OPEN LEARNING RESEARCH PROJECT (3)

CYCLE ONE (2006)

3. Philosophy of Open Learning


Orientation

The title for this paper was directly stimulated by the 11th Association for African Universities General Conference during February 2005 in Cape Town. At this conference for the HE sector in Africa, commitments were made both by the President of South Africa, Mr Thabo Mbeki as well as the Minister of National Education, Ms Naledi Pandor to assist the networking process of the AAU within the NEPAD agreement of the African Union (AU).

In the context of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) protocol which already opened academic exchange agreements, the Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA) was established on 20 February 2005. SARUA reflects the aspirations of NEPAD and the ideals of the SADC protocol on Education and Training, especially networks within Higher Education (AAU. 2005).

However, the huge backlog in financial resources will also force universities to share facilities and to seek collaborative opportunities. Many challenges other than budgetary constraints and sharing the limited human resources as well as political and ethnic conflicts, civil wars, HIV/Aids and corruption can be quoted here though it does not fall within the parameters of philosophy. It only enhances the fact of sharing the HE infrastructure of the continent. Fact of the matter is that the philosophy of OL provides the only strategy as how to align and support existing structures such as the SADC protocol, SARUA, the African Council for Distance Education (ACDE), the Distance Education Organisation of Southern Africa (DEASA), the National Association for Distance and Open Learning of South Africa (NADEOSA), the South African Association for Research Development in South Africa (SAARDHE), the South African for Academic Development Association (SADA) and the South African Association for Co-operative Education (SASCE).(Cf. ACDE. 2005).

International organisations such as UNESCO and the COL will de jure support the fostering and the implementation of ODL policies within the broader educational and human resource development strategies and policies of member nations (AAU. 2005).

Subsequently the ACDE, NADEOSA and SAARDHE will already present conferences in 2005 with and Africanized approach. Sub themes entail the visions for a true African university, the Africanization of the curriculum, management information linkages, indigenous knowledge research, internationalisation of African Higher Education and last but not least, joint staff and academic development (Cf. SAARDHE. 2005)

It is inevitable that no university can build its corporate image outside the above mentioned infrastructure because such a university will not be acknowledged by the people or by international organisations. Even quality assurance practices will be Africanized within the African Quality Assurance Network (AQUANET) between quality assurance agencies. Some of the requirements will be: how accessible are the programmes of African universities; articulation issues; mobility; recognition of prior learning to build academic credits and quality standards for needs driven academic curricula.

Within the philosophy of OL, PAREN (Promoting African Research and Education Networking- Internet) will eventually become the motto for change on the continent. Change is not static. New perspectives are continually necessary for modern development and capacity building (Pandor. N. 2005).

One of the revolutionary slogans in Africa is that: “Education is not a privilege, it is a right!” In this sense it becomes a philosophical matter of an open, democratic and a transparent users friendly system.

Teaching and Learning per se is never static. It is forever taking on new shapes, structures, modes and qualities. Long term teaching and learning becomes lifelong learning experiences with no exact deadlines, semesters, academic year end assessments of physical infrastructures. Subsequently government policies constantly have to be adapted and promulgated to suit the needs of new HE models. (CF. CUT Senate Report: Academic Governance. 2005).

Therefore the National Plan (2000) of the Department of Education (DoE) in South Africa enhances the ideas of ODL to co-operate with other HEI’s in developing a national network of Learning Centres which would facilitate access and coordinated support systems. Especially to reduce duplication and overlap in programme and service provision (NP. Chapters 4.4 and 4.5).

Also in this respect national and provincial collaboration between HE as well as the Further Education Training Institutions (FETI’s) are in place. And the micro level the CUT’s Academic Plan also provides for flexible learning modes which form part of their re-curriculation process. It also provides for a continuum of development cycles in re-curriculation. As such it becomes a continuation of research, implementation, evaluation, adaptation and re-training of the trainer process. Very important though is that the content of the curricula has to be Africanized in the restructuring process.

