towards more formative forms of assessment. Whilst arguably this shift does not need to be promoted by modularisation it is, nevertheless, interesting that it was occurring. One of the stimuli that were identified was a shift towards learning outcomes and criterion-referenced (rather than norm-referenced) assessment in modules (Davidson, 1992; Tait, 1994).
With regard to the impact on students, respondents highlighted factors such as the problems caused by the 'bunching' of assessments. Ostensibly to allow the students a period of time with which to become familiar with the academic content of the module the assignments and tests were frequently timed for the latter part of the module delivery. However, this often resulted in the due dates for assessments for several different modules falling together.
This leads to complaints about 'student workload'. There is a related potential for 'over assessment' in modular schemes as the number of assessments can proliferate. Whilst it is desirable that students experience a variety of assessment methods, it is important that the assessment scheme incorporates safeguards to reduce the assessment load, ensure balance and allow for progression through the programme (CNAA, 1989 & 1990; Leask, 1994; and Billing, 1996).
One of the possible advantages for students that was mentioned by respondents in this study was a greater transparency of assessment expectations through the information given in the module descriptor. Other benefits that were emphasised included the opportunity for students to resubmit assignments; for a module to be reassessed if the student failed;
and, in cases where the module was not 'core' for the next level, for the student to be given the opportunity to 'trail' failed modules. However, as one respondent commented this could have the effect of the 'student not putting in [the] effort because they know they have a second chance'. The perception of academic staff with respect to student failure and condonement has been discussed by, among others, Somerville (1996).
Another student ploy that was described by respondents was that of tactical behaviour where students avoid modules that are perceived as being 'difficult
to pass'. One respondent explained that serious conceptual gaps might be the consequence. The example that he cited was of students avoiding Biochemistry or Genetics modules with the result that their employment prospects could be detrimentally affected.
Some of the key issues relating to the impact on staff included an increase in 'marking load' caused by factors such as changes in assessment practice, for instance, an increase in projects and presentations, and the potential for large numbers of students choosing to register for a module. Respondents also commented that accurately predicting the number of students who will choose a module was often difficult and that this had implications for staff marking loads. Another very important issue that was discussed at length by several of the respondents was the altered role of the external examiner (Tall et ai, 1994; Marfleet and Kushner, 1995a & b; Billing, 1996; Adams, 1996). These changes included, for example, little 'face-to-face' contact with students and the steady demise of the 'viva'
7.3 Credit
The intimacy of the relationship between modularity and credit has been stressed in Chapters 2 and 5. Where appropriate the concepts and principles of credit have been discussed in the main chapters, and therefore do not warrant further discussion here. It is however pertinent to add that one of the most fundamental realisations to emerge from conducting this study is that a comprehensive understanding 'credit' is essential to the process of modularisation. Two authoritative and highly valuable sources of vital information that extensively discuss the concept of credit are the HEQC (1994a) and Alien and Layer (1995).
7.4 Awards, level descriptors and standards
In the discussions, particularly in the unstructured interviews, about the Awards made at the universities a number of stimulating and challenging issues arose. At Napier University, for instance, the CATS Co-ordinator explained that Napier had 'four undergraduate stages, a: Certificate of Higher Education on completion of Year 1; Diploma of Higher Education with 240
credit points; Bachelors Degree with 360 credit points; and an honours degree 480 credit points'. Furthermore, he explained that the Napier CAT Scheme students were eligible for an award after each exit and that this was 'different from the old traditional degree scheme where if they left before the three years up to degree stage they would not get an award'. The significance of this conversation was that it led on to discussion of embedded issues such as the importance of level descriptors and of defining Academic Standards. These critical issues also ran through discussions at the other four universities. Their importance is underlined in the literature by, among others, Winter, 1993 & 1994; HEQC, 1994a; HEQC, 1995b; Jackson, 1996c; Moon, 1996; Lyons and Bement, 1996; Shawand Stoney, 1996; HEQC, 1997.
Although an analysis of these elements is beyond this study their critical significance has become increasingly apparent in higher education in South Africa. National policy decisions taken with regard to level descriptors and standards will have major ramifications in the implementation of modularity.
7.5 Student counselling and guidance
A common theme to emerge from across all five universities was the increased need with modularity for academic staff to offer students counselling and guidance on appropriate module choices. A number of implications were brought to the fore. Firstly, the importance of 'keeping it to one or two people', in other words that only a few academic staff should be involved with this role. The rationale given for this recommendation was that it was essential to select staff 'who know what they are talking about and are aware of the system, and will give the same message to every student'. The main attribute identified was that staff must have a thorough knowledge of the possible options and alternative routes open to students. A particular example used to illustrate this was the situation where a student has failed one or more core modules and therefore cannot progress within a specific programme that requires the core module. The student would have to change programmes and would need sound and. comprehensive advice.
