Programmemodelling:aNadeosainvestigationintothecostandhumanresourceimplicationsfordifferentmodelsofODLprovision–draftversion5

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r D i s t a n c e E d u c a t i o n a n d O p e n

L e a r n i n g i n S o u t h A f r i c a

J o h a n n e s b u r g , S o u t h A f r i c a

P h o n e : + 2 7 1 1 4 0 3 2 8 1 3

F a x : + 2 7 1 1 4 0 3 2 8 1 4

1 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 1

TonyMaysThis report explores the complexities of costing andresourcingODLprogrammesappropriatelytoensurehighquality provision. The report provides guidelines andmodels to help programme managers make informeddecisions.

Page1of44

© National Association for Distance Education and Open Learning in South Africa (Nadeosa) andSouthAfricanInstituteforDistanceEducation(Saide)

Permission is grantedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution license to replicate, copy,distribute,transmit,oradaptthisworkfreelyprovidedthatattributionisprovidedasillustratedinthecitationbelow. To view a copy of this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send alettertoCreativeCommons,559NathanAbbottWay,Standford,California,94305,USA.

Citation:

Mays,T. (2011).Programmemodelling:aNadeosa investigation intothecostandhumanresourceimplications for differentmodels of ODL provision – draft conference version. Nadeosa and Saide.Johannesburg.

Notethisisaworkinprogress.Afinalversionofthereportisexpectedattheendof2011.

Page2of44

ContentsAbstract.............................................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................4

Table1:ProfilesoftheNineMegaUniversitiesParticipatingintheSurvey(p.81)......................................5

2. Definitions.....................................................................................................................................8

3. Methodology.................................................................................................................................9

4. Whatisaprogramme?................................................................................................................10

Table2:Programmedesignforprofessional/singledisciplineprogrammes...............................10

Table3:ProgrammedesignfortransdisciplinaryprogrammeslikeaBA....................................11

Table4:Modelsofdistanceeducation:aconceptualframework(Taylor2001,p.3)................14

Table5:Technologyandthestudentwalk..................................................................................15

5. Whatarethemostcommonmodelsofprovision?.....................................................................18

5.1 Planningissuescommontoallmodels................................................................................23

5.1.1 LogisticalSupport.........................................................................................................23

5.1.2 Studentsupport...........................................................................................................24

5.1.3 Facultysupport............................................................................................................25

5.1.4 Evaluation....................................................................................................................26

5.1.5 Laboratory/Practical/Work-IntegratedExperiences....................................................26

5.1.6 Planningandcostingassumptions...............................................................................27

Table6:Designtimeassumptions...............................................................................................28

Table7:Programmemanagers....................................................................................................30

Table8:Modulecoordinators.....................................................................................................32

Table9:Comparativesummaryofmodels..................................................................................34

5.2 Observations........................................................................................................................35

6. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................36

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................37

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................38

Appendix1:Illustrativeprogrammemanagementfunctionsandactivities........................................41

Appendix2:Excelspreadsheet............................................................................................................44

Page3of44

Programmemodelling:aNadeosainvestigationintothecostandhumanresourceimplicationsfordifferent

modelsofODLprovisionTonyMays

ProgrammeSpecialist(HE):SouthAfricanInstituteforDistanceEducation

NadeosaVice-President(2010-12;formerPresident2000-2002,2008-2010)

tonymays@vodamail.co.za

tonymays0@gmail.com

AbstractTheSouthAfricanHigherEducationActof1997establishedacademicprogrammesasthecostunitfor Higher Education. In response to the advent of a National Qualifications Framework in SouthAfrica, Higher Education Institutions opted to focus on whole qualifications rather than on unitstandardsas thebasisof theiracademicprogrammes inorder toensurecoherence (Luckett2003).However,subsequentinvestigationsbytheCHE(CHE2004,2007,2010)haveindicatedthatnotonlyaremanyprogrammesnotcoherentlydesignedbutalsothatinmanycasestheyareunder-resourcedintermsofstaffing,whichmilitatesagainstthequalitynotonlyofdesign,butalsoofdevelopmentand‘delivery’.

Buildingon thebaseof costing studies inODLbyRumble, Perratonand Sparks, aswell as costingstudiesundertakenbySaideinsouthandsouthernAfricain2003and2004(CHE2004,ADEA2004,Mays 2005), and with Namcol in 2010 (Saide 2010), as well as the thinking that underpins theUniversityofSouthAfrica’sAcademicHumanResourceAllocationModel,theauthordevelopedthreeindicativemodels which seek to explore the links between income, costs and human resources inorder to provide a tool for informed decision-making at the programme level. The assumptionsunderpinningthesemodelswereinterrogatedandrefinedinconsultationwithprogrammemanagersof the College of Human Sciences at Unisa. It is planned that the resultingmodelswill be refinedagainafterconsultationwithcolleaguesattheNadeosaconferencein2011andthenininfollow-upvisitswith interestedHEIs.Theresearchprocessunderpinningthis investigationcomprisesamixed-methodapproachinvolvingthecollectionandanalysisofbothquantitativeandqualitativedatainahermeneuticenquiryspiral.

Keywords:ODL,costing,humanresources,programmemodelling

Page4of44

1. Introduction

TheSouthAfricanHigherEducationActof1997establishedacademicprogrammesasthecostunitfor Higher Education. In response to the advent of a National Qualifications Framework in SouthAfrica, Higher Education Institutions opted to focus on whole qualifications rather than on unitstandardsasthebasisoftheiracademicprogrammesinordertoensurecoherence(Luckett2003).However,subsequentinvestigationsbytheCHE(CHE2004,2007,2010)haveindicatedthatnotonlyare many programmes not coherently designed but also that in many cases they are under-resourced in terms of staffing, whichmilitates against the quality not only of design, but also ofdevelopment and ‘delivery’. These concerns apply to higher education provision in South Africagenerallybutareofparticular concernwithin theopenanddistance learning (ODL) community inwhich it is notpossible to address curriculum shortfalls at shortnoticewithadhoc interventions.ODLpractitionersoftenneedtomakeinformedcurriculumdecisionstwotothreeyearsinadvanceof recruiting students. This report proceeds from the premise that adequate investment inappropriatecurriculumdesigninwhichcontentandoutcomes,assessmentandstudentsupportareplannedfor inan integratedwayandinwhichthecarryingcapacityofprogrammesandcourses istakenduecognisanceoffromtheoutsetareessentialtoODLdeliveringonitspotential.

AlthoughODLprovisionispremisedonahighdegreeofindependentlearning,staffingisusuallystillthe single biggest cost item in institutional budgets. A distinction can usefully bemade betweenpermanent centralised staff (academic and professional and usually relatively small) anddecentralised, often part-time/ contract staff (usually relatively large). At the University of SouthAfrica (Unisa), for example, personnel costs amounted to 59,10% and 61,72% as a percentage oftotal expenditure in 2008 and 2007 respectively (Unisa 2008a: 55) with academic staff costsamountingto37%andotherpersonnelamountingto63%ofatotalpersonnelbillofR1531295000(Unisa2008a:63).Unisa’stotalstaffcomplement(permanentandtemporary)amountedto10223in2006.Justunder60%ofthese(6114)weretemporaryandjustover40%(4109)werepermanent(Unisa 2008b: 17); this resulted in a full time equivalent staff to student ratio of 1: 73,83 (Unisa2008b:18)withavariationofbetween1:147to1:48betweendifferentcolleges.Clearly,therefore,a consideration of the kinds of staff needed and the ways in which they use their time isfundamentaltothebottom-linefinancesoftheinstitutionanditslong-termsustainability.

Staffingneedsandcosts vary considerablybetweenmodelsofprovision: inaprint-based, contactsupportedmodeofdeliverywecanrelyuponlocaltutorstomediatethecurriculuminresponsetocontextualrealities.Inanon-linemodelofdelivery,thelearningpathwaysneedtoallowforawiderdiversityofresponsesandcontexts–consequentlydecentralisedtutorandvenue-relatedcostsmaybe smaller but initial development and ongoing on-line review and support costs will usually behigher.Thedegreeofinteractiondesignedintothemodelfordeliverywillhaveaprofoundimpactonstaffneedsandcostsandforsustainabilityabalanceneedstobefoundbetweenteachingcosts,incomegeneratedandstudentpassratesandthroughput.

Insung(inMcIntosh2005)reportsonaQualityAssuranceSurveyofMegaUniversities.Thesurvey,conductedbetweenMayandearly June2004,wassentout tothepresidents (orvice-chancellors)and/ortheheadsofQAunitsin11megauniversitiesindifferentregions:

Page5of44

• Allama Tqbal Open University (ATOU, Pakistan) • Anadolu University (Anadolu, Turkey) • China Central Radio and TV University (CCRTVU, China) • Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU, India) • Universitas Terbuka (UT, Indonesia) • Korea National Open University (KNOU, Korea) • Payame Noor University (Tran) • Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU, Thailand) • Open University (OU, UK) • University of South Africa (South Africa) • Shanghi TV University (SHTVU, China).

Table1indicatesthediverserangeofstudent:staffratios.

Table1:ProfilesoftheNineMegaUniversitiesParticipatingintheSurvey(p.81)

NUMBEROFACADEMICSTAFF NUMBEROF

INSTITUTIONYEAROF NUMBEROF ADMINISTRATIVE

ESTABLlSHMENT DESTUDENTS FULL-TIME PART-TIME STAFF

AIOU(Pakistan) 1974 456,126 145 23,000 1,426

Anadolu(Turkey)1958

884,081 1,729653(tutors)

1,763(1982 namedAnadolu) 300(Iecturers)

CCRTVU(China) 1979 2,300,000 52,600 3I,500 16,500IGNOU(India) 1985 1,013,63] 339 35 1,337

KNOU(Korea) 1972 196,402 271 108 546 1,434 7,995 (Academic-relatedstaff)OU(UK) 1969 203,744 1,169 2,139 (Secretarial.clerical, Andtechnicalstaff)

SHTVU(China) 1960 101,218 NotGiven NotGiven NotGiven

STOU(Thailand) 1978 181,372 375 NotGiven 904

UT(Indonesia) 1984 222,068 762 3,600 730

Wenote inTable1 theextremelydifferent statistics forCCRTVUand IGNOU, forexample.Clearlythetwoinstitutionsoperateoncompletelydifferentmodels.

In June 2004 the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) developed a CDRom which they explainedprovided“anintroductiontocostinginopenanddistancelearning(ODL).ItisdesignedforpeoplesettingupnewODLprogrammesandforpeoplewishingtoimprovethequalityofthemanagementofexistingprogramme."CostingODL"includesfullyfunctioningspreadsheetsbutitisnotacostingtool.” This resourcewas not available from the COLwebsite at the time of writing (www.col.orgaccessed 01/11/11). However, a publication developed by Thomas Hülsmann for COL entitled“CostingOpenandDistanceLearning”isavailableathttp://www.pdfio.com/k-67639.html.Althoughthewritercouldnotgetthehyperlinkstotherelatedexcelspreadsheetstowork,thediscussionof

Page6of44

costingprovidedisveryusefulingainingabroadunderstandingofthecostingdynamicsofdistanceeducation provision. Towards the end of this document, a comparison is made in broad termsbetweencorrespondenceandface-to-faceteaching,thenmultimediacourses,distributede-learningandvirtualseminarsintermsoffixedandvariablecostsandtheimplicationsforresponsiveness,andeconomies of scale. The report points to the value ofworkingwith interactive spreadsheetswithbenchmark figures on costs to inform decision-making and also the increasing incidence of inter-institutionalandpublic-privatepartnershipsintheprovisionofODL.

Hülsmann(c.2004:56)concludesforCOL:

TheprofileofODLhasundergoneasubstantialdiversificationwhichaffectscorefeaturesofODLsuchascost-structure.Whichmodelfitsyourcontextdependsonthelocalinfrastructureandmarket size. The newmodels of ODL do not necessarily challenge establishedworkingmodels (e.g. the mega-universities) but provide alternative strategies. Where studentnumbersaresmallerorquickcustomisationisrequired,e-learningformatsmayofferapost-Fordistalternative,whichgiventherightconditionsandinfrastructure,maybecostefficient.

ThedivisionoflabourwithinaFordistinstitutionissubstitutedbyadivisionoflabourbetweensmallerpost-Fordist institutions,whichbringtogetherpartnersoftechnologicalcompetence,academiccredibility (certification)andfunding.Partnersmaycomefromdifferentregions intheworldandmayrepresentamixofprivateandpublicpartners(PPP).

In a 2007 report for theWorld Bank, Banks et al., provided insight into the diverse scenarios forcosting teacher education provision through ODL in Sub-Saharan Africa noting the following keypolicylessons:

Inconsideringthedifferentprograms, ithasbeenfoundnecessarytoreturntimeandagaintothebalance between effectiveness and efficiency and the competing demands of quality, access andcost.Thefollowingkeypolicyissuesemerged:

• Aprogramcanbemorecost-effectiveandeasiertoadministerbyintegratingthecontentoftraditionallyshortcoursesintolargercourses.

• Thelengthoftrainingalsoimpactssignificantlyoncosts.Anassumptionthatoneyearof• full-time education must equate to two years part-time should be contested, and

accreditation of prior learning – especially for unqualified or under-qualified workingteachers–shouldbethenorm.

• Thesmallerthecourses, thegreatertheoverallassessmentcostsare likelytobeandhowassessmentisstaffedcanbecomeconstraintstoprogramexpansionandeffectiveness.

