Held 11-13 August 1999
Papers Presented at
the 1st National NADEOSA Conference
Held 11-13 August 1999
Author:
J F van Koller and A Goodwin Davey
UNISA
Title:
Breaking the barriers: A case-study of
inter-institutional curriculum development
Table of contents
1. Introduction
This case study involves a group of South African organisations who started a collaborative venture to develop professional courses for distance education practitioners in an attempt to contribute to the capacity building and professional development of distance education practitioners. Little did they realise what pioneers they would become in South Africa in the field of transcending long-standing barriers between different types of educational institutions and non-governmental bodies.
What were the barriers that they managed to overcome? The main barriers the members of the Consortium had to overcome were the following:
The fact that the Consortium and its members are still very active and enthusiastic about their joint projects, and the tangible outcomes of such collaboration, are clear indications of the success they achieved in this field.
This case study is therefore aimed at describing who and what the Consortium is; its history and purpose; its different subcommittees; the diploma in distance education it developed; the Consortium’s position with regard to the NQF/OBET and reflections on some of the problems or obstacles encountered in the process.
2. Who and what is the Consortium?
From its inception the Consortium was, for various reasons, conceived along the lines of a multi-institutional model of co-operation. It was felt that this model would maximise resources, experiences and institutional networks available to the Consortium. It was particularly hoped that the Consortium would pave the way for a more open system of credit transfer and educational provision and also provide an avenue for old adversaries to work together and break down the barriers of suspicion ideology. Members of the Consortium were also aware of the difficulties of maintaining the momentum and interest, reconciling the different institutional goals, procedures and practices and the slowness of decision-making processes in such large consortiums. But despite these potential problems, the Consortium members felt that the advantages far outweighed the difficulties and were prepared to make it work.
The Consortium consists of the following member organisations/institutions listed in random order:
The full name of the Consortium is:
The Consortium was intended to be a non-profit body of organizations and institutions.
3. The history and purpose of the Consortium
In the second half of 1995 a group of six interested staff members from three organisations, the Institute for Continuing Education of the University of South Africa (ICE - UNISA), the Distance Education Training Unit of the South African Committee for Higher Education (DETU-SACHED) and the South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE), began discussions on the need for professional development of distance education practitioners and worked out strategies for working collaboratively in order to share resources, minimise wastage and avoid unnecessary duplication in this area of distance education. The outcome of these discussions was the formation of the Professional Development Action Group (PDAG) consisting of the six members drawn from the above mentioned organisations. The PDAG decided to involve a wider group of potential stakeholders in the training of distance education practitioners. They, therefore, organised a workshop on 5 September 1995 at UNISA.
The aims of the workshop were:
· to raise awareness of the urgent need for professional development of all staff involved in distance education;
· to share up-to-date information on what has been happening in professional development in South Africa;
· to identify priority areas and broaden participation in planning the way ahead.
The workshop was attended by 27 participants from 7 distance education organisations in South Africa. Participants agreed that there was a need for the design and implementation of professional development courses for distance education practitioners. They noted that some of the key weaknesses were:
Some of the major conclusions reached at the workshop were summarised as follows:
· All institutions are in the process of changing and most of these institutions are involved in decentralising their learner support infrastructure and setting up systems to facilitate quality distance education. However, institutions are at various stages of transformation. Most institutions have introduced the team-approach to course material development.
· A need was felt in all organisations for the design and implementation of professional development programmes for all staff which, inter alia, should include orientation to open learning and distance education methods and practices, specialised training and development in course design, learner support, research and evaluation and information systems in distance education;
· In view of the limited interaction between institutions, it was important to explore a number of options for collaborating in the development of professional courses for distance for distance education practitioners.
