Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Working definition of quality in relation to this study
The main focus of this study, as already elucidated in the introduction (Chapter 1, Section 1), is to focus on the issues of access, delivery, and output as they relate to both distance and conventional education. Therefore, a working definition of quality for this study should embrace these three indices. A review of all the definitions given in this study presents these major trends in the definitions of quality:
The development of the human talent (Astin, 1985);
The embracing of both communicative and instrumental views (Barnett, 1992);
A conformance to a specification or standard (Green, 1994);
The goals, process and extent of achievement of an institution (Baume, 1990; Frazer, 1994; Segers & Dochy, 1996) and
Complete goal fulfilment that involves process and input factors leading to visualized outcome (De Weert, 1990; Sahney et al. 2004) and
Continuously meeting and exceeding customers’ needs (Steyn, 2002). Having perused available literature on the concept, the researcher is of the opinion that each scholar should try to come up with a framework on what quality should mean, which will be governed by the purpose of the study – a view also supported by scholars (Green, 1994; Bornman, 2004).
Hence, quality in relation to this study implies: The conformance of an institution’s goals, process and input factors, and evaluation systems to the needs specified by their clients (the government, the students, the financiers and the employers of labour) in relation to what the institution too deems fit as relevant to the specified needs’. Hence, from this definition, all the indices namely: access, delivery and output – can be deduced.
Firstly, an educational institution should not exist if it cannot align itself with the major aims of the country’s government of the day. For instance, higher education has moved from the elitist system into a mass system, thereby opening up access to many people who have previously been denied educational opportunities. However, the institutions should not be silent on insisting that quality in education be maintained, thereby ensuring that the government also live up to their responsibility of sufficiently supporting the system financially, to safeguard this. This will involve the government supplying input factors which, according to De Weert (1990:59), ‘… usually refer to resources necessary for institutions to carry out their functions: financial, qualified staff, technical and administrative equipment’. There is still the unsettled question of ‘Who pays for the education, after the doors to learning have been opened wider than before?’ Academics are troubled about the standard of education falling should the available resources – which formerly were meant to be used by fewer students – now be spread out to the maximum, to facilitate the learning of the masses. Secondly, the students’ needs as determined by the employer of labour, must also be taken into consideration. There is no point in offering programmes that will not attract students. The appropriate phrase suggested by many scholars, when defining the term quality, is fitness-for-use (Steyn, 2002). In addition to this is the aspect of student participation in determining how best the institution can help them meet their (i.e. the students’) goals, in relation to the process of education itself (Bornman, 2004; Lomas, 2004). According to Omachonu, Ross and Swift (2004), all the processes in any organisation determine how customers see quality.
The third consideration is that of the financier of the education who, according to Weller and McElwee (1997), expects a return on investment. The three points mentioned above highlight the need for quality in access and, which invariably affect the quality of students’ output.
The quality gap in higher education
However, access to higher education might not necessarily mean having access to equal quality opportunities. To Astin (1985:80) such a definition is inadequate and ‘any adequate definition must take into consideration the quality of the opportunity itself’. Therefore, to Astin (1985:82), ‘equality of access relates to the number of available places’ and also extends to the question of whether ‘…
students have equal access to the best opportunities [for them] regardless of race, gender, income, social class, or other personal qualities’. For instance, Eisemon and Holm-Nielsen (1995) present an irony in the case of Brazil, where ‘the private universities … have become the government’s instrument for expanding access’ (where approximately 72% of the higher education students are enrolled), but they generally are provided a lower quality of education. According to Riley (1994:3,15) ‘quantity and equality are interconnected: not separate entities but inseparable features of any good education provision’, hence ‘…the notion of quality should also embrace a concept of equal opportunities, which is focused not just on outcomes but on processes – how students experience and participate in the education system’. Echoing this, Ajayi, Goma and Johnson (1996:205) explain that ‘equality of educational opportunity must mean being provided with the necessary tools to develop one’s own special talents to the point of excellence’.
Conversely, focus can be placed on the many implications inherent in the issues of access and quality. Some of these include the social background of parents – which could negatively affect students’ performance – and choice of institutions and/or courses. This has led to what some people have tagged ‘the underprepared student’ (Astin, 1985) who, if correctly assisted, has the potential to succeed (Clark & Plooy, 2003). Examples of such successes are to be found in the remedial courses organised by universities. In support of this Berdahl and Spitzberg (1991:165) explain that another way of judging quality is what is known as value-added, which means that ‘an institution that admits students who are of lower academic qualification, but helps them to gain in knowledge and skills’ will be regarded as an institution of quality. But are institutions accepting of all students and is such assistance provided free of charge? Therefore, the question arises: even in cases where students have access to schooling – do they really have access to knowledge?