• Thecostsassociatedwithupskillingintheuseofnewtechnologiesmanifestthemselvesinanumberofways.Thereisthestraightforwardcostassociatedwiththeintroductionofnewtechnology, but amore hidden cost is the expensive use of academic staff to re-key andamendODLlearningresources.ThepotentialofICTstoincreaseaccesstoandqualityofODLwill only be effectively harnessed where appropriate costing models are considered andusedatthestartofplanningtheirintroductionandimplementation.

• To give an accurate cost-benefit analysis of ODL methods for training teachers, it isnecessary tobeclearwho isenrolledonaprogram,who is takingastudybreak,whohas

Page7of44

withdrawn and who has graduated. Keeping track of students’ progress, tutor-markedassignmentsandassociatedschoolplacementsrequiresasophisticateddatabase.

• Great diversity of trainee support models can be seen. The link between traineeachievement and the cost-effective use of resources, and the balance of fixed to variablecostswithintheproposedtraineesupportmodel,needcarefulexplorationat theplanningstage.

• Excessive staff workloads in the development and presentation phases raise serioussustainabilityandgrowth issues in the longer term.Addressing these issuesat thestartofplanning the program may well result in significant changes in program design that canbenefitbothstudentsandinstitutions.(Banksetal.2007,x,xi)

InmanycasesthemotivationforofferinganewODLprogrammeismadebystaffwhomayhavealimitedfinancialmanagementand/orODLbackground.OftenthisresultsininstitutionsrushingintoODL provision without a well-thought through rationale, model or business plan. It is for thesereasons,and in lightoftherecentestablishmentofanational taskteamtoexplorethefundingofthe higher education system in South Africa in general, that Nadeosa thought it prudent toundertake an investigation of current costing and human resourcing implications for differentmodelsofODLprovisionbasedoncurrentpracticeinSouthAfricaandtopresentitsfindingsinwaysthatwouldbeasopenlyaccessibleandmodifiableaspossible.

Page8of44

2. Definitions

For the purpose of the current discussion, the following definitions of key terms are assumed.

Distanceeducationisasetofteachingandlearningstrategies(oreducationalmethods)thatcanbeusedtoovercomespatialand/ortemporalseparationbetweeneducatorsandstudents.However,itisnotasinglemodeofdelivery.Itisacollectionofmethodsfortheprovisionofstructuredlearning.It avoids theneed for students todiscover the curriculumbyattending classes frequently and forlong periods. Rather, it aims to create a quality learning environment using an appropriatecombinationofdifferentmedia,tutorialsupport,peergroupdiscussion,andpracticalsessions.

Blended learning refers to structured learning opportunities provided using a combination ofcontact, distance, and/or e-learning opportunities to suit different purposes, audiences, andcontexts.

E-learningreferstostructuredlearningopportunitiesmediatedthroughtheuseofdigitalresources(usuallycombinationsoftext,audioandvisual/videofiles)andsoftwareapplications.E-learningmaybeofferedon-lineand synchronously (e.g. real-timeconference),on-lineandasynchronously (e.g.text-based discussion forum) or off-line (e.g. interactive CD/DVD/flash drive). E-learning can beemployedinbothcontactanddistanceprogrammes.

M-learning or mobile-learning refers to e-learning opportunities formatted for access via mobiledevicessuchasnetbooks,tablets,smartphones,MP3/4playersetc.

Open Educational Resources (OER) are educational resources (including curriculummaps, coursematerials, textbooks,streamingvideos,multimediaapplications,podcasts,andanyothermaterialsthat have been designed for use in teaching and learning) that are freely available for use byeducatorsandlearners,withoutanaccompanyingneedtopayroyaltiesor licencefees.OERisnotsynonymous with online learning or e-learning. Openly licensed content can be produced in anymedium:text,video,audio,orcomputer-basedmultimedia.

Open learning is an approach which combines the principles of learner centredness, lifelonglearning,flexibilityof learningprovision,theremovalofbarrierstoaccesslearning,therecognitionforcreditofpriorlearningexperience,theprovisionoflearnersupport,theconstructionoflearningprogrammesintheexpectationthatlearnerscansucceed,andthemaintenanceofrigorousqualityassuranceoverthedesignoflearningmaterialsandsupportsystems.

Page9of44

3. Methodology

Asnotedintheintroduction,thisreportbuildsonempiricalworkundertakenduring2003-4inSouthandSouthernAfricaandrevisitedandupdated in2010aspartofaconsultationwithNamcol.ThelimitedavailableliteratureonODLcostingwasconsultedandexperienceofworkingwithinstitutionsreflecteduponinordertodevelopacostingmodelthatwasusedtodevelopasetofcomparativecostingcasestudies.

Inaddition,atthetimeofwriting,theauthorwascontractedonapart-timebasisfromSaidetotheUnisa College of Human Sciences where one of his tasks was to establish a forum to supportprogrammemanagers. This ongoingengagementwithprogrammemanagersprovided insight intothe ways in which the assumptions underpinning Unisa’s Academic Human Resource AllocationModel (ACHRAM) manifested in practice and in turn provided indicators as to the assumptionsunderpinningtheresourcingmodelsdevelopedbySaideforuseattheprogrammelevel.Thisledtothe development of a draft report that was presented at the Nadeosa conference at St John’sCollegeinJohannesburgon29August2011.

Theintentionwasthentoupdatethemodelsinlightofthefeedbackreceivedattheconferenceandthen to follow up on conference attendees to set up meetings to interrogate the models withprogrammemanagersandfinancedepartmentsatfourofthe largerODLproviders inSouthAfricaoutsideofUnisa,namelyNorthWestUniversity,NelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversity,UniversityofPretoriaandUniversityofKwaZulu-Natal.

The models would then be reworked accordingly and a report published – preferably in aninternationalopenaccessODLjournal.

Nadeosaspecialprojectfundingwastocoverthedirectcostsofthefollow-upvisitstoNWU,NMMUandUKZNwherethesecouldbearranged.

PersonneltimewasprovidedbySaideintermsof itsprofessionaldevelopmentallowanceandwasplannedtocomprisethefollowing:

• Reworkingof2010modelsintoadraftpaper:1day• EngagementwithCHSprogrammemanagerspartofcontractedUnisaresponsibility• Reworkingofmodelsandpaperforconferencepresentation:1day• AttendanceandpresentationatNadeosaconference:2days• Follow-upvisitstoUP,UKZN,NWUandNMMU:4days• Reworkingofpaperandmodelsintoapublishablereport/article:2days.

Theresearchprocessunderpinningthisinvestigationthereforecomprisedamixed-methodapproachinvolving the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a hermeneuticenquiryspiral.

ThisrevisedversionofthereporthasbeenmodifiedafterengagementwithrepresentativesoftheUniversitiesoftheNorthWestandPretoria(seeacknowledgements).

Page10of44

4. Whatisaprogramme?

Inits2005guidelinesforthedevelopmentoflearningprogrammes,theSouthAfricanQualificationsAuthority(SAQA)providedthefollowingusefuldefinitions(SAQA2005:iv–emphasesadded):

Qualification: A planned combination of learning outcomes with a defined purpose(s) that isintendedtoprovidequalifyinglearnerswithappliedcompetenceandabasisforfurtherlearning.

Learningprogramme:Thesequentiallearningactivitiesassociatedwithcurriculumimplementation,leadingtotheachievementofaparticularqualificationorpartqualification.

In similar vein, the Council on Higher Education, in its Criteria for ProgrammeAccreditation (CHE2004: 36) understands a programmeas a ‘purposeful and structured set of learning experiences’.Given the ODL focus of this discussion, this report focuses on five inter-related questions withrespecttothewaysinwhichlearningexperiencesaredesignedandoffered:whatistaughtandhow;and how is learning assessed and supported? and then, how are teaching and learning activitiessupportedadministratively?

SAQAprovidesafurtherbreakdownofprogrammelearningactivitiesintothreebroadcomponents-fundamental,coreandelective-asfollows:

· Fundamentallearningreferstothatlearningwhichformsthegroundingorbasisneededtoundertakeeducation,trainingorfurtherlearningrequiredintheobtainingofaqualificationand ‘fundamental’ has a correspondingmeaning; such learningmight refer to increasinglysophisticatedliteracy,numeracy,ICTandresearchskillsthatmightwellbeapplicableacrossseveralprogrammesataparticularTQFlevel;

· Corelearningreferstothatcompulsorylearningrequiredinsituationscontextuallyrelevanttotheparticularqualifications

· Electivelearningreferstoaselectionofcreditsfromwhichachoicemustbemadetoensurethatthepurposeofthequalificationismet.(SAQA2011)

Fromthesedescriptionswecanidentifytwolikelybroadprogrammedesignmodels:aprogrammedesign model that seems most appropriate for professional and single discipline programmes asillustrated in Table 2 and a programme design model that seems more likely for a cross-cuttingtransdisciplinaryprogrammemodelasillustratedinTable3.

Table2:Programmedesignforprofessional/singledisciplineprogrammesElective1 Elective2 Elective3

coreFundamentale.g.

Academicliteracy/introductiontoqualitativeresearchAcademicnumeracy/introductiontoquantitativeresearch

ICT,e-literacyandweb-basedresearchNotes:

Threelearningprogrammesareindicatedhere:• LP1e.g.BEdFoundationPhase=F+C+E1• LP2e.g.BEdIntermediatePhase=F+C+E2• LP3e.g.BEdSeniorPhase=F+C+E3

Page11of44

Inthiskindofprogrammestructureitwouldnotbeunreasonabletoexpectaprogrammemanagertoworkacrossallthreelevelsoftheprogrammeaddressingallcurriculumandstudentenquiriesforaparticularexitlevelspecialisation.

Table3:ProgrammedesignfortransdisciplinaryprogrammeslikeaBAElective1–9modules Elective2–9modules Elective3–9modules

Fundamentale.g.Academicliteracy/introductiontoqualitativeresearch

Academicnumeracy/introductiontoquantitativeresearchICT,e-literacyandweb-basedresearch

Notes:In this model, students might register for fundamental modules which might well be sharedgenerally across the university and then theymight register for three disciplines e.g. languages +sociology + anthropology. The number of possible permutations is immense – for example in acollege offering 50 sub-disciplines, there might be 50 x 49 x 48 = 117600 different studycombinations.In this kind of programme structure it would not be reasonable to expect a single programmemanager towork across all three levels of the programme addressing all curriculum and studentenquiries.Instead,itwouldbenecessarytodistributemanagementacrossthedifferentdisciplines.However,thereisthenneedtocreatespaceforaprogrammemanagementteamforumtoaddressissuessuchaselectiveoptionsandpossiblecombinations,equivalenceofdemandacrossdisciplines,equivalence of student support and assessment across disciplines, sequencing, progression,retention,successratesandoverallprogrammethroughput.

Inreality,andasnotedbyprogrammemanagersengagedwithatUnisa,programmedesignmodelsarelikelytoreflectacombinationofthesetwoextremes.Programmemodelsandthemanagementthereof become even more complex when they stretch across not only sub-disciplines within adepartment,butpotentiallyacrosssub-disciplinesanddepartmentswithinaCollegeorFaculty(asisthe case with a general BA) or even across Colleges (for example in an FET-level teacherdevelopmentprogrammeastudent-teachermightspecialiseinteachinglanguagesandmathematicsandmightthenreceivetuitionfromwithinaCollegeofEducation,alanguagesdepartmentwithinaCollege of Human Sciences as well as a mathematics department within a College of Science,EngineeringandTechnology).Ifspaceisnotcreatedforsomediscussionacrossthesedifferentrole-players,thereisarealdangerthatthestudentwillexperiencedisjointedevencompetingdemandsandapproaches:insteadofacoherentprogrammeoflearning,thestudentmightthenhaveonlyafragmentedexperience. It issuggestedthenthat indevelopingresourcingandcostingmodels, theissue of provision for adequate programme management is critical. Such a model needs to beflexible:themorecomplextheprogrammeandthelargerthestudentnumbersinvolved,themoretime will need to be devoted to the programme management function. In large, complexprogrammes, programmes involving work integrated learning and programmes employing largenumbers of tutors, there is probably need to consider the creation of a hybrid academic-administrator position at the programme staffing level: thiswould be the kind of personwith anacademicbackgroundwhoisabletoaddressfairlyroutinecurriculumenquiriesbutwhoalsohasadisposition towardsmanaging administrative tasks such as tutor recruitment, training,monitoringandpaymentprocessing;assignment,portfolioandsummativeassessmentadministration;routinestudentenquiriesaswellasagreements,placements,andmanagementofmentorsandsupervisors

Page12of44

forwork-integratedlearningcomponents.Suchapositionwassuccessfullycreatedandmaintainedfor the former Unisa National Professional Diploma in Education (NPDE) programme. Clearlysuccessful management at a programme level is potentially complex. Appendix A contains ananalysisofthekindsofactivitiesthatprogrammemanagersorprogrammemanagementteamswilllikely need to engage with based on a study of HEQC programme accreditation requirementsundertakenbyProfessorOupaMashileatUnisa.Theanalysisshouldprobablybeseenasindicativeratherthandefinitiveandsuggeststheneednotonlyforprovisionofprogrammemanagementtimebut the creation of fora at the Departmental level for regular interaction between programmemanagersandChairsofDepartment.

