OPEN LEARNING RESEARCH PROJECT (4)
3.3 GLOBAL IMPACTS ON THE HE-CURRICULA
Internal epistemological challenges to the Higher Education curriculum are:
Ø Post Modernism and
Ø Scientism (Luckett. 2001).
Luckett (2001) propose an epistemically diverse curriculum which can be developed within the concept of OL to cover the following four important ways:
Ø The traditional cognitive learning of propositional knowledge;
Ø Learning by doing for the application of disciplinary knowledge;
Ø Learning experientially, and
Ø Developing epistemic cognition as to be able to think reflexively and contextually about learning.
The challenge to integrate the above knowledge production into a traditional content-based curriculum could only be achieved with an OL-approach to address both the local and global trends in HE curriculation.
For example, the curricula should be relevant to African students but also be relevant in global terms (Cf. Prinsloo, 2003)
Because HE is shifting from “supply-driven” to “demand-driven”, pressures for greater relevance and accountability, the impact of globalisation and information and communications technology (ICT), competition from new providers, and the need to be more self-sustaining. HEI’s seek solutions to these challenges in open and flexible learning (better known in North America as distributed learning) and ICT. Educational opportunity is being extended across physical, political and socio-economic divides and millions of learners around the globe now learn through these means. (Daharajan, 2001). In (Latchem, C. 2002) “Open and flexible learning is increasing access, reducing costs, and taking the first steps to place the learner at the centre of the educational transaction”.
New forms of HEI’s networks also assist equity-driven and marginalised institutions to benefit by an OL approach. “Third wave” mega networks (Cf. Toffler. 1980) open up and developed new configurations such as the World Bank’s African Virtual University (AUV) (http://www.avu.org) based in Nairobi to serve anglo-phone and francophone sub-Sahara. It forms part and parcel of the “new knowledge economy” (Latchem. 2002).
In the case of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) they envisage four possible scenarios for HEI:
Ø Global big business dominated by the strongest role players;
Ø The Trojan Horses to slip in international qualifications;
Ø Community hubs; and
Ø University/business hybrids (Latchem. 2004)
Academic staff development is therefore under tremendous pressure too when HEI’s tell academe to change, but still holding them accountable by traditional curriculum. (Cf. Latchem C. 2002). Subsequently the Managements of HEI’s should be consequent to assist their units for academic development to re-engineer and re-invent curricula that are based on andragogical forms. (CF. Bezuidenhont; 2004) Learning that is collaborative applications-driven and constructivist. Unfortunately, there are still too much conflict between managerial levers (especially in African universities) to apply modern curricula and “the languid feedback loop of academic boards and committees which stops change taking place” writes Colin Latchem (2002). However, he is convinced that academe is not inherently anti-change. In fact most lecturers are willing to embrace new initiatives as long as it is positive.
In business driven curricula, it is of course necessary to have a thorough student support system to assist them to reach the outcomes within an OL system. Tait (2000) says that elements of “client-or customer centred ness” in our approach to students should be acknowledged. Not any longer the old references to students, but in a differentiated analysis regarding:
Ø Age;
Ø Gender;
Ø Employment or unemployment;
Ø Disposable income;
Ø Educational background;
Ø Geographical situation;
Ø Special needs (disabilities);
Ø Language;
Ø Ethnic and cultural characteristics and
Ø Communications technology connectedness.
Course writing must subsequently be adapted to provide an OL approach to student support because worthwhile student support can only take place when the specific demands of students/clients are met. This includes the various forms of assessments (continuous or only grading) says Tate (2000).
Course demands may be for full contact or dual contact or web based teaching and learning. Tate (2000) makes the statement that there is little research done on students support within OL. Especially what is less often recognised is the cognitive function of student support, certainly where these services include tutoring and assessment: “Such an understanding of the role of student support comes primarily out of social constructivist ideas that knowledge is in a real sense made and remade by participation in learning. Where the support of students mediates teaching embodied in courseware, then it clearly relates to learning, and thus to cognitive outcomes. It also and necessary relates to the objective of providing an environment where students feel at home, where they feel valued, and which they find manageable. In this way we can see that the three core functions are truly interrelated and interdependent.”
In substantial Tait (2000) summarises support services for students may be summarised as typically as follows:
· Enquiry, admission and pre-study advisory services;
· Tutoring;
· Guiding and counselling services;
· Assessment of prior learning and credit transfer;
· Study and examination centres;
· Residential schools;
· Library services;
· Individualised correspondence teaching, including in some cases continuously assessment;
· Record keeping, information management and other administrative systems;
· Differentiated services for students with special needs of one sort or another, e.g. disability, geographical remoteness, prisoners; and
· Materials which support the development of study skills programme planning or career development.
It could be explained according to:
*****CURRICULATION
Internal epistemological challenges to the Higher Education curriculum are:
Ø Post Modernism and
Ø Scientism (Luckett. 2001).
