Papers Presented at the 2nd National NADEOSA Conference
Held 21-22 August 2000

Author:
Hannes van Vuuren, Tobie Engelbrecht, Jean Grundling, Zien Kruger

Title:
Development of assessment activities for language learners at a distance learning institution - an action learning/research approach

1. BACKGROUND

Technikon Southern Africa (TSA), as a member of the technikon movement, strives to effectively implement co-operative education. This process implies the integration of academic studies and meaningful work experience as well as addressing industry needs by means of continuous consultation with industry and our customers from that industry.

TSA as a distance learning institution offers 104 programmes in which the focus is on vocationally relevant content. The challenge is to draw on the contributions of all role-players to arrive at this vocationally-relevant content in the South African context. Previously this interaction between industry representatives and the academic departments or subject groups took place mainly at subject committee meetings. These meetings did not, however, have the necessary effect as the role-players were not given real opportunities to participate and suggest changes to make the learning process more effective.

The learning areas English Practical: Policing and Afrikaans Prakties: Polisiëring form part of the BTech curriculum for policing learners. These learning areas aim at improving the language abilities of police officials within the workplace (See Attachment A). This year the two lecturers for these learning areas decided to refocus on the collaborative aspect of materials development by inviting learners, industry representatives from different divisions in the SAPS, tutors, moderators, fellow academics as well as lecturers from other subject areas, to workshop the formative assessment tool of portfolio activities for their learners. This focus draws on the NQF notion that quality in course material is achieved through "broad participation, negotiation and synthesis" (SAQA, 2000:4).

Learners enrolled for either of these learning areas receive the following courseware during the year: a stand-alone learning guide file and audiocassette tape, one General Tutorial Letter as foundation to all their subjects, Tutorial Letter 1 with formative assessment activities, then follow-up tutorial letters preparing them for and giving them feedback on their portfolio and an exam preparation tutorial letter.

We followed an action learning/research approach to be critical (and self-critical) by means of collaborative enquiry to:

• facilitate reflectivity;
• enhance accountability;
• be self-evaluating of our practice;
• engage in participatory problem-solving and continuing professional development; and
• finally produce an improved formative assessment tool.

ACTION RESEARCH AS METHOD OF RESEARCH

Our challenge was to draw on the contributions of all role-players to arrive at this occupationally relevant content in the South African context. This was a new learning experience for all of us and we had to consider a research approach that would meet our needs. As the focus in the development of new assessment activities relies so much on change and participation, action research seemed to address our needs.

WHAT IS ACTION RESEARCH?

Carr and Kemmis (in McNiff, 1997:2) define action research as:

a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of (a) their own social or educational practices, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations in which these practices are carried out.

McNiff (1997:4) describes the action research approach as one intended to improve education through change by encouraging teachers/lecturers to be aware of their own practice, to be critical of it, and to be prepared to change that practice. An important concept underpinning action research is that of action learning.

Zuber-Skerritt (1993:45) defines action learning as "learning from concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience, through group discussion, trial and error, discovery and learning from one another." For action research purposes the process of action learning is taken one step further, as the reflective practitioners who are accountable publicise the results of their experience (Zuber-Skerritt, 1997:47). Action research thus includes action learning, but the aim is not only to learn from one’s own and each other’s work; the aim is also to improve it and to change situations and conditions (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991:81).

Action research as a methodology is based on dialectical epistemology and alternative research paradigms. It is intended not only to yield information, but also to improve action and practice. It does not start with a clear question or hypothesis, as in the case of experimental research, but instead is initiated by vague question that is only gradually clarified and requires a complex answer depending on the people and the situation involved.