Relatedtotheissueofprogrammemanagementisthatofprogrammeadministration.Thestudentexperience is made up of the totality of the engagement with the learning process. Wrong ordelayed advice and/or delays in processes such as fees payments, dispatch of study materials,turnaround times on assignments etc. can all impact negatively on the total student experience.Thereappeartobenoclearguidelinesontheratioofacademictonon-academicstaffinseekingtoguaranteeaholisticquality learningexperience.Asnotedabove, in2008,theratioofacademictonon-academicstaffatUnisawas37%to63%;attheUniversitiesoftheNorthWestandPretoriain2011 the ratio seems closer to 1:1, but it is hard to make a direct comparison as these twoinstitutionsworkonverydifferentmodels.TheUniversityofPretoriafollowsanintegratedmodelinwhich, for example, teaching staff service both contact and distance education students andadministrative staff are located within, budgeted for and responsible to existing universitystructures, such as registration, assessment etc. On the other hand, the North West Universityfollows a dual mode system in which separate teaching and administrative staff service contact-basedanddistance-based learnersseparately.Nonetheless, itseemsclearfromcurrentpractice inSouthAfricathatprogrammecostingneedstomakeprovisionforadequateadministrativesupport.Basedoncurrentpractices inSouthAfrica (andsupportedby theCHE2004andWorldBank2007costings), themodels presented here assume that aminimumprovisionmust bemade for 1 FTEadministrativestaffmemberforeach1FTEacademicbutthatotherwisethere is likelytobeneedfor1FTEadditionaladministrativestaffmemberforeachadditional300students.Therationeedstoberevisitedforeachcontextatthestartofanyscenarioplanningexercise.Therolesalsoneedtoberevisitedso,forexample,inaprint-basedprogrammetherewillbeneedtomakeprovisionforthehandlingofphysicalassignmentsbutinanonlineprogrammetheadministrativesupportwillbeofamoretechnicalnature.

The overall ODL module adopted will also have a profound impact on the costing model: in adedicated distance education institution, the processing of student scripts, whether physical ordigital, forexamplewill likelybemanagedcentrallyandconstituteanoverheadattheprogrammelevel;butinadualmodeinstitutionthismightwellbeadirectoperationalcostoftheprogramme.Afurthercomplicationisthatsomeoralloftheprovisionmaybeoutsourcedormanagedthroughapublic-private partnership. Most ODL institutions recruit part-time staff for tutorial and markingsupport forexample; thedevelopmentandpublicationofstudymaterials isoftenpartlyorwhollyoutsourced;themanagementandadministrationofexaminationcentresmightalsobeoutsourced;and a programme or parts thereofmay be designed and implemented through partnerships andcollaborations.Whatever the arrangements, however, there are costs attached to the work thatmustbedone–whether theseappearexplicitly inoperational and/or capitalbudgetsorwhethertheseneedtobeextrapolatedmoreobliquelyfromanassessmentofopportunitycosts(e.g.astaff

Page13of44

memberdevelopingODLmaterialsormarkingODLassignmentsmightotherwisehavebeenengagedinotherdutiessuchasresearchorteachingcontactstudents).

Harreveld(2010:49-50)argues:

ForODLprogrammedesignanddelivery,effectivecooperationamongpartnersrequiresnegotiateddecision-makinginrelationto:

• purposeofprogramme,itsconsequentparticipationanddeliverymodes;• organisation and infrastructure needed to make it work (e.g., location of learning sites,

communications,transport,consumablesandlibraryresources);• fundingarrangements(e.g.sourcesof funding,numbersofstudents,effortandtimetobe

expended,humanandphysicalresourcingcosts);• technologychoices(i.e.,availability,sustainability,acceptabilityandcost);• curriculum and pedagogical choices related to content, learning and teaching methods,

assessmentactivitiesandcriteria;• in-builtevaluationframeworkforongoingindividualandcollectivedecision-making;and• managementofstrategicpartnershipsamongallstakeholders.

(AdaptedfromCraigandPerraton2003;OECD2005)

PostleandTyler(2010:63)pointtotheusefulworkofTaylorinprovidingaconceptualframeworkformakingthekindsofdecisionssuggestedabovewithrespecttotechnologychoiceandassociateddegreesofinteractivity(Table4onthenextpage).

They(ibid.65)thenrefertoanimportantobservationbyLaurillard(2006:2):

E-learning could be a highly disruptive technology for education – ifwe allow it to be.Weshould do, because it serves the very paradigm shift that educators have been arguing forthroughout the lastcentury.Whatever theiroriginaldiscipline, themosteminentwritersonlearninghaveemphasisestheimportanceofactivelearning.Thechoiceoflanguagemayvary:

Dewey’sinquiry-basededucation,

Piaget’sconstructivism,

Vygostky’ssocialconstructivism,

Bruner’sdiscoverylearning,

Pask’sconversationtheory,

Schank’sproblem-basedlearning,

Marton’sdeeplearning,

Lave’ssocio-culturallearning.

Page14of44

Table4:Modelsofdistanceeducation:aconceptualframework(Taylor2001,p.3)Modelsofdistanceeducationand

associateddeliverytechnologies

Characteristicsofdeliverytechnologies

Flexibility Highlyrefinedmaterials

Advancedinteractivedelivery

Institutionalvariablecostsapproaching

zeroTime Place Pace

Firstgeneration:thecorrespondencemodelPrint

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NoSecondgeneration:themultimediamodel

Print Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoAudiotape Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoVideotape Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoComputer-basedlearning(e.g.CML/CAL/IMM)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NoInteractivevideo(diskandtape)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NoThirdgeneration:Theteleconferencemodel

Audioteleconferencing No No No No Yes NoVideoconferencing No No No No Yes NoAudiographiccommunication

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

BroadcastTV/Radioandaudioteleconferencing

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

NoFourthgeneration:theflexiblelearningmodel

Interactivemultimediaonline

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Internet-basedaccesstoWorldWideWebresources

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Computer-mediatedcommunication

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

It shouldbenoted that the ‘Yes’ values indicated in the above table refer to thepotential of themedium:butthevarioustechnologiesneedtobechosenandemployedspecificallyforsuchusesinprogramme design and the associated costs in different contexts carefully analysed. On the onehand there is thepotential simply foreducational technology tobeused to replicate transmissionstyleteaching;ontheotherthepotentialexistsforthemediumtoobscurethemessageand/orforusage that is predicatedon small scale and time-boundengagement thatdoesnotmeet theODLidealforaffordableopenaccess.

With respect to programme design to integrate appropriate use of appropriate technology,Mays(2011 – in press) argues the need to think in terms both of the whole learning experience frommarketingandenquiry toengagementwithalumni,whatUnisa refers toas ‘the studentwalk’, as

Page15of44

well as in the design of specific learning experiences to encourage interaction and meaningfulengagementusinganappropriateblendoftext,audio,videoandfeedbackappropriatetopurposeandcontexts,providingthefollowingtableasanexample ofthekindofmacro levelthinkingthatmightbeuseful:

Table5:TechnologyandthestudentwalkStepinthestudentwalk Appropriatetechnologyforpurposeandaudience1.Marketingandorientation Provisionof information inuser-friendlystylesandmultiplemodes(e.g.online,

mobile–CDR,DVD,podcast,audio/video,print)andaccesstoOERexamplesoflearning resources enablespotential students tomakemore informed choices.Supported by online advisors, call centre, or staff at decentralised regionalcentres.

2. Application: Responsible OpenAccessProgramme

Provisionofdiagnosticself-testquizzesavailableon-line,onDVD,onflashdrivesorin-personatregionalcentrescanhelppotentialstudentstomakeappropriatechoicesaboutwhat,howmuchandinwhatmodetostudy.Theemphasisshouldbeon themostappropriate route toaccess learning rather thanon testing forexclusion. Supported by online advisors, call centre, or staff at decentralisedregionalcentres.

3.Registration Students can register online remotely, at a self-service terminal at a regionalcentre,orseekpersonalassistanceataregionalcentre.Currentlyabout70%ofUnisa students register on-line. A technology-enhanced registration processallows for automatic pop-up alerts regarding pre- and co-requisites, possibleexam clashes, workload challenges and WIL components such as teachingpractice.Italsoallowsforthepossibilityofimmediateaccesstodigitalversionsof resources immediately on successful registration through the use of a‘toaster’.

4.Teachingandlearning Orientation Traditionally Unisa has relied on printed tutorial letters at programme (300

series)andmodule(100series)levelsfororientationpurposesandthesearealsoavailable inPDF formatonlineandsocanbedownloadedshouldstudents losetheir copy.Otherorientationpossibilities include youTube, video-conferencing,satellite TV or radio broadcast, video onDVD or podcast, an etutor led smallgrouponlineortele-conference,andwheretheneedexistsandnumbersjustifyit, even a face-to-face contact session in a regional centre, other institution,school,churchhall,teachercentreetc.Allcontactwithstudent-teachersshouldconsciouslymodelappropriateteacher-studentbehaviour.

Maintenance/Formativeassessment

Inmanyinstitutions,formativeassessmentintheformofassignments,isapre-requisiteforentrytosummativeassessment(mostoftenintheformofaformalexamination).10% of students either do not complete or do not “pass” their formativeassessment.So:ProvideSMSandemailremindersofdeadlinesSetuponlinediscussionforarelatedtoassignmentpreparationProvideforanetutororstudentled(PCL)smallgrouponlineortele-conference,andwhere the need exists and numbers justify it, even a face-to-face contactsessionProvideforonline,postalandin-personsubmissionsProvideforonlinemarkingandmarkssubmissionAutomateroutingofnon-submissionsorweaksubmissionsforpro-activefollow-upbyanetutor–byphone,email,orskypeProvidefeedbackonproblemareasinaTL,email,sms, intheonlineforum,viaetutororface-to-facetutorForthejointexplorationofpracticeconsiderhavingstudentsengagewithdigitalcopies of lesson planning documents and videos of classroom practice andencouragecriticalengagementonline,bymobile,inanetutorialorinaface-to-facetutorial;maintainaprogrammeandTPwebsitethroughouttheprogrammeincludingupdatesonpolicy,newsarticles, researchpublicationsetc.aswell asinformalchatroomfacilities

Consolidation/Summative 10% of students successfully complete the formative assessment but although

Page16of44

Stepinthestudentwalk Appropriatetechnologyforpurposeandaudienceassessmentregistration registeredtoattemptsummativeassessmentdonotpresentthemselves.

So:ProvideSMSandemailremindersoftimetablesProvideSMSoronlinebookingofexamcandidacyandautomatedremindersfordeferralsAutomateroutingofnon-registrationsforpro-activefollow-upbyanetutor–byphone,email,orskypeProvidefeedbackonkeyareas/assessmentfociinaTLemail,sms,intheonlineforum, via etutor or face-to-face tutor, or use youTube, video-conferencing,satelliteTVorradiobroadcast,videoonDVDorpodcast

Summativeassessment Of the 80% of studentswho present themselves, 70% of Humanities studentspass first time (pass rates tend to be lower in other fields), yielding an initialcohortthroughputof80%x70%=56%.Tracktrendsautomaticallytoprioritiseinterventions.Where possible provide both online and more traditional opportunities tocompletesummativeassessmentAutomateroutingofno-showsorpoorperformanceforpro-activefollow-upbyanetutor–byphone,email,orskype

2ndexaminationopportunity At Unisa, students who “fail” a module with a stipulated subminimum canregisterfora2ndexaminationopportunityinthefollowingsemester.ProvideSMSandemailremindersoftimetablesProvideSMSoronlinebookingofexamcandidacyandautomatedremindersfordeferralsAutomateroutingofnon-registrationsforpro-activefollow-upbyanetutor–byphone,email,orskypeProvidefeedbackonkeyareas/assessmentfociinaTLemail,sms,intheonlineforum, via etutor or face-to-face tutor, or use youTube, video-conferencing,satelliteTVorradiobroadcast,videoonDVDorpodcast

5.Graduationandalumni Build andmaintain a database of graduates; keep regular contactwith alumnithroughaquarterlyenewsletter; conducteimpact studies; recruit graduatesasetutors...

Withrespecttocomparativecosting,Latchem(2010:84)notesRumble’s(2008)caution

… against using analyses in one jurisdiction to draw inferences about costs in another.Distance and technology-based training are generally said to have higher fixed costs (e.g.,centraladministration,productionfacility,coursedevelopmentanddeliverycosts)andlowervariable costs (student-related costs incurredas the training is delivered).But, for example,staffingcostsmaybemuch lowerandtechnologyprovisionandaccesscostsmuchhigher indevelopingcountriesthanindevelopedcountries.So,asRosenberg(2001)observes,costingonline training needs to take careful account of all the development, maintenance anddelivery costs, the lifespanof the training programmes, thenumber of learners served, theciststothelearnersandtheopportunitycosts(thevalueofthenextbestalternativeforegoneas a consequence of the training providers and the participants undertaking one activityratherthananother).

Thompson(2010:144)alsoobserves:

Variousmethods of budgeting leading to a cost-benefit analysis for ODL programmes havebeenresearched(see,forexample:Rumble1997;MoranandRumble2004;andJung2005).Mostresearchersendupconcludingthatmakingcomparisonsbetweenprogrammeofferingsusing different modes of delivery, or between similar programmes offered in differentcountries, is complicated if not impossible. Simple differences such as wages, currency

Page17of44

valuations and technology costs can skew these comparisons. It is also difficult to be all-encompassinginensuringeverycostsismeasured.AsidentifiedbyMoranandRumble(2004),manycostsarehiddenornotconsidereddirectly related to theODLprogramme.So, in theend,oneis leftfeelingthatdemonstratingcost-effectivenessusingacost-benefitanalysisonitsowninanODLprogramme…isnotaneasyproposition.

More recently, cost-effectiveness has taken into consideration both the inputs and theoutputsasameasureofcost-effectiveness.Cost-effectivehasbeendefinedintermsofbothacost-benefitanalysisandacost-effectiveanalysis(Peterson1986).