Eventually the philosophy of OL must stand out to empower both students and academe to gain control over their professional lives (Cf. UAD Teaching Portfolios: 2005).

Therefore the core definition of OL reads: “Open Learning-policies and practices that permit entry to learning with no or minimum barriers with respect to age, gender or time constraints and with recognition of prior learning. These policies need not be part of a distance education system but are complementary to it (NADEOSA: 2004). (cf. The Context of Open Learning. Appendix A).

Why the philosophy of Open Learning?

The uninformed reader may ask: “Why The Philosophy of Open Learning?” The answer is very simple: “Because it is not a method”, but an educational philosophy. It is an open approach towards learning. In holistic terms it means when the whole approach to HE is greater than the individual methodologies that may vary from:

Cooperative (group) learning in class;
Cooperative Education as in Experiential Learning or in-service training as in off campus real life exposure to technical job environments;
E-learning both for on campus and off campus learning opportunities;
Inter-active video conferencing for off campus learners at regional learning centres or satellite campuses with video back up copies for full time students;
First generation distance education (Correspondence courses);
Second generation distance learning (Dual contact or tutorial sessions) (De Beer, K.J. 1995);
Third generation distance education (Education Technology such as web based, video based, computer based or the variety of interactive electronic overhead projectors and edu walls with satellite link ups in collaboration with a diversity of higher education institutional networks);
Learner-centred philosophies within Outcomes and Problem Based Educational Training known as progressivism (Cf. Sherrit, C.:1999);
Blended Learning when a lecturer makes use of clippets or part of the above mentioned methodologies (Badenhorst. J.: 2004);
Flexible Learning according to the exact meaning of the word “flex”, i.e. to bend or fold access, teaching, learning, assessment, articulation, mobility and recognition of prior learning experiences according to the needs of individual students or societies or specific sub-regions (Mostert, J.:1999).

However, the most important fact to keep in mind when one refers to the philosophy of OL is the political domain from which it is historically founded. It is all about an open democratic approach towards Higher Education with all the revolutionary slogans for a free and open (read transparent) society. As stated earlier, education, read also HE, is “not regarded as a privilege but a right” (University Cape Town Art Collection. 1990).

In itself, HE is not a static and passive entity but rather a pacemaker in itself and for social change. HEI’s also strife to keep abreast with economic and industrial development. For example, when formal adult education in the West started to take shape during the Industrial Revolution to train the labour force and a literate society, it expanded along with rapid technological development in the 1920-1930 era. Eduard Lindeman and John Dewey formulated the “democratic, learner-centered philosophy of education, known as Progressivism” (Sherrit, C.:1999).

In the 1960 civil rights era Sizer linked the phases of national development to the different types of education. His premise, in co-herence with technological development, was that education is contextual which constantly change according to the changes of society. (Sherrit, C.:1999).

Great Britain took the lead when they introduced the British Open University. Soon OL was used to assist Hong Kong, a former British colony, to change from a manufactured-based economy (made in Hong Kong) to a sophisticated technical first world city. (Sherrit, C.:1999).

Eventually all the Commonwealth states followed suit to bridge the same problems as Hong Kong, however, with the same fundamental adult education theory that subscribes to:

· Nurturing antonymous, self directed individuals to assist them to obtain their highest potential;
· Challenging the status quo so that adult (read andragogical) learners should become the pacemakers in society.(Cf. Bezuidenhout, 2005);
· To link labour and education according to work force needs;
· Redress social inequities; and
· Promote an open and free democratic society (Sherrit,:1999).

In the modern terminology the student of HE will still find these roots in the COL and the International Council for Adult Education (ICAE) which is linked to UNESCO regarding:

Promoting peace;
Advancement of women;
Outreach to oppressed and marginalized people;
Political (civil) literacy and basic human rights;
Employment; and
Access to HE.