The workshop generated proposals for future partnerships. One group identified ways of strengthening one of its programmes through collaboration in the training of trainers, accreditation, advocacy and facilitation of co-operation. The second group thought that collaboration should begin in "non-threatening areas" such as sharing of facilities and the development of course materials. The third group's proposal was on collaboration in the development of a diploma course for distance education practitioners. After discussion of the above proposals it was agreed unanimously that the workshop discussions and outcomes should be taken forward concretely and within a relatively short space of time. To facilitate this the following decisions were made:
a) A curriculum framework proposal for the professional development of distance education practitioners should be developed. The proposal should include aims, terms of reference, time frames and mechanisms for ensuring co-ordination and minimising duplication. The PDAG, as convenors of the workshop, should continue to play a facilitative role to ensure that the workshop decisions are implemented.
b) Proposals for the administrative and procedural matters of the different types of collaboration that might emerge, should be developed by a group of senior members of the participating institutions. It was emphasised that this group should be facilitative and not prescriptive in its approach. Organisations that formed part of this group were UNISA, SACHED, SAIDE, Technikon Southern Africa, and VISTA University. The Vice-Principal for Tuition at UNISA was appointed as convenor of the group;
c) Proposals emanating from the two groups should be referred to the top management structures of participating organisations for formal approval.
d) Other institutions involved in professional development of distance education practitioners should be invited to participate in emerging collaborative ventures.
The September 1995 workshop, was thus the genesis of the Professional Development of Distance Education Practitioners Consortium. The above proposals from the workshop gave clear guidelines on the way forward and what management and curriculum development structures should be implemented for the initiation of the Consortium. The way was also open for other interested organisations to join the Consortium. The workshop succeeded in bringing together organisations with longstanding adversarial attitudes mainly because of their ideological backgrounds, competitiveness and dismissiveness of each other's efforts. It started them on a process of collaborating in an area that could enhance the capacity of practitioners greatly and improve the quality of provision and delivery of distance education in our country.
Post workshop progress:
Regular Meetings
Since the first meeting, convened on 15 November 1995, the six organisations, namely, VISTA, UNISA, TSA, SACHED, SAIDE and TECHNISA (who joined at a later stage) that had undertaken to develop proposals for the curriculum framework, administrative and procedural matters of the Consortium, have had regular meetings. This group, known as the Consortium Management Board (CMB), has been convened on a rotating basis by two of the heads of the participating organisations (UNISA and SAIDE). Members of the CMB are either organisational heads or their mandated representatives.
Formal Memorandum of Agreement
It became clear at an early stage that a formal consortium agreement document needs to be developed and signed by all the participating organisations. The development of the agreement has been the slower process of the Consortium. The memorandum of agreement was signed eventually over a period of eight days (from 30 May 1997 - 6 June 1997) by all the members since signing did not take place at one joint meeting.
The memorandum of agreement spelled out clearly the purpose and aims of the Consortium. The aims are the following:
"The aims of the Consortium shall focus on obtaining and or developing programmes, courses and modules for the professional development of distance education practitioners, and are:
4. The different subcommittees of the Consortium
The main powers, functions and duties of the CMB are as follows:
To carry out its brief of forming the Consortium and overseeing the development of courses, the CMB is supported by two subcommittees, the Consortium Action Group (CONAG) and the Course Co-ordination Committee (CCC).
4.2 The Consortium Action Group (CONAG)
The aim of CONAG was to assist the CMB with the implementation of the aims of the Consortium and CMB.
The role and function of CONAG was to carry out functions delegated to it by the CMB, and CONAG in turn was entitled to delegate functions and commission persons in order to ensure that its functions were carried out.
As an intermediary of the CMB, CONAG convened meetings of the CCC, co-ordinated the process of curriculum development, reported regularly to the CMB on progress and served as the secretariat for the CMB. However, CONAG was recently dissolved and absorbed into the CMB.
4.3 The Course Co-ordinating Committee
The CPC was established by the CMB in 1998 in order to investigate the following aspects:
5. The CCC and the development of the PGDDE
Curriculum Framework
The CCC worked under tremendous pressure to produce the curriculum documents within the tight deadlines of the UNISA accreditation processes. Despite numerous problems, the curriculum for the Post-Graduate Diploma for Distance Education practitioners (PGDDE) was developed within twelve months. The curriculum has passed through UNISA's accreditation structures and has been approved by the Minister of Education.
