EDG 6931 Distance Education Leadership and Management
Dr. Cathy Cavanaugh
Spring 2, 2010
The Learner Web
A case study submitted by Jan Hendrik Beck
The present study investigates the Learner Web, an innovative learning platform for different
target audiences developed at Portland State University in Portland, OR. The study is divided into three
major parts. The first part describes the Learner Web as a program. The second part provides a handson introduction to the Learner Web’s learning environment. The third part analyzes the Learner Web
according to a number of success factors covered in our class and gives some recommendations for
future distance education leaders. This paper contains audio and video hosted on the websites on the
Internet. It is thus best read on a computer with an Internet connection.
1. Description of the Learner Web
1.1 Overview of the program
The Learner Web is an online “learning support system” (Reder, 2010a) designed to provide
adult learners with learning resources and guidance in a variety of fields. The original version of the
Learner Web was created in response to findings of the Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning (Reder,
2010b), a large-scale study being conducted at Portland State University, following the learning
development of adults who dropped out of high school before graduation. One of the findings of the
study was the value of self-study activities in context of GED preparation. Reder & Strawn (2006a;
1
2006b) report that adult learners who engaged in self study were more likely to obtain a GED than those
who relied only on adult education classes (27% success among students who used both self study and
classes; 24% success among students who used self study only; 17% success among students who relied
on classes only).
There are many reasons why self study is such an important factor for learning success among
adults. Perhaps most importantly, adult learners often have busy and frequently changing schedules.
This makes it hard for them to commit to physical classes running on a fixed schedule. In addition, many
adults feel that it is easier to learn in a context that allows them to focus on exactly the areas they need
in order to reach their educational goals. However, studying alone and without support from teachers or
tutors can be a daunting endeavor. Without a plan and a clear structure, learners find it hard to stay
motivated and often do not even know what to study or how to study effectively. This is especially true
for adult basic learners, who often have little experience with formal education. Besides a lack of
academic background, these learners know very little about how the education system works. For
example, Reder (2010a) mentions the case of an adult learner whose goal it is to become a medical
doctor but does not know that a college degree is required to attend medical school.
The original Learner Web set out to address both the “what” and the “how” of adult learning.
The basic idea was (and still is) to provide the learners with the learning contents needed to reach their
specific educational goals and with learning plans to structure the learning experience. Learning plans
are curricular units corresponding to specific learning goals. In other words, they are the Learner Web’s
“courses” and can vary in length anywhere from a few hours to a 2-credit term-long class. The learning
contents are not always created by Learner Web staff. In fact, an important characteristic of the
program is that the learning plans often incorporate contents that already exist online. A particular
strength of this approach is that the Learner Web can use authentic materials such as YouTube videos,
text passages, and music, embed them in learning plans and thus transform them into meaningful
2
learning resources. Especially in language teaching, task-based learning and the use of authentic
materials have become very popular in recent years (e.g. Eckerth, 2008)) owing to their value in
preparing learners for real-world contexts.
Web-based resources are not the only types of contents used in the Learner Web. Individual
regions (see below) often offer learning plans incorporating local resources available to the user. For
instance, a career preparation learning plan written for users in the St. Paul, MN area may point the
learners towards offline resources in their area, such as community colleges, library courses, and
educational workshops. One of the Learner Web’s goals is to connect its users to the communities they
live in and introduce them to resources which the learners might not even know exist. Another
advantage of linking online guided self study with local offline learning is that the Learner Web can serve
as a “medical chart for learning” (Reder, 2010a). As learners shift in an out of local programs, the
Learner Web can keep track of their progress and learning goals achieved.
Originally designed to assist adult basic learners in their efforts to prepare for GED
examinations, the Learner Web today caters to a variety of audiences: Immigrants to the US, adult basic
learners, job seekers, and international and domestic college students. Illustration 1 provides an
overview of the Learner Web’s primary strategic directions.
Adult education encompasses areas like basic skills (math, literacy, etc.), career preparation and
development, citizenship preparation, and English for work. In addition, the Learner Web has been
adopted by Portland State University’s ESL program and its nationally acclaimed University Studies
program. Besides these primary fields, the Learner Web is also used in some other contexts, for
instance, in skills assessment and to train new Learner Web staff and instructors. Learner Web courses
are usually self-paced and the users study on their own, but tutors and support staff are always available
online and through a toll-free phone number.
3
Illustration 1 – Strategic directions of the Learner Web (The Learner Web Project, 2010)
As mentioned, the Learner Web strives to connect learners to their communities and local
resources. Because of this and because of its focus on self study, the Learner Web does not see itself as
a “traditional” distance learning program:
Most distance education programs are organized around a class format directed by an
instructor. The Learner Web [in contrast] supports individuals independent from a class
or an instructor. The Learner Web can incorporate classes and distance education
programs if desired. (Learner Web Project, 2010)
4
This is, however, not to say that certain parts of the Learner Web are not comparable to distance
education programs. Independent studies and distance education are by no means mutually exclusive,1
and the Learner Web’s learning plans are not all that different from course curricula. The Learner Web is
interesting from the perspective of distance education leadership because of its ability to blend
