Held 11-13 August 1999
Papers Presented at
the 1st National NADEOSA Conference
Held 11-13 August 1999
Author:
Wayne G Mackintosh Bureau for University Teaching, Unisa
Title:
"The future ain’t what it used
to be": Transforming distance education in Africa for the emerging knowledge society
What does the future hold for higher education in general and ODL in particular? Peter Drucker, the icon of strategic management, has argued that "30 years from now big university campuses will be relics" (Drucker and Holden 1997:1745). Distance education institutions, utilising the advantages of mass-standardisation, have developed into large organisations that capitalise on the benefits of economies-of-scale. If Drucker’s predictions hold true, DE universities risk extinction by virtue of their size and the challenges of the emerging knowledge society.
This warning is particularly relevant for institutions like Unisa because it has developed into one of the mega-universities of the world (Daniel 1996). The concept "mega-university" is used as an arbitrary classification for universities which have more than 100 000 students. In 1998 Unisa had approximately 152 000 students made up of 118 000 degree students and 34 000 certificate and music students.
Does Drucker’s prediction simply warn against "big university campuses"? I think not. Drucker’s warning is rooted in the understanding that the world has entered a new era that is significantly different from the one which preceded it.
Drucker (1995:75-76) explains that:
Every few hundred years throughout Western history, a sharp transformation has
occurred. In a matter of decades, society altogether rearranges itself -- its worldview,
its basic values, its social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions.
...And the people born into that world cannot even imagine the world in which their
grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. Our age is such a period of
transformation. In this [new] society, knowledge is the primary resource for individuals
and for the economy overall. Land, labor, and capital -- the economist's traditional
factors of production -- do not disappear, but they become secondary.
This paper focuses on the nature of the changes associated with the new era referred to in the previous paragraph. Although the changes are revolutionary, open distance learning is best positioned to tackle the challenges of this tidal wave when compared to traditional forms of tertiary educational provision. Three foundational components characterise this burgeoning revolution for tertiary education in Africa:
Each of the components listed above will be introduced. The paper will then analyse the transformational implications of this revolution for distance education and the University of South Africa from a student support perspective. Globalisation related questions concerning the future of higher education in a knowledge driven economy is a large and complex topic, particularly where Africa is concerned. Even so, these issues are pivotal to understanding the anticipated changes in tertiary education. The brevity with which I am forced to tackle this complex debate, because of time constraints, has necessitated that I focus on a specific issue concerning the transformation of DE rather than the bigger picture of ODL delivery systems. I have chosen student support in South African tertiary-level DE as a focal point for speculating about the changes that are required in tertiary education provision.
The challenges for Unisa, as it approaches the new millennium, concern two interrelated priorities: first, to improve its distance learning pedagogy and second, to improve the quality and quantity of its student support. Both these priorities must be attained in such a way that they are able to function within the transformational demands of the global knowledge economy. Meeting these challenges will require radical transformation with regards to the way things are currently done at Unisa. The transformation is radical because not only are systemic changes required concerning the way the University is organised, but the transformation is also radical because of the fundamental nature of the changes in higher education.
1.1 Globalisation
The concept "globalisation" can be used to describe the progression towards a true global society. It is rooted in the expansion of global communication systems. Instantaneous communication across the world is no longer a fantasy, but is a significant part of our everyday lives. We followed the Gulf War in visual detail from our living rooms. World sport events, for example the Grand Prix, are followed from virtually every corner of the globe. The gossip associated with the impeachment hearings of President Clinton, which previously would only have been heard in the corridors of the White House, was common knowledge around the world.
Globalisation, however, is far more complex than simply linking the world through communications technology, the universal appeal of blue jeans, or notions that the world is "shrinking". Evans (1995:258) substantiates this view by pointing out that globalisation "is not simply that the ‘world has got smaller’ …[r]ather, some time-space relations are radically altered to an extent which fundamentally affects the way people now view, understand and engage the world in which the live". It is far more than technology which facilitates globalisation – it transcends the economic, social, political and cultural boundaries and is inclusive of processes, structures and product" (Evans 1995:258).
Apart from the fact that globalisation changes our lives, Giddens (1990:64) points out the reciprocal potential of globalisation. He describes the concept as: "the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by the events occurring many miles away and vice versa" (my bolding). Therefore globalisation is not only something which happens to you, but it is also something which you can participate in.
Today, internationalisation is an imperative for success, and holds many advantages for those participating in the global economy and knowledge society. Many developing countries will no doubt benefit from this global interaction by using the very technologies of globalisation to "leapfrog" a generation of communications technology (see for example Knight 1996). However, "[t]hose who do not have some mechanisms to monitor and understand the internationalization of knowledge are likely to be left out of important spheres of discovery, and they may find themselves less competitive in ways that have major economic and political consequences" (Green & Hayward 1997:17). Therefore, this widens the gap between those who have and those who don’t (see for example UNDP 1999).