Giventhecomplexityinvolved,theresourcingandcostingmodelsthatfollowinthispaperwillworkfromasetofbaselineassumptions. Itwillbe importantat thestartofanyresourcingandcostingexercise for programme managers/ programme management teams to interrogate theseassumptionsandadjustappropriatelyfortheirowncontextsofpractice.Itshouldbenotedthatthemodels presented facilitate scenario planning at the start of a process of considering theintroductionofa(new)ODLprogramme.Moredetailedbudgetswillneedtobedrawnupthereafterinformed by the overall model of delivery adopted and in such cases it would then probably beworthwhiletohaveamoreintensiveengagementwithaninstitutionthatfollowstheoverallmodelthat appears most suitable e.g. a dedicated ODL approach (Unisa); a dual mode approach withseparate contact/ODL systems and possibly involving a public/private partnership (NWU SCTE); adual mode approach with integrated contact/ODL systems (UP DEU). In addition, considerationneeds to be given to how income will be generated. In South Africa, for example, programmeincomewillusuallycomprisethreeelements:studentfees(paidinfullupfront;ininstalments;oronapermoduleenrolmentbasis);inputsubsidy(paidabouttwoyearsafterevidenceofactivestudentparticipationhasbeensuppliedtotheDepartmentofHigherEducationandTraining);outputsubsidy(paidabouttwoyearsafterevidenceofsuccessfulgraduationhasbeensuppliedtotheDepartmentofHigherEducationandTraining).Thusamoresophisticatedcostingmodelwillneedtotrackoveraperiodofseveralyearsexpectedenrolmentpatterns,expectedactiveparticipationpatternsandtheassociated costs for any particular period (e.g. howmany of the registered students are likely towriteassignmentsandexaminationsinanyparticularsemesterforexample)andastaggeredincomestreaminordertomanagetheinstitutionalcashflowresponsibly.Inaddition,provisionneedstobemadeforcyclesofcurriculumrenewalandteachoutperiodswhichmayentaila)makingprovisionfor servicing two versions of a programme simultaneously and b) teaching out a programme forwhichnoadditionalincomecanbeexpected.

Page18of44

5. Whatarethemostcommonmodelsofprogrammeprovision?Thispaperexploresthreedifferentcommonmodels:

• ModelA–print-basedandcontactsupported• ModelB–resource-basedandweb-supported• ModelC–web-dependentmixofon-andoff-lineteachingandsupport.

Forthepurposesofthisdiscussion,afairlysimplecurriculummodelisassumedlikethatinTable2withalimitednumberofelectiveoptions.

Thedesignassumptionsofthesemodelsarearticulatedinthetablesthatfollow.

ModelA–Print-basedandcontact-supported

Description and targetaudience

• Print-based course materials are provided and paper-based assessment isstandard.

• Some additional audio-video as well as text-basedmaterials are supplied on aCDRom(digitallibrary).

• Mixes on-site and completely distant students as face-to-face contact sessionsareofferedincentreswithlargeenoughnumbersforatutor:onafaculty:learnerratioof1:30;smallercentresarelinkedby,forexample,video-conference.

• Interactive telecommunications technologies extend a classroom-based coursefromonelocationtoagroupofstudentsatoneormoreotherlocations.

• Thefacultystaffandinstitutioncontrolthepaceandplaceofinstruction.

• This model of delivery is probably most appropriate for school-level andimmediatepost-schoolstudentsaswellasadultsreturningtostudyaftera longbreak as these kinds of students will often need to develop/ regain theirindependentlearningandacademicliteracycompetences.Thismodelofdeliveryis also suited for programmes aimed at professional development in fieldspremisedondirecthumaninteractionsuchasteaching,socialworkandguidanceandcounselling.

Characteristics • Class sessions involve synchronous communication; students and faculty arerequired tobe inaparticularplaceataparticular time (probablyat least threetimesinateachingcycle)inpersonorbyvideo-conference.

• Number of sites varies from two (point-to-point) to five or more (point-to-multipoint); the greater the number of sites, the greater the complexity --technically, logistically,andperceptuallyandthehardertoensurecomparabilityofthelearningexperience.

• Studentsmayenroll at sitesmore convenient to their homesorwork locationsthanthemaincampus.

• Institutionsareabletoservesmallnumbersofstudentsineachlocation.

• Thenatureofthecontactexperiencemimicsthatoftheclassroomforboththeteacherandthestudent.

Faculty staff• Facultytypicallydonotchangetheirrolesignificantlyfromtheonetheyassume

Page19of44

role/experience in the traditional classroom; however, the use of technology does requireadaptabilityinthemannerofpresentation.

• Facultygenerallyfinditnecessarytoreducetheamountofmaterialpresentedtoallow additional time for relational tasks and management of the technology;increased familiaritywith the technologyand theenvironmentmitigates this tosomeextent.

• Facultyusuallyfinditnecessarytoincreasetheamountofplanningtimeforeachclass; advance planning and preparation increases presenter self-confidence,reducesunnecessarystress,andenablesfacultytoconductclasseswithease.

Student’s experience on-site

• Because the facultymember isphysicallypresent in the space,on-site studentsgenerallyhaveanexperiencesimilartothatofthetraditionalclassroom.

• May be less tolerant of technological problems and challenges than distantstudents,becausetheyareunlikelytoperceiveapersonalbenefitresultingfromtheuseoftechnology.

• Mayresenthavingto"share"theirclasswithothersites.Students' experience off-site

• Tend to feel somewhat isolated and cut off from the "real" class unless thefacultymembermakesaconcertedefforttoincludethem.

• Oftenformacloseworkinggroupwithstudentsatthesamelocation.

• Usuallyfindthemediatedexperience(eventwo-wayvideo)tobedifferentfromface-to-face communication because the mediation affects perception andcommunicationinsomeobviousandmanysubtleways.

• Will make allowances for problems with the technology if they perceive apersonalbenefit(accesstoinstructionotherwiseunavailable;siteclosetohomeorwork).

Technologies SupportingClassSessions

Incentrestoosmallforface-to-facetutoring:

• two-wayinteractivevideo(compressedorfull-motion)-or-

• one-wayvideowithtwo-wayaudio-or-

• audioconferencing-or-

• audiographicconferencingTechnologies SupportingOut-of-ClassCommunication

• telephone/mobilephone

• mail

• fax• computer(fore-mailandconferencing;accesstolibraryandotheron-line

resources;submissionofassignments)Opportunities forInteraction

• Allstudentshaveopportunityforverbalinteractionduringclasswithteacherandeach other; on-site students have visual interaction with teacher and otherstudents in class; off-site students may have opportunity for visual interactionwithteacherandotherstudents;dependingupontechnologyused.

• On-sitestudentscaninteractwithteacherbeforeandafterclass.

Page20of44

• Out-of-classinteractionbytelephone;bycomputerconferencingoremail,voice-mail,orothermeansifavailable.

SupportServicesNeeded • Access to technical support at each location; fully trained technician/trouble-shooteratoriginationsite.

• Site assistant at each location to handle logistics and materialsdistribution/collection.

• Access to networked computer and/or direct internet link-up, fax machine,telephone,andphotocopier.

ModelB–resource-basedandwebsupported

Description • Thismodel freesstudents fromhavingtobe inaparticularplaceataparticulartime.

• Students are provided a variety of text- and ,multi-media-basedmaterials on aDVD/CDRom - including a course guide and detailed syllabus, and access to afacultymemberwhoprovidesguidance,answersquestions,andevaluates theirwork;atypicaltutor:studentratiois1:150.

• Contactbetweentheindividualstudent,otherstudentsandthetutorisachievedby one or a combination of the following technologies: electronic mail, anasynchronous online forum, telephone, voice-mail, computer conferencing andregularmail.

• Since therearenodirect face-to-facecontact sessions, thismodelofdelivery isprobablybestsuitedforstudentswhohavesuccessfullystudiedthroughdistancelearning in the past and/or whose work or other life commitments/challengesprevent them from attending contact sessions. The model is appropriate forprogrammes of an academic nature that do not require immediate practicalapplicationincontextorwhichsupportworkintegratedlearningexperiencesthataremanagedseparatelyfromthemoreacademicsideoftheprogramme.

Characteristics • Therearenoclasssessions;studentsstudyindependently,followingthedetailedguidelinesinthematerialssupplied.

• Studentsmayinteractwiththeteacherand,insomecases,withotherstudents.• Presentationofcoursecontentisthroughtext-ormulti-mediaonaDVD/CDRom,

allofwhichstudentscanreviewataplaceandtimeoftheirownchoosing.• Coursematerialsareusedoveraperiodof several years, andgenerallyare the

resultofastructureddevelopmentprocessthatinvolvesinstructionaldesigners,contentexperts,andmediaspecialists;notspecifictoaparticularteacher.

Faculty staffrole/experience

• Faculty members structure and facilitate the learning experience, but sharecontroloftheprocesswiththestudenttoagreatextent.

• Mustbecomefamiliarwiththecontentinthematerialspriortothebeginningofthe teaching cycle todevelop thedetailed syllabusand, if appropriate,plan foreffectiveuseoftheinteractivetechnologiessuchascomputerconferencingandvoice-mail.

• Modulecoordinatorsortutorssupportstudentsone-on-oneondemandasandif

Page21of44

requested;engagewiththewholeclassperiodicallythroughanonlinediscussionforum;facultymemberismoreavailabletofacilitateindividualstudent'slearningbecause of freedom from preparing and delivering content for regular classsessions.

• The24hoursofpro-activecontactsupportspreadover3daysduringthecourseoftheprogrammeislikelytobesplitintosmallermoreopen-endedengagementsthroughstructureddiscussionthemesonaforum.

Student’s experience on-site

Thereisnoon-siteexperience.

Students' Experience off-site

AsforModelA.

• Studentsdonotattendclass,whichgivesthemultimateflexibility instructuringtheir time; they are responsible for organizing their work and time to meetcourserequirementsanddeadlines.

• Students must be highly motivated; they need good organizational and timemanagement skills, the ability to communicate in writing, initiative, and acommitmenttohighstandardsofachievement.

Technologies SupportingClassSessions

• None,sincetherearenoclasssessions.

Technologies SupportingOut-of-ClassCommunication

• mail

• telephone/mobilephone

• voice-mail

• computer (for access to library and other on-line resources, e-mail,conferencing,discussionforumandthesubmissionofassignments)

Opportunities forInteraction

• Teachersprovideinformationinthematerialsabouthowandwhenstudentscancontactthem;thereistypicallywidevariationintheamountofstudent-initiatedcommunicationwiththeteacher.

• Teachersprovidedetailedcommentsonstudents'writtenassignments.

• When voice-mail and/or computer conferencing is available, teachersprovidea structure for interactivediscussionsbyposing topicsorprovidingsomeotherstimulusfordiscussion.

SupportServicesNeeded • Significant administrative structure is crucial to support both the studentsandtheteachers.

• A system for proctoring exams that retains somemeasure of flexibility forstudentsbutmeetsinstitutionalneedsforexamsecurity.

• Arobustandresponsivesupportsystemtomanagewholeclassandsmaller(150students)discussionfora.

Page22of44

ModelC–web-dependent

Description • Thismodel requires that students have sustained access to the internet and theability to be “on-line” for extended periods and to download resources forextendedengagementoff-line;thepresentationofresourcesisactivity-basedwithmultiplehyperlinks to resourcesandwebsites availableon the internet; studentsare required to engage in on-line activities - sometimes synchronously with theteacherandotherstudents.

• Theetutor:studentratiois1:15asitisdifficulttomanagemeaningfulsynchronousonline interaction with larger numbers. (Although MOOCs work with very largenumbers these tend to focus on informal CPD rather than formal learningprogrammesthatareassessed.)

• ThismodelassumesahighdegreeofICTcompetenceonthepartofbothstudentsandstaff.Trainingandorientation iscriticalandthe ICTneedsoftheprogrammeneed to be clearly communicated inmarketingmaterials and confirmed prior toregistration. Thismodel suits itself to programmes premised on high degrees ofindividualized learning provision; students are likely to challenge facultyassumptionsandprovidecounter-examplesandargumentstheyhavefoundontheinternet.Theteachersthereforeneedtobecommittedtosocio-constructivistandpossibly socio-critical pedagogy. Lower student-teacher ratios and the highlyindividualized learning pathways make this model more suitable for advancedcoursesforwhichhigherfeescanbecharged.

Characteristics • Presentation of course content is entirely on-line, although some core resourcesmay be downloaded for students to review at a place and time of their ownchoosing,eitherindividuallyoringroups.

• Coursematerials(forcontentpresentation)areusedformorethanonesemester;often specific to the particular teacher (e.g., a podcast of a teacher's publiclecture).

• Synchronous online sessions are for students to discuss and clarify concepts andengage in problem-solving activities, group work, simulations, and other appliedlearningexercises.

Academic staffrole/experience

• Faculty member structures and facilitates the learning experience, but sharescontroloftheprocesswiththestudentandsupportingtutorstoagreatextent.

• RolechangeencouragesfacultytofocusonthelearningprocessratherthanontheprovisionofcontentandtotakeadvantageoftheavailablemediaincludingOERs.

• Mustbecomefamiliarwiththecontentinthecorematerialsandplanforeffectiveuseoftheinteractivesessions,whichdrawupontheseresourcesbutmustbeabletoengagewithalternative,evencompetingideasandresourcesthatemanatefromthestudentsthemselves.

• Collaborativelyidentifiesadditionalresourcestosupportstudentlearning.• Tutors students on-line one-on-one as needed and in small groups occasionally;

facultymemberismoreavailabletofacilitateindividualstudent'slearningbecauseoffreedomfrompreparinganddeliveringcontentforregularclasssessions.

Student’s experience on-site

• Therearenoon-siteexperiences.

Page23of44

Students' Experience off-site

• Withfewerscheduledsynchronoussessions,studentsgainflexibility.