traditional classroom-based learning with web-based technologies. It is important to keep in mind,
though, that that the Learner Web is neither one program nor simply a learning management system.
The next section looks at the Learner Web’s organization and sheds some light on the variable nature of
the Learner Web as a learner support system.
1.2
Organization and leadership structure
The Leaner Web is organized in a network consisting of several different regions. These regions
are geographically and/or thematically distinct nodes in the network, usually belonging to different
regional partners, which could be a state, a city, and organization, a university, or a department within
the university. At the core of the Learner Web project is National Implementation Team, lead by Dr.
Stephen Reder at Portland State University. This expert group is responsible for developing, reviewing,
and reevaluating the program’s vision, setting the major strategic directions, and expanding the Learner
Web. However, the actual organization of the Learner Web is strictly decentralized and without a central
governing body. When a new regional partner comes aboard, the National Implementation Team trains
new the new staff and helps the region get started. From that point on, the regional partner makes its
own decisions about learning plans, contents, and target audiences. Even major decisions concerning
the Learner Web as a whole are made in close collaboration with all relevant stakeholders. The
organization of the Learner Web can thus be described as in illustration 2:
1
Consider Louisiana State University as just one of many examples of established universities offering for-credit
courses in a self-paced, self-study format: http://www.is.lsu.edu/courselist.asp?level=CO&online=0&nid=102
5
Portland
State
University
Scotland,
UK
Portland,
OR
National
implementation
team
Greater
Boston
St. Paul,
MN
New York
State
Illustration 2: Organization of the Learner Web. The outer ring shows some of the Learner Webs regions.
The illustration only shows a few example regions. The full list of regional partners and other partners
can be accessed at http://www.learnerweb.org/infosite/currentPartners.html. As can be seen, Portland
actually has two different regional partners: one is for the Portland community and is open to anyone.
The other region belongs to Portland State University and is restricted to students at the university. The
Portland State node actually consists of several regions, for faculty development, ESL students,
University Study students, etc.
Similarly to the Learner Web’s organization on an international level, the administration within a
region is very flat in terms of hierarchy. The regional administrator initiates and oversees the
development of new learning plans and contents in accordance with other possible stakeholders (e.g.
non-Learner Web managers of education) in order to make sure that the entire program benefits from
the new learning plans. Content developers and learning plan developers deliver the contents of the
region. The difference between the two positions is that content developers are solely concerned with
6
the writing of materials, whereas learning plan developers are instructional designers responsible for
implementing all materials into the learning plan. Besides these key positions, there is a plethora of
tutors, course instructors, and technical support staff to support the learners online or onsite, as shown
in illustration 3.
Content
developers
Regional
administrator
National
implementation
team
Regional
implementation
partner
Faculty and
instructional
managers
Regional
implementation
partner
Tutors and tech
support
Learning plan
developers
Illustration 3: Organization of a Learner Web region (example from a university region)
This structure may change as the Learner Web grows from an academic project to a sustainable,
possibly even profitable, organization. Advantages and challenges of the current structure will be
discussed in a later in the paper.
1.3
Accreditation and funding
Although the Learner Web is growing rapidly and even beyond US borders, it is at this point still
an academic project. It is thus not accredited by any professional or academic associations. Funding
comes from grants and from the organizations implementing it for their purposes. According to Dr.
Reder (2010a), the Learner Web may be headed towards becoming an independent organization. The
next section provides a hands-on introduction to the Learner Web.
7
2. The Learner Web hands-on
Complementing the theoretical description in the previous sections, it seems useful to have a
more hands-on tour of the Learner Web in order to get a better impression of what a learner in the
program would see. The Learner Web’s main website can be accessed at www.learnerweb.org and the
individual regions as well as an overview of all Learner Web partners can be found at
http://www.learnerweb.org/infosite/currentPartners.html. The screenshot below shows the welcome
page of Portland State’s Intensive English Language Program region. The simplicity of the layout is
common to all Learner Web regions and contents, and is intentional. A simple “no bells” interface
means fast accesses even from slow Internet connections.
8
Learning plans do, of course, contain resource-heavy materials such as movie clips, animations, and
graphics, but the actual Learner Web interface is always as simple as the one in the screenshot. The
minimalistic design has another great advantage: Many of the Learner Web’s regions serve users who do
not always have high computer literacy. Keeping the interface simple is vital to helping these users to
navigate the Learner Web contents with easy and helps them stay motivated.
Most Learner Web regions are open and free to all interested users, but since every new user
means administrative effort for the given region, I decided to leave registration to those users who are
actually going to use the region. Instead, Errin Beck, one of the regional administrators at Portland
State’s Intensive English Language program was kind enough to give me a tour of one of the region’s
learning plans. The link below leads to a 5-minute video, in which Errin explains the basic of a learning
plan and its interface:
LW Demonstration Video
(This video was created using Jing by TechSmith.)
9
3. Success factors
Amidst the wealth of options available to learners in any field, online programs must identify
and market areas in which they are better than the competition. Such areas might be quality, cost,
reputation, convenience, length of the program, and many more. As an open learning environment
serving the community, the Learner Web is not in competition with other institutions for funds and
students, but it still needs to attract and retain learners if it wants to be a useful resource.2