One of the characteristic features of this new era concerns the significance of the risks of transformation. Previously, risks associated with new interventions were regarded as peripheral when compared to the change process itself. In this new era, the risks associated with current change developments have grown to proportions so great that they can no longer be disregarded. Today, the risks of change are of similar magnitude to the change development itself. Globalisation is not merely a contextual risk but a foundational component of societal evolution itself.
I suggested in the introduction of this paper that HE is facing a "revolution". Sceptics will dispute the revolutionary nature of globalisation. They will argue that the world is not essentially different from that which existed before. They see the global communication technology developments as an evolutionary extension of a modern industrialised world. However, this paper does not support the view of the sceptics, but rather, it shares the opinion expressed by the director of the London School of Economics, Anthony Giddens:
"I would have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that globalisation, as we are experiencing it, is in many respects not only new, but revolutionary" (Giddens 1999).
In concluding this subsection on globalisation, tertiary education leaders and higher education policy makers in Africa should critically examine the strategic position they plan to take with reference to the time-space compression of globalisation. Massingue answers this challenge from an African perspective when he says: "You cannot be part of the global village by just sitting and waiting to be ‘globalized’ … We want to be the globalizers" (cited in Useem 1999:A52).
1.2 The knowledge society
There are two important sides to the knowledge society coin. The concept "knowledge society" relates firstly to a fundamental condition, namely the role of knowledge in a post-industrial society and secondly, to shifting conceptions of what knowledge is (see for example Gibbons 1998; Scott 1997a & Scott 1997b).
The most significant characteristic of the knowledge society is the pivotal role that knowledge will increasingly play in the global economy. Knowledge is replacing the central role that the economic factors of production played during the previous era, namely the industrialisation of society.
There is ample empirical evidence to justify the existence of a growing global knowledge economy, particularly from the perspective of the newer economic growth theories (Conceição & Heitor 1999). A good practical example is the expansion of the services industry in comparison to industrialisation, or the proportional representation of the knowledge worker as a percentage of the workforce as compared to the blue-collar or industrial worker. At the peak of industrialisation in America during the early 1950s, the industrial worker constituted between 30 and 35 percent of the workforce but in the 1990s this has reduced to between 15 and 18 percent (Drucker 1995:231)
One could argue that this workforce has been replaced by importing manufactured goods into the US from countries with low wage costs, but Drucker (1995:237) proves this is not the case. Only an insignificant percentage of manufactured goods are imported into the US, which amounts to only about 1 percent of gross domestic product.
Scott (1997b:6) lists the following five attributes of the emerging knowledge society:
Traditionally, the societal function of producing knowledge has been regarded as the institutional responsibility of the university. As we approach the new millennium, universities will no longer retain the societal role of being the primary creators or producers of "scientific" knowledge.
Universities will no longer hold a monopoly on knowledge creation, as was traditionally the case with reference to their research function. Industry now plays a far more active role in generating new knowledge for solving the problems that they face. These new knowledge producers, coupled with the effects of globalisation, are making considerable contributions to expanding the knowledge base of the world. This is the knowledge base that must now be re-configured for teaching purposes.
In addition to the changing roles of the university concerning knowledge production, the nature of knowledge itself is changing. Mode 1 and Mode 2 are terms used to describe two distinctive conceptualisations of knowledge (see Gibbons 1998). Each mode is differentiated by:
The characteristics of the two modes of knowledge production are briefly introduced in the following paragraphs.
As mentioned above, the creation of "scientific" (Mode 1) knowledge has traditionally been the responsibility of the university. Under Mode 1 knowledge production, universities have prescribed the "scientific" processes and methods for discovering knowledge and as such also set out the criteria for what constitutes knowledge, itself. Mode 1 knowledge is typically disciplinary, and corresponding academic structures reflect this in their hierarchical organisational structures.
Under Mode 2 knowledge production, the responsibilities of knowledge production are distributed among a variety of knowledge producers in society. Mode 2 knowledge production is transdisciplinary and produced in the context of application. Organisational structures of Mode 2 knowledge producers tend to be organic and have considerably flatter hierarchies. Levels of social accountability are notably higher than in Mode 1 forms, and Mode 2 forms have a far wider spectrum of participants in quality assurance processes.
In addition to these points, we find ourselves living and operating in an unprecedented state of rapid change with reference to knowledge and technology. This is a perplexing challenge for DE because the format and content of learning resources are difficult to change in the short run.
If universities aim to remain relevant, they will have to change their primary focus from knowledge production and teaching to a focus on knowledge re-configuration and teaching (see Gibbons 1998). This shift to knowledge re-configuration is particularly important for DE institutions that must "package" and distribute their knowledge and teaching through DE learning resources for mass education.
