Theme 5: Assuring quality in distance education
2. Literature review
Open Distance Learning (ODL) research can be defined as a particular form of multi-disciplinary research, with a specific focus in understanding and informing ODL praxis. This includes issues around policy and capacity development and implementation (Prinsloo, 2012: 7). This paper is written from a multi-disciplinary perspective, considering the challenges of generation five pedagogies:
education (an educational perspective),
the changing work roles of ODL academics (an organisational psychology perspective) and finally
organisational change management strategies (an organisational development perspective).
It focusses on the interface of these three perspectives and hopes to provide an integrated input into policy and capacity development in open distance learning universities, as referred to by Prinsloo (2012), based on evidence found in the literature.
Figure 1 Interface between organisational development strategies, changing roles of academics and new ODL pedagogies
2.1 Generation five pedagogies
Distance education refers to instruction where there is a difference in terms of time, location or both (Conceição, 2006:27). This implies the use of a variety of distance education delivery systems, e.g. correspondence, digitally via computers, broadcasting, teleconferencing, the worldwide web, the internet and many new innovations. Due to these innovations, the work context of distance education faculty has changed significantly over the last decade. The advent of new distance learning pedagogies, including delivery modes and increasingly going “online”
have redefined the way faculty experience teaching (Conceição, 2006:26-45) implying that the way they experience their jobs have changed fundamentally.
The historical development of ODL pedagogies is described in the “five generations of ODL pedagogy “(Taylor, 2001:3). While an overview of the development of all five stages falls beyond the scope of this paper, the current generation, generation five pedagogy, needs to be elucidated upon in order to build the argument on
Organisational Development
strategies
Ecological change management model in
DE
New ODL pedagogies Fifth generation
technologies Connectivism Changing
academic work roles
New roles
Technology
Curriculum design
which this paper stands. The key features of generation five (referred to as “The Intelligent Flexible Learning Model”) include interactive online multimedia, internet-based access to world wide web resources, computer mediated communication and campus portal access (Taylor, 2001). Furthermore, generation five technologies imply the use of video conferencing, asynchronous and live communication, open educational resources (OERs), massive online courses (MOOCS), YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. The medium through which content is delivered includes printed material, computer design, images, sound, video and focusses on the involvement of the learner.
Fifth generation distance education demands pedagogies that speak to asynchronous and synchronous interaction, mass delivery and increased demands for interaction from learners. Pedagogies that are relevant to the fifth generation are social constructivism and connectivism (Prinsloo, 2014). The theoretical framework used to make sense in this paper is connectivism. Siemens &
Tittenberger (2009, 11-12), describes connectivism as a school of thought where knowledge and cognition are distributed across networks of people and learning and technology are used in the process of connecting, growing and navigating those networks. Learning can then be described as a network on three different levels, namely:
Neural level,
Conceptual level and
External level.
In the world of work of faculty, the level that we are most concerned with is the conceptual level. On a conceptual level a node is represented by an idea or a collection of ideas. Therefore it can be concluded that through the process of learning, new learners (students) must form conceptual connections similar to those of experts (faculty). Once the connections have been formed, the learners are able to develop an advanced understanding of the new subject matter and the discipline as a whole. In addition, Siemens and Tittenberger (2009, 13) proposes that the elimination of “barriers” to connection is the greatest challenge universities face. If one considers the challenges that ODL universities face, it is reasonable to expect that these barriers might be even more important.
To return to generation five pedagogies, new technology such as Facebook, Twitter, and discussion forums must thus be used to enable and support learners (via text, sound, images and video clips to increase learner involvement) to form these connections between what they already know (internalised knowledge) and new information that they are trying to integrate into their existing frame of reference on a conceptual level. It is thus the job of faculty to facilitate this learning process in learners.
2.2 New roles and competencies for faculty
Faculty is key to creating an enabling and empowering learning environment for distance education learners. Therefore, it can be assumed that faculty’s commitment to develop and advance distance education for their specific disciplines and subjects is key to fostering concerted growth of distance education programmes (Shapiro, Morales & Biro, 2009). The Commonwealth of Learning (COL, 1999) emphasises the needs of faculty who face specific changes in their distance education work context as a result of changes within the distance university as a whole (for example the introduction of new technology to receive training).