Cost: The community-based regions of the Learner Web are free to use. Even the technical
phone support and face-to-face (or online) tutoring are available free of charge. The learners do
not have to purchase textbooks or any other materials.

Convenience: No attendance is necessary. Many adult learners are too busy to attend face-toface classes. The Learner Web lessons are self-paced and adapt to the learner’s busy schedule.
Joining the Learner Web is a matter of a simple one-step registration, and users can jump from
region to region, using one account.

Comfort: Many adult learners, especially in basic skills and ESL settings are intimidated by large
face-to-face classes. In some cases, adults are uncomfortable in formal education settings
because they are not legal residents or because cultural norms do not allow them to mingle with
strangers. For these people, the Learner Web offers a safe and comfortable learning
environment

Scope: Adult learners have very little time and tolerance for learning contents they perceive as
irrelevant. In face-to-face classes and other group settings, instructors and curriculum designers
2
The university-based Learner Web regions at Portland State University work differently as they are only open to
participants in the university community.
10
are unable to focus on the needs of individual learners. The Learner Web allows its users to
access exactly the content areas they need.

Connections to the community: The Learner Web does not want to compete with other
resources such as community colleges or community learning centers. Rather it seeks to
complement the offerings of these organizations. In many cases, such as vocational Learner
Web learning plans suggestions are built in as to which community resources are relevant to the
learner.

Simplistic navigation and tools: As mentioned above, the Learner Web has a simplistic design
and is easy to navigate, which makes it especially attractive to members of the community with
low computer literacy.

Quality: Community-based learning programs are often characterized by goodwill rather than
academic rigor. Learner Web curricula, on the other hand, are designed by experienced
instructional designers who are familiar with how adult learners learn best and behave in
different learning environments.
All these factors make the Learner Web attractive to its target audience, but there three other
important success factors making the Learner Web a viable project from the perspective of its
administrators and sponsors. Both of these factors can be linked to the decentralized organization of
the Learner Web:

Distribution of operating costs: In times of tight budgets and dwindling government support for
education, non-profit programs often struggle finding a steady source of income. In the Learner
Web, the regional implementation partners are responsible for funding their region. This way,
the financial burden is not on a single governing body. If in the worst case a region fails, the
others can continue their work relatively unharmed.
11

Thought leadership: The absence of one decision maker or central board of decision makers
allows the partners in the Learner Web total creative freedom when it comes to developing
learning plans and contents. As Professor Reder (2010b) mentions, it has happened that regional
partners came up with uses for the Learner Web that he and his developer team never even
thought of.