Materials Development
The materials for the first year of the diploma were developed by two organisations. UNISA developed two modules on Open and Distance Learning, and Design and Development of Distance Education Materials, while SACHED developed the Adult Learning and Communication in Distance Education modules.
Pilot Run
A small pilot group of learners were enrolled for the first three modules of the diploma in 1997. Feedback from the pilot run will be used to improve the course. These three modules are:
The rest of the modules for the course are:
A separate presentation on the CCC will be provided.
6. The Consortium's position with regard to the NQF/OBET
The above aims found its first practical application at a workshop held on 4 May 1999, where the consequences of the CMB’s involvement in the standards generating process were scrutinized. The main conclusions reached at this workshop were as follows:
6.1 The advantages of the CMB becoming involved in the standards generating process:
6.2 The envisaged problems regarding the involvement in Phase 2
6.3 Options and possibilities
In conclusion, it should be noted that at the latest CMB meeting on 21 June 1999, the chairperson of the CMB, Mrs. Ronel Maree, was mandated to represent the CMB on the SETA for ETD.
7. Reflections on some problems/obstacles/difficulties
7.1 Nature and status of collaborating partners
The nature, status, and capacity of the participating organisations presented the first major challenge for the Consortium. There was a mixture of organisations. There were two universities (UNISA and Vista), one Technikon (TSA), one technical college (Technisa) and two non-governmental organisations (SACHED and SAIDE). The two non-governmental organisations have played a critical and adversarial role towards the other members of the Consortium during the apartheid days and had also been very vocal about the weaknesses of these institutions’ systems, the need for transformation and a complete paradigm shift in terms of the distance education system in South Africa. The Review and Assessment of distance education in South Africa, which was co-ordinated by SAIDE, had ruffled many feathers within these institutions (SAIDE 1995). The other three institutions also had their own priorities. Technikons have recently been awarded university status and can now offer degree courses. TSA was seeking to develop its niche in an area in which UNISA and Vista had already made their mark. While Vista and TSA had begun to work with SAIDE to transform their distance education systems, UNISA was viewed by some people as reluctant to introduce fundamental changes.
In addition, while the four providers (TSA, UNISA, Vista and Technisa) have the government mandate, general recognition and institutional resource base to develop, deliver, assess and accredit tertiary courses, the non-governmental organisations’ capacity has been limited, both in the development and delivery of non-accredited programmes. Such a mixture of organisations of unequal legal status and capacity have made collaboration very difficult and have delayed the development of a team-spirit within the group.
7.2 Initial financial constraints
The Consortium began with no financial resources of its own. It had been sustained by member organisation staff who had an interest in its success. Before the formal agreement was signed, the Consortium had not been able to raise funds for its work. Consequently, only those organisations that had the resources were able to co-operate in the development of materials for the post-graduate diploma in the initial phases. Only after the signing of the memorandum of agreement was a formal membership fee of R 5000 per member levied.
7.3 Institutional culture, pride and reputation
At the beginning of its
institution, the Consortium agreed that the diploma course should be taken through the
UNISA accreditation process. This resulted in UNISA becoming the only accrediting body for
the diploma. The financial constraints mentioned above limited participation and
restricted the development of rules, procedures and practices of the diploma to one
accrediting institution. The Consortium was testing "unchartered" ground in the
collaborative development of courses. Its potential for changing existing procedures and
practices has been compromised by this emergence of a single-institutional model of
delivery and accreditation of the diploma and by the fact that the structures and rules
had to conform to the legal parameters of the current University Act and statutes of
UNISA.
The two organisations that have began the materials development process for the diploma, SACHED and UNISA, have functioned in different cultures and staff have been "socialized within each of the particular complexes of values and practices constituting those different cultures".