• The periodic synchronous interaction in small groups and a number of on-linediscussion fora help students to structure their work, but the format requiresgreater discipline and maturity on the part of students than one with morefrequentandmorestructuredsessions.

• Interactive focusofgroupsessionscanservetodiminishperceiveddisadvantagesof studentswho are not in the same location as the teacher; relative anonymitymayallowformoreopenengagement.

Technologies SupportingClassSessions

• Multiply interactive video, audio and text e.g. elluminate, with blogs, wikis, foraintegrated into e.g. a ning site located in a moodle or sakai-based learningmanagementplatform.

Technologies SupportingOut-of-ClassCommunication

• Internet enabled computer (for access to library and other on-line resources, e-mail,conferencing,andforsubmissionofassignments).

• Mobilephone.

• Robust technical support for web-based learning and teaching managementsystem.

• Callcentrefortechnical,administrativeandacademicreferrals.

Opportunities forInteraction

• All asynchronous and synchronous activities are designed for interaction withteacherandotherstudents;theyarefrequentlyproblem-solvingsessions,becausethe time does not have to be devoted to lecture or other means of presentingcontent.

• Individualinteractionbetweenstudentsandfacultymemberonanas-neededbasisbysms,e-mail,orvoice-mail.

SupportServicesNeeded • Fullytrainedweb-manager/technician/trouble-shooteratoriginationsite.

5.1 PlanningissuescommontoallmodelsA number of issues with staffing implications need to be addressed regardless of the model ofdistance education provision that is adopted. In the description of the following planning issuesreferenceismadetoorganisationalaspectsandterminologyspecificallyrelatedtouniversities,buttheseplanningissueshavetobeconsideredbyanyproviderofODLprogrammes.

5.1.1 LogisticalSupportWhensettingupasystemfordistributingmaterials,itiscriticalthatallstudentsaretreatedequally.Studentsmust have thematerials they need to complete assignments, to participate in group orclass sessions (Model A) or in online activities (inModels B and C), and to benefit from teacherfeedback.Studentswhoarenotattheoriginationlocationshouldnotbedisadvantaged.

Thissupportmaybeachievedwithoneoracombinationofthefollowing:onlineresourcesthatcanbe accessed online or downloaded, courier, overnight delivery (DHL, Express Mail), priority mail,

Page24of44

electronic file transfer, bulk sms and fax.With a long lead time, regular mail service may be analternative – even inModels B andC itmaybeuseful to provide core resources on a CD/DVD inorder to reduce the time needed online. Students should always keep a copy of any significantassignmentstheycomplete,suchaspapersorprojects,sotheyshouldbeencouragedincreasinglytosubmitdigitalversions.

If faculty choose to give venue-bound written examinations, students will need access to aninvigilatedsecureexaminationsite.Invigilatorsmaybeprovidedbytheoriginatinginstitution,orbythereceivingsite.InvigilatorswillneedtocheckstudentphotoIDstoverifytheidentityofthetest-takerandmonitor theprocess toensure that thesameconditionsapply inall locations.Forsomecourses,apurelyonlineassessmentmightbeenvisaged.Uniquepasswords,digitalaffirmationsofhonestyandautomated time limits couldmake itpossible toprovideassessmentopportunities tosuitindividualstudentneedsandpreferences.

Insomecases,thestudentmaybegiventheopportunitytoproposean invigilatorfor institutionalapproval.Thisrequiresespeciallycarefulinstitutionalguidelinesandchecks.

Security of examinations is an issue from the time each examination paper leaves the teacher'shands/computeruntilthescriptsaredeliveredbacktotheteacherforgrading.Beforeandaftertheexaminationsareadministered,theyshouldbehandledonlybyauthorizedpersonnelandstoredinalockeddeskorcabinetorinpasswordprotectedsecureserver.Itmaybeprudenttomakecopiesofcompleted examination scripts before they are sent back to the teacher for grading. This need isobviatedwherethesummativeassessmentismanagedon-line.

Faculty(especiallypart-timetutors)mayincurexpensesdirectlyrelatedtotheirdistanceeducationactivities. These might include long-distance charges (landline telephone, mobile andcomputer/modem),postage,andmileagefortraveltooff-campuslocations.Theinstitutionalpolicyonreimbursement forsuchexpensesshouldbeclearlystatedandproceduresshouldbesetup tofacilitate the reimbursement. Provision of online assessments would obviate many of theserequirementsbutsecurityoftheassessmentprocessonlinewillnonethelessneedtobeplannedfor.

Staffing requirements suggested by these needs include: academics, administrators, production,dispatch,stockcontrollers,assignmentandexamination(orexaminationequivalentstaff),ICTstaff–forsystems,programmesandhardwaredevelopment,maintenanceandreview.

5.1.2 StudentsupportStudents who do not come to the campus need access to off-campus, decentralised supportservices. Student contactwith trainedacademicadvisors is crucialbecauseboth the students andthecredit-grantinginstitutionneedtobeconfidentthatinformationgiventostudentsisappropriateandaccurate.Advisingcanbeaccomplishedbytelephone,e-mail,inonlinediscussionforaand/orbyprovidingperiodicon-siteadvisingatoff-campuslocations.

Theremustbeeasilyaccessible,authoritativesourcesof informationaboutnon-academicmatters.Studentsshouldbeinformedastowhomtocontactaboutspecifictypesofquestionsorconcerns.This may be accomplished through printed materials that are written specifically for distanceeducation students or provided online and/ormediated via a call centre orwebsite. In reality aninstitutionwillprobablyneedtomakeallowanceforallthesemodesofprovision.

Page25of44

Faculty members typically have office hours during which time they deal with questions andconcernsof individual students.Amechanismmustbe identified so thatoff-campus students caneasilycontactafacultymember.Teachersmightprovidestudentswiththeirtelephonenumberandhours during which they can be reached or with their Internet or e-mail address for individual,privatediscussions.Incaseswherethereareclasssessions,facultymightdesignateaperiodoftimebeforeorafterclass,orduringthebreak,tousethetelecommunicationstechnologytodiscussmoregeneral issues and concernswith off-site students. For online courses, an appropriate balance ofsynchronousandasynchronousactivitiesneedstobeplanned.

Muchoftheplanningfortraditionalcoursedeliveryassumeseasyaccesstocampus-basedresourcessuch as library holdings, science laboratories, and computer software and hardware. In distanceeducation,itisessentialthatfacultyandadministratorsworktogethertothinkcreativelyabouthowto accomplish the educational objectives when students may not have ready access to all thecampus-based resources. Solutions to particular problemsmay involve altered assignments, inter-institutional resource-sharing, special services at off-campus sites, and greater use of computertechnologiesandnetworks.

Staffing requirements suggested by these requirements include technologically aware academics,contact-andonlinetutors,andtechnicalsupportstaffatthecentreandatanydecentralisedsitesofdelivery.

5.1.3 FacultysupportTheinstitutionmustdeterminewhattrainingthefacultywillbeprovidedon1)theparticularmodelofdistanceeducationtheywillbeinvolvedinand2)thetechnologiestheywillbeusing.Facultyarelikely tobemoreconfidentandeffective if theyunderstandwhattheyarebeingaskedtodo,andwhy.Theyneedtoknowthecapabilitiesofthetechnologiesavailabletothemsothattheycanusethesetoolseffectivelytomeettheirinstructionalobjectives.

Orientationandtrainingshouldbescheduledwellinadvanceofthebeginningoftheteachingcycletogivefacultysufficienttimetoredesign,modify,oradapttheircourseandassignmentsspecificallyfornewdeliverymodes.

Traditionalhighereducation institutionshave fewbuilt-in incentives toencourage faculty to focusonquality teaching activities. The traditional reward structure,with its emphasis on research andpublication,mayactuallydiscouragefacultywhomightotherwisebeinterested.Institutionsshouldestablishsome faculty incentives that recognize theadditional time facultymayspend inplanningandteachinganeffectivedistanceeducationcourse.

Toadapttheircoursestonewmodesofdelivery,facultymaybenefitfromhavingaccesstoavarietyof resources. Types of support might include instructional design, video production, graphicsproduction, access to authoring tools, and other computer-based resources. The recruitment andselection of good distance education faculty is critical to the success of the programmes offered.Faculty who volunteer to participate in new modes of delivery are usually more successful andexperiencegreatersatisfactionthanthosewhoareassignedtoparticipate.However,therearenotalwaysvolunteerswilling to teach theneededsubjects.Usingexperiencedandsuccessfuldistanceeducationfacultytorecruitothersisgenerallymoreeffective.

Page26of44

Overtimeitmaybepossibletoidentifyseveralpersonalcharacteristicsthataremostconducivetofacultysuccessineachmodelofdistanceeducation.

This implies the need for instructional design and production staff to support subject expertacademicstaff;andasub-sectionofHR(withacorrespondingbudget)devotedtotheinductionandongoing professional development of staff – possibly through some form of developmental andperformanceappraisalsystem.

5.1.4 EvaluationMechanismsmustbeput inplace toensure thequalityof provisione.g. useof critical readersofmaterials,moderators for assessment, trackingof at-risk students, feedback fromstudents, tutorsandemployers.Informationaboutpersonalcharacteristicsofsuccessfulteachersshouldbefactoredintofutureplanningandhiringdecisions.Informationabouteffectiveinstructionalstrategiesshouldbeincludedinfacultytrainingandsupportmaterials.

Thetechnicalsystemsandadministrativesupportsystemsshouldbeevaluatedbythestudents,thefaculty, and, if appropriate, the technical support staff. In designing the evaluation instruments,everyeffortshouldbemadetoseparateissuesrelatedtothetechnicalandadministrativesystemsfromthoserelatedtoindividualfacultyperformance;facultyevaluationtypicallyrestswithacademicunits,whereassystemsevaluationisthepurviewofnon-academicunits.

Evaluationofthefacultyorientationandtrainingprocessshouldbedoneeachtimethesessionsareoffered and the results should be factored into the ongoing refinement of the sessions andmaterials.

Thisimpliestheneedforstaffwithexpertiseinassessment,evaluation,RecognitionofPriorLearning(RPL)andWorkIntegratedLearning(WIL)aswellaswithsystemsthinking.

5.1.5 Laboratory/Practical/Work-IntegratedExperiencesOne of themost challenging aspects of distance education is to provide geographically dispersedstudents with experiences that are equivalent to those of other students in fully equippedlaboratories/ clinics or workplaces. A critical initial step is for faculty to determine how crucial ahands-onexperience in a laboratory setting, for example, is in ensuring that students achieve thedesiredlearning.Forexample,itispossibletodesignactivitiesthatteachstudentstheskillsofcloseobservation without conducting lab-based experiments. When alternative activities to labexperiencesarenotsuitable,oneormoreofthefollowingsolutionsmightbeappropriate.

Someinstitutionsdeveloplabkitsthatcontainthespecialequipmentandsuppliesstudentsneedtocompleteoneormore labexperiencesandwrittendirectionsthatoutlinetheassignmentsandlisttheothermaterialsstudentswillneedtocompletetheassignments.Forexample,theUniversityofMainesendsoutakitcontainingafoetalpigfordissection.

Another option is to conduct lab experiments at one location on an interactive video network oronline. Students at all sites actively participate by conferring on the steps to be followed, andbyobserving, interpreting data, and suggesting follow-up activities. We can then digitally video theexperiments and edit them, using graphics to pose questions of the viewer as the experimentprogresses:What do you think will happen next?Why did such-and-such happen?Which of thefollowingexplanationsareconsistentwiththedata?

Page27of44

Off-the-shelf computer simulations are increasingly available. Depending on the cost and thehardware requirements, studentsmight either purchase simulations as part of their instructionalmaterials or travel -- either aloneor in groups -- to a library or off-campus location toworkwithcomputersimulations.

Studentsaresometimesrequiredtotraveltoacentrallocationwithlaboratoryfacilitiestocompletean intensive labmodule over several days orweeks. Similarly, theymight travel to decentralizedlocations -- study centres or regional campuses -- to do lab assignments over a week or severalweekends.

Thissuggeststheneedforstafftomanagecollaborativeandlogisticalarrangementslikethis.

5.1.6 PlanningandcostingassumptionsAs noted in Mays (2005) and ADEA (2005) in planning a particular course, we need to takecognizanceofthefollowingfactors:

• educationalstrategies• assessmenttypes• otherpersonnelcosts• other costs (e.g. course design, management and administration, course materials,

technologyetc.)• courseincome;and• overheads.

EducationalstrategiesHerecognizancehastobetakenofwhatteachinginterventionsareneededtofosterinteractionanddialogue. Thismight be facilitated in face-to-face contact sessions or practical orwork-integratedlearning sessions or on-line in asynchronous interactions for example in discussion fora (where adirectengagementonastaff:studentratioof1:150couldwell involvearealratioof1:750sinceexperiencesuggeststhatmorestudentswillvisittheforumandobservethanwillvisittheforumandengage)orsynchronously(e.g.throughaskypeorelluminatesessionwhichwouldprobablyhaveamaximumstaff:studentratioof1:15).

AssessmenttypesFormative feedback on assessment is central to teaching through ODL. In all three models thatfollow, we assume four assessments permodule (although some of thesemight be combined inpractice)asfollows:

• baseline assessment – a short assignment that explores assumptions about prior learningandexperience,expectationsandcurrentstatusofrelatedconceptualknowledge.Thefirstassignmentwouldbedueearly intheteachingcycleinordertoencouragestudentstogetstarted,willnotcoverthecoursecontent inanydetail ifatall,andwouldrequireminimaltime for marking – we estimate 20 minutes per assignment. For courses with highenrolmentsorwhichrequireanonlineengagement,considerationcouldbegiventotheuseofmultiplechoicequestionsthatcanbecomputermarked.

