Search results

The purpose of this paper is to know the personalized online student support system provided by e-learning centers, to find out academic advice as Student Support Services provided by institution running e-learning programs; to find out career counseling as Student Support Services provided by institution running e-learning programs; to find out technical support as Student Support Services provided by institution running e-learning programs; to find out registration assistance as Student Support Services provided by institution running e-learning programs; to find out methods used for paying fee for e-learning programs for LIS education; and to find out financial aid available for students for e-learning programs in LIS education.

The present study is exploratory in nature. In the study, the attempt was made to explore the Student Support Services provided by e-learning institution. It focuses on the various online Student Support Services. Data collection was made through following methods: through Web pages of related departments; by contacting the departments and by sending questionnaires.

Student Support Services provided by institutions – academic advice: it was observed from Table I that the data were significant (p < 0.05) and that high percentage (60.9 per cent) of universities/institutes provide support systems like academic advice to the students opting LIS courses through e-programs; career counseling: it was observed from Table II that the data were significant (p < 0.05) and that high percentage (60.9 per cent) of universities/institutes provide support systems like career counseling to the students opting LIS courses through e-programs; technical support: it was observed from Table III that 100 per cent universities/institutes provide technical support to the students opting LIS courses through e-programs; and registration assistance: it was observed from Table IV that 100 per cent universities/institutes provide registration assistance support to the students opting LIS courses through e-programs. *Mode of payment of fees for e-learning programs for LIS education: it was apparent from the information (Table V) that mode of payment of fees such as credit card, check and purchase order or money order is available for majority of e-learning courses. *Financial aid available for students for e-learning programs in LIS education: it may be concluded on the basis of the study results (Table VI) that for significantly (p < 0.05) high percentage of LIS courses, the financial aid is not available.

The research work, especially Student Support Services, was limited to only 23 institutions which are running courses in LIS education by e-learning technology.

The present study shows that there is a need to strengthen more Student Support Services. The successful implementation of such a system would need efforts by the concerned management of the institutions and substantial support from the apex statutory organizations. The stakeholders have strongly reinforced the necessity of support strategies which need to start from the time the student enrolls to completion of course. Feedback from students, teachers and researchers should be taken for improving the services. It is useful for those who are running e-learning courses.

Students who are taken and studying online courses would be aware of Student Support Services.

This research work is valuable and original, and no prior research has been identified for Student Support Services for e-learning programs in LIS.

This paper problematises student support in higher education during the Covid-19 crisis and proposes an original approach of social network analysis for developing effective support for students from different socio-economic backgrounds.

In this forward-thinking essay, the authors draw on theoretical ideas from Hannah Arendt in conceptualising the destructive and productive nature of societal crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. We also draw on literature on social network analysis in exploring student support.

The authors propose a number of recommendations for university staff to consider when developing effective student support, ranging from nurturing their own professional capital to mapping student support networks and the role of faculty within these.

This paper emphasises the importance of developing effective student support that works for students from different socio-economic backgrounds. This is essential to avoid regression in widening participation policies and practices, and to promote inclusive university environments.

The purpose of the paper is to explore the issues of dyslexia and the management of learning support within two Scottish suppliers of premier HE hospitality education: Napier and QMU universities of Edinburgh.

This exploratory, qualitative fieldwork outlines course managers', teachers' and disabilities support staff perceptions of dyslexia support. Students' views are noted, not interviewed. The paper describes the views of 12 of a sample of (eight female and four male) staff interviewees. Napier University and Queen Margaret University are post‐1990 “new” universities; Napier has a larger student/staff population than QMU.

The emergent findings in this paper highlight the fact that managers, teachers and support staff operate an under‐resourced and largely ad hoc system of dyslexic support, although Napier, with greater central funding, shows signs of more strategic insight with the appointment of a full‐time dyslexia coordinator with strategic potential. The findings pinpoint the strengths (personal attention) of decentralised support with ambiguity problems and the need for a generic centrally coordinated support system capable of codifying tacit experience into customised support packages for hospitality students.

The paper is a small exploratory study of the views and perceptions of dyslexia of course managers', hospitality teachers' and support staff from two of Edinburgh's new universities. Both have decades of internationally respected work in hospitality education and elsewhere in higher education.

