Why do our Theories Matter?

All too often in our practice of distance education we overlook the history of the field and our theories as we embrace new technologies or, as in the past year, when we are forced to adapt to a regional or global crisis that necessitates a temporary move to a remote learning scenario. When we set our theories aside, this approach can lead us to recreate the wheel in our pedagogical approaches, and ignores the unique pedagogy of distance education and the unique characteristics of learners studying at a distance. This article looks at why our distance education theories continue to be critically important for us to constantly return to and reflect on. Our theories help us to keep focused on the learner, learner characteristics, and the individualised nature of learning, while we undertake design and development work in partnership with faculty and other members of the design team. Our distance education theories remind us to ask the hard questions about what we are trying to accomplish and to what end for the learner, and through which design strategies

Transactional Distance in MOOCs: A Critical Analysis of Dialogue, Structure, and Learner Autonomy

Drawing upon a content analysis of students’ postings on CourseTalk.org, this study presents preliminary findings of analyzing transactional distance in xMOOCs in order to elucidate the educational exchange facilitated or restricted with reference to the three variables of transactional distance theory

Report from the “What is Open?” Workgroup

The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework

Next generation repositories: Scaling up repositories to a global knowledge commons

The current system for disseminating research, which is dominated by commercial publishers, is far from ideal. In an economic sense, prices for both subscriptions and APCs are over-inflated and will likely continue to rise at unacceptable rates. Additionally, there are significant inequalities in the international publishing system both in terms of access and participation. The incentives built into the system, which oblige researchers to publish in traditional publishing venues, perpetuate these problems and greatly stifle our ability to evolve and innovate. The Next Generation Repositories offers an alternative vision, “to position repositories as the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication, on top of which layers of value-added services will be deployed, thereby transforming the system, making it more research-centric, open to and supportive of innovation, while also collectively managed by the scholarly community.” An important component of this vision is that repositories will provide access to a wide variety of research outputs, creating the conditions whereby a greater diversity of contributions to the scholarly record will be accessible, and also formally recognized in research assessment processes. This is very much is aligned with others strategic thinking, such as MIT’s Future of Libraries Report and Lorcan Dempsey’s notion of the “inside-out” library, that are defining a new role of libraries in the 21st century. This future involves a shift away from libraries purchasing content for their local users, towards libraries curating and sharing with the rest of the world the research outputs produced at their institution. However, to achieve this vision, we need to adopt new functionalities and technologies in repositories and build additional services such as standardized usage metrics, peer review and social networking on top of them. The Next Generation Repositories report provides recommendations for these new behaviours and technologies to move the vision forward. There are already several groups actively working on the adoption of these technologies and services, including OpenAIRE, National Institute of Informatics (Japan) and a US Implementers Group facilitated led by COAR. This paper will present the vision for next generation repositories, provide an overview of the conceptual model including the role of libraries and hubs that will offer services to the network of repositories. In addition, we will provide an overview of current activities to put the next generation repositories infrastructure and services in place

Next generation repositories: scaling up repositories to a global knowledge commons

The widespread deployment of repository systems in higher education and research institutions provides the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication. However, repository platforms are still using technologies and protocols designed almost twenty years ago, before the boom of the Web and the dominance of Google, social networking, semantic web and ubiquitous mobile devices. This is, in large part, why repositories have not fully realized their potential. In April 2016, COAR launched the Next Generation Repositories Working Group to identify the core functionalities for the next generation of repositories, as well as the architectures and technologies required to implement them. In November 2017, the Working Group published a report defining 11 new behaviours, as well as the technologies, standards and protocols that will facilitate the development of new services on top of the collective network. This session will present the background and vision underlying this work, define the behaviours and technologies outlined in the report, and discuss the current activities being undertaken to implement the recommendations. It will also be an opportunity for the community to provide further input about next steps for these recommendations.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The natural history and genotype–phenotype correlations of TMPRSS3 hearing loss:an international, multi-center, cohort analysis

TMPRSS3-related hearing loss presents challenges in correlating genotypic variants with clinical phenotypes due to the small sample sizes of previous studies. We conducted a cross-sectional genomics study coupled with retrospective clinical phenotype analysis on 127 individuals. These individuals were from 16 academic medical centers across 6 countries. Key findings revealed 47 unique TMPRSS3 variants with significant differences in hearing thresholds between those with missense variants versus those with loss-of-function genotypes. The hearing loss progression rate for the DFNB8 subtype was 0.3 dB/year. Post-cochlear implantation, an average word recognition score of 76% was observed. Of the 51 individuals with two missense variants, 10 had DFNB10 with profound hearing loss. These 10 all had at least one of 4 TMPRSS3 variants predicted by computational modeling to be damaging to TMPRSS3 structure and function. To our knowledge, this is the largest study of TMPRSS3 genotype–phenotype correlations. We find significant differences in hearing thresholds, hearing loss progression, and age of presentation, by TMPRSS3 genotype and protein domain affected. Most individuals with TMPRSS3 variants perform well on speech recognition tests after cochlear implant, however increased age at implant is associated with worse outcomes. These findings provide insight for genetic counseling and the on-going design of novel therapeutic approaches.</p

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

Promoting Distance Learners’ Cognitive Engagement and Learning Outcomes: Design-Based Research in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education

To explore effective learning design for students’ cognitive engagement, a design-based case study was conducted in a quality control course in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education between the 2011 and 2012 academic years. The course was revised for the 2012 provision in terms of the assignment structure, the number of face-to-face sessions, and facilitation strategies. This study documents how the course redesign impacted the distance learners’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes. Theories of cognitive engagement and transactional distance informed the design-based investigation. Research findings indicate that the design revisions positively influenced both students’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes within this distance higher education context; however, the student performance represented by their assessment grades might not always reflect this improvement