According to Morrow (1993/4), physical access is not the same as epistemological access. Echoing this view, Millard (1991:67) laments that even ‘though legislation can mandate affirmative action; can impose penalty for discrimination in admission, hiring and promotion; and most important can provide assistance for students who need it’, yet ‘… the way students are treated in classrooms, are counselled, are encouraged to persist, and are made to feel an integral part of the programme and institution cannot be legislated’. Of relevance here is the issue of student support services, which have been identified as a key to success in distance education, but which in most cases the student is often far removed from. Another burning issue is that of the student loan scheme, which has received much criticism, based on the fact that students are indebted even before they even find employment, when such employment is not assured. Therefore, attitudes toward the question of access to equal quality education differ, as some view it is utopian – which will be too expensive to attain (Astin, 1985).
On the issue of technology in education, Clark and Plooy (2003), citing the expression, Everyone is invited – the slogan of Samsung, a computer and equipment manufacturing giant – lament that many students (both of distance and conventional education) are prevented from participating in equal quality educational opportunities as a result of the non-availability of technology to them.
According to Lelliot, Pendlebury and Enslin (2000), the promises of information and communications technology (ICT), though ‘come couched in the language of access and equity’ and is ‘appealing both to social justice and to efficiency … [but they] are both false and misleading…because the prerequisites for an educationally sound and inclusive access to ICT can be met by very few African countries at present’. Lastly, Zirkle (2004) advises that there is the need for institutions to ‘continually evaluate non-instructional areas such as registration, advising library and media resources, and technical support, to determine if barriers exist that may keep students from accessing courses and programs’. These thoughts are even more applicable to students in distance education study programmes.
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Overview of Chapter 1
1.2 Background and problem statement
1.3 Aims and objectives of the study
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Conceptual framework
1.6 The design of the study
1.7 The significance of the study
1.8 The limitations and delimitations of the study
1.9 Clarification of terms and concepts applicable to the study
1.10 The structure of the research
1.11 The summary
Chapter Two: A Literature Review of Distance and Conventional Education Reviewed in Terms of Access, Delivery and Output in Higher Education
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conventional education in higher education
2.3 Distance education
2.4 Access, delivery modes and output in higher education
2.5 Issues of convergence in distance and conventional education
2.6 Implications of literature review findings on the study
2.7 Summary
Chapter Three: A Literature Review of Distance and Conventional Education in South African Higher Education Reviewed in Terms of Access, Delivery and Output
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Distance and conventional education in South Africa: policy and practice
3.3 Brief historical development of the University of Pretoria
3.4 Access issues in South African higher education
3.5 Delivery modes in South African higher education
3.6 Output in South African higher education
3.7 Distance and conventional education at the University of Pretoria, South Africa
3.8 Summary
Chapter Four: A Review of Literature on Quality Assurance in Distance and Conventional Education in relation to Access, Delivery and Output
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The concept of quality in relation to this study
4.3 Conceptual framework: The move from situational to transactional
4.4 Ensuring quality in higher education
4.5 Understanding quality assurance in higher education
4.6 Summary
Chapter Five: Research Design and Methodology
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research design in a paradigmatic context
5.3 Research methodology applied during the investigation
5.4 Data analysis procedures
5.5 Enhancing the validity and reliability of the study
5.6 Ethical issues
5.7 Summary
Chapter Six: Analysis and Interpretation of the Qualitative Data
6.1 Introduction
6.2 An overview of the quantitative data
6.3 Statistical analysis of the data
6.4 Summary
Chapter Seven: Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of the Qualitative Results
7.1 Introduction
7.2 An overview
7.3 Presentation, analysis and interpretation of the qualitative investigation
7.4 Summary and conclusion
Chapter Eight: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations and Implications of the Study – Towards the culture of quality distance education in dual-mode institution in an African Context
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of the problem statement, research questions, aim of the study, and other chapters
8.3 Summary of the main findings from the literature review
8.4 Summary of the quantitative and the qualitative investigations
8.5 Analytical reflection on the main research findings; a synthesis of the indices of assessment
8.6 Suggestions, recommendation, and implications of the study regarding equity of access, student learning experiences from distance and conventional education, and student output
8.7 Reflections on this study
8.8 Concluding thoughts
9 References
