THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES OF OPEN LEARNING
Gmail
COMPOSE
 [Dr Karel Johannes de Beer] THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES OF OPEN LEARNING
THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES OF OPEN LEARNING : A CASE STUDY FOR THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, FREE STATE By: Prof HR Hay,Drr KJ de Beer and J Bezuidenhout 1. Definitions of Open Learning The National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) formulates Open Learning (OL) as “A flexible, learner-centred approach to education, seeking to increase access to educational opportunities by removing all unnecessary barriers to learning. This involves using the full spectrum of available resources to ensure quality and cost effectiveness in meeting diverse educational needs, including preparation of the widest possible range of learners for the process of lifelong learning” (NCHE, 1996: [online]. As such the philosophy of OL was used to construct the National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa (Morrow, 1996:4 ). OL is rather an approach than a method that is aimed at open access to Higher Education to remove all unnecessary barriers to learning. Furthermore, it also aims to provide learners with a reasonable chance of success in Higher Education. Therefore the focus of OL is also on learners’ specific needs and is located within the many areas of learning and training in an Higher Education system (SAIDE, 1997:4). Johnson (1990:4) reiterates the fact that OL is an approach rather than a system or technique. It is based on the needs of individual learners, not the interests of the lecturer or the institution. It gives students as much control as possible over what, when, where and how they learn. It especially uses educational technology, and it changes the role of a lecturer from the only source of knowledge to that of a manager and facilitator of learning. Since OL has paved the way for new technologies to be incorporated and for students to be given control over their studies, lecturers have had to change and adapt to their new roles as managers and facilitators. An OL approach accommodates such diversity, as lstudents can personally negotiate relevant goals and follow individual learning pathways and timeframes to achieve goals set by themselves. In traditional Higher Education, different learning styles and needs amongst students are often overlooked in the design, production and delivery of learning practices. OL especially encourages independence and autonomy in the learning process, as students take control and are actively involved in the process. Empowerment of learners increases the potency and relevance of their own learning (Marland, 1997:70). Key principles in OL include the following: • Learner centredness: Learners should be the focus of the educational process. Learners should construct their own lifelong career of learning. • Lifelong learning: Learning should continue throughout life. In an ever-changing and technological world, learners should stay in touch as globalisation changes the world in which we live. • Flexibility in learning: The needs of learners should be considered by making learning more flexible to accommodate learners. • The removal of barriers hindering accessibility to learners: The use of pedagogical approaches must be removed so as to improve accessibility to learning and expertise (Marland, 1997:70)(compare SAIDE, 1997:4). OL, according to the University of the Free State (ISHE, 2001:4)(compare SAQA, 2000: [online]), is a means of incorporating new ideas into learning and has as its goal the improvement of a learner’s choice regarding learning. OL enhances the effectiveness or efficiency incorporated within a programme through the use of all learning resources in its mission and goals. These resources include textbooks, audiovisual material, computers, group work and projects, to name but a few. Methods used to ensure success in learning are not restricted in OL. OL is therefore based on the principles of: • A learner-centred approach • The supply and provision of access to learners (not only those on the main campus but also on regional learning centres and satellite campuses). • Giving learners a choice insofar as time, place and pace of learning is concerned (ISHE, 2001:4). OL, as opposed to distance education, does not inhibit learner choices regarding content, but emphasises higher learning choices. However, the most important aspect of OL is its openness towards learners and its direct links with resource-based learning. Resourced –based learning is for example the term used by the University of the Free State to refer to OL. Also under this indirect terminology regarding OL, students should still change their traditional approaches and move from a teacher-centred approach to a more learner-centred approach. The latter is a central focus of the South African Government’s plan for Higher Education (ISHE, 2001:5). OL provisions also go hand-in-glove with the establishment of new technologies in Higher Education. One of the many offering types under the OL umbrella are inter alia programmes in distance learning. The emphasis here is on the “learning” mode and not on the offering type as such. Commonly referred as a method of learning within the concept of OL. Subsequently it is defined as Open-and distance Learning (ODL). 