On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Μ.Ed. in TESOL programme of the Hellenic Open University, we distributed a questionnaire to graduates as well as current students of the programme. Our primary goal was to further reflect on the usefulness of the programme ten years after and identify possible weak points that need enhancement for the ultimate benefit of our students and the Greek society at large. To that end, we aimed to map out students’ views about the programme and its influence on their professional life. In the various sections of the questionnaire we tried to explore (a) whether their expectations are fulfilled; (b) which modules of those on offer they have selected and which they consider as the most and least important for their professional training and development; (c) how the programme has influenced the professional choices they make/have made outside teaching a class-proper; (d) whether they regard the programme as a springboard for further professional development which they can embark upon on their own; (e) what suggestions they can make for the programme’s further improvement of. The results were very positive. The goals we had set forth in 1998, when this Μ.Ed. in TESOL teacher education programme was inaugurated, were definitely fulfilled for the benefit of the teachers of English at large both in the private and the state sector. The work that has been carried out so far points to a bright future, provided we continue on the same successful course and implement all necessary changes and adjustments required by our changing times.

Launching the distance-learning student-tutor interaction process, tutors of the first module of the M.Ed in English course at the HOU lay the foundations of academic student autonomy by means of providing – inter alia -- the appropriate written feedback on written assignments. In doing so, they need to gauge the content and form of their written comments systematically with regard to both output- and student-, that is human factor-related issues (cf. Goldstein, 2004), the latter being particularly relevant to the distance-learning context. In this article we discuss tutor policy as well as tutor perceptions (cf. Lee, 2004, 2009 among others) regarding written feedback on students’ academic assignments in terms of aspects of deviance treated and the relative gravity of ‘global’ and ‘local’ errors (e.g. Ferris, 2002), the directness of the correction, the punitive or facilitative nature of the comments provided as well as the relative balance of student strengths and weaknesses on the tutor’s comment agenda (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The role of the tutor as an assessor and/or counsellor is explored and the importance of striking a delicate balance between the two, especially in a context where face-to-face feedback opportunities are severely restricted, is underscored. We suggest that distance-learning feedback practices may need to be at least partially individualized to maximize student response and meet the goal of ‘informed autonomy’.