Luckett (2001) propose an epistemically diverse curriculum which can be developed within the concept of OL to cover the following four important ways:
Ø The traditional cognitive learning of propositional knowledge;
Ø Learning by doing for the application of disciplinary knowledge;
Ø Learning experientially, and
Ø Developing epistemic cognition as to be able to think reflexively and contextually about learning.
The challenge to integrate the above knowledge production into a traditional content-based curriculum could only be achieved with an OL-approach to address both the local and global trends in HE curriculation.
For example, the curricula should be relevant to African students but also be relevant in global terms (Cf. Prinsloo, 2003)
Because HE is shifting from “supply-driven” to “demand-driven”, pressures for greater relevance and accountability, the impact of globalisation and information and communications technology (ICT), competition from new providers, and the need to be more self-sustaining. HEI’s seek solutions to these challenges in open and flexible learning (better known in North America as distributed learning) and ICT. Educational opportunity is being extended across physical, political and socio-economic divides and millions of learners around the globe now learn through these means. (Daharajan, 2001). In (Latchem, C. 2002) “Open and flexible learning is increasing access, reducing costs, and taking the first steps to place the learner at the centre of the educational transaction”.
New forms of HEI’s networks also assist equity-driven and marginalised institutions to benefit by an OL approach. “Third wave” mega networks (Cf. Toffler. 1980) open up and developed new configurations such as the World Bank’s African Virtual University (AUV) (http://www.avu.org) based in Nairobi to serve anglo-phone and francophone sub-Sahara. It forms part and parcel of the “new knowledge economy” (Latchem. 2002).
In the case of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) they envisage four possible scenarios for HEI:
Ø Global big business dominated by the strongest role players;
Ø The Trojan Horses to slip in international qualifications;
Ø Community hubs; and
Ø University/business hybrids (Latchem. 2004)
Academic staff development is therefore under tremendous pressure too when HEI’s tell academe to change, but still holding them accountable by traditional curriculum. (Cf. Latchem C. 2002). Subsequently the Managements of HEI’s should be consequent to assist their units for academic development to re-engineer and re-invent curricula that are based on andragogical forms. (CF. Bezuidenhont; 2004) Learning that is collaborative applications-driven and constructivist. Unfortunately, there are still too much conflict between managerial levers (especially in African universities) to apply modern curricula and “the languid feedback loop of academic boards and committees which stops change taking place” writes Colin Latchem (2002). However, he is convinced that academe is not inherently anti-change. In fact most lecturers are willing to embrace new initiatives as long as it is positive.
In business driven curricula, it is of course necessary to have a thorough student support system to assist them to reach the outcomes within an OL system. Tait (2000) says that elements of “client-or customer centred ness” in our approach to students should be acknowledged. Not any longer the old references to students, but in a differentiated analysis regarding:
Ø Age;
Ø Gender;
Ø Employment or unemployment;
Ø Disposable income;
Ø Educational background;
Ø Geographical situation;
Ø Special needs (disabilities);
Ø Language;
Ø Ethnic and cultural characteristics and
Ø Communications technology connectedness.
Course writing must subsequently be adapted to provide an OL approach to student support because worthwhile student support can only take place when the specific demands of students/clients are met. This includes the various forms of assessments (continuous or only grading) says Tate (2000).
Course demands may be for full contact or dual contact or web based teaching and learning. Tate (2000) makes the statement that there is little research done on students support within OL. Especially what is less often recognised is the cognitive function of student support, certainly where these services include tutoring and assessment: “Such an understanding of the role of student support comes primarily out of social constructivist ideas that knowledge is in a real sense made and remade by participation in learning. Where the support of students mediates teaching embodied in courseware, then it clearly relates to learning, and thus to cognitive outcomes. It also and necessary relates to the objective of providing an environment where students feel at home, where they feel valued, and which they find manageable. In this way we can see that the three core functions are truly interrelated and interdependent.”
In substantial Tait (2000) summarises support services for students may be summarised as typically as follows:
· Enquiry, admission and pre-study advisory services;
· Tutoring;
· Guiding and counselling services;
· Assessment of prior learning and credit transfer;
· Study and examination centres;
· Residential schools;
· Library services;
· Individualised correspondence teaching, including in some cases continuously assessment;
· Record keeping, information management and other administrative systems;
· Differentiated services for students with special needs of one sort or another, e.g. disability, geographical remoteness, prisoners; and
· Materials which support the development of study skills programme planning or career development.
It could be explained according to:
*****CURRICULATION
____Course or programme demands
*****STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
____Geographical regions
*****TECHNOLOGICAL INFRACTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM
Diverse schematic figuration images can be created to portray the OL – infrastructures of HEI’s, depending on their individual characteristics because as Tait (2000) concludes: “There is no universal blueprint for the establishment of student support systems, open as they are to a range of variations across the characteristics of student cohorts, programmes of study, educational cultures and geographic in all their complexity.”
Therefore OL and ICT are a “disruptive technology that creates opportunities for new organisational models and strategies” says Colin Lutchem and Donald Hanna (2002).