One of our strongest motivations for using the action research approach is the fact that it is considered a useful framework in which to develop new strategies and competencies for complex tasks in an uncertain environment of rapid social and technological change (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996:xiii). The challenge to the provider of education and training is to respond to the ever-changing demands of the workplace. The task for language for specific purposes facilitators of learning is to constantly create, evaluate and re-create their product. One of the criteria for designing quality distance education courses in South Africa (SAIDE, 2000:1) is that the course should take cognisance of "the human resource development needs" of learners. As cooperative education practitioners, we need to respond meaningfully to the manifold diverse needs of urban and rural learners and learners in a variety of divisions in the police, ranging from gate guards to forensic specialists. Our learners are members of the South African Police Service (SAPS), Air Force military police, Durban City Police, or the police forces of Botswana and Namibia. A small group are civilians, who hope that the attainment of a policing qualification will ensure employment in the SAPS. The nature of these closed communities calls for continual adaptation and revision of Tutorial Letter 1 which contains the formative assessment activities for the academic year.

Action research was first conceptualised by Lewin (1952) and further developed by Kolb (1984), Carr and Kemmis (1986) and others (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996:xiii). It consists of a spiral of cycles of action and research, and encompasses four major phases, viz. planning, acting, observing and reflecting. These phases entail:

• the planning phase includes problem analysis and a strategic plan;
• the acting phase refers to the implementation of the strategic plan;
• the observing phase includes an evaluation of the action through the use of appropriate methods and techniques; and
• reflecting entails reflecting on results of the evaluation and on the whole action and research process. This may lead to the identification of a new problem, and the cycle may start again (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996:xiii, xiv).

Figure 1 shows the spiral diagram depicting this process. The arrows linking the cycles indicate the continuous improvement of practice and knowledge (Pinchen & Passfield, 1995:13).

 Figure 2 depicts the action research planner that provided us with guidelines on how to facilitate our process.

We decided to use the cyclic format illustrated in figure 1 to shape and document our process. Note that each cycle should include all the elements illustrated in figure 2, and that the process does not necessarily end with cycle 1. We concluded that the cycle should not necessarily be completed in the order given in figure 1. It could also be wrapped up in a more integrative and dynamic manner. 

The process followed will be discussed using the four phases as a framework. We will focus on cycle 1 and explain the steps we followed to complete this cycle. Firstly it is important to explain our roles in the process – Zien and Hannes led and guided the process while Tobie and Jean played the role of observers. In figure 3 we illustrate our integrative process as we experienced it.

Figure 3: A conceptual framework of our integrative process

3.1.1 Planning

We agreed on the following question to determine our aim:

How can we change the emphasis in the compilation of assessment activities for the subjects English Practical: Policing and Afrikaans Prakties: Polisiëring, within the framework of cooperative education, by means of refocusing our collaboration with our different stakeholders?

To achieve our aim we decided to conduct a workshop with a cross-section of our role-players. This included staff from the South African Police Service (SAPS), from the University of South Africa which also serves distance learners, current learners, the subject moderator and lecturers from learning areas within the programme. We have always emphasised the co-operative nature of our learning areas by drawing as fully as possible on contributions from our client and learner profile as well as from other potential contributors. Previously the Subject Committee was tasked with reviewing the penultimate draft of the assessment tool. This year our approach required that our Subject Committee compile the first draft of the assessment tool.

In our planning of the workshop, we anticipated that the acting phase would follow the phases of observing and reflecting. We then realised that we would need to adapt our model so that the observing and reflecting phases should be integrated after each phase of the cycle.

Critical comments

After observing and reflecting we decided the process should be informal and interactive, i.e. we wanted to establish an action learning environment where participants could feel free to comment and give critical inputs without feeling threatened.

3.1.2 Acting

Our workshop was scheduled for 2 March 2000. The process, including details of the facilitators, the rotation of the sub-groups and others, is attached as attachments B, C and D.

Critical comments:

After the workshop we held a reflection session and formulated the following critical comments:

3.1.3 Observing

As explained in figure 3, we feel that observation and reflection should continuously be integrated with the planning and acting phases.

Critical comments:

We realised that the roles of the observers are very important in an action research process, but the role of the two observers was never explained to the larger group. This led to uncertainty within ourselves as we were participants in the smaller groups and had to contribute as well. The role of participant thus clashed with the role of observer.

3.1.4 Reflecting

After the workshop the four of us reflected and focused on the following three questions:

• What did we do right?
• What did we do wrong?
• The way forward?