1.2.1 Implications for ODL
You may be wondering what this discussion on the knowledge society has to do with DE. Well, the changes associated with the emerging knowledge society are closely related to how society has dealt with questions of mass production in industry. New ways of dealing with the problems of mass production in industry are appearing with the emerging knowledge society. Consequently, the provision of DE and student support, which is a mass "production" problem, will also be affected. Globally, with the knowledge society emerging over the last few decades, universities have been faced with the growing challenges of mass education provision. Access to higher education is no longer limited to the elite of society. Collectively these new challenges are embodied in the requirements of post-industrial DE delivery (see for example Campion 1996; Farnes 1993; Jarvis 1996; Peters 1996; Raggatt 1993 and Rumble 1995(a)(b)&(c)).
In response to these challenges, DE has become education’s best example of dealing with the mass "production" of educational opportunities (see Peters 1989). It has achieved significantly higher participation rates per cost unit when compared with its residential teaching counterpart by industrialising the processes of teaching and learning. For example:
Considering these examples, DE has progressed considerably further than traditional residential universities with the inevitable industrialisation of education. Within the contexts of the evolution of higher education, we can argue that DE is the most modern form of educational provision. Peters, based on his sociological analysis of DE resolves the same thing:
There is no other form of teaching and learning which breaks away from tradition so sharply, which is so conducive to structural changes, which has the potential for developing entirely new instructional configurations and which promises to tackle the problems of mass education in the coming information society with adequate means. All of this indicates clearly that the concept of distance education is, indeed, a revolutionary one (Peters 1992:33)
The emerging knowledge society is posing a new challenge for DE that is fundamentally different from the previous challenges of industrialisation. Collectively these new challenges are embodied in the requirements of post-industrial DE delivery (see for example Campion 1996; Farnes 1993; Jarvis 1996; Peters 1996; Raggatt 1993 and Rumble 1995(a)(b)&(c)).
In the past, DE tackled the problems of mass education provision by using an economy of scale approach. As we move deeper into the knowledge society, the magnitude of the mass education phenomenon will increase and, as such, the problem is still one of mass provision. However, the way in which the mass DE provision problems are tackled in a post-industrial society will be very different from the ways these problems were dealt with in the previous industrial era. Chattel (1995: 57), speaking from a business perspective, points this out:
"The new paradigm achieves its scale not through monotony, but through continuous variation. Alvin Toffler coined the term ‘mass customization’ to describe what he saw as the essence of the new paradigm of production - its capacity to meet the individual needs of masses of individuals at similar economics to those of mass production."
Let us consider the implications of these changes for post-industrial DE delivery:
In conclusion, we should not underestimate the revolutionary nature of these changes. Barnett (1997:43) reiterates these sentiments when he says:
The available ways of construing higher education are utterly inadequate to the modern age. The university has derived its legitimacy from a project built around knowledge, around knowing the world. But the modern world is unknowable - not only epistemologically, socially and culturally, but in terms of our personal identities. ...We need, therefore, to do nothing short of jettisoning the whole way we have construed higher education for one thousand years and, instead, work out a new conception of education which starts from the understanding that the world is unknowable in any serious sense.
1.3 The time-bomb of tertiary education in Africa
The African continent is facing one of the most daunting developmental challenges of the globe. Improving access to education is undoubtedly one of the highest priorities of capacity building on the continent. However, this must be achieved in the context of:
some of the most highly-indebted poor countries of the globe;
severely declining quality of educational provision;
rapidly increasing population growth; and
poor information communications infrastructure.
For example, the tertiary education gross enrolment ratio for Sub-Saharan Africa is 3.6%. When compared with other developing regions - - for example, the Arab States (14%), Asia (10.4%) and Latin America (18.4%) the magnitude of the challenge is amplified (UNESCO 1998). Based on the demographic population profiles of the traditional 18-23 year-old cohort of higher education, many African countries will have to double their access to higher education by the year 2010. William Saint, Senior Education Specialist at the World Bank, argues that "local demands to expand tertiary enrolments in Africa will constitute a political time-bomb" (World Bank 1999).
Complicating matters further is the inherent risk of globalisation where the gap between developed countries and developing countries in Africa can become insurmountable. The United Nations Development Programme predicts that the current number of Internet users will grow from 150 million today to more than 700 million by 2001. This represents a growth of about 367% in only two years (UNDP 1999).
Certainly, this explosion of Internet communications technology can become a powerful tool for development in Africa. However, many of those who need access to this technology do not have it. Africa will have to find creative solutions in order to "leapfrog" previous eras of technology. These solutions must be utilised effectively in the provision of distance education assuming that Africa is serious about tackling the educational access problem. These solutions will potentially become Africa’s opportunity for contributing to globalisation.
2. A student support focus
Arguably, the challenge of providing sustainable student support is one of the most significant DE pedagogical challenges facing DE in South Africa and Unisa in particular. Although this paper concentrates on university provision, this does not limit its application to other forms of DE tertiary education. The University of South Africa is used as a case study to elucidate key features of the student support problem.
Before proceeding with the analysis, the concept of student support as it is used in this paper is summarised.