• Firstmajorassignment–alongerassignmentthatcoversthecoreconceptualknowledgeofthemodule. It shouldreflect theexit level requirementsof theprogrammeandhencethe

Page28of44

summative assessment requirements. Detailed feedbackwill be required –we estimate amarkingtimeof0,75hoursperassignment.Forcourseswithhighenrolments,considerationshouldbegiventouseofsoftwarelikeClickertosemi-automatetheprocess.

• Secondmajor assignment – a longer assignment that requires an integrated engagementwith the content in an authentic context – typical assessment strategies herewould be acommunity or work-place based project, a portfolio, an integrated case study etc. Again,detailed feedback will be required – we estimate a marking time of 1.5 hours perassignment.

• Summativeassessment–anintegratedfinalassessmentthatcouldtaketheformofatime-and venue-bound examination (in which case centre administration and invigilationrequirementsneedtobebudgeted for),oranextendednon-venueboundassignment likethe second major assignment or a work-place-based assessment (which raises staffingconsiderationsregardingmentoringandsupervision).

• Foralloftheabove, internalandexternalmoderationneedstobeconsidered.Wesuggestthat the second major assignment should be internally moderated and the summativeassessmentshouldbeexternallymoderated.A10%sampleshouldbesufficientlyreliable.

• Allthreeinstitutionsengagedwithtodatemakeprovisionforthefactthatdifferentkindsofstudent scripts will require different amounts of time to assess and, where applicable,providefeedbackasnotedintheprecedingpoints.Thecostingmodelsprovidedexploretheimplicationsofthisassessmentbeingcarriedoutbyfull-timefacultystaff(usuallymostlyatlecturerorjuniorlecturerlevel).However,asstudentnumbersgrow,itisusuallynecessaryto outsource an increasing proportion of themarking to part-time tutor-markers. Usuallythis can be done at a lower per unit cost than the use of faculty time – for example aninstitution might offer R24 to assess a first assignment/exam script or R64 to assess aportfoliobutbothcostsarelikelytobelessthantherealcostofusingthetimeofafull-timemember of staff. However, provision has then to be made for administration, training,monitoringandmoderationcosts.

OtherpersonnelcostsFor site-basedactivities therewill be costs associatedwith themanagementof the centre (whichwould be covered in overheads) but there might also be costs associated specifically with aparticularmoduleorcourse(e.g.theavailabilityofalaborITtechnicianduringacontactsession).

Othercosts(e.g.coursedesign,administration,coursematerials,technologyetc.)Swift(1996inButcherandRoberts2004;CHE2004,ADEA2005)hasestimatedthedesigntimeforcoursesatfirstyearuniversitylevelasfollows:

Table6:DesigntimeassumptionsTimetakentodesignonenotionalhourofstudentlearningtime

Print 20-100hours

Audio 20–100hours

Video 50–200hours

Computer-basedinstruction 200–300hours

Page29of44

Experiments 200–300hours

Unisa(2004:4)notethatthestafftimerequiredtoproduceacourseofagivennumberoflearninghourscannotbeexactlyspecified. However, theyarguethat the followingratiosof staffhours tolearninghoursareusedasbenchmarksinopendistancelearning(Sparks,1984;Rumble,1997):

• Coursedesignpreparation(planningthecoursedesignprocess;budgetingfortime,money,and staff; preliminary division of roles of course \team participants; determining projectmanagementprocess;establishingqualitypromotionprocedures,etc.):0.08

• Curriculum design (situation/needs analysis; evaluation of existing content; determiningdesired outcomes; determining assessment practice; curriculum research; learning designresearch,etc.):2.5

• Compiling the study material (materials design; writing comprehensive guides and firsttutorial letter; compiling readers; designing an integrated assessment system; typing;revisingdrafts;proofreading;criticalreadingofthestudymaterial;projectteammeetings;academicmonitoringofstandardsandoutcomes;etc.):13.0

• Editing(ifdonebyacademicdepartment):0.5• Translation(ifdonebyacademicdepartment):2.5

Henceaprogrammewillneedtobudgetthefollowingnumberofstaffhoursforthedevelopmentofamodule(courseweight0.1;100learninghours):

• Coursedesignpreparation: 0.08X100=8hours• Curriculumdesign: 2.50X100=250hours• Compilingofstudymaterial: 13.00X100=1300hours• Editing(ifdonebyacademicdepartment): 0.50X100=50hours• Translation(ifdonebyacademicdepartment):2.50X100=300hours

Many modules use a prescribed text book and “wrap around” study guide, that is, a guide thatcontains littlesubjectcontent,butprovidesstudentswitha learningstructurethatassists them inworking through the prescribed book. For suchmodules the number of staff hours allocated tocompilingthestudymaterialcouldbehalved(650hoursinsteadof1300hours).

The number of staff hours for course units with weights other than 0.1 can be calculated bymultiplyingthesameratiosbythenumberoflearninghoursthatthecourseunitrepresents.

Assumingafive-yearreviewcycle,the1908hoursper100NLHmodulecanbeamortisedoverthereviewperiodat381.6hoursperyear.At19designanddevelopmenthourspernotional learninghour,weareherelookingatthelowerendofthescalesofinvestmentsuggestedbySwift.However,researchundertakenbySaidefortheSouthAfricanCouncilonHigherEducation(CHE2004)andtheAssociation for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA 2005) suggests that institutions insouth and southernAfrica doNOT typically invest even this amountof time in coursedesign andmaterialsdevelopment–partlybecauseinmostcasestheydonotenrolsufficientstudentnumberstobeabletorecoupthecostsofsuchanintensiveinvestment.Forthepurposesofthemodulesthatfollow,wethereforemakethefollowingassumptions:

Page30of44

• Foraprint-based,schoolinglevelcourse,weassumeadesignanddevelopmenttimeof10hperNLHamortisedover5years.

• Foramulti-mediaweb-supportedcourse,weassumeadesignanddevelopmenttimeof15hperNLHamortisedover5years.

• For aweb-dependent course,weassumeadesign anddevelopment timeof 20hperNLHamortisedover5years.

Thisreportforeseestheneedtoclarifyacademicstaffrolesasfollows:

• Programmemanagers–senioracademicstaff (probablywithat leastaMastersdegree)toprovideoverallcurriculumleadership

• Modulecoordinators–academicstaff(probablywithatleastanHonoursdegree)toprovidecurriculumleadershipandteachingatamodulelevel

• Tutors – ideally tutors are able to work in both contact and on-line mode and are alsomarkers; model A assumes that local tutors can be found to obviate the need to sendlecturersfromthecentretodecentralisedsitesofdeliveryasthisisverycostlyandlimitsthenumberofcontactsitesthatcouldreasonablybeexpectedtobesupported

• Tutor-coordinator/Academic administrator – to manage all arrangements regarding therecruitment and appointment (with HR and Finance) of tutors, their initial induction andtraining, their ongoing supervision and support, their payment and contract renewals andtheirroleinprogrammeevaluationandrenewal.Thispersonneedstounderstandtheneedsofthecurriculumaswellasthelogisticalrequirementsofcontactsessions,WILplacements,practicalsetc.–sothisisanacademic-administratorposition.

• Administrators – the student experience at anODL institutionhas cognitive, affective andadministrative components – slow assignment turn-around, for example, can have asprofoundanimpactonthetotalstudentexperienceaspoorlydesignedlearningresources.The nature of administrative tasks varies from model to model – so in one modeladministrative assistance might include the handling of physical assignments whereas inanother model it might involve support by technicians to ensure the correct routing ofdigital assignments. For the purposes of this costing exercise we assume 1 administratordevoting 1400h of time specifically to the programme for each multiple of 300 studentsenrolled (on the assumption that 300 headcount enrolments is equivalent on average to1800moduleenrolments).

WeexploretherolesofprogrammemanagerandmodulecoordinatorinalittlemoredetailinTables5(seealsoAppendixA)and6belowasthisisastafftimecommitmentthatisoftenneglected.

Table7:Programmemanagers

Programmemanager–rolesandresponsibilities

Overallrole Ensuredevelopment,provisionandreviewofappropriateand relevantprogrammes throughappropriatemodesofdelivery and equitable assessment practices and studentsupportinordertoensurethattheneedsofthestudentsandcommunityaremet.

Page31of44

Programmemanager–rolesandresponsibilities

Specific responsibilities inconjunction with programmeteam

• Lead design programmes/courses at all levelsensuringinter-disciplinaryandprogrammecoherence

• Lead development of curricula forprogrammes/courses

• Co-develop materials for programmes/coursesincluding thewriting of studymaterials andmanageand monitor the quality of outsourced processes inthisregard

• Develop an assessment strategy for the programmethat matches assessment criteria with exit leveloutcomesandprovidesforanappropriatebalanceofformative and summative assessment across theprogramme

• Set examination and assessment activities and/orreviewthequalityofthosesetbyothers

• Assessexaminationsandassignmentsorthequalityofoutsourcedmarkingthereof

• Ensure internalandexternalmoderationofmaterialsandassessment

• Ensure appropriate staffing of programme includingprocedures for the selection, orientation, training,monitoringandsupportoftutors/tutor-markers

• Adhere to quality standards and define quality atprogramme/course level in line with institutionalnorms

• Reviewandrestructureprogrammes/courses• Conductlectures,seminars,workshops,etcasneeded• Be actively involved in related academic citizenship

activities• Track student retention, pass rates and programme

throughput• Providestudentsupportandadvice• Maintain programme/course relevance and

appropriateness• Conductresearchrelatedtotheprogramme• Constitute and chair a programme management

team.

Timeallocation 200 – 600+ hours per annum depending on thecomplexityofprogramme.

It is suggested that there is need for the programme

Page32of44

Programmemanager–rolesandresponsibilitiesmanager to treat the design, development, delivery andreviewofaparticularprogrammeinaparticularcycleasaprojectand thathe/shewill require trainingandsupportinthisregard(Modesto2009).

Table8:Modulecoordinators

Modulecoordinator–rolesandresponsibilities

Overallrole Ensuredevelopment,provisionandreviewofappropriateandrelevantcurriculummaterialsatmodulelevelthroughappropriatemodesof delivery andequitable assessmentpracticesandstudentsupportinordertoensurethattheneedsofthestudentsandcommunityaremet.

Specific responsibilities inconjunction with programmeteam

• Design courses/modules at appropriate levelsensuringinter-disciplinaryandprogrammecoherence

• Developcurriculaforcourses/modules• Developmaterials for courses/modules including the

writingofstudymaterials• Developanassessmentstrategy foracourse/module

that matches assessment criteria with exit leveloutcomesandprovidesforanappropriatebalanceofformativeandsummativeassessmentinlinewiththeoverallprogrammestrategy

• Setexaminationandassessmentactivities• Assessexaminationandassignments• Ensure internalandexternalmoderationofmaterials

andassessment• Select, orientate, train, monitor and support the

performanceofmoduletutors/tutor-markers• Adhere to quality standards and define quality at

course/modulelevelinlinewithinstitutionalnorms• Reviewandrestructurecourses/modules• Conductlectures,seminars,workshops,etcasneeded• Be actively involved in related academic citizenship

activities• Trackstudentretention,passratesandthroughputat

modulelevel• Providestudentsupport• Maintain course/module relevance and

appropriateness• Conductresearchrelatedtotheprogramme

Page33of44

Modulecoordinator–rolesandresponsibilities• Participate in relevant programme management

teams.

Timeallocation • Development of new 10 - credit course and coursematerials: 400 hours (could be shared with a co-developer)

• Development of revised coursematerials on existingmaterials: pro rata dependent on degree ofmodification

• Maintenanceofmodule:100hours+marking.

Thereisneedtoclosethefeedbackloopfromstudentandtutor evaluation into programme and materials (re-design)(Unisa2008b,Sukati2009).

Forthepurposesofthemodelsdiscussedinthissection,weassumethatstaffarerequiredtowork220days(1760hours)ayearofwhich175days(1400hours)willbedirectedtoteachingactivitiesfor specific modules and programmes and 45 days (360 hours) will be needed for staff relatedactivitiesofamoregeneralnaturee.g.reviews,opendays,professionaldevelopmentetc.orinthecaseofuniversityacademics,researchandcommunityengagement.Thismeansthatideallythe175daysdevotedto income-generatingteachingshouldgeneratesufficient incometocovertheentire220daysofworktime.

Appendix2tothisreportcomprisesanExcelspreadsheetwithfourinter-relatedsheets.

Sheet1outlinestheassumptionsonwhichtheexamplesinsubsequenttablesarebased.

Theassumptionsaredrawnfromtheprecedingdiscussion.Notethattheemphasisonprogrammemanagement suggests the need to constitute a core academic team and processes for thedevelopment,qualityassuranceandreviewofcurriculaandmaterials.Tutorsatthislevelarelikelyto be more directly involved in making curriculum-related decisions and in Models B and C inparticularwouldneedtobeofthesamecalibreasthecoreacademicstaff.

Standardisationofprogrammeandmoduledesignassumptionswillassistgreatlywithplanningandmanagement.Theexamples that followassumea studyyearof1200notional learninghours splitinto12100NLHmodules(excluding20hoursofsummativeassessmenttimebudgetedseparately)andtheassumptionthattheaveragestudentwillregisterfor6modulesineachyear.

Usingthespreadsheet,thefollowingfourscenarioswereexplored:

Scenario1:

• Anenrolmentof300studentspermoduleperyear• Studentsenrollingforonaverage6outof12possiblemodulesinayear• IncomeofR3000/module(probablyhalfasfeesandhalfassubsidy).

Page34of44

Scenario2:

• Anenrolmentof1000studentspermoduleperyear• Studentsenrollingforonaverage6outof12modulesinayear• IncomeofR3000/module(probablyhalfasfeesandhalfassubsidy).

