COUNTERBLAST: In Defence of Distance Learning

Stout, Brian; Dominey, Jane

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2006.00442.x

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the author and others have argued (Madoc-Jones et al, 2003;Stout and Dominey, 2006), e-learning offers a number of potential benefits to learners. TPOs contributing to Davies and Durrance's (2009) study particularly noted the ease of access it granted to articles and key websites and the way it allowed those with significant life responsibilities, such as childcare, to study when they were able.…”

Section: University-based Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work-based distance learning for probation practice: Doing the job properly

Davies¹

2011

Probation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article supports Dominey's 'Work-based Distance Learning for Probation Practice: Doing the Job Properly' whilst examining some of the points she makes on the basis of research evidence. In particular, it argues the case for the practice-based teacher and for sufficient study time as two essential elements in any effective learning environment for probation trainees. The value of face-to-face teaching to probation trainees is explored in the context of the current shift to a predominantly distance learning mode of delivery and the relationship between higher education and the commissioners of training is discussed.

show abstract

Section: University-based Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work-based distance learning for probation practice: Doing the job properly

Davies¹

2011

Probation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These were the developments that informed Treadwell's assertions about the place of distance learning. His comments were a little more detailed than the 503 r 2007 The Authors Journal compilation r 2007 The Howard League impression conveyed by Stout and Dominey (2006), who somewhat selectively highlighted only the final part of what was a much more detailed observation (p.537).…”

Section: The Deepening Slumber -Academics and The New Probation Trainingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This is hardly in keeping with the selfdirection with which distance learning is usually associated and, with this in mind, claims that distance learning has been adopted for 'sound pedagogical reasons' require large pinches of salt. Stout and Dominey (2006) observe that: 'a criticism of the move to distance learning in the probation service is that this approach inevitably leads to a poorer understanding of theory and a reduction in the quality of reflective practice'. They counter this view by suggesting that 'the workbased nature of the DipPS gives enhanced opportunities for meaningful integration of theory and practice' (p.538).…”

Section: The Deepening Slumber -Academics and The New Probation Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value of the model would certainly be bolstered if it were found to resonate with the experiences of participants, although the few accounts to hand seem to suggest that it might not (McGowan 2002;Treadwell 2006). Stout and Dominey (2006) note that there may be problems with distance learning, and observe that, while the programme is not perfect in regard to access and diversity, it can 'enable people to study close to home'. They believe that a campus-based programme would deter 'students unable to travel large distances or move houses' (p.538).…”

Section: The Deepening Slumber -Academics and The New Probation Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Probation Education, Why the Hush? A Reply to Stout and Dominey's December 2006 Counterblast

Treadwell

Mantle

2007

The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a response to a 'Counterblast' concerning the delivery of probation training (Stout and Dominey 2006). The authors mounted a 'defence of distance learning', as a method for training probation officers, and took issue with assertions earlier made by us on the subject of distance learning. Our article is intended to clarify our position on distance learning (which previously amounted to no more than a few words) and to clarify the basis of some of our reservations. In doing this, we make more general, critical observations concerning the state of New Labour's probation training programme and about the current crises in which the service, and its training arrangements have become embroiled.In their first sentence, Stout and Dominey (2006) refer to 'probation education' and, in their penultimate one, to 'training for offender managers'. Our view is that these are two different things and this leads us to take a different position as to where preparation for practice should take place. Whereas we agree wholeheartedly that probation officer education should remain in higher education (HE), whether or not 'training for offender managers' (p.539) should be similarly rooted in HE appears to be a more taxing question and, as a result, our answer is more equivocal. Working professionally with people subject to court orders and prison licences in order to help them live as peacefully as possible in their community requires a university education. Something similar, albeit less convincing, can be argued for delivering 'what works' correctional services. 'Managing offenders' in the context of a misguided, Home Office-driven fixation on 'public protection' needs staff who can tick boxes and press buttons. If risks are to be avoided, never to be taken, then a university education seems superfluous.Stout and Dominey bewail the absence of a suitable place to debate criminal justice education. There may be some truth in this, although the

show abstract