2.1 Describing student support
The alienation of the teaching-learning processes (because of the time-space separation in DE) amplifies the need for student support. Student support refers to those elements in the DE delivery system that support individual learners, whether studying alone or in groups. Examples of student support include tutoring which can be face-to-face, telephonic, electronic or by correspondence; student counselling; a network of study centres; and other forms of interactive learning opportunities, for example video-conferencing.
For the purposes of this paper, student support is differentiated from the teaching elements contained in the mass-produced learning resources that are typical in DE. These mass-produced resources are identical for each learner, whereas student support elements are individualised according to the specific needs of the individual learner. Therefore, elements contained for example in a study guide which provide for differentiated teaching support in the text are not classified as student support here. In the same way, the variety of learning design alternatives that are embedded in the mass-produced learning resources (for example in-text activities) are regarded as the outcome of good teaching design and not examples of student support.
Student support requires appropriate structures and delivery systems at the infrastructural level and corresponding policies and practices to ensure that student support is integrated with the teaching contained in the mass-produced learning resources.
The main category of student support at Unisa is provided by means of a centralised independent study model. This support refers to the individualised feedback that is provided by Unisa lecturers on the assignments submitted by students. This feedback takes the form of individualised written or sometimes audio comments by the lecturer marking the assignment.
The huge numbers of enrolments and correspondingly high lecturer-student ratios on many Unisa courses places limitations on the extent of individualised commentary – and therefore student support -- through the assignment system. Growing numbers of these courses are relying on automated assessment and self-assessment strategies to deal with the growing student numbers. Although individualisation is possible and necessary with these forms of assessment, they generally limit the possibilities for individualised teaching.
Another facet of student support at Unisa is provided by the Bureau for Student Counselling and Career Development. This is a small department that advises students concerning academic and career decisions. The Bureau also has student counsellors at each of the Unisa regional centres. This Bureau also provides study skills support using the independent study delivery system.
During the early 1990s the University was severely criticised for its poor levels of student support (see for example SAIDE 1994). In response to these criticisms the Department of Student Support was founded in 1994 with the main task of facilitating the establishment of an integrated student support system. According to the Unisa Council decision, the main task was to design and develop a system of face-to-face support and a corresponding network of learning centres and study centres (DSS 1999: 2).
Unisa learning centres were established at each of the Unisa regional centres, namely Durban, Pietersburg, and Cape Town. In addition to the learning centres at existing regional centres, learning centres have been established in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Umtata. There is also a community-based satellite centre attached to each of the learning centres.
The learning centres are facilities that provide academic support, counselling services and peer-group support. In addition to these services, the learning centres offer a limited tutorial support programme. Unisa finances the learning centre infrastructure, that is, premises, equipment and staff. The community-based satellite centres also provide a tutoring service, but accommodation is supplied by structures in the community. However, the tutors at the satellite centres are remunerated from the Unisa budget.
The tutorial sessions organised at the learning centres provide individualised face-to-face support for students in some cases. Tutorial support is optional in the Unisa system and students must pay an administrative and tutorial fee for these tutorials.
The Unisa tutorial programme offers learners 30 hours of face-to-face tuition in a typical year course. This constitutes about 15% of the notional study hours of a year course at Unisa. Tutorial sessions are offered once a week or fortnightly and are presented after-hours on weekdays and on Saturdays.
The tutorial support programme is dependent on a minimum of 15 students per tutorial and is consequently focused on courses at the undergraduate level. The tutorial support programme is provided in approximately 1% of the 2000 degree courses at the University.
Students participating in the tutorial support programme pay a yearly administration fee of R60.00 and a tutorial fee of R160.00 per course. At the first year level, the administration fee plus the tutorial fee represents a little more than a 25% addition to the registration fees for a course. The student support user-fee structure was first introduced in 1998 compared with previous years when students were only expected to pay a nominal commitment fee of R65 per student (DSS 1999: 9). The relatively high cost of tutoring carried by the student now has, to a large extent, been necessitated by the financial constraints of the University.
It is tragic that most of our students who require high levels of support are typically the students who do not have the economic means to finance this additional cost of study. This is evidenced by the 62% decline in the number of students enrolled in the tutorial programme when 1998 is compared to the 1997 levels of enrolment.
Notwithstanding the quality of support provided by the tutorial support programme, its impact is small when considering that in 1997 only about 10% of Unisa degree students participated in the tutorial support initiative. In 1998, this participation rate declined to about 4%.
Unisa is challenged with finding creative and effective ways of radically improving the reach of its student support programme. In the light of diminishing financial resources, the University will necessarily have to ask the question: Are Unisa’s delivery system and corresponding organisational structures optimally designed for the clients it must serve in the emerging global knowledge-based economy?
