Theories of Teaching and Learning and Distance Education

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction, Background and Context

One of the challenges in higher education is the ability to cope with the growing number of enrolments which face-to-face universities cannot handle due to factors such as limitation in terms of space. This crisis has led many universities to start teaching students in groups and to use face-to-face methods in distance education, leading to the development of ‘dual-mode’ or ‘mixed-mode’ universities. In the light of this huge challenge, the refinement of teaching and learning methods has become critical. The challenge, as defined in this particular study, is how to teach and ensure successful learning in distance education. The last 25 years have seen the expansion of ‘open education’ and ‘distance education’ in South Africa, as elsewhere, and this has truly impacted on the availability of formal education to those who are unlikely to have pursued it or were unable to pursue it in the past (Pond, 2002). Garrison (1999) believes that distance is disappearing in distance education! This surely indicates the existence of a further challenge in terms of the designing of worthwhile educational experiences for students in such institutions.
The overall picture of distance education (DE) since the early 1980s shows that it has become a common practice in all parts of the world. Distance education provides an opportunity to those who cannot or do not want to take part in classroom teaching and learning (Holmberg, 1995). There are various distance teaching universities that offer different kinds of study material, depending on their teaching-learning system. Yet, there is no universal or common agreement about the definition and characteristics of distance education (Holmberg, 1995; Evans and Nation, 1996; Daniel, 1997). One of the key issues in this debate is the lack of a clear distinction between ‘contact’ and ‘distance’ higher education in South Africa and other countries (SAUVCA, 2003b).
Some of the findings of the research undertaken in universities show that in most parts of the world, higher education is in crisis (DoE, 1994; Holmberg, 1995; Daniel, 1996). Despite this crisis, Ross (1996) observes that distance education came of age in the 1990s. Thus, there is scarcely a modern university that is not significantly involved in distance education, and many visionary educational leaders envisage a virtual university of the future, one that is much more cost-efficient and technologically-based (Evans and Nation, 1996; Trindade, Carmo & Bidarra, 2000). This has led to what Campion (2001) sees as turmoil in all the world’s universities because of the rapid changes that batter, blast and silence stakeholders, as well as deny them time to think.
He further argues that universities are not alone in this turmoil, as other organisations are also under pressure to change. Campion (2001) adds that the current turmoil in universities makes them more vulnerable than ever before, and that being productivity-conscious reduces the space for reflection and contemplation over what is best for universities. DE as a developing educational delivery system has become a viable alternative to traditional classroom teaching. It is primarily intended to meet the educational needs of students prevented by work or family obligations from attending classes at traditional campus locations during class times (Minton and Willet, 2003).
Distance learning inevitably has to change because education in general is being transformed, and because of pressures arising from the changing societal context. Pressures such as globalisation, resulting in competition from overseas providers, and the growing acceptance by students of the marketability of qualifications that have an international dimension, are increasing. This has implications for student support mechanisms, the content of learning programmes, and learning approaches, which will be both expensive and time-consuming to address, and which will require considerable institutional commitment in order to be successfully addressed. It is within this context and background that the University of South Africa (Unisa) introduced their tuition policy in . This policy was put in place to enable effective teaching and learning. This study investigates the views and experiences of the research population relating to the development and implementation of the Unisa Tuition Policy and its influence on teaching and learning.

South African Policy Background and Statement of Purpose

The current status of distance education (DE) and open and distance learning (ODL) in South Africa is mixed and variable at best or, at worst, in a state of disarray, owing to the different forces impinging on it. The traditional distinction between contact and distance education and the different modes of delivery is becoming increasingly blurred. Higher education programmes continue to exist on a continuum, spanning distance programmes at one end and face-to-face tuition at the other (CHE, 2000a). The situation is further aggravated by perceptions of the changing roles and functions that DE and ODL play in transforming society. It is not surprising that those who frame policy and make decisions continue to recognise the value and contribution of ODL and DE to society. The 1994 Commission on Distance Education in South Africa concluded that, taken as a whole, distance education’s contribution to the priorities of education and training in the policy framework is variously marginal, inefficient and, in respect of the values sought for a democratic South Africa, ‘dysfunctional’ (DoE, 1994). In concurring with this view, the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) (DoE, 1996a) also recommended that the envisaged single, dedicated distance education institution should not only offer programmes to large numbers of students, but should also provide coordination for the production of high-quality learning materials for widespread use across the HE system.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Page number
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Summary
• Opsomming
• Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Bibliography
• Appendices
• Graph
• Tables
• Figures
• CHAPTER ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
  • 1.1 Introduction, Background and Context
  • 1.2 South African Policy Background and Statement of Purpose
  • 1.3 Research Question
  • 1.4 Rationale for the Study
  • 1.5 Significance of the Study
  • 1.6 Contested Meanings, Constructs and Terminology in Distance Education
    • 1.6.1 Distance Education, Open and Distance Education, and Open LearningConstructs
    • 1.6.2 Conceptions of Learning
    • 1.6.3 Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • 1.6.4 Policy Gap
  • 1.7 Theoretical Framework
  • 1.8 Research Design and Methodology
  • 1.9 Limitations of the Study
  • 1.10 Organisation and Overview of the Study
• CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW
  • 2.1. Introduction
  • 2.2 Defining Distance Education through Various Development Phases
    • 2.2.1 Traditional to Modern Definitions of Distance Education
    • 2.2.2 Development of Distance Education as a Field of Study
    • 2.3 Theories of Distance Education
    • 2.3.1 Theory of Autonomy and Independence (Late 1960s and Early 1970s)
    • 2.3.2 Theory of Industrialisation (throughout 1960s and early 1970s)
    • 2.3.3 Theory of Interaction and Communication (Late 1970s and Early 1980s)
    • 2.3.3.1 Two-way Communication in Correspondence/Distance Education
    • 2.3.3.2 Continuity of Concern for Students Learning at a Distance
  • 2.4 Educational Theories relating to Teaching and Learning
  • 2.4.1 Behaviourist Approaches
  • 2.4.2 Cognitive Theories
  • 2.4.3 Constructivism
  • 2.4.4 Adult Learning (andragogy)
  • 2.5 Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning
  • 2.6 Theories of Teaching and Learning and Distance Education
  • 2.7 Other Views on Teaching and Learning in the Context of the Practice of Distance Education
  • 2.8 International Trends in Policy Formulation and Framing in Open and Distance Learning: Issues for Policymakers and Managers
  • 2.9 Development of Higher Education Policies in South Africa
  • 2.10 Some Considerations for Policy Issues in Distance Education in the South African Context
  • 2.11 Trends in Open and Distance Learning Policy Development
  • 2.12 Institutional Policy Issues for Distance Education
  • 2.13 Conclusion
• CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Qualitative Research
    • 3.2.1 The Role of the Researcher
    • 3.2.2 Description of the Research Context of this Study
  • 3.3 Research Design
  • 3.4 Data Collection Plan and Analysis
  • 3.4.1 Phase 1: Document Review and Analysis: Acts and White Papers
  • 3.4.2 Phase 2: Steps in Data Collection
  • 3.5 Data Collection Techniques
    • 3.5.1 Interviews
    • 3.5.2 Focus Group Interviews
    • 3.5.3 The Questionnaire
    • 3.5.4 Qualitative Document Analysis
  • 3.6 Research Ethics
    • 3.6.1 Ethical Considerations
    • 3.6.2 Voluntary Participation
    • 3.6.3 Anonymