Distance Education at Traditionally Contact Higher Education Institutions REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATION Introduction In the second half of 1999, in response to a concern raised by the Council on Higher Education (CHE), SAIDE undertook a research process examining distance education practices at traditionally contact public higher education institutions. The research was conducted under the auspices of the Higher Education branch of the Department of Education. The aim of this work has been to understand better the nature of these practices, and to use this understanding to inform policy developments in South African higher education. The statistical analysis was to be conducted by the national Department, and is not incorporated into this report. In this summary report in Part One, we outline key trends emerging from our research work, then, in Part Two, we make a limited number of recommendations drawn from our findings. The summary is supplemented by in-depth appendices capturing the details of our findings. In the interests of brevity, we have not incorporated these into the summary itself, but have ensured that all observations made in this report are substantiated by the research we have undertaken. In this regard, we have drawn on a range of primary research tasks: Case studies of selected programmes that described themselves, in some form or another, as using distance education methods. These case studies were written on the basis of institutional visits and interviews conducted with officials of providing institutions. SAIDE’s previous work with traditionally contact higher education institutions, where services such as workshops, materials development, evaluations and research were rendered. The case studies of selected programmes, as well as examples of SAIDE’s previous work with traditionally contact higher education institutions are contained in Appendix One. In selecting case studies for new primary research, we aimed to balance the following elements: • Institutional types (including both technikons and universities); • A mix of small and big institutions and mix of small and large programmes; • Use of a range of technologies; • Undergraduate, post-graduate, diploma, and degree level programmes; and • A focus on different fields. We also excluded institutions and fields with which we had already done extensive work. For example, SAIDE has provided extensive support to some institutions as they have sought to integrate effective use of distance education methods into either their institution as a whole or identified programmes. In addition, we had recently completed extensive research work into distance teacher education. Hence, we sought to supplement this work and integrate the analysis emerging from our existing knowledge and new data. Full details of the research methodology used in constructing our case studies is contained in Appendix One. SAIDE has spent extensive time tracking the use of distance education methods at traditionally contact higher education institutions, as well as working with many of the people trying to integrate distance education methods into their educational offerings. Below we present a summary of our key findings. These trends are supplemented by detailed descriptions and case studies in the appendices to this report. 2 Distance Education in Traditionally Contact Public Higher Education PART ONE Range of Educational Practices at Traditionally Contact Institutions INTRODUCTION A first set of trends clusters around the difficulty of finding appropriate descriptors for different educational practices. This set of trends is of particular relevance to higher education policy, because it raises broader questions about the broad policy frameworks used to govern distance education practices in South African higher education. Most importantly, it forces analysis of the definitions of distance education and the extent to which they remain relevant. In getting to this analysis, we start by exploring some of the different terms educational providers are using to describe their activities. HOW ARE PEOPLE DESCRIBING THEIR ACTIVITIES? The first difficulty we experienced in conducting our research work was in trying to come to a generally acceptable understanding of the term distance education. This has been greatly complicated by growing use of the term – for widely divergent reasons – by a range of players in South African higher education. Since the release of the White Paper on Higher Education, the term has found growing currency both as misapplied jargon and as a marketing strategy for different types of programmes in public and private education. This problem has also been exacerbated by the development of new educational technologies that are making the concept of distance increasingly difficult to interpret. Use of video conferencing technologies, for example, creates spatial but not temporal separation, while e- mail discussion groups allow users to share the same virtual ‘space’, their discussion separated mainly by time. Rather than dwell too much on this problem, we shifted responsibility to institutions, seeking to discover more about those educational practices that providers themselves described as involving ‘distance education’. This, however, has become complicated because some providers feel uncomfortable with this label, primarily because they are aware that programmes defined as distance education programmes are subject to lower subsidy returns than those that are not. Others reject the distinction that is being made between distance education and face-to-face education as artificial and untenable. Our discovery was that a much wider range of terms to describe practices than simply distance education is used by institutions and practitioners’. Moreover, we found that a number of terms may be used within a single institution, either interchangeably or to describe different sets or ‘packages’ of distance education delivery methods. All, however, share a common thread: they involve structured efforts to overcome problems of temporal and/or spatial separation between learners and educators. Below are examples of some of the terms used by different institutions: 3 Distance Education in Traditionally Contact Public Higher Education OFF-CAMPUS ACTIVITIES Distance education programmes at Technikon Northern Gauteng are referred to as off- campus activities. Off-campus activities are understood to be learning activities of the Technikon that take place away from the main campus, the purpose of which is to ‘make available educational opportunities where there is no infrastructure.’1 Although off-campus programmes is not the formal term most institutions use to describe programmes they offer using distance education methods, our research showed clearly that this notion informed many distance education managers and practitioners’ understanding of distance education. Thus, programmes offered away from the main campus or physical facilities, no matter what learning strategies are employed (including face-to-face teaching), are generally referred to as distance education programmes. TELEMATIC EDUCATION AND TELEMATIC LEARNING At Technikon Pretoria and the University of Pretoria, the main coordinating structure for distance education provision is called the Department of Telematic Education, while, at Potchefstroom University, Telematic Learning Systems plays a similar role. The University of Pretoria uses the term telematic education to refer to ‘a comprehensive system of flexible learning which emphasizes the use of technology to enhance the teaching and learning environment, mostly ‘over a distance’.2 Technikon Pretoria also uses the term telematic learning as an umbrella term for its distance education programmes. The University of Potchefstroom uses the term ‘telematic learning’, which is similar to the term telematic education, to refer to a specific type of distance education programme. Other programmes using distance education delivery strategies that are offered by this University are referred to as distance education programmes. In the University’s institutional plan (2000-2002) to the Department of Education, this distinction is highlighted and explained as follows: Since 1996, the university has introduced Telematic Learning Systems. This is contact education at learning centres all over South Africa. The programmes offered at these learning centres as well as at residential campuses constitute the contact education programmes of the university and are recognised by the Department of Education as such. In a limited number of cases, students use the Telematic Learning Systems in non-contact situations. Those students are flagged in our information data system and are considered as distance education students for reporting purposes. The distance education programmes offered by the PU for CHE consist of three modes: 1. Distance education offered in collaboration with UNISA. All students involved in these programmes enrol at UNISA and are therefore not reflected in our data; 2. Distance education offered in partnership with the Open Learning Academy (previously COLSA); and 3. Distance education offered on a limited basis by the University itself, using technology related to the virtual mode of education.3 From the above, it is clear that Potchefstroom University for CHE regards telematic learning programmes to be part of the University’s residential programme offering. These 1 Inter view with the Head of Department of Nursing Science, Technikon