3. The complex business of improving student support at Unisa
Until 1994, Unisa’s delivery system made no specific provision for decentralised student support systems. Justified critique with regard to the pedagogical quality of Unisa’s teaching and the intensive focus on higher education transformation in a post-apartheid South Africa has launched Unisa on the path of change. Improving student support at Unisa will not be easy because of the complexity resulting from the interplay among the following key factors:
Increased demand for access to higher education (corresponding with increased demand for student support) in the absence of an adequate student support system in the University;
Severe funding limitations at a time when student support systems should be expanded;
Organisational design problems which bar the effective integration of student support into the delivery system;
I will elucidate the main issues relating to each of these points in the subsections which follow
3.1 Increased demand for access and student support
The demand for increased access to South Africa’s higher education system has grown substantially, and the University’s responsibility for both quantitative and qualitative improvements in student support is essential. The massification of higher education is a global trend, particularly in developing countries. In our context, the increase in demand for higher education is also the result of large numbers of South Africans who were previously denied access to the South African higher education system for political, economical and social reasons.
The student support challenge at Unisa is not simply a quantitative problem of increasing the levels of student support parallel with the growing demand for DE. The problem is that Unisa’s student support systems are inadequate when measured against the growing needs of students and international norms of DE student support.
A large proportion of Unisa’s current student population, as well as those students previously denied access to the higher education system, very often lack the learning skills that are necessary for success in higher education. Ordinarily, these skills are acquired through a quality secondary schooling system. However, due to Apartheid and its aftermath, this was clearly absent for a large segment of South Africa’s population. Completion rates are unacceptable for these learners, in the absence of appropriate student support systems. Vast improvements in the Unisa student support system will be required to overcome the alienation associated with time-space educational separation, particularly for the learners referred to above.
3.2 The financial crisis
Secondly, the challenge of creating sustainable student support is over shadowed by Unisa’s crippling financial prospects and huge operational deficits for the 1997 and 1998 financial years. Disciplined financial management and the current University processes of restructuring will stabilise the financial crisis, but this leaves virtually no room on the budget to take up the challenge of improved student support.
Understandably, the processes of restructuring that were brought into existence by the financial crisis are aimed at securing financial viability and stability rather than re-engineering for the contemporary demands of future open distance learning design and delivery. The distinct risk with current restructuring processes is that the university accomplishes financial stability at the expense of the quality of learning. Despite this risk, the restructuring undertaking is still in its infancy, and the University has the opportunity of redesigning itself, not only for financial viability but also for the latest demands of quality open distance learning practice.
State funding of higher education has also decreased and is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. Consequently, despite the institution’s commitment to student support at the level of tuition policy, improving student support at Unisa will not be easy.
3.3 Organisational design
Thirdly, the organisational design of the University is currently based on a traditional academic university structure. Although the University has a large administrative structure to deal with the specific functions of teaching at a distance (for example, Production, Despatch and Assignments departments), the characteristic design of the institution is based on the structures of a traditional residential teaching university.
The university is structured into six academic faculties according to traditional discipline groupings, for example the Faculty of Science, the Faculty of Arts. The academic departments are responsible for teaching, research and community service. There is a rigid organisational and philosophical division between the academic sections and the administrative sections of the university. The administration departments are structured as service departments to the academic departments. Sometimes this structure fuels misconceptions, in that the concept of "service" is interpreted as "servant".
The organisational placement of Unisa’s Department of Student Support can be used as an example to illustrate the problems associated with the unique organisational requirements of distance education.
The Department of Student Support, founded only in 1994 at Unisa, is responsible for Unisa’s tutorial support program, the administration of a well-functioning student representative council (SRC) and the Financial Aid Bureau, which deals with financial support issues for disadvantaged students. The department reports directly to the Vice Principal responsible for tuition.
With particular reference to the Department’s tutoring function, the Department of Student Support has no direct organisational link with the academic departments on matters of student support. Organisationally, the Department of Student Support is classified and perceived by many faculty members as an administrative department, notwithstanding the department’s tutoring responsibilities that are essentially academic.
The Department of Student Support at Unisa is an add-on to an existing structure and has not been thoughtfully integrated into the Unisa delivery system. It can be argued that, organisationally, the Department of Student Support has been set up to fail as it has no decision-making power concerning the integration of student support in the development of learning materials or the teaching of courses in academic departments.
Another example of the academic versus administrative differentiation is the poor status which key administrative departments have had in Senate, until recently. Very often these departments are crucial for important teaching related tasks.
First I give a few thoughts about the classification debate concerning what functions are "academic" and what functions are "administrative" in DE. Assessment is one of the functions of DE teaching we identified earlier in this presentation. Assessment in distance teaching would not be possible without a properly organised and administered assignments system.
The time-space separation of DE requires that many teaching functions are industrialised and systematised, although they can be classified as "academic" when compared to residential teaching. Consider the practice of formative assessment in contact teaching situations. Typically the professor is responsible for setting, distributing, collecting and grading assignments. In DE it is far more effective to collectively deal with the range of assessment functions by grouping them into, for example, an Assessment Department. This is a good illustration of the characteristic division of labour that is found in DE teaching.