2. Open-distance Learning (ODL) ODL has always been a commodity that was seen as just a way to help a limited target group of off-campus students to qualify for their degrees in a non-traditional manner. However, a new approach and a need to restructure Higher Education have been set in motion, despite public policy and politics. ODL is seen not only as a way to reach more learners, but also as a means of empowering and enhancing institutions towards their own prestige and research capabilities (Marland, 1997:70)(compare SAIDE, 1997:4). The most significant benefit of ODL is that it is not constrained by time and place. With new technologies such as the Internet, complete and full courses can now be presented to students anywhere (Klemm, 1999: [online]). The White Paper on Higher Education (which promotes transformation) states the importance of increased provision of distance learning and resource-based learning. The concept of OL to meet current challenges and provide greater access to students falls within the parameters of such provision, but with enhanced quality in a context relevant to resource constraints and a diverse learner body. A significant increase in student numbers is being experienced in ODL and resource-based learning programmes. This is an eye-opener for South Africa, as many foreign companies and educational enterprises targeted the country. However, research has shown that not all ODL providers are equal insofar as quality and delivery of programmes are concerned. The efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness of programmes are cause for concern (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:3). Subsequently the White Paper on Higher Education encourages contact and ODL providers to provide effective learning environments whereby contact, distance, mixed-mode and dual-mode educational opportunities are elements used in the provision of access to all learners (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:3). ODL could be described as the quasi-permanent separation of lecturer and student for the duration of the learning process. It does not imply that no contact occurs between lecturers and students but the student is predominantly dependent on the courseware material mediated through various technologies, rather than on the part time lecturer or tutor alone. A benefit is that students who are far away from the main campus have better access after hours with little restriction upon the time and place of delivery. ODL thus removes barriers and increases choices and access to Higher Educational providers (Keegan, 1986:49). To illustrate and facilitate the implementation of ODL programmes, criteria for quality assurance were set by the Higher Education Quality Assurance Committee (HEQC). The criteria focus on programme development, course design, course material development, services to and responsibilities of students, learner support including factors and mentors, assessment, language of teaching and learning, as well as internal and public communication, human resource strategy, finances, fees and payment regulations, quality assurance and review, evaluation and research, marketing, accreditation and collaboration (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:11). There is, however, a serious concern among educationists regarding ODL. Simply put, by extending a lecture hall through the mass production of audio and videotapes and compact discs (CD-ROMs) and use of the Web, the quality of education will be diminished. A high degree of interactivity also increases workload on the lecturer at the main campus. Interaction between tutor, teacher or lecturer and students is also minimised as more and more technologies are used. Another concern is that the greater the number of learners involved in ODL programmes, the greater the number of chances that are needed. Tuition fees have escalated substantially and quality has already declined as a result. Extra funding is needed to ensure that quality does not suffer further. An option would be to allow universities to specialise in order to be more effective and to minimise costs. The few programmes that would be offered would be of a high quality. Universities, business and stakeholders would have to co-operate in minimising duplication and sharing educational resources, including facilities and courses. Another concern is that many lecturers are not yet ready and do not possess the skills necessary to facilitate these processes. Lecturers’ skills have to be upgraded. With the new plan and transformation in higher Education more ODL and adult learners will be entering universities. Quality is vital, and by incorporating instructional technologies, opportunities will open for quality education to be delivered via ODL or on site (Klemm, 1999:3 [online])(compare SAQA, 2000: [online]; NCHE, 1996: [online]). 