants also considered the exam system as an impeding factor. Eleven participants complained about the short time interval (about two months) between midterm and final exams. Especially, several participants indicated that the midterm exam results were published late, and therefore they did not have time to plan for the final exam. Moreover, ten participants complained about sitting for all exams in one or two days. It was reported that sitting for five or more exams in two days was very stressful and mentally challenging for them. Another related factor was having just two exams for each course in one academic year. One participant commented, “Since there are only two exams, before each exam, units to study accumulate because of procrastination and it becomes stressful and harder to study.”

Ten participants indicated that OES textbooks are too detailed and daunting for self-study. Three participants complained that they were discouraged by those instructors who were reluctant and disrespectful. Three participants indicated that OES resources for tests preparation were inadequate. Two participants talked about lack of personal academic background for certain courses.

Affective impeding factors were mentioned 48 Verdana, which accounts for approximately 19% of the total mentions. The most frequently mentioned factor was disregard from public and/or OES staff (15 mentions). Several participants indicated that the public staff neither consider OES a formal education institution nor regarded them as traditional students. According to them this reduced their motivation to continue. For instance, a student who had enrolled in OES with high hopes commented “After I realized public’s negative attitude towards OES students, I thought that I am here for no reason” Another related impeding factor, mentioned by nine participants, was lack of motivation (12 mentions). Participants also indicated that it was hard for them to keep focused and motivated all the time.

Personal impeding factors were mentioned 29 Verdana, which accounts for approximately 11.7% of the total mentions. The factors most commonly mentioned were time management issues resulting from job obligations (20 mentions), family commitments, and, most interestingly, preparation for the University Entrance Exam. Only two administrative factors were mentioned as impeding. These were insufficient information about OES procedures (8 mentions) and inexperienced and uninformed staff in local offices (2 mentions). Two students noted that they lost one year just because they were misinformed by the OES staff.

Suggestions to Improve Support Services

The last open-ended question asked for suggestions to improve the current state of OES learner support services. A total of 196 participants answered the question. The majority of their suggestions included strategies to overcome challenges (impeding factors) they experienced throughout their distance learning practice. Suggestions were clustered into three categories: cognitive/academic, affective/motivational, and administrative.

Similar to assistive and hindering factors, a great majority of the suggestions were related to cognitive/academic services. Seventy-eight participants suggested receiving face-to-face tutoring for all courses. Fifty-eight participants called for more tutoring hours and days. Participants from Kayseri, where tutoring took place on Saturdays, especially requested different tutoring days for different courses instead of having them all in one day. Another student noted, “We need more tutoring hours so that we will have the opportunity to ask questions about the topics we don’t understand.” Twenty-four participants indicated the need to increase the quality of the classroom settings. The most common suggestion, in this regard, was to reduce the class size. Moreover, twenty-one participants called for more practice questions and tests to be solved by the instructors during tutoring sessions.

There were some other suggestions about face-to-face academic tutoring. For instance, participants from Eskisehir and Ankara, where tutoring took place in the evenings, asked for morning tutoring hours. Moreover, several participants complained about getting less than six months of tutoring for courses designed to be yearlong (tutoring starts early in January and ends late in May). Therefore, they requested tutoring to start early in the academic year. Also requested by four participants was effective, energetic, and concerned instructors who do not follow the textbook strictly.

Eleven participants recommended redesigning textbooks to make them short and straightforward. Other academic components that needed to be improved, according to five participants, were TV programs. They asked for better TV programs at convenient Verdana. Two noted that there were Verdana that TV program hours coincided with that of face-to-face tutoring.

Participants offered two recommendations regarding OES examination system. Nine participants suggested extending the time between the midterm and final exam. Moreover, five participants suggested midterm exam results be announced earlier so that they could take action for the final exam as early as possible. Another related suggestion was to increase the number of supplementary practice test books and CDs.

Three more suggestions were made to increase academic opportunities. Nine participants asked for more academic and nonacademic resources such as ability to use the local universities’ libraries and attend their conferences, seminars, and social activities. Two participants indicated their demand for internship possibilities. Two others recommended that homework would be helpful to keep students active throughout the academic year.