Until recently, only a small number of administrative departments had only observer status (without voting rights) on Senate – the highest academic power of the University. Consequently key administrative departments responsible for significant components of the delivery system had no influential status in Senate. Therefore, Senate could take decisions regarding changes in the delivery system for example, a change in the assessment system, without the appropriate service department having voting rights on the proposed system changes.
The transformation towards a team approach in the design of materials has amplified these problems. For example, DE instructional designers do not have decision-making power over design decisions. Thus tensions concerning responsibility and ownership of development projects between the different areas of specialisation are created. These tensions can, in part, be attributed to an organisational design that does not reflect the unique requirements of the development and delivery of DE.
Fortunately, South Africa’s new Higher Education Act (Act 101 of 1997) has prescribed minimum requirements for the composition of governance structures like Senate, that will be more representative of the internal university community. The university is currently engaged with internal elections for a new Senate that will have increased participation from "administrative" classifications in the University.
Even though Senate will now be more representative, the proposed proportional composition of Senate between the different classifications of functional processes required in DE can still be criticised. A strong argument can be developed, based on the foundation that the proposed composition of Senate is still based on existing, and arguably flawed organisational structures, rather than on an analysis of the process requirements associated with the design, development and delivery of quality open distance learning. The implied organisational redesign will also have to take the challenges of the emerging knowledge society into account.
I conclude that, while governance structures are improving at Unisa, they have not changed the foundations upon which the structure of the University is designed. The current residential teaching organisational design of the University is totally inadequate to deal with the dynamic and unique processes of course design and development associated with a contemporary open distance learning organisation.
Severe criticisms about Unisa have been presented in this subsection and, in the traditions of the academy, opponents to the debates articulated in this subsection will challenge my assertions. I should concede that Unisa’s residential-based structures and academic traditions did much in allaying early fears that DE was academically inferior to conventional university teaching. The imperative now is to recognise that the higher educational context and the developments in open distance learning are significantly different from what they were in the middle of this century. Consequently, we should adapt our structures for the task at hand.
3.4 The interplay between student support and ODL delivery systems
The activity of distance teaching can be classified into four main functions. Within the context of DE learning resources, there are areas of potential overlap between these teaching functions:
Although this paper has focused on student support it is important to remember that student support is only one of four DE teaching functions. Consequently, before I speculate on how Unisa might tackle the challenges of improved pedagogy and student support, I must emphasise the interplay among organisational design, course design and student support.
Improving student support at Unisa will require an extensive network of learning centres throughout the geographical area it serves. To be successful, student support must be accessible and therefore geographically located in the communities where students live and work. Instituting such a network will require significant changes in the infrastructure of the University and its delivery model. The processes associated with design, development and delivery will also need to be re-engineered. Organisation redesign is imperative and this is why I have argued that improving student support will necessitate systemic transformation. Without systemic transformation, the impact of student support will remain peripheral.
For the purposes of this debate, let us assume that an extended network of learner centres can be established, thus hypothetically removing the financial and transformational barriers. Bearing this assumption in mind, the efficacy of a tutorial programme in this delivery system will be determined by the extent that tutoring is designed as an integral part of the teaching in the mass-produced learning resources. The point I want to make is that you cannot design for the integration of student support unless you have a definitive system of student support.
Clearly, the challenges of improved pedagogy and improved support will require systemic organisational changes, and its success will be co-determined by the interplay between organisational design and course design.
4. A speculative look into the future of ODL and student support at Unisa
The emerging knowledge society is changing the traditional university role of knowledge production to a new role of knowledge reconfiguration. The time-space compression of globalisation made possible through modern information communication technologies will result in ODL transcending traditional national boundaries. Considerably higher levels of massification can be expected in higher education, particularly in developing countries. Knowledge society members will demand higher levels of individualisation and customisation. However, to be sustainable, similar economics compared to conventional standardised mass production must be achieved. This is now possible through the application of developing information communication technologies and innovative management of mega distance teaching universities.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that tackling the student support challenge will be complex. Throwing more resources at the problem is not possible because the resources simply are not available. A fundamental redesign of the ODL delivery system will be required. This redesign will require innovative and dynamic approaches in the search for solutions. In this concluding subsection, I will speculate about strategic directions for Unisa’s future.
Speculating can be dangerous, especially when the rate of change clouds reasonable expectations of clarity for the future. Norris and Morrison (1997) eloquently capture the risks associated with Unisa’s imperative for transformation when they say: "Just because we are changing a great deal does not mean we are transforming".
I argue that the transformation of the University on the verge of the millennium should be based on three pivotal foundations:
The concluding subsection of this paper provides supporting explanation of the transformational foundations listed above.