3. Resource-based learning Another important concept related to trends in the delivery of higher education in South Africa is resource-based learning. The NCHE (1996: [online]) report defines resource-based learning as: The increasing use of a variety of media methodologies to meet the different needs of students in a rapidly changing Higher Educational situation, with diminishing dependence on face-to-face communication and a growing reliance on well-designed interactive study material, the implementation of computer-based and audiovisual instruments and programmes, and diversification in the manner and location of educational guidance and support offered to learners by lecturers. Increased support to students signals a collapse of the traditional sharp distinction between contact and ODL (Morrow, 1996:9). Resource-based education can be seen as a superior form of teaching to content-based teaching. A much more open approach improves the students’ continuous education via a shared and collective approach nestled in reflective professional judgement. Hence the traditional institutional boundaries are opened and the full spectrum of available educational resources is utilised (NCHE, 1996: [online]). As a result, a student or educator can share cross-institutional (system-wide) co-operation, the accessibility of the professional, and the academic skills of the most talented in Higher Education (Morrow, 1996:9). There are significant barriers to learner access and success at traditional contact institutions, which can be reduced by means of ODL and resource-based learning. This requires appropriate methods to encourage and reward the development of quality resource-based courses and course materials and to ensure their wide distribution and availability. Institutions will have to foster a co-operative and co-ordinated approach (NCHE, 1996: [online]). The development of resource-based learning means that the quality and success of teaching need not depend upon staff levels rising in tandem with increased enrolments. Better use can be made of scarce and costly resources, scholarship and teaching expertise (NCHE, 1996: [online]). Resource-based learning is particularly appropriate for students who are already in employment or who need to earn a living in order to cover study costs. Many of these students are in possession of prior learning and experience of an unconventional kind, and resource-based learning providers are the ideal institutions to pioneer the evaluation of prior learning and experience for access purposes (NCHE, 1996: [online]). Resource-based learning can expand easily in the existing infrastructure in both the public and private sectors. However, this would require additional investment, especially in learning technology, staff development and student support. Many institutions are still far from meeting their major transformation requirements in refocusing institutional missions, modernising courseware, improving student support and undertaking essential efficiency reforms and cost-effective planning (NCHE, 1996: [online]). The Ministry acknowledges the importance of establishing a national network of centres of innovation in course design and development to enable the development and franchising of well-designed, high-quality and cost-effective learning resources and courses by building on the expertise and experience of top-quality scholars and Higher Educators around the country (NCHE, 1996: [online]). Contact as well as traditional Distance Education institutions such as UNISA will have to provide effective and flexible learning environments on a continuum of educational provision to allow educators to select from an expanding range of educational methods and technologies that are most appropriate to the context within which they operate (NCHE, 1996: [online])(Strydom, & Van der Westhuizen, 2001:16). Resource-based learning approaches have the potential to integrate lifelong learning into the basic shape and structure of Higher Education. The Ministry of Education is committed to the development of new teaching and learning technologies, especially through its technology-enhanced learning initiative, known as TELI (NCHE, 1996: [online]). An investigation should be launched into the viability of a coherent national framework for facilitating ODL and resource-based learning, including a comprehensive audit of existing public and private ODL and resource-based learning provision in order to assess strengths and weaknesses. The Ministry will appoint a task team to conduct this investigation in collaboration with the NCHE, with the outcome being a clear agenda for improvement, and guidance on future policy, planning and investment (NCHE, 1996: [online])(Strydom & Van der Westhuizen, 2001:17). Resource-based learning could take place at any institution, but the difference between contact tuition and resource-based education is situated in the role and function of the lecturer. The teacher acts as facilitator in the learning process by motivating the learner to study independently and to use the facilitators to open up resources and facilitate the learning process. The lecturer does not act as sole source of knowledge or information supplier (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:6). 4. Lifelong learning Lifelong learning has become a key concept when considering education and training worldwide. With the extraordinarily rapid pace of change and globalisation in the world, a need has developed for people who are adaptable and responsive, i.e. who are capable of lifelong learning. It is particularly important for the South African Higher education system to cultivate lifelong learners and to provide for continuing Education throughout life (RSA, 2003: [online]). Lifelong learning is cross sectoral in that it is not limited to formal education but includes adult and community education (Service Learning) and workplace-based learning, together with access to libraries and electronically transmitted and stored data. This type of learning embraces all types and levels of learning irrespective of its content, form or location (RSA, 2002: [online]). However, in the Higher Education policy