OL-curriculation will of course become more difficult, especially to support lecturers to become aquanted with the changing methods of course delivery. Lecturers may experience it as “losing control of their students” (Brigss, 1999: 317).
3.4 Curriculation within OL
Curriculum delivery and open-access to learning facilities go hand in glove together
The following pattern of student utilization was empirically researched by Ann J. Briggs (1999;323) at the University of Leicester and which gives a very clear picture of what is meant by the above statements on curricular integration:
COLLEGE
INFRASTRUCTURE
CURRICULUM
DELIVERY
PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
PROVISION
PERCEIVED NEED
IDENTIFICATION WITH
THE FACILITY
UTILISATION
PREDISPOSITION OF
THE STUDENT
PRACTICAL AND
SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS
Management model for student use of an open-acces learning facility.
3.4.1 Model for Student Use of an Open-access Learning facility
The data from the survey presented a situation in a state of change and adaptation, and a series of preliminary models was produced to map the forces at work. These were simplified into a final model for student use of an open-access learning facility, which identifies the five broad factors governing the dynamics of accessibility and utilization:
· The place of the facility within the college infrastructure, which can be seen as the basis for its purpose and management;
· The physical and social provision within the facility itself, which provides the learning environment for the student;
· The effectiveness of links with curriculum delivery, which make the facility’s activities relevant to both staff and students;
· The practical and social constraints upon the student; and
· The predisposition of the student to use the facility.
A curriculum unit should therefore understand:
· OL-learning styles;
· Flexibility in course delivery;
· Variety of media;
· Assessment processes; and
· Dispersed learning environments.
Consequently says, Briggs (1999 326), it is important that curriculum managers, persists liaising regularly with lecturing staff for development convergent OL models on the micro level.
On the macro level, e.g. in Africa, a Curriculum Coordinating Committee (ACCC) has been established (Kuzvinetsa, 20005:3). Technical know how is exchanges among African Universities and their international partners, especially within the COL for curriculum planning, development and education in ODeL methodologies.
Efforts to improve the quality of the curriculum, also become a political desire to increase the provision for learning in developing countries such as in Africa, social desire towards egalitarianism to ensure equity and equality of opportunity. (Dhanarajan, 2001:62).
Diverse schematic figuration images can be created to portray the OL – infrastructures of HEI’s, depending on their individual characteristics because as Tait (2000) concludes: “There is no universal blueprint for the establishment of student support systems, open as they are to a range of variations across the characteristics of student cohorts, programmes of study, educational cultures and geographic in all their complexity.”
Therefore OL and ICT are a “disruptive technology that creates opportunities for new organisational models and strategies” says Colin Lutchem and Donald Hanna (2002).
OL-curriculation will of course become more difficult, especially to support lecturers to become aquanted with the changing methods of course delivery. Lecturers may experience it as “losing control of their students” (Brigss, 1999: 317).
3.4 Curriculation within OL
Curriculum delivery and open-access to learning facilities go hand in glove together
The following pattern of student utilization was empirically researched by Ann J. Briggs (1999;323) at the University of Leicester and which gives a very clear picture of what is meant by the above statements on curricular integration:
COLLEGE
INFRASTRUCTURE
CURRICULUM
DELIVERY
PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
PROVISION
PERCEIVED NEED
IDENTIFICATION WITH
THE FACILITY
UTILISATION
PREDISPOSITION OF
THE STUDENT
PRACTICAL AND
SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS
Management model for student use of an open-acces learning facility.
3.4.1 Model for Student Use of an Open-access Learning facility
The data from the survey presented a situation in a state of change and adaptation, and a series of preliminary models was produced to map the forces at work. These were simplified into a final model for student use of an open-access learning facility, which identifies the five broad factors governing the dynamics of accessibility and utilization:
· The place of the facility within the college infrastructure, which can be seen as the basis for its purpose and management;
· The physical and social provision within the facility itself, which provides the learning environment for the student;
· The effectiveness of links with curriculum delivery, which make the facility’s activities relevant to both staff and students;
· The practical and social constraints upon the student; and
· The predisposition of the student to use the facility.
A curriculum unit should therefore understand:
· OL-learning styles;
· Flexibility in course delivery;
· Variety of media;
· Assessment processes; and
· Dispersed learning environments.
Consequently says, Briggs (1999 326), it is important that curriculum managers, persists liaising regularly with lecturing staff for development convergent OL models on the micro level.
On the macro level, e.g. in Africa, a Curriculum Coordinating Committee (ACCC) has been established (Kuzvinetsa, 20005:3). Technical know how is exchanges among African Universities and their international partners, especially within the COL for curriculum planning, development and education in ODeL methodologies.
Efforts to improve the quality of the curriculum, also become a political desire to increase the provision for learning in developing countries such as in Africa, social desire towards egalitarianism to ensure equity and equality of opportunity. (Dhanarajan, 2001:62).
posted by Kallie (Karel Johannes) de Beer at 1:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home