We reflected during and directly after the workshop and this assisted during the reflection phase as it created a critical mode of reflection and learning – refer to page 7.

Critical comments:

The observers noted the following:

• We should have taken more meaningful notes during the session to impact on the reflection phase and obviously on the ensuing cycles.
• The use of the current version of the assessment tool (Tutorial Letter 1) as model should have been less explicit.
• Our own experiences and emotions: anticipation and uncertainty.
• Teamwork: The value of the synergy between the two presenters, between the two observers, and then the combination as a team.
• We did not take photographs which we felt could have assisted us in the observation and reflection of, for example, body language of participants, participation or passiveness and group dynamics.

4. CONCLUSION

We as a team experienced this process as an extremely valuable learning opportunity concerning both the process and our roles. Our use of the action research approach and documentation of the whole process has extended our competence to the extent that we feel that we have a definite contribution to make to the field of development of assessment activities at distance learning institutions.

The benefit of the action research approach gave us the opportunity for critical reflection throughout all phases and enabled us constantly to adapt and improve our process by means of learning. The presenters of this paper are therefore simultaneously contributors and beneficiaries of the process of lifelong learning. They are no longer solely responsible for the setting of standards for their learning areas, but are contributors to a more inclusive process.

We are now enthusiastically looking forward to moving into the following cycle (cycle 2) during which the impact of our product will be assessed by means of learner experiences and perhaps also peer-assessment (i.e. by colleagues and facilitators of adult learning at other institutions). This process can have significant impact on the field of distance learning as we are continuously challenged to make the learning process interactive, meaningful and enjoyable. This should enable and prepare learners to face the realities of their dynamic work environments. We trust that the learning activities we developed will help us to overcome criticism stated in a SAQA document (SAQA, 2000:21):

[The learner] knows the theory but cannot apply his/her knowledge in a work situation or he/she has matric English but can’t write a letter/fill in a form!

We are, therefore, not recommending that this is the only process to follow, but we are trying to open up the debate on assessment suggested by SAQA (2000:22). SAQA has been specific about particular types of assessment, such as portfolios, and practitioners in the field should exercise their minds on the question of what is appropriate, feasible and manageable in their own circumstances and learning environments. We feel that we successfully tried one of the basic tenets of the NQF standards setting and quality assurance processes, viz.

Knowledge, relevant for the current world, is created through partnerships amongst various groupings in society, from academics and researchers to business, from workers to professional experts, from government to community organisations, from learners to professors. In other words, knowledge creation is no longer the preserve of narrowly-defined groups of ‘experts’. (SAQA, 2000:3).

We challenged ourselves. We now also challenge you to become and contribute to being reflective about what and how you do.

To support our process some of the participants’ responses: ....

REFERENCES

Humphrey, G., Van Rensburg, L., Snyman, D., Moeketsi, N., Moonsamy, L., Groenewald, T. 2000. Co-operative education at Technikon SA.

McNiff, J. 1997. Action research: Principles and practice. London: Routledge.

Pinchen, S. & Passfield, R. (eds.) 1995. Moving on – creative applications of action learning and action research. Brisbane: ALARPM.

SAIDE. 2000. Criteria for quality distance education in South Africa.

http://www.saide.org.za/DEcriteria/criterion4.htm

SAQA. 1999. NSB manual. Pretoria: SAQA.

SAQA. 2000. The National Qualifications Framework and quality assurance. Pretoria: SAQA.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1990. Management development and academic staff development through action learning and action research. Educational and Training Technology International, 27(4):437–447.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) 1991. Action learning for improved performance: Key contributions to the first world congress on action research and process management. Brisbane: Aebis Publishing.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1993. Improving learning and teaching through action learning and action research. Higher Education and Development, 12(1):45-57.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1996. Action research for change and development. 2^nd ed. Aldershot: Avebury.

|  NADEOSA Homepage |  2nd NADEOSA Conference Papers Index  |
Global Distance Education Network - South African resources  |

Send comments on the web site to the web designer