Such problems emanating from cultural differences, institutional pride and reputation have created constant tension and hampered amiable relations, particularly at the materials development stage of the Consortium. Relations have been improved partly by SACHED’s involvement of UNISA staff in the development of its materials, partly because the materials for the Adult Learning and Communication module are being adapted from an IEC/London University course, and partly because in the area of support for distance education learners the NGOs experience and expertise is well-known and recognised even by UNISA. Above all, by working together the two groups, SACHED and UNISA, have begun to understand each other better.
7.4 Management of the module development process
The Consortium’s preferred model of developing the diploma modules has passed through course teams consisting of internal and external organisational writers under the leadership of a co-ordinator appointed by the lead organisation. By lead organisation is meant the organisation responsible for developing a particular module. This approach to module development has worked relatively well. However, the major difficulty has been the absence of an overall co-ordinator for the course. There has been no "neutral" mechanism for dealing with problems between the two organisational teams. The co-ordinator of the accrediting institutions course team has had to play this role and there has been no avenue for mediation by the Consortium in the course development process.
7.5 Role of the Consortium
The Consortium began as a partnership to develop a diploma-level course for distance education practitioners. As discussions on the diploma progressed, it became clear that the other partners were at different stages of readiness for involvement and also that this focus limited the scope of the Consortium. There was a need for broadening its role to that of a body which will collaborate in obtaining and developing quality courses and modules for the professional development of distance education practitioners. This wider role has opened the door for a range of other courses to be developed by the Consortium. While at first the possibility for the Consortium being involved in the development, delivery and accreditation of the courses was open, this later changed to exclude delivery and accreditation. The role of the Consortium was described as follows:
"The core business of the Consortium shifts from developing courses, and also securing the delivery, to managing the development not of courses, but of modules for proposed courses. Consequently, the responsibility for delivery and accreditation shifts out of the Consortium." (CMB: Amendments to Agreement: 3 June 1996: 1).
This was later amended to include the development of courses and modules.
The above role assumed that the Consortium would have the financial resources to develop courses and modules which would then be sold to organisations for delivery and accreditation through the latter’s education and training systems.
It took over seven months to reach agreement on the role of the Consortium. The new role was a major shift and had implications for the original reason for seeking collaboration, namely, the development of the post-graduate diploma. This was perhaps the best solution for a consortium consisting of such diverse organisations, including the NGOs that did not have mass delivery and accreditation capacity and for flexibility in aggregating modules for institution specific courses.
7.6 Other problems
8. Conclusion
Where is the Consortium now?
Chances for continued survival
Though the founding workshop had shown great interest and commitment to collaboration in the development of courses for distance education practitioners, the actual implementation of this ideal presented challenges with which the drivers of the Consortium had to grapple on an on-going basis and often in very trying circumstances.
Despite the difficulties mentioned above, the Consortium has managed to survive and, within a year, has developed one collaborative venture, namely, the post-graduate diploma which were offered since 1997. The reason for this success is related mainly to organisational commitment and mainly recognition of the need for co-operation.
From the management side, the heads of organisations, particularly the directors of SACHED and SAIDE and the Vice-Principal for Tuition at UNISA have kept the policy discussions open and ongoing.
From the ordinary staff’s side, contributions to the curriculum framework have come from all Consortium members. CONAG has played a crucial facilitative role in the development of the Consortium. The commitment of the staff from UNISA’s Bureau for University Teaching to getting the diploma course running by 1997 and their insistence, hard work and contribution to meeting the University’s deadlines, have all ensured that the first product did materialise.
The new role of the Consortium is likely to encourage flexible pooling of resources, course delivery and accreditation and all these should reduce some of the tensions around the thorny issues of copyright.
The fact that such diverse organisations have worked closely together in charting the nature and form of co-operation in professional development of distance education practitioners for over three years augurs well for the future. It testifies to the possibility for success if the necessary commitment is present. The Consortium can indeed serve as an example to others who want to embark on the same route in our current educational environment which necessitates such collaborative agreements.
References
NADEOSA Homepage
| Ist NADEOSA Conference Papers Index |
Global Distance Education Network
: South African
Resources
Send comments on the web site to the web designer