EMM v2.3 L4

'''L4. Students are provided with expected staff response times to student communications'''

Background
Responsive and timely teacher-learner communications significantly effect positive learning experiences and outcomes (Blignault and Trollip, 2003; Bolliger and Martindale, 2004). Good staff-student interactions and a sense of teacher immediacy increase the willingness of students to approach and engage in educational tasks (Allen et al. 2006).

Effective interactive communication requires careful planning and thoughtful management to ensure responses meet student expectations and are unambiguous (Busch and Johnson, 2005). To this end, a taxonomy of response types (Blignault and Trollip (2003) is useful for engaging with the complex needs of the e-learning environment. Training in the use of communication tools and strong technical support are also necessary (Ortiz-Rodriguez et al., 2005). Furthermore, concise policy statements, setting out what is expected of learners and what they expect of teachers, improves course management (Waterhouse and Rogers, 2004). And, Dennen (2005) reports teacher modelling of appropriate online responses and discussions is another method of communicating effective practices that has the additional benefit of demonstrating the communications process.

Evidence of capability in this process is shown by clear commitments to provide feedback and responses within a designated time period. This may include formal processes for how the different channels are used and a description of how teaching staff will respond on these channels (if at all). A clear design is apparent in the selection of the range of channels and the integration with course activities and the information provided to students on type and timeliness of responses is consistent with that design. Performance is monitored in order to ensure that the commitments being made are adhered to and resourced appropriately.

Related Guidelines and Standards
This process is informed by: Quality On the Line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education (Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A., 2000) course support/course structure benchmark set; Queensland University of Technology teaching capabilities framework (2004/2005) and; Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (Barker, K., 2002).

Practices
{| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%" align="left" class="contentsTable"
 * width="25%" align="left" | Previous - L3
 * width="50%" align="center" | Complete version 2.3 process list
 * width="25%" align="right" | Next - L5
 * width="25%" align="right" | Next - L5