Sharing of ideas and cloning of learning plans: A region that has developed a new learning plan
may decide to share its work with other regions in the Learner Web. The other regions are then
free to adapt the new plan to their individual context (e.g. in terms of community resources
embedded). It also happens that a region decides to write a new plan building on a shared plan
it received and then in turn shares this new plan with the other regional partners. In this way,
knowledge, ideas, and products multiply, and each region can offer much more than its
resources allowed if it were alone.
Table 1 below presents a synthesis of the US regional accrediting commissions’, Statement of
Commitment for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Council of
Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2000; Parker, 2008). Together with the Best Practices for
Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs by the Western Cooperative for Educational
Telecommunications (e.g. Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2000), the standards form the
basis of 24 benchmarks proposed by the Institute of Higher Education Policy. It is difficult to evaluate a
relatively young program open learning system like the Learner Web, using benchmarks designed for
established programs. However, the standards are broad enough to serve as a general orientation to
quality and applying them to the Learner Web helps to confirm that the program is indeed on the right
way.
12
Involvement of competent professionals in
creating, providing, and improving the program
Instructors, instructional designers, researchers,
and graduate students work collaboratively
Interactivity
Limited in a guided self-study environment. But
tutors and instructors are available for help, and
community resources are available. So far no
interactivity between the students.
Integrity, organized curricula, and clear learning
outcomes
Every learning plan starts with a clearly defined
learning goal. Every learning plan tells the user
exactly what he or she will be able to do after
completion.
Addressing student needs and providing
resources needed for learning success
Learners only focus on learning plans that are
useful to them. All resources needed to complete
a learning plan are available online and ready. The
user does not have to purchase anything or search
for resources online.
Accountability of the institutions for their
programs
Each partnering organization/institution is
responsible for their contents.
Continuous assessment and improvement of
learner success
Some regions and learning plans offer feedback to
the learner. Learner assessment is possible when
the learner submits his or her work to a tutor. Selfassessment is also a feature which a learning plan
developer may choose to include.
Peer review
Continuous peer review through sharing of
learning plans, and local and national conferences.
The final section gives some recommendations for aspiring leaders in distance education by
leaders of the Learner Web.
In their own words: summary and recommendations
The Learner Web is a young but ambitious project and is quickly spreading across the US and
beyond. As a learner support system it combines self study with community-based learning and online
contents with offline resources. In its current form, the Learner Web can afford a flat hierarchical
13
organization that allows for maximum creative freedom for individual developers and whole partnering
organizations. Leadership in the present Learner Web is much more about vision and engagement than
about authority. It will be interesting to see how the organizational structure of the Learner Web will
change as the program grows and develops.
This case study closes with a few select comments on leadership from the two Learner Web
leaders that were interviewed for the leadership podcast, Dr. Reder (2010b), Principal Investigator of the
Learner Web, and Darby Smith (2010), Regional Administrator.
“Ideas, not people”
In long-term projects, people come and go. A project succeeds when it does not depend on individuals
but when there is a vision that is shared by everyone involved.
“Be flexible”
Sometimes it is impossible to say where a project will go and how exactly it will develop. Leaders and
project sponsors have to accept that not all factors can always be controlled for if they want to inspire
innovation.
“Be willing to fail”
The risk to fail is part of any new endeavor. “You have to believe in what you are doing but you have to
be willing to fail. If you are so averse to being wrong, you can’t get very far” (Reder, 2010b)
“Incubate ideas”
Don’t try to come up with all the good ideas yourself. Rather create an environment that incubates good
ideas and though leadership among those who work with you.
14
“Lead gently”
In education, you work with a lot of people who are experts. Instructors are used to being in charge of
everything that goes on in their classrooms. This is no different in online environments, and you need to
lead very gently so as not to interfere with your teachers’ professional pride.
References and websites
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (2000). Statement of Commitment for the Evaluation of
Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.educause.edu/Resources/StatementofCommitmentbytheRegi/151503
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (2000). Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and
Certificate Programs Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/BestPracticesforElectronically/151504
Eckerth, J. (2008). Task-based language learning and teaching - old wine in new bottles? In J. Eckerth &
S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching. Frankfurt am Main, Germany:
Peter Lang.
Parker, N.K. (2008). The quality dilemma in online education revisited. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and
practice in online learning (305-340). Retrieved April 24, 2010, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Reder, S. (2010a). Personal interview. UF Leadership Podcasts. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World
Wide Web: http://online-educator.pbworks.com/Leaders-podcasts
Reder, S. (2010b). LSAL. The longitudinal study of adult learning. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.lsal.pdx.edu/
15
Reder, S. & Strawn C. (2006a). Self-study: broadening the concepts of participation and program
support. Focus on Basics, 8, 6-10. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncsall.net/?id=1152
Reder, S. & Strawn C. (2006b). The Learner Web. Brief concept description. Learner Web project.
Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.learnerweb.org/infosite/Attachments/LearnerWebConceptBrief.pdf
Smith, D. (2010). Personal interview. UF Leadership Podcasts. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from the World
Wide Web: http://online-educator.pbworks.com/Leaders-podcasts
TechSmith Corporation (2009). Jing. http://www.learnerweb.org/infosite/
The Learner Web Project (2010). The Learner Web. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.learnerweb.org
16