4.1 Enhancing the capacity to adapt
If the future is likely to remain murky in the face of rapid and radical change, it seems appropriate that the University should reorganise itself to enhance its capacity to adapt. This approach is more meaningful than attempting to develop strategies based on strategic visions that are likely to change significantly before they are implemented.
Capacity to adapt can be enhanced by adopting combinations of the following strategies:
In summary, the organisational design of the University should no longer be based on the processes of ODL design and development but rather on the basis of dynamic design-driven projects. This kind of structure progresses beyond traditional industrial based organisational design by breaking down the classical discipline-based academic organisation.
4.2 The shift to mass customisation
Customised ODL delivery means that students registering for distance study will be able to individualise their learning experiences according to the personal needs and circumstances of the student. The learning experience is individualised by the personal choices exercised by students concerning alternatives for DE delivery.
Typically, students would exercise their choices at the time of registration and should also have further opportunities to customise their learning experience while working through the courses. The University will have to structure and organise itself to deliver the learning package according to the individual requirements of the student.
Customisation alternatives would include individual student decisions concerning choices on, for example:
The implications of customised ODL delivery means that a unique customised learning package is assembled on registration, according to the individual choices taken by the student. In this customised delivery system, the university will offer a range of delivery alternatives with each course. For example, a student who has access to the Internet at his/her place of work may opt to take Course A via the Web delivery alternative. However, another student takes the same course, Course A using the print-driven alternative as the student wants to study this course while on vacation where there is no access to the Internet.
With particular reference to student support, a customised model allows the student to decide on the nature and levels of student support for each course.
Unfortunately, those resisting the need for improved student support sometimes use this argument to play down the relative importance of student support. If student support is optional in an ODL delivery system, it can play down the urgency for the radical structural transformation that will be required for implementing quality student support at Unisa.
Using the optional student support alternative in this paper is not intended to play down the importance of an extensive decentralised network of student support at the infrastructural level. The choice regarding student support in a customised delivery system has more to do with increasing student autonomy concerning decisions in the learning process.
Garrison and Baynton (1987: 5) provide a useful triangulation of the concept of independence in distance learning as it relates to questions of student support. They argue that "independence" must be examined in relation to "power" yet and "support".
"Power" refers to the ability of the student to study successfully at a distance, independently. In the context of this paper, "support" refers to the system of individualised learning support that is made possible by an appropriate student support system. It is the dynamic between these components that enables learners to exercise true levels of autonomous control.
Therefore in a customised delivery system, the institution has a responsibility to support independence by providing course offerings without student support. At the same time, however, the institution also has an obligation to provide the necessary student support system for those learners who do not have the "power" to study independently at a distance.
4.3 Information technology for sustainable ODL
In this subsection I offer two main arguments concerning sustainable ODL using information technology. First, advancing information technology will facilitate cost-effective mass customisation of ODL. Second, in developing countries advancing information technologies will, for example, enable Africa to "leapfrog" previous eras of technology alternatives.
There is justified concern that customised delivery systems will operate at significantly higher costs because the scale is reduced. Mass customisation still remains a mass delivery problem and must be sustainable in the sense of maintaining comparable economies. The difference between the two approaches lies in how the economies are achieved,. that is, scale versus scope.
There is a clear risk of higher costs with customised ODL delivery systems in organisations that attempt to individualise their teaching with existing industrial structures. Economies of scope operate in a paradigm that is different from the paradigm of standardised mass production. This is why systemic transformation is necessary.
Furthermore, the advances in information communication technologies offer opportunities for economies of scope that were previously unattainable.
As discussed earlier, the University must shift its focus from production to assembly. Using a design-driven approach, it is possible to create digitised knowledge domains that are independent of the medium of delivery. A digitised knowledge domain becomes the knowledge store for multiple delivery alternatives and systems. For example, should a student require certain components of the digitised knowledge domain to be delivered by means of a printed study guide, an intelligent mark-up algorithm can generate an individualised print version of the learning resource. The algorithm customises the printed learning resource, taking the layout and design requirements of the medium into account.
Because the knowledge domain is digitised, multiple delivery alternatives of similar knowledge domains become possible. Also, taking recent developments in the field of virtual reality into account, significant progress is possible with challenges and opportunities of accelerated learning.
The second argument for utilising information technology for sustainability is based on the notion of "leapfrogging" previous technologies. For example, South Africa did not go through the era of cable television. It jumped from analogue broadcasting to digital satellite broadcasting. In the same way, ODL in Africa, has the opportunity to "leapfrog" the era of face-to-face decentralised tutorial support.
A sophisticated network of student support can be achieved through the utilisation of information communication technologies and digitised student-support knowledge domains.
Accessibility and connectivity for impoverished and remote students in South Africa, until recently, has been the most significant barrier towards the application of information technologies in ODL. To some extent, technological constraints, such as bandwidth have also limited the range of potential application.
Plans for the launching of low orbiting satellites in the near future will resolve the problems of bandwidth, connectivity and accessibility for remote users quickly and cost-effectively. This kind of technology makes it possible to set up a comprehensive network of digital learning centres throughout Africa.