Participants provided six different suggestions to improve their emotional state. Fifteen participants expressed their expectations of more respect and care from public and OES staff. In relation to this recommendation, thirteen participants suggested informing public about OES to eliminate their negative attitude against OES. For instance, one female participant noted, “Public needs to acknowledge that we are not any different than traditional students,” and she added, “To accomplish this, OES needs more publicity.” Several participants asked for more social activities (9 mentions), more guidance services (7 mentions), more emotional support (6 mentions), and the opportunity to communicate with other OES students (5 mentions).

Five suggestions were identified from participants’ responses about administrative improvements. Five participants asked for clear and accurate information about OES procedures. Specifically, one first-year participants commented that at the beginning of the year, he needed as much information as possible about registration, fees, due dates, tutoring dates and palaces, and so forth. Four participants indicated the need for a point of address (e-mail or phone) to contact all the time for any type of questions they had. Moreover, several participants asked for experienced and knowledgeable staff at the local offices (3 mentions), scholarship and dormitory opportunities (3 mentions), and lower registration fees (3 mentions).

Implementations

This study has demonstrated several areas of support services that need improvements in order to support OES students effectively in their learning experience. Based on the findings, the following recommendations for implication can be made:

§  Participants’ ratings of several support services revealed that face-to-face academic counseling and online practice tests are very important cognitive tools assisting OES students in their learning experience. Therefore, OES should not only continue to offer these cognitive support services, but should also augment the quality and quantity of these services. For instance, participants in this study provided several recommendations related to face-to-face counseling. These included more face-to-face academic counseling hours and days for currently available courses, face-to-face academic counseling for all courses, and less populated face-to-face academic counseling classrooms.

§  The needs-gap analysis revealed that OES needs to improve its affective support services. A large needs gap was identified for five of six affective services included in the questionnaire. This suggests that OES should develop different support tools and strategies to augment its students’ motivational, psychological, and emotional state that might contribute to their affective as well as cognitive involvement. Moreover, OES should not ignore the community dimensions of affective support. It should especially develop strategies in collaboration with other stakeholders to overcome the public’s negative perception of OES, which was identified to influence students’ affective and cognitive involvement.

§  The needs-gap analysis also revealed that there is a need to increase the communication with the course instructions. The recommendation provided in item one (above) can increase the communication between students and course instructors in face-to-face courses (i.e., extending tutoring hours and days). For online academic counseling, OES needs to review the online medium for usability. Although the question-answer forum seems simple to use, students complained about the difficulty of adding math questions. They further complained that they can not know whether their questions are answered or not until they log in again.

§  The needs-gap analysis further revealed that OES should provide general orientation sessions at the beginning of the academic year, particularly for the newcomers.

§  There should be a communication structure between frontline support service providers and course or delivery system designers and program administrators. It is usually the frontline personnel who deal with the challenges and issues that students face. These personnel can produce valuable feedback from students based on their experiences with the courses, program, or delivery mediums. Provided that the course or delivery system designers and program administrators have limited or no interaction with students to get feedback, such feedback produced by the frontline service providers needs to be conveyed to backend staff so as to improve to the quality of the courses or administrative processes.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

This study was a case study and was limited to students within the Turkish OES. Additionally, the sample for this study was not randomly selected. Instead, a convenient sampling strategy was used to increase participation. Participants in this study were OES students who were regularly attending face-to-face academic tutoring in three different provinces (Kayseri, Eskisehir, and Ankara); hence, the findings from this study might have limited general applicability for this particular population.

While findings of this study provide considerable insight into the field of student support in distance education, it is important to note areas in which modifications to the study may enhance reliability and/or increase generalization. It is highly recommended that this study be replicated with more participants and equally represented student subgroups. Students who don’t participate in face-to-face academic counseling sessions should especially be included in future studies. Future research should also investigate the perceptions and experiences of drop out and/or stop out students, graduates, student support personnel, and employers on learner support needs, as they may provide different perspectives.

Future research should investigate the relationship between various support services and student outcomes of grades and course satisfaction. These studies will not only add to our already expanding knowledge of student support, but will also assist the administrators’ support service providers in distance education institutions identifying support services that are most important for student satisfaction and success.

Also important is that as the technology continues to transform the modes of instructional delivery in distance education settings, the overall distance learner profile will continue to change. Changes both in the delivery technologies and in the distance learner profile will bring about challenges to the practice of student support in distance education. While rapidly changing delivery technologies urge us to develop new support structures that can encompass the new delivery modes, parallel changes in the distance learner profile require us to develop support services of various kinds that can address the changing profile of distance learners. This also points out the need for institutions to perform continuous evaluation of support service needs for the changing distance learner population in conjunction with the changes in the course delivery mediums.