Scenario3:

• Anenrolmentof100studentspermoduleperyear• Studentsenrollingforonaverage6outof12modulesinayear• IncomeofR3000/module(probablyhalfasfeesandhalfassubsidy).

Scenario4:

• Anenrolmentof15000studentspermoduleperyear• Studentsenrollingforonaverage6outof12modulesinayear• IncomeofR3000/module(probablyhalfasfeesandhalfassubsidy).

It should be noted that all expenditure and income are based on 2011 cost assumptions.Assumptionswillneedtobeadjustedforinflationonanannualbasis.Forthepurposesoflong-termsustainability,studentnumbersandfeeincomeneedtocoverdirectcostsandoverheadsoverafive-yearlifecycle.Forthepurposesofthecomparison,wehaveassumeda50%throughputrateforallmodelsi.e.50%ofstudentswhoinitiallyregisterforamodulesuccessfullycompleteit.

Thefollowingtableprovidesacomparativesummaryofthefindings:

Table9:Comparativesummaryofmodels ModelA

print-based and contactsupport

ModelB

Resource-based and web-support

ModelC

Web-dependenton-line

AtaninitialR3000permodule and 300students per moduleper year over 5 years…

Sustainableatbreak-even

Tutors needed at variousdecentralised centres;should be able to copewith contact and remotelearners

Core staff should includetutorcoordinators

Sustainableandgeneratinga small surplus that couldbe used for cross-subsidisation

Needsrobustweb-support

Fewer tutors needed andnot tied to geographicallocations

Notsustainable.

AtaninitialR3000permodule and 1000students per moduleper year over 5 years…

Sustainable andgeneratingasurplus

Tutors needed at variousdecentralised centres;should be able to copewith contact and remotelearners

Core staff should include

Sustainableandgeneratinga large surplus that couldbe used for cross-subsidisation

Needsrobustweb-support

Fewer tutors needed andnot tied to geographical

Sustainable and generatingasmallsurplus.

Needsrobustweb-support

Needsmore tutors for thesame number of studentsthan Models A and B;tutors not tied togeographical locations but

Page35of44

tutorcoordinators locations mustbehighlevel

AtaninitialR3000permodule and 100students per moduleper year over 5 years…

Notsustainable Slightly below break-evenpoint

Notsustainable

AtaninitialR3000permodule and 15000studentsperyearover5years

Allthreemodelsaretheoreticallyfinanciallyviableandmakesignificantsurplusesthatcouldbeuseda)tomakeacaseforreducedfees;b)toimproveprogrammedesignandimplementationtoincreasethroughput;c)tocross-subsideothereducationinitiatives.

However, due to the large staff numbers involved, Model B is probably the mostpracticable.

5.2 ObservationsThediscussion inthissectionservedto illustratetheneedtodevelopplanningmodelssothatthesustainabilityofprovisionoverasuggested five-yearcyclecanbeexplored (rememberingthat theinitial and recurring design and development costs in Years 1, 5, 10 etc. are amortised over theperiod).

ModelAreliesona traditionalprint-basedandcontactsupportedmodelofdelivery.Considerableeconomiesofscalecanbeachievedonthematerialsdevelopmentcostsbutnotonthesupportandassessmentcostswhichriseproportionatelywithstudentnumbers.

ModelBreplacestheexpensivecontactsupportwithon-linesupportto largerstudentgroupsandreplaces one assignment with a computer-markedMCQ test. This model is viable in each of thescenariosexplored.However,high retention,pass ratesand throughputwith thismodelare likelyonlyforparticularkindsofcoursesandparticularkindsofstudents.

ModelCobviates theneed to incur the costsofproduction, storageanddistribution.However, itdoes require high calibre staff (both permanent and part-time) and a significant and recurringinvestmentindesign.Thismodelisprobablyviableonlyforhighlyspecializedprogrammesforwhichsmallnumberspayinghighfeescanbeenvisaged.

Note that the threemodels presented here could have been structured quite differently and arebasedoncertainassumptionsspeltoutinSheet1inAppendix2.Changingthestructureorchangingtheassumptionswillchangetheresults–butbasingforwardplanningonmodels likethese,whichemphasise the linkbetweenplan andprocess, and thenecessity tobalance course, student, staffand institutionalneeds, canbehelpful inmakingviableand sustainable choicesand in identifyingappropriate staffing and technology strategies (Heydenrych and Louw 2006, Saleh and Pretorius2006).Thesedecisionsincreasinglyneedtobemadewithinaconsiderationofthecapacity-buildingneedsoftheinstitutionasawholewithinthecontextofitsnational,regional,continentalandgloballocation(Prinsloo2008).

Page36of44

6. Conclusion

ThisreportsuggeststheneedforagreaterfocusonthemanagementofODLprogrammesbutnotesthe complexity involved in doing this. It suggests that the implications of different models ofprogrammedesignandprovisionneedtobeexploredatthecurriculumdesignstageandbeginstowork towardsmodels that could helpwith informed-decision-making based on scenario planningthat does not demand an extensive financial planning background on the part of programmemanagementteams.Thepreliminaryfindingsofthereportsuggest:

• ThatODLprovisionshouldcontinuetofocusonlargescaleprovisionforwhichsomeformsof economy of scale can be achieved by amortising curriculum and learning resourcesdevelopmentcostsovertime.

• Thatwherelowenrolment,highinputnicheprogrammescanbejustifiedatanationallevel,theywillrequirededicatedadditionalfunding.

• Thatprovisionneedstobemadeatprogrammelevelforthemanagementoftutorsand/orwork integrated learning of various kinds and an increasing commitment to programmemanagementtimerelatedtoenrolmentandcomplexity.

• That if there is an intention to move from a print-based correspondence model to aninteractiveandsupportedelearningmodel–whetherweb-supportedorweb-dependent–the implicationsforcurriculumdesignandongoingsupportneedtobecarefullybudgeted.At one extreme there is a danger that the move towards an elearning model simplyreplicates poor transmissionmode teaching and perfunctory rote-learning assessment; atthe other extreme, the open interactive possibilities ofWeb 2.0/3.0 technologies and theincreasingnumberof resourcesavailableon thewebcould result inprogrammes thatareunsustainableintermsofcostsandhumanresources.

Page37of44

AcknowledgementsThisreportbuildsonworkundertakenbySaidein2002-2004andin2010.Ithasbenefitedinparticularfromtheinputsof:

NeilButcher

EphraimMhlanga

ChristineRandell

and

StaffoftheNamibianCollegeofOpenLearning(Namcol).

Inextendingtheworkinto2011forNadeosa,thedocumenthasbenefitedfrominsightsgainedfrominteractionwithaUnisaProgrammeManagers’ForuminitiatedbytheCollegeofHumanSciencesandtheparticipationof:

M.Bezuidenhout

S.Herselman

L.Roets

L.Terblanche

C.Thomas

G.VanDenBerg

L.J.VanNiekerk.

Theauthorwouldalsoliketothankthefollowingadditionalinstitutionalrepresentativeswhomadethemselvesavailablefordiscussion:

ProfMSpamer(DirectorofSchoolofContinuingTeacherEducation(SCTE),NorthWestUniversity(NWU))

DrAlmeroKok(NWU)

BramSchouwstra(NWU)

JanSchutte(NWU)

DrJHendrikz(HeadofDistanceEducationUnit(DEU),UniversityofPretoria)

WillemCronje(FinancialManager,DEU,UniversityofPretoria)

Anyerrors,misunderstandingsorerroneousassumptionsarethoseoftheauthor.Youarewelcometosendcorrections/contentionsto:tonymays@vodamail.co.za.

Page38of44

BibliographyAssociation for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA). 2002.Open and distance learning in Sub-

SaharanAfrica – A Survey of Policy and Practice. ADEAWorkingGroup onDistance Education andOpenLearning:MauritiusandParis.

AssociationfortheDevelopmentofEducationinAfrica(ADEA).2005.CostingDistanceEducationandODLinSub-SaharanAfrica–ASurveyofPolicyandPractice.ADEAWorkingGrouponDistanceEducationandOpenLearning:MauritiusandParis.

Banks, F., Bird,M.,Deane,M.,Hedges,C., Leach, J andMoon,B. 2007.CostingOpenandDistanceTeacherEducation: Case Study Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington: The International Bank forReconstructionandDevelopment/TheWorldBank.

Butcher,N.&Roberts,N.2004.Costs,effectiveness,efficiency:aguideforsoundinvestment,inH.Perraton&H.Lentell(EDs)Policyforopenanddistancelearning.London:Routledge.224-245.

CommonwealthofLearning(COL).2004.PlanningandImplementingOpenandDistanceLearningSystems:AHandbookforDecisionMakers.AuthoredbyRichardFreeman.Vancouver:COL

CommonwealthofLearning(COL).2001.http://www.col.org/ODLIntro/introODL.htm.

CommonwealthofLearning(COL).2004.PlanningandImplementingOpenandDistanceLearningSystems:AHandbookforDecisionMakers.Vancouver:COLdownloadedfromwww.col.org05/12/05.

CouncilonHigherEducation(CHE).2004a.EnhancingthecontributionofDistanceHigherEducation inSouthAfrica:Reportofan investigation ledbytheSouthAfrican Institute forDistanceEducation.Pretoria:CHE.

Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004b. Criteria for Institutional Audits, Higher Education QualityCommittee,June2004.Pretoria:CHE.

Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004c. Criteria for Programme Accreditation, Higher Education QualityCommittee,November2004.Pretoria:CHE.

CouncilonHigherEducation(CHE).2007.HigherEducationMonitorNo.6:ACaseforImprovingTeachingandLearninginSouthAfricanHigherEducation.Pretoria:CHE.

CouncilonHigherEducation(CHE).2010.HigherEducationMonitorNo.11:ReportontheNationalReviewofAcademicandProfessionalProgrammesinEducation,August2010.Pretoria:CHE.

Craig, W. Fontein (2007) Organizational Structure: A Critical Factor for Organizational effectiveness andEmployee Satisfaction.http://www.professorfontaine.com/files/Organizational_Structure_White_Paperv7b.pdf.Retrieved10August2010

Fullan,M.1993.ChangeForces cited inChapter9:Getting school reformright inGultig, J.,Ndhlovu,T.and

Bertram,C.1999.CreatingPeopleCentredSchools:SchoolOrganizationandChangeinSouthAfrica:Reader.CapeTown,OUP/Saide.74-84

Glennie,G.&Mays,T.2009.RethinkingOCL.OLtDE,December2009.

GlobalDistanceEducationNetwork(GDEnet)(2009)http://www.saide.org.za/worldbank/

Page39of44

Harreveld,R.E.2010.Chapter5:ACapabilityApproachtoOpenandDistanceLearningforIn-ServiceTeacherEducation inDanahar,P.A.andUmar,A.,Eds.2010.TeacherEducationthroughOpenandDistanceLearning.CommonwealthofLearning:PerspectivesonDistanceEducation.Vancouver:COL.47-60

Hendrikz, J. 2010.Distance EducationModel. Presented at an internal UP BEDworkshop in June 2010 andsubsequentlymadeavailabletoSaide.

Heydenrych, J. F. & Louw, H. A. 2006. Blue-sky scenarios and vapourware solutions: suggesting a processmodelformassdistanceeducationandtechnology.Progressio28(1&2),2006.17-31

Holmberg,B.1995.TheoryandPracticeofDistanceEducation.2ndEdition.London:Routledge.

Hülsman, T. c.2004. Costing Open and Distance Learning. Commonwealth of Learning. Accessed athttp://www.pdfio.com/k-67639.html#on01/11/11.

Kilfoil,W.R.2008.Opendistancelearning(ODL).Integratingtheelementsoffourthgenerationopendistancelearning(ODL)toenhanceserviceandsupporttoUnisastudents.InternalUnisareport,August2008.

Latchem, C. 2010. Using ICT to Train Teachers in ICT in Danahar, P. A. and Umar, A., Eds. 2010. TeacherEducationthroughOpenandDistanceLearning.CommonwealthofLearning:PerspectivesonDistanceEducation.Vancouver:COL.75-92

Louw,H.A.2007.OpenDistanceLearningatUnisa.Pretoria:Unisa.

Lussier, R. N. 2000.Management Fundamentals. Concepts. Applications. Skills Development. USA: South-WesternCollegePublishing,adivisionofThomsonLearning.

Mays, T. 2005. Costing distance education in sub-SaharanAfrica.Open Learning – The Journal ofOpen andDistanceLearningforDevelopment,20(3),November2005,211-225.

Mays,T.2011–inpress.TeachingTeachersTodayforTomorrow.JournalofUS-ChinaEducationReview.

Mays,T.&Swanepoel,L.2010.CurriculumasProcessandPraxis:anODLPerspectivebyTonyMaysandLouieSwanepoel.CanadaInternationalConferenceonEducation,CICE2010ConferenceProceedings.ISBN978-0-9564263-2-1.343-348

McIntosh, C. Ed. 2005. Perspectives on Distance Education. Lifelong Learning & Distance Higher Education.Paris:CommonwealthofLearning/UNESCOPublishing.

Modesto,S.T.2009.ProjectManagement inDistanceEducation. InternationalJournalofOpenandDistanceLearning,Vol.2,April2009.109-122

Moore,M.G.&Kearsley,G.(1996)DistanceEducation:ASystemsView.USA:Wadsworth

Perraton,H.(2000)OpenandDistanceLearningintheDevelopingWorld.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Peters, O. 1998. Learning and Teaching in Distance Education: Analyses and Interpretations from anInternationalPerspective.London:KoganPage.