However, the perceptions of other respondents presented another viewpoint, that there is a danger of overloading staff by making them responsible for too many students. As one person commented 'at the moment we spend a huge amount of time counselling [students]'. A further aspect that was mentioned was the difficulties of anticipating the optimum timing for counselling interventions to occur. This is an issue that is picked up by, for example Harrop and Woodcock (1992: 93), who comment that academic counselling is central to the social well-being and academic progress of 'modular students'.
However, their experience leads Harrop and Woodcock (1992: 93) to state that 'the existence of an administrative system covering all students does not guarantee that necessary advice and counselling are available when needed'. 7.6 Management
Some of the management issues requiring consideration were discussed in Chapter 6. However, there are two that warrant brief discussion here because of the insights that were shared by respondents during the unstructured interviews. The first is the immense importance of establishing relevant teams, boards and committees to manage modularity at various levels. For example, one respondent stressed the necessity for 'teams of people co-ordinating module development'. In each individual interview respondents had valuable comments and opinions about the mechanisms that are required to ensure that the appropriate information relating to the 'performance of students' was collated and discussed timeously after each main assessment (examination) period. That there should be a parallel process for the 'performance of individual modules', where the focus was on the module rather than the individual student, was also emphasised.
The second issue to attract attention was the need for active staff development to support the academic and administrative staff throughout the development and implementation of modularisation. From a management perspective such staff development interventions would evidently require careful planning (CNAA, 1989).
7.7 Administration
Respondents were very keen to highlight the inherent dangers and problems in the administrative aspects of implementing modularisation. The issue of 'timetabling' stimulated particularly lively debate, and brought forth many critical and acerbic comments. It was striking, for example, that several respondents chose the phrase 'it's a nightmare!' to describe the difficulties inherent in the process of timetabling. Some of the difficulties that respondents mentioned included that the limitations imposed by the timetable may have the effect of reducing flexibility and choice. One possible solution for this would be linking the timetable to the modules rather than the courses or programmes. However, the difficulties of fitting in 'free choice elective' modules and the potential conflict between offering modules to meet the needs of full-time and part-time students requires much consideration.
The second major administrative issue to be emphasised centred on the absolutely fundamental requirement for an effective and reliable Computer Management System. Respondents were adamant that, for the purposes of tracking students, keeping centralised records, registering students on modules (not courses or programmes), only a computerised system would suffice. Most of the respondents had just 'endured' the stresses of the end of the academic year with all the activities essential for the publication of student results. As a consequence there was a particularly tendency to want to share their recent experiences of administrative overload.
7.8 Semesterisation
The semesterisation of the academic year was a particularly troublesome issue in higher education in Britain. As Gregg (1996: 11) comments 'in most institutions across the UK, modularisation has occurred simultaneously with semesterisation'. One of the specific problems is that, with an academic year commencing in September and closing in June, the Christmas and Easter vacations seriously disrupt the continuity of teaching.
The academic year in South Africa (January to December) apparently lends itself more favourably to semesters. However, the situation is not straightforward. At M L Sultan Technikon, for example, there is a mixture of semester and annual programmes. Whilst there are two semesters there are also four terms with corresponding inter-term breaks for all students. In the event of the model being adopted for modularisation that favours module length being equated with a semester, the four-term year structure would have to be reconsidered. The implication of semesters is discussed by, for example, Aldous, 1996; Margham, 1996; Scurry and Brooks, 1996; and Rich and ScoU, 1997.
7.9 Making Changes: the importance of Quality Assurance
The final group of issues that emerged could be defined as those relating to the necessity for both making changes and for effective Quality Assurance processes to inform and guide the changes. Most of the respondents in this study recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of structures and procedures for the routine monitoring; annual monitoring; and long-term review and validation of the modular programmes. The message that seemed to be emerging was that whilst these might also be an integral part of traditional courses and programmes the roles and responsibilities might evolve further with modularisation. In most cases respondents cited the changes that had occurred 'post-CNAA'.
One of the aspects that was prominent in the discussions with respondents was the importance of obtaining regular feedback from students. As one person astutely put it there 'might be a modular system where it looks 'administratively' good, and 'efficiency' good but is it actually working? Are the staff and students satisfied?' Furthermore, he stressed the importance of ensuring that 'academic content is genuinely looked at'. The issues of Quality Assurance have notable been discussed in the literature by CNAA (1989 &
1990) and the HEQC (1994a & 1997).
This postscript has sought to give a flavour of some of the broader issues and considerations pertinent to the development and implementation of credit-
bearing modular courses. Whilst each of these issues is in itself worthy of considerable study, their significance in the process of modularisation cannot be overemphasised. Ultimately any institution considering 'going modular' and not giving consideration to these broader issues would do so at their peril.