New roles:
With regard to the changes faced by online faculty, Bawane and Spector (2009) mentions eight roles and competencies:
Pedagogical: develop course content, link a subject with scientific, social and cultural phenomena, manage own professional development
Social: maintain and improve a learning environment, give feedback to students and promote student interaction
Evaluator: monitor and assess student progress, evaluate programmes
Administrator/manager: demonstrate leadership, manage time and the program
Technologist: constant awareness of technological developments of main resources and virtual tools, learn new software, suggest resources to students
Advisor/ counsellor: suggest measures to enhance performance, provide guidance based on student needs, offer advice and motivate students
Personal: comply with ethic and legal standards, adopt a positive attitude committed to e-learning
Researcher: conduct research, interpret and integrate research findings into program content
New competencies: Technology: Faculty must recognise the role of instructional technology as a learning resource and therefore the role of faculty is being transformed dramatically from being the exclusive source of information to being one of several sources. ODL faculty is increasingly an intermediary between students and the available resources (Beaudion, 2009).
New competencies: Curriculum design: Arinto (2013) performed a comprehensive study on the way ODeL faculty member’s course design practices have changed and these findings emphasises the importance of the fact that faculty training programmes in ODeL should aim to develop a comprehensive range of ODeL
competencies in a systematic and coherent way. Faculty will for example need to be prepared for the advent of Massive open online courses (MOOCs), where curricula increasingly become fluid and open.
Although social technologies are changing the nature of knowledge, the curriculum and the validation of knowledge, the task as faculty primarily remains the same namely to try to understand our students and to learn to speak their language (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, 1).
2.3 A change management strategy for ODL institutions
“Change” is central in the management of modern organisations (McLagan, 2002).
However, organisations (including universities) do not change automatically.
Organisations require pro-active, strategic human effort in the form of explicit change management strategies (Taylor, 2001). He adds that distance education universities have always been and will always be on the frontline of institutional change and innovation. Zawacki-Richter (2009) listed the distance education research areas being of high importance and found that both “management of innovation and change” and “professional development and faculty support” were among the highest rated research areas. He specifically recommends more research to be done on the management of change and innovation, organisational development, faculty support and professional development. Zawacki-Richter (2009) identifies these areas as “the most neglected fields” in distance education research. In support, Shapiro, Morales and Biro (2009) state that increasing demand for online courses means institutions will remain challenged with implementing processes that allow for manageable and successful scaling up of online courses or entire degree programmes.
Policy makers need to be aware of the dramatic changes to the world of work of the ODL academic and the implications that this transformation has on the academic’s work experience, emotional wellbeing, cognitive functioning and the resulting quality of interactions with students (Bezuidenhout, 2013). These changes necessitate a future orientated epistemological and pedagogical approach from ODL facilitators. It should also be accepted that these changes faced, may create an uncomfortable contradiction in faculty (Surikova & Baranova, 2009) and may cause them to experience emotional discomfort and possibly even a lowered belief/confidence in their own competency. Therefore, Olcott and Wright (1995) argue that a lack of institutional support frameworks to train ODL academics to cope on an emotional, cognitive and behavioural level, may be detrimental to the healthy work experience of the academic.
Unfortunately, from an organisational point of view, change strategies often rely on the use of power, influence and politics in one form or another (French, Bell &
Zawacki, 2005). Through coercive strategies (power and politics) people are required to comply with a new way of doing things and often penalties and rewards are used to induce compliance. This approach has not been successful with faculty within universities.
ODL and E-learning policies and its implementation are increasingly affecting how higher education institutions operate, are structured and are organised (de Freitas
& Oliver, 2005). To explore how policy influences change, a few Models of Change are identified in the literature.
The Ecological Model of Change, adopted by a number of theorists in the field of ODL technology development, seems relevant in managing change and innovation in increasingly complex contexts (Turan, 1997; Nardi & O’Day, 1999; Tatnall &
Davey 2003). This model as defined by Tatnall and Davey (2003), explains change in ODL universities according to:
1. Energy expenditure and satisfaction obtained - the take-up of ODL and e- learning across an organisation requires high expenditure of energy, including cost, time and training.
2. Competition: within an organisation - there may be resistance to innovative technological development due to perceived competition between individual faculty.
3. Cooperation - some staff members may feel at ease with the new ODL technology and feel able to cooperate with their development in the university.
These people may be ‘‘early adopters’’ or innovators.
4. Filling a niche – ICT development may fulfil a niche, for example, providing extra support for ODL learners.
This theoretical perspective emphasise the complex relationship between ODL and e-learning policies, organisational change, and the implementation there-off.
Furthermore, ODL strategies are increasingly being used as part of an organisation’s change management strategy and due to its cross-cutting nature, ODL has been identified as a useful tool for change management within higher education institutes.