documents in various parts of the world, lifelong learning has become “policy speak”, which assumes multiple meanings and interpretations. On the one hand it is employed as a conceptual framework that presents a comprehensive and particular understanding of educational priorities and the associated strategies, and a fundamental assertion of a radically different and distinct andragogy. On the other hand, it can be more simply expressed as emphasising the temporal plane, making education available throughout the lifecycle. This latter definition allows no explicit focus on andragogy, as the main emphasis is on expanding the present Higher Educational provision. South African policy documents refer to both the comprehensive and simple usage of the concept of lifelong learning (RSA, 2003: [online])(Isaacman, 1996:33). Lifelong learning is integral to the struggle for substantive democracy and social justice in South Africa. People cannot be stopped from learning in their everyday lives, but the quality of the learning provided is extremely uneven. In many policy documents lifelong learning is used as an overarching framework or goal for learning and teaching. The various new policies and practices being implemented in the South African educational system can be seen as building blocks towards a lifelong learning system. Lifelong learning as a concept is visionary and therefore poses profound pedagogical and organisational implications that are yet to be explored and fully understood (RSA, 2003: [online])(Isaacman, 1996:33). Focus must continually be shifted between the individual and the context of that individual, with neither point being separated from the other. An individual comprises a human being, but also a worker and a citizen of a country, with each individual having his/her own social context. The role of lifelong learning in these contexts has varied throughout history, with it having addressed the needs of production (worker), society (citizen) and culture (human being) to varying degrees at different times (RSA, 2003: [online]). Lifelong learning exists in all societies in different forms as people move through their life stages. There are many “lifelong educations”, as lifelong learning refers to the totality of learning activities, with these being classified by Paul Belanger into three specific constituent elements: • Initial education: Those individuals who participate more in learning activities during different periods of adult life are those who had a better and longer initial education, since the general cumulative pattern of educational participation is highly influenced by initial education. • Adult education: There has been a rapid expansion of the social demand for organised adult education over the past 20 years, including vocational, community and higher education. The provision of adult education does not conform to an organisational pattern, but is rather diffused over many structures and arrangements (compare 5.3). • Diffuse learning environments: Learning does not take place only through organised educational, formal or non-formal processes – there are also numerous informal learning events and processes. Various cultural factors influence educational aspirations and learning achievement in initial education as well as adult education, including attitude towards education, the predisposition towards specific types of learning in the family or immediate environment, the mere availability of books, the prevailing attitudes towards written communication, and the presence of a local cultural infrastructure (RSA, 2003: [online])(Isaacman, 1996:31). 5. Flexible learning A mixed mode of education (as preferred by the University of Technology, Free State at its respective regional learning centres) is where the same learners, often within a single programme, receive combinations of contact tuition, resource-based learning within ODL offering types. Dual-mode institutions offer programmes by using either ODL and/or contact tuition, or only contact tuition. Only certain programmes are offered through ODL and sometimes for individual categories of learners. Flexible learning enables learners to access learning through various learning methods and opportunities aided by a removal of barriers by giving freedom of access, pace, place and time. Mass learning is a key element in flexible learning. More and more “traditional” or face-to-face institutions are being challenged by the global market to provide quality ODL. (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:8)(compare Ryan, Scott, Freeman & Patel, 2000:30). Technologies and methods form part of this process to deliver such programmes (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:6). As a result, the South African Qualifications Authority Act and the National Qualifications Framework were implemented to ensure that all institutions register, adapt, plan and design their programmes within the framework and new transformation milieu in higher education. Skills, attitudes, values and knowledge form the basis of outcomes to be achieved by the learner. These outcomes are assessed within the design of programmes that have to be registered with the South African Qualifications Authority. Obviously all ODL providers have to register all programmes so as to eliminate duplication of programmes, and they must set national standards to ensure quality and also international recognition and accreditation of programmes that are either “face-to-face” or “distance educational” in nature (Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, 1999:8)(compare SAIDE, 1997:15). 