Postle,G.&Tyler,M.A.2010.Chapter6:LearningandTeachingStrategiesandPracticesinTeacherEducationthroughOpenandDistance Learning inDanahar, P.A. andUmar,A., Eds. 2010.Teacher Educationthrough Open and Distance Learning. Commonwealth of Learning: Perspectives on DistanceEducation.Vancouver:COL.61-74

Page40of44

Prinsloo,R.C.2008.Positionpaperoncapacitybuilding foropenanddistanceeducation.African JournalofDistanceEducation,1(1),2008.45-79

Rowntree,D.1992.ExploringOpenandDistanceLearning.London:UOP/KoganPage.

Rumble,G.1997.CostsandEconomicsofOpenandDistanceLearning.London:KoganPage.

Rumble,G.Ed.2004.PapersandDebatesontheEconomicsandCostsofDistanceandOnlineLearning.Studienund Berichte der Arbeitsstelle Fernstudienforschung der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg,Band7.Bibliotheks–undInformationssytemderUniversitätOldenburg.

Saleh,S.S.&Pretorius,F. J.2006.Englishasa foreign language:teachers’professionaldevelopmentviatheinternet.Progressio28(1&2),2006.110–125

SouthAfrican Institute forDistance Education (Saide). 2000b. InformationandCommunication TechnologiesandSouthAfricanHigherEducation:DiscussionpaperpreparedfortheCouncilonHigherEducation.AppendixOne: Lessons in the Application of education Technologies in South Africa. Johannesburg,SAIDE.

South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). 2005. Developing Learning Programmes for NQF-registeredQualificationsandUnitStandards.Pretoria:SAQA.

SouthAfricanQualificationsAuthority(SAQA).Websiteglossaryaccessedatwww.saqa.co.zaon03February,2011.

SouthAfricanUniversities Vice-Chancellors Association (SAUVCA). 2003. LearningDeliveryModels inHigherEducationinSouthAfrica.SAUVCAOccasionalPaper.Pretoria:SAUVCA.

Sukati,C.W.S.2009.TheQualityofDistanceLearningCourseModules:ACaseStudyofCommerceModulesattheUniversityofSwaziland.InternationalJournalofOpenandDistanceLearning,Vol.2,April2009.7-22

Swanepoel, B. J. (Ed.), Erasmus, B. J.& Schenk,H.W. 2008.SouthAfricanHumanResourceManagement –TheoryandPractice.FourthEdition.CapeTown:Juta&Co.Ltd.

Thompson, B. 2010. The Cost-Effectiveness of Using Open and Distance Learning in Teacher Education inDanahar, P. A. and Umar, A., Eds. 2010. Teacher Education through Open and Distance Learning.CommonwealthofLearning:PerspectivesonDistanceEducation.Vancouver:COL.143-158

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa).2004.RegulationsPertainingtotheStaffFormulaoftheUniversityofSouthAfrica.Pretoria:Unisa.

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa).2005.Unisa2015StrategicPlan.Pretoria:Unisa.DownloadedfromintranetJanuary2006.

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa).2006.FrameworkfortheimplementationofateamapproachtocurriculumandlearningdevelopmentatUnisa.Implementationproceduresforthetuitionpolicy.Pretoria:Unisa.

University of South Africa (Unisa). 2007. Academic Human Resource Allocation Model. ManagementCommitteeMeeting,2October2007.Pretoria:Unisa.

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa).2008a.AnnualReport2008.Pretoria:Unisa.

University of South Africa (Unisa). 2008a. Self-evaluation Portfolio for the HEQC Institutional Audit 2008 –TransformingAcademic&InstitutionalIdentityforExcellenceinanODLUniversity.Pretoria:Unisa.

Page41of44

University of South Africa (Unisa). 2008b. Self-evaluation portfolio for the HEQC Institutional Audit 2008 –TransformingAcademicandInstitutionalIdentityforExcellenceinanODLUniversity.Pretoria:Unisa.

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa).2008b.UnisaIntegratedQualityManagementFramework.Pretoria:Unisa.

UniversityofSouthAfrica(Unisa)2008c.Opendistance learningpolicy.HandoutatODLResearchworkshop,30/10/2008.(AvailableonIntranetunderTeachingandLearningpolicies.)

Welch,T.&Reed,Y.(Eds)2005.DesigningandDeliveringDistanceEducation:QualityCriteriaandCaseStudiesfromSouthAfrica.Johannesburg:NADEOSA.

Appendix1:Illustrativeprogrammemanagementfunctionsandactivities

DevelopedbyProfOupaMashile,Unisaandincorporatedwithpermission.

1. PROGRAMMEMANAGEMENTACTIVITIESDERIVEDFROMTHEHEQCCRITERIA

TheactivitiesbelowshouldbeinterpretedinaccordancetotheHEQCcriteriaofprogrammeaccreditation.

i. Coordinatethecompilationofa300seriestutoriallettercontainingthefollowing:a. thepurposeoftheprogramme[2(i)].;b. the curriculum design of the programme, demonstrating coherence, reflecting

alignmentofexplicitoutcomeswithindividualmodules,curriculumchoice,teachingand learning methods and strategies, assessment, and modes of delivery [2(vii),5(iii)];

c. thecompositionofthelearningprogramme;d. theNQFlevelsofthevariousmodulesintheprogrammethatisalignedtotheHEQF

[2(i)]e. thelearningpathwaysforstudentschoosingtheprogrammeandwhereapplicable,

indicate possible professional development activities/programmes within theUniversity[2(ii),(iv)].

f. A timetable for students who are not employed and would like to complete thequalificationinminimumtimeandatimetableforstudentsstudyingpart-time[2(v)];

g. Themixofacademicandexperientialorwork-basedlearning[2(v)];h. Thenumberofcontacthoursexpectedorallowedinthedesignoftheprogramme

[2(v)];i. Thecurriculumoftheprogrammethatisexplicitwithrespecttoexitleveloutcomes

and related assessment criteria, content, level, credits, rules of combination andrelativeweight[2(vi)];

j. Howstudentscanmakeinputintotheprogramme[2(ix)];k. Alllearnersupportmechanismsavailabletothestudent[2(x)];l. Academicstaffresponsibleforthevariouspartsoftheprogrammeandtheircontact

details;m. Teachingandlearningstrategies[5(i)];

ii. Coordinate the compilation of all documents necessary for planning, resourcing anddelivery of the programme. The documentation should also be used to compile a

Page42of44

Programme Self Evaluation Report or Portfolio for review purposes. Thedocumentation/ReviewReportshouldcontainthefollowing:

a. Theinformationin(i)above;b. All documentation regarding the submission and approval of the programme by

senate,DoE,HEQC,andregistrationbySAQA1[1(i)].c. A statement on how relevant national policies, legislation and imperatives are

accommodatedintheprogrammedesign[2(iii)],marketing,advertisement,studentrecruitment strategy, and selection criteria [3 (iii)-(v)]. Where applicable, astatement indicatinghowthecodeofconductof the relevantprofessionalbody isaddressedintheprogramme[1(vi)];

d. A link between the purpose of the programme and the statement of appliedcompetenciesandhowtheseareworkedintothecurriculum[2(vi)];

e. A statement on the intellectual credibility of the programme, includingconsiderations of intellectual property rights. Where applicable, a statementindicating the relation between theoretical, practical and experiential knowledge[2(viii)];

f. A statement on how curriculum choice, teaching and learningmethods,modes ofdelivery and learningmaterials cater for the learning needs of the target studentintake

g. Theconditionsforprogrammedeliveryandhowthesearemet[2(xi)];h. Wherethesameprogrammeisdeliveredusingdifferentmodesand/oratdifferent

sites,evidencethatthishasbeenapprovedandsupportedbysenateandthatthereisequivalenceofprovision[2(xi)];

i. In cases where the programmemakes use of a decentralised tutor-based learnersupport system, a statement about how these are properly managed and qualityassuredbytheDepartment[2(xi)];

j. The budget of the programme in terms of course design, course materials, andprogramme delivery [2(xii)]. An indication must be given on how the qualityassuranceprocessesoftheuniversityareincorporatedintheprogramme[1(vii)].

k. A statement indicating that the Department/School/College/University has anorganisationalstructurethatenhancesthefulfilmentofitsstatedmission,goalsandobjectives and provides for the effective participation of College and students inmattersofimportance[1(viii)];

l. Arationale for theuseofODL indelivering theprogrammeto the intendedtargetstudents[1(x)];

m. Adescriptionof appropriatepolicies, procedures and regulations that are inplaceforstudentadmission,selectionandassessmentanddemonstratinghowthesearecommunicatedtoallstudents,academicsandadministrativestaff[3(i)];

n. Astatementon thecapacityof theDepartment/School/College/University tooffertheprogramme[3(vi)];

o. ProcedurestodealandensurethatRPLadmissionsdonotexceed10percentofthestudentprofileintheprogramme[3(viii)];

p. The Department has developed detailed learner profiles that identify thecharacteristics and situation of students and this is used to inform teaching andlearning strategy [3(x)], improvement of success rates, throughput, and retention[9];

q. Adescriptionofallstaffingmatters, includingrecruitment,employmentequityandother appropriate legislations, professional development, workloads, researchengagement,ODLteachingcompetency,andmanagementofcontractstaff[4].

1 This activity will be carried out by the Prof Mashile or the envisaged coordinator of QA in the College.

Page43of44

r. A teaching and learning statement, including, amongst others, the philosophicalunderpinnings of the teaching and learning strategies; procedures formonitoring,evaluating and improving teaching and learning; academic support to students atrisk; curriculum development and revision of study materials; development ofincreasingly sophisticated levels of independent study from learning materialsprovided[5];

s. A statement on the role of the programme manager/coordinator, includingacademic stature; intellectual leadership; planning; regular communication withstudents; student input;whereapplicable,managementofexperiential learningorwork-basedlearningprogrammes[6];

t. Astatementonassessment,including,amongstothers,proceduresandpoliciesforformative and summative assessment; embedding assessment in programmedesign,teachingandlearningstrategies,curriculumdevelopmentandimprovementof studymaterials; student and staff development; use of a range of assessmenttasks (e.g., integrated assessment, RPL); turnaround time and quality of studentfeedback; credibility of assessment; recording assessment; security of assessmentprocedures; role and scope of external examining; processing external examinerreports; appeal procedures; handling assessment breaches; monitoring studentprogress[7];

u. A statement on the infrastructure and library resources available for staff andstudents: IT hardware and software, relevant and up-to-date library resources,nature of library use dictated by the design of the programme, accessibility ofresourcesforstudentsinvariousregionsofthecountry[8];

v. Astatementandevidenceontheimpactoftheprogramme,includingmeetingtheDoE’stargetsforgraduation[9].

w. A statement on systematic programme reviews, including accountability toinstitutional structures, user surveys (students, staff, professional bodies, peers,etc), responding to reviewoutcomes in such away that they inform and improveprogramme design, programme delivery, staff development and student support[10].

2. PROGRAMMEMANAGER’SJOBDESCRIPTION

ProgrammecoordinationrequiresaProgrammeManager/Coordinator.ProgrammeManagersmusthaveanagreed-uponmandatefromtheCollegeandDepartmenttomanagetheprogramme.InthisregardtheIPMScontractofProgrammeManagerswillhaveaseparatetemplateandwillmeasuretheactivitiesdescribedinsection2above.TheworkloadoftheProgrammeManagerwillalsobereviewedtofitinwiththemandatebelow.ProgrammeManagersareresponsiblefor:

(a) Ensuring that their programmes comply with the criteria for programmeaccreditationassetoutbytheCHE

(b) Ensuring that their programmes comply with quality standards effective in SouthAfricaandwhereapplicable,outsideSouthAfrica.This includesensuringthattheirprogrammesarealignedtotheNADEOSAqualitycriteriaand,whereapplicable,tocriteriasetbyProfessionalBodies.

(c) Ensuring that all conditions of programme delivery are in place (effectivecommunicationwithstudents,studentsupport,determinationofworkloads,timelysubmissionofstudymaterial,checkingoftutorialletters,etc).

Page44of44

(d) Tablinganytuitionmatters(e.g.,calendarchanges)relatedtotheirprogrammesatDepartmentalTuitionCommitteemeetings

(e) Managing/processingRPLapplicationsintheirprogrammes

(f) Co-ordinating and facilitating Programme Reviews in their programmes (bothnationalandinternalreviews)

(g) Convening Programme Committee meetings (including academics, students, andotherstakeholders)

(h) LeadingandmanagingateamforthedevelopmentanddeliveryoftheprogrammeinaccordancetothesenateapprovedCurriculumFramework.

(i) Developing and maintaining sound working relationships within the Department,School,Collegeand relevant subjectand supportdepartments, so that there is anevolving coherence between the programme and various other programmes andlearning pathways in the Discipline (Higher Certificate up to Doctorate, whereapplicable)

(j) Being responsible forquality assuranceof theprogramme so that theprogrammenot only meets the requirements of the HEQC and/or Professional Bodies, but isdeliveredinwaysthatarecontinuallyself-improving

(k) AdvisingtheCOD/SchoolDirectoraboutallmatterspertainingtotheprogramme

(l) Ensuring that all documentation submitted to the COD/School Director forprocessing and authorisation by staff members of the programme have beenproperlycheckedforcompletenessandcorrectness

(m) Providing intellectual leadership for the programme. This entails tracking bothinternal and external policy environments and ensuring the programme isresponsivetosuchimperatives

(n) AdvisetheCOD/SchoolDirectoraboutprofessionaldevelopmentneedsofmembersoftheprogramme,bothfull-timeandpart-time

(o) Managingandprocessingapplicationsforexemptions

Appendix2:Excelspreadsheet