ABSTRACT
In his review of correspondence study in works of literature von Pittman describes the negative stereotypes that abound there (von Pittman, 1988). The proprietors of correspondence schools are usually villains who employ exaggerated or misleading advertising. As for the tutors ‘their credentials, competence, and intentions are always suspect’. The lessons themselves ‘flow back and forth in an industrial-style model of instruction, with no personal touch or student-teacher interaction’. Such images may seem quaint and dated in the brave new world of ‘distance education’ pioneered by such institutions as the National Extension College and the Open University. However, this mode of learning is still generally recognised as being extremely difficult and dependent on the motivation and dedication of the student. The Open University’s first Vice-Chancellor acknowledged that he had helped create ‘the hardest way of gaining a degree known to man’ (Perry, 1976) and ‘the loneliness of the long distance learner’ is a much discussed ailment.