5. Outcomes Based Education and training ( OBET) OBET also qualifies within the concept of OL because it focuses on the learning outcomes to be achieved, with learning programmes being designed to help students achieve those desired outcomes (Olivier, 1998:30). William Spady, who is regarded as the leading advocate of OBET, defines OBET as a “comprehensive approach to organising and operating an education system that is focused on and defined by the successful demonstrations of learning sought from each learner.” He goes on to define outcomes as “clear learning results that we want learners to demonstrate at the end of significant learning experiences” and “actions and performances that embody and reflect learner competence in using content, information, ideas and tools successfully” (Spady, 1994:2). With regard to the OBET paradigm, Spady (1994:8) states that “…WHAT and WHETHER learners learn successfully is more important than WHEN and HOW they learn something” (Malan, 2000:22). OBET and principles of OL are both characterised by the following: * Outcomes and assessment criteria are clearly tasked in the standards or the syllabus. • Outcomes focus on skills, knowledge and attitudes/values. • Learning, which is facilitated, can take place anywhere (it is not restricted to formal learning). • Critical cross-field outcomes as well as specific outcomes are included in the assessment. • Outcomes are descriptive of observable, demonstrable and assessable performance. • Outcomes are broad in scope and are not merely a list of specific tasks or skills. (Assessment College of South Africa, 2003:41)(compare Malan, 2000:22; Olivier, 1998:32) The following are distinctive features of the current OBET approach: • It is needs driven, with curricula being designed in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes expected from graduates and aiming to equip learners for lifelong learning. • It is outcomes driven, with a line extending from taking cognisance of training needs to setting an aim (purpose) for the programme and goals for syllabus themes and learning outcomes, and finally assessing the learning outcomes in terms of the set learning objective. • It has a design-down approach, with learning content only being selected after the desired outcomes have been specified. Content is a vehicle to achieve the desired learning outcomes. • It specifies outcomes and levels of outcomes. • The focus shifts from teaching to learning. Where a learner-centred learning approach is maintained, study guides help the students to organise their learning activities, while group work, continuous assessment and self-assessment are major features. • The framework is holistic in its outcomes focus, with grass-roots learning objectives being linked to goals and aims at higher levels – thereby providing building blocks for achieving higher level outcomes (Assessment College of South Africa, 2002:41)(compare Malan, 2000:32; Olivier, 1998:32; QPD Consultants, 2002:26, section 2). OBET and OL also share the following underlying beliefs • Learners must be encouraged and permitted to learn to their full potential. • Success breeds success, and learners will build self-confidence as they progress. • The learning environment must promote conditions under which learners can be successful (Assessment College of South Africa, 2002:41). Outcomes-based schools have a philosophical base that embraces the following points as mentioned by Mamary (1991) in Killin (2000:3): • All learners have potential, and institutions and educators should develop it. • Schools should pursue all avenues for learners to succeed rather than find ways for them to fail. • Co-operation and mutual trust drive all outcomes-based schools. • Excellence is for all learners, not just a few. • By ensuring that learners are thoughtfully prepared every day for success the following day, the need for correctives will be reduced. • Learners should collaborate in learning rather than compete, as co-operation and communication ensure success in life. • Insofar as is possible, no learner should be excluded from school activities. • A positive attitude and motivation will ensure that every learner will learn well if he/she believes he/she can. All OBET principles are based on two types of outcomes within an education system and are measured by performance indicators (such as test results, completion rates and post-course employment rates), whereas a learner’s knowledge, his/her ability to perform skills and the applicability of his/her knowledge to his/her performance are secondary outcomes. All educationalists consider the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes of learners as being what OBET stands for (Killen, 2000:1). OBET is a theory of education, or a systematic structure for education, or a classroom practice. In short the learning experiences and success in the learner’s performance are key elements of OBET. OBET focuses on the learner and the curriculum, instruction and assessment, and ensures that this learning ultimately occurs. OBET is therefore an approach to planning, delivering and evaluating instruction by means of educators, learners, parents and administrators, who must focus attention and efforts on the desired results of education. There are two approaches to OBET, namely one that focuses on traditional subject-related academic