Although many of the assertions mentioned in this paper are speculative, they are certainly possible with the current status of technological development. The real challenge lies in our ability to transform Unisa’s ODL systems and structures so as to capitalise on technological advancement for development.
In conclusion, I express the hope that our University does not become trapped in changes that "modernise" us for a dated practice, at the expense of the real transformation challenges of the knowledge society.
References
Barnett, R. 1997. Beyond competence. In Coffield F & Williamson, B (eds) Repositioning Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Campion, MG. 1996. Responses to "Labour market theories and distance education" Post-Fordism: Not poison either! Open Learning. 11(1):41-46.
Chattell, A. 1995. Managing for the future. London: Macmillan Press.
Conceição P and Heitor, M.V. 1999. On the role of the university in the knowledge economy. Science and PublicPractice. 26(1):37-51.
Daniel, J.S. 1996. Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Department of Student Support (DSS). 1998. 1998 Annual Report. Pretoria: Unisa.
Drukker, P.F. 1995. Managing in a time of great change. New York: Truman Talley Books/Plume.
Drucker, P.A. and Holden, C. 1997. Untitled. Science. 275(5307):p1745.
Evans, T. 1995. Globalisation, post-fordism and open and distance education. Distance Education. 16(2):256-269.
Farnes, N. 1993. Modes of production: Fordism and distance education. Open Learning. 8(1):10-19.
Garrison, D.R. and Baynton, M. 1987. Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education. 1(3):3-15.
Gibbons, M. 1998. Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century. Paper presented at the Unesco World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: October 5-9, 1998.
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1999. Globalisation. Lecture 1 of the BBC Reith Lectures. Runaway World. London. (Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm)
Green, M.F. and Hayward, F.M. 1997. Forces for change. In Green, MF (ed.) Transforming higher education: Views from leaders around the world. Phoenix: American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.
Jarvis, P. 1996. Responses to "Labour market theories and distance education" Distance education in a late modern society: a response to Greville Rumble. Open Learning. 11(1)47-50.
Knight, P.T. 1996. Destined to leapfrog: Why a revolution will occur in Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. Paper prepared for the Second International Conference on Distance Education in Russia. 2-5 July 1996. (Website: http://www.knight-moore.com/html/leapfrog.html).
Moore, Michael G. 1993. Three types of interaction. In Harry, K, John, M & Keegan, D (eds) Distance education: New perspectives. London: Routledge.
Norris, DM. and Morrison, JL. 1997. Leveraging the forces of transformation on campus. In Norris, DM. and Morrison, JL (eds.) Mobilizing for transformation: How campuses are preparing for the knowledge age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Peters, O. 1989. The iceberg has not melted: Further reflections on the concept of industrialisation and distance teaching. Open Learning. 4(3):3-8.
Peters, O. 1992. Distance education: A revolutionary concept. In Ortner, GE, Graff, K & Wilmersdoerfer, H (eds) Distance education as two-way communication. Essays in honour of Börje Holmberg. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Peters, O. 1996. Responses to "Labour market theories and distance education" Distance education is a form of teaching and learning sui generis. Open Learning. 11(1)51-54.
Raggatt, P. 1993. Post-Fordism and distance education - a flexible strategy for change. Open Learning. 8(1):21-31.
Rumble, G. 1995(a). Labour market theories and distance education I: Industrialisation and distance education. Open Learning. 10(1):10-21.
Rumble, G. 1995(b). Labour market theories and distance education II: How Fordist is distance education?. Open Learning. 10(2):12-28.
Rumble, G. 1995(c). Labour market theories and distance education III: Post-Fordism the way forward. Open Learning. 10(3):25-42.
Scott, P. 1997a. The changing role of the university in the production of new knowledge. Tertiary education and management. 3(1)5-14.
Scott, P. 1997b. The crisis of knowledge and the massification of higher education. In. Barnett, R and Griffin, A (Eds.) The end of knowledge in higher education. London: London Institute of Education.
South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE). 1994. Open learning and distance education in South Africa. Report of the international commission organised by SAIDE. Braamfontein: SAIDE.
UNESCO. 1998. World statistical outlook on higher education: 1980 – 1995. Working document for the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
UNDP. 1999. The human development report. Cary:, NC: Oxford University Press. (Website: http://www.undp.org/hdro/E3.html).
University of South Africa. 1998. Tuition Policy. Approved by Senate: June 1998. Pretoria: Unisa
Useem, A. 1999. Wiring African universities proves a formidable challenge. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 2: A51-A53.
World Bank. 1999. Tertiary distance education and technology in Sub-Saharan Africa. Draft chapter of the World Bank Strategy paper on Distance education and technology for Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
NADEOSA Homepage
| Ist NADEOSA Conference Papers Index |
Global Distance Education Network
: South African
Resources
Send comments on the web site to the web designer