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the help provided by Ayd?n Ziya Özgür, the Dean of Open Education Faculty at Anadolu University, in conducting this study. My appreciations go to David A. Wiley and Bekir S. Gur who have read the early versions of the article and provided suggestions to improve it.

References

Askar, P. (2005). Distance education in Turkey. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, K. Shenk, P. L. Rogers, & G. A. Berd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning, Vol. 4, pp. 635-639. Hershey, PA: Idea-Group Reference.

Axelson, S. L. (2007). The use and value of student support services: A survey of undergraduate students in online classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 2007). Retrieved October 3, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database: http://www.proquest.com

Brindley, J. E. (1995). Learners and learner services: The key to the future in distance education. In J. M. Roberts & E. M. Keough (Eds.), Why the information highway: Lessons from open and distance learning (pp. 102-125). Toronto, Canada: Trifolium Books.

Garland, M. R. (1993). Students’ perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional, and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198.

Gursoy, H. (2005). A critical look at distance education in Turkey. In A. A. Carr-Chellman (Ed.), Global perspectives on e-learning: Rhetoric and reality (pp. 116–126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kenworth, B. (2003). Supporting the student in new teaching and learning environments. In A. Tait & R. Mills (Eds.), Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context (pp. 55-63). London: Routledge/Falmer.

LaPadula, M. (2003). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 119-129.

Latchem, C., Özkul, A. E., Ayd?n, C. H., & Mutlu, M. E. (2006). The Open Education System, Anadolu University, Turkey: E-transformation in a mega-university. Open Learning, 21(3), 221-235.

Lentell, H. (2003). The importance of the tutor in open and distance learning. In A. Tait & R. Mills (Eds.), Rethinking learner support in distance education (pp. 64-76). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Mills, R. (2003). The centrality of learner support in open and distance learning: A paradigm shift in thinking. In A. Tait & R. Mills (Eds.), Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context (pp. 102-113). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Moreland, N., & Carnwell, R. (2000). Co-opting learners: Addressing their learning support needs through a learning support needs questionnaire. Part one: The rationale and basis of the learning support needs questionnaire. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 5(2), 173-191.

Moore, M. G. (2003). Learner support. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 141-143.

Morgan, C., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108.

Murphy, K. L. (1991). Patronage and an oral tradition: Influences on attributions of distance learners in a traditional society: A qualitative study. Distance Education, 12(1), 27-53.

Paul, R. (1988). If student services are so important, then why are we cutting them back? In D. Sewart & J. S. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 50-56). Oslo, Norway: International Council for Distance Education.

Potter, J. (1998). Beyond access: Student perspective on support service needs in distance education. The Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 24(1), 59-82.

Potter, J. D. (1997). Support services for distance learners in three Canadian dual-mode universities: A student perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Reid, J. (1995). Managing learner support. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 265-275). London: Routledge.

Robinson, B. (1995). Research and pragmatism in learner support. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 221-231). London: Routledge.

Rumble, G. (2000). Student support in distance education in the 21st century: Learning from service management. Distance Education, 21(2), 216-235.

Scheer, S., & Lockee, B. (2003). Addressing the wellness needs of online distance learners. Open Learning, 18(2), 177-196.

Sewart, D. (1993). Student support systems in distance education. Open Learning, 8(3), 3-12.

Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting students in online, open and distance education. London: Kogan Page.

Tait, A. (1995). Student support in open and distance learning. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 232-241). London: Routledge.

Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open Learning, 15(3), 287-299.

Tait, A. (2003). Rethinking learner support in the Open University UK: A case study. In A. Tait & R. Mills (Eds.), Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context (pp. 185-197). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Visser, L., & Visser, Y. (2000). Perceived and actual student support needs in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(2), 109-117.

About the Author

Murat Ozoglu, advisor to Council of Higher Education in Turkey, is a senior lecturer at Ondokuz May’s University, Samsun Turkey. He received his Ph.D. in Instructional Technology from Utah State University, specializing in learner support within distance education. During his doctoral study he worked as research assistant at The Center for Open and Sustainable Learning (COSL), Utah State University. His current research focuses on open and distance learning. He is also interested in higher education policy and education policy development.

E-mail: mozoglu@gmail.com