The primary counting issue we've seen so far has to do with hybrid or
blended learning students.   In some instances, students study in a
classroom program for some months and then switch to distance learning
(e.g., during winter months).  Does an agency assign status based on which
program (classroom or distance) the student entered first? on which approach
accumulated more hours?, etc.  In other instances, the student may
participate in a combination of distance and classroom study concurrently.
At what point do you determine whether a student should be considered a
distance or classroom learner?  And, what are the benefits/drawbacks of
counting them one way or the other?

Traditionally, counting "seat time" hours has been used to determine when to
post-test a student.  Now that both distance and classroom hours can be
accumulated, what impact, if any, should this have on post-testing
timeframes?  

We will be working with Project IDEAL states this August on developing their
policies and plans for counting distance learners using the new NRS
guidelines.  We will also have a paper (due out this fall) that addresses
some of these questions.   What other questions are you exploring as you
review the new NRS guidelines and think about the ramifications for data
collection and reporting?

Thanks,
Shannon

-- 
Shannon J. Young
Program Manager, Project IDEAL / AdultEd Online
Senior Research Area Specialist, Program on Teaching, Learning, & Technology
Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan
    
5116 ISR, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI  48106-1248
Ph:         (734) 763-5325
Fax:       (734) 615-6638
Email:     shannony at umich.edu
Websites:      http://projectideal.org      http://www.adultedonline.org

On 7/16/07 2:47 PM, "Condelli, Larry" <LCondelli at air.org> wrote:


> Hi David,

> 

> Yes, your are correct in your interpretation.  The only intent for NRS

> purposes is to avoid double counting, while at the same time giving

> states as much latitude as possible to provide both distance and other

> instruction.  States need only explain (in their distance education

> policy) how they make the determination for counting purposes.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]

> On Behalf Of David J. Rosen

> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:12 PM

> To: The Assessment Discussion List

> Subject: [Assessment 871] NRS Guidelines for Distance Learning

> Assessment

> 

> Assessment colleagues,

> 

> Here's a follow-up to the discussion on distance learning assessment.  I

> have a question about the changes to the NRS

> guidelines for distance education learners. ( http://www.nrsweb.org.

> Look under What's New.)

> 

> Item 3: "For NRS reporting, states can count a student only once, as

> either a distance education student or traditional classroom learner."

> 

> Presumably that means the student can be counted only once annually, and

> that the program needs to decide if the student is _primarily_ a

> distance learning student or _primarily_ a face-to-face (classroom or

> tutorial) student. Presumably this gives programs and students the

> freedom to offer distance learning options and face-to-face options to

> the same student within the year, that a face-to-face student could also

> have supplemental online learning.  Presumably, the intent of this is to

> avoid double-counting the same person, not to restrict how students

> access learning (whether distance learning or face-to- face or both).

> 

> Donna Cornellier, or Larry Condelli, are my presumptions correct?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> David J. Rosen

> djrosen at comcast.net