outcomes (subject specific) and one that focuses on cross-discipline outcomes (problem solving, co-operative work), with the former being known as traditional/transitional OBET and the latter being known as transformational OBET (Killen, 2000:1). Spady (1994:94) does, however, characterise OBET as a systems transformation approach. In doing so he identifies ten key components that underlie OBET as a transformational approach, namely: outcomes defined, expanded opportunities for learners, performance “credentialing”, concept integration, instructional coaching, culminating achievement, “inclusionary” success, co-operative learning, criterion validation, and collaborative structures (Spady, 1994:36). The major differences between the traditional content-based approach to learning and the new outcomes-based approach to learning can be summarised in table 1: TRADITIONAL CONTENT-BASED LEARNING OUTCOMES-BASED LEARNING Rote learning Critical thinking and reasoning Learners mainly passive when exposed to content Learners active and involved in the learning process Little communication Communication critical Content-driven syllabus broken down into subjects Learning, which is outcome and process driven, is connected to real-life situations Textbook/worksheet bound Learner and outcome centred Teacher centred Teacher is facilitator Syllabus considered to be accurate and non-negotiable Learning programmes seen as guides Emphasis on what the teacher hopes to achieve Emphasis on outcomes (what the learner achieves) Curriculum development process not open to the public Wider stakeholder involvement encouraged (Adapted from Olivier, 1998:102). The most important aspects of OL in OBET are the following: • Learning rather than teaching. • Students need to think. • Processes that engage learners with the content, as well as the content itself, facilitate thinking. • Links should be forged with other fields of education/subjects, as subjects never exist in isolation. The teacher’s/lecturer’s responsibility is to equip studentswith the skills necessary to enable them to perform effectively and to help students learn how to learn (Olivier, 1998:102). 6. Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) RPL is a process which, through assessment, gives credit to learning that has already been acquired in different ways, e.g. through life experience (Isaacs, 2000:6)(compare QPD Consultants, 2003:2, section 3). In the recognition of RPL experiences, accreditation should take place, while terms such as “learned”, “knowledgeable” and “competent” require institutions to be transparent in their admission requirements for accountable students. The ability to accumulate credits earned in the sum of different learning contexts, which will lead to the achievement of national qualifications, forms part of the new OL approach in Higher Education (SAIDE, 1997:4; Assessment College of South Africa, 2003:42)(compare QPD Consultants, 2002:2, section 3). The objectives of the National Qualifications Framework include the need to facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within Higher Education, training and career paths, as well as the need to accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training and employment opportunities. SAQA is faced with the challenge of finding a way in which these two objectives can be met, while at the same time finding a way to recognise the learning that has taken place outside traditional learning contexts (previously the only learning contexts that were formally recognised). SAQA intends to engage its structures in the area of RPL as a means of giving practical meaning to these objectives (SAQA, 2000: [online])(Isaacman, 1996:18). The concept of RPL includes but is not limited to learning outcomes achieved through formal, informal and non-formal learning and work experience (SAQA, 2000: [online]) (compare QPD Consultants, 2002:4, section 3). It is important to take note of RPL, as many learners engaged in e-learning and studying at Higher Education institutions are adults, and RPL thus has to be included as a benchmark in an ODL- framework ( Cf. Isaacman, 1996:18). 6. Conclusion Currently South African Higher Education Institutions ( HEI’s) are all compelled by the new democratic dispensation to provide education and training within an open access policy of the National Department of Education (DoE). Subsequently it also implies an OL structure to provide the democratic freedom for every individual student to develop her or his academic career. HEI’s therefore must be user friendly and obliged to follow suit. In its very essence OL adheres to this open and free phenomenon characteristic of the new democratic dispensation for South Africa. Especially marginalised students due to cultural, financial or language constraints can also enter into life long academic contracts with HEI’s. Universities can also now, via OL philosophies, reach out to the whole community in which they serve. This required not only new approaches to teaching and offering their qualification structures but also an acceptance that the most sophisticated concepts can be lectured in formats and language that adult students, however limited their formal education, can understand. ( Cf. Dodds,T.2001:504). REFERENCES
-- Posted By Kallie (Karel Johannes) de Beer to Dr Karel Johannes de Beer at 2/13/2015 07:17:00 AM
|
|
| ||||||||||
posted by Kallie (Karel Johannes) de Beer at 3:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home