FROM MY ARHIVE: PROPOSED RESPONSE OF THE DIRECTOR DISTANCE EDUCATION ON THE CHE POLICY ADVICE REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION ON DISTANCE EDUCATION
Gmail
COMPOSE
 [Dr Karel Johannes de Beer] PROPOSED RESPONSE OF THE DIRECTOR DISTANCE EDUCATION ON THE CHE POLICY ADVICE REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION ON DISTANCE EDUCATION
PROPOSED RESPONSE OF THE DIRECTOR DISTANCE EDUCATION ON THE CHE POLICY ADVICE REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION ON DISTANCE EDUCATION CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, FREE STATE (CUT) 1. INTRODUCTION CUT regards traditional distance education (DE) as but only one offering type within the whole concept of Open Learning. Please note that the emphasis should be on the learning aspect. In this respect the National Association for Distance Education Open-learning of South Africa ( NADEOSA) - of which the CUT is a founder member- especially focuses on the context of Open-learning in its resonse to the Ministry. As in the case of UNISA, the CUT likewise refers to the NADEOSA publication of Tessa Welch and Yvonne Reed , Designing and delivering Distance Education: Quality Distance Education for policy guidance due to the absence of an official DoE document on ODeL. 2. THE WALLY MORROW AND EVELYN NONYONGO DOCUMENT At a glance point numbers 8 + 9 in the Contents : residential Universities, are of importance. Prof Wally Morrow already urged NADEOSA members at their annual conference in 2003, “ not to jump the gun” with reference to distance learning utilized at residential HEIs. He already lifted the curtain what they were going to recommend to the Minister of National Education. Although the “franchise” for DE was awarded to UNISA, it does ”not imply the restriction or curtailment of ODL practices of other HEIs in the system.” ( Page 3; point no 7). It would restrict open access and ignoring cost of higher education for marginalised learners in the country who cannot afford it to enrol at residential HEIs. “The use of modern ODL methods supplemented by a customization ( read Africanization—own italics ) for learners not having the opportunity for regular contact with lecturers or tutors (e-learning) seem to be the natural answer to this.” ( Page 34; last paragraph). 3. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE POLICY ADVICE REPORT It must be noted that this report is only an part of an “advice” document . It is still not a policy document which prohibits residential HEIs to continue with their ODeL offering types, not only on a national level but also in SADC and the rest of Africa. The first critical point is the fact that Prof Stef Coetzee was the chairperson of this CHE-task team. He is not an expert on ODeL and only had residential university experience but for a short while when he was a lecturer in Economics at UNISA in the previous political dispensation. The chair should have been given to a truly Africanised academic in ODeL. Another point of concern is that the rest of the research team only include one person from the Nigerian Open University, but with an Asian approach towards ODel for South Africa. The members are an example of in-breeding and not of true Africanization which became more prominent since the scope of NEPAD became the official policy of all African states and their subsequent departments of education. In this sense the document is outdated due to the rapid development of Africanization and of course of the fast growing ODeL way of thinking. There is too much focus on the British and Hong Kong examples for a South African model while UNESCO, the World Bank, the African Virtual University, African Council for Distance Education, SAARDHE, NADEOSA, SAADA, DEASA and the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) would have been far more appropriate to be personally consulted as professional global or international expertees. Even Australia as such could be given more prominence as the leaders in ODeL albeit the few references at the back of the report. The economics of scale is not substantiated with real financial figures, that is to say with simple arithmetic to show the so called negative cost factors in DE… (Cf p. 18;par one)…The counter question arises why did HEIs and other “fly by nights” embarked on DE bandwagon if it were not a cash cow ? It would be a most ignorant statement to make that ODeL is not an export product of Australia, Canada the USA and the multiple organisations advertised on the world wide web (own italics). 4.CONCLUSION The most important aspect which is ignored by the CHE- document is the holistic approach tot ODeL Subsequently the new initiatives of the Ministry for a task team to report on distance education will inevitable pave the way for a new National Policy in Higher Education, however, closely linked with a NEPAD approach for the developing of Africa. A whole new network in e-learning will take the lead and will be the keyword for fundraising. As well as to customize it for sharing with other African HEI’s within ODeL, government subsidies and international funds will follow suit.
-- Posted By Kallie (Karel Johannes) de Beer to Dr Karel Johannes de Beer at 2/13/2015 08:00:00 AM
|
|
| ||||||||||
posted by Kallie (Karel Johannes) de Beer at 2:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home