The fieldwork draws attention to this situation and suggests ways to make concepts of dyslexia and disability more relevant to academic hospitality managers teaching in higher education and to those practising in the field.

The paper examines the proposition that, while dyslexia is a condition open to support and improvement, it is for many practitioners a vague concept. What emerges from the interviews is that disability and what to do about it seems to be an attitude of mind, a question of perceptions, frames of references, intangible properties: that the essence of enhanced dyslexic support is how to do things better. Napier and QMU give valuable ad hoc examples here on which to design future practice. What is needed is a systematic approach to design, implementation and sustainability, and an understanding of the tacitly held knowledge that underpins experience‐generated systems of knowledge. Bringing out such tacit and explicit notions of the complexity of perceptions of knowledge lies in future studies.

This chapter reports on teachers’ views working with support staff to include students with disabilities in Australian schools. To ensure students with disabilities are engaging in educational activities best suited to their needs it is imperative that the classroom teacher is at the forefront of the student’s education. In order for teachers to achieve inclusive practices they need to be confident in their capabilities. Research by Boyle, Topping, Jindal-Snape, and Norwich (2011) identified that teachers viewed the support of their ‘peers and colleagues’ (p. 178) as being the most important aspect in assisting them to gain an understanding of working with students with disabilities. Therefore, it is beneficial to identify the efficacy of the interactions between teachers and others to ensure inclusion is successful.

I address the question, Is theory useful when collaborating with teachers to improve student engagement?

We based our work on four principles of motivation drawn from the research literature: students are more likely to engage in learning if teachers support their perceptions of competence, autonomy, belongingness, and make learning meaningful. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, we suggested that teachers use certain instructional strategies, like open-ended questions, related to supporting student engagement. These strategies were both more complex than the standard practices and more challenging to implement, given the current U.S. emphasis on standardized testing. In two longitudinal studies, we provided rationales for engagement principles and instructional strategies related to student engagement and encouraged teachers to use new practices. Mixed methodology included online observation measures and video of classroom instruction, retrospective interviews with teachers, and student interviews and experience sampling self-reports.

Short case studies of teachers change illustrate the examples of implementation. In both studies, about half the teachers made significant instructional changes, which were related both to teacher perceptions of student engagement and to student self-reports.

Insights gained from the studies may offer researchers practical information about how to work with teachers to improve engagement in the classroom. They include whether teachers can understand abstract motivation terminology, consider students’ “basic needs” when planning instruction, and implement strategies so that they are likely to support student engagement. Other learnings include the strong impact of teacher culture on change efforts and the need to consider teachers’ “basic needs” if we are to support them in instructional change. Long-term collaboration and establishing mutual trust may be the best way for both researchers and teachers to develop common understandings for supporting student motivation in the classroom.

Assessing learners with extensive support needs has traditionally been rooted in deficit perspectives, in which student incapacities are highlighted. We start this chapter with an overview of this historical view and identify its shortcomings. Next, we identify alternate assessment and progress monitoring as key efforts for shifting the lens from deficit-oriented assessment toward more grade-aligned, inclusive-, and strengths-based strategies. We also identify strategies for comprehensive assessment that can continue this shift in approach. Finally, we conclude with ideas for future directions in assessing learners with extensive support needs.

This chapter provides “viewpoints” on the education of learners with extensive and pervasive support needs. That is, students who require the most support to learn, often categorized as having intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, or related disabilities. The lenses through which we provide these viewpoints are historical and future-oriented; we begin with historic perspectives on the education of students with extensive and pervasive support needs, and then provide 21st century viewpoints for these learners. We interpret the notion of viewpoints in two ways: first, consistent with a viewpoint as indicating an examination of objects (in this case, practices and interventions) from a distance so as to be able to compare and judge; and, second, viewpoint as indicating our perspective on said interventions and practice.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of a new concept of support for higher education students in public universities in Brazil. The recent expansion of enrollment in federal universities in Brazil, due to the affirmative action policies and increase in the number of admissions, has increased the number of students in need of special support, including financial help and special programs for academic support (language courses, enrollment in special projects, and others). We explore different dimensions of student support in order to contribute to a more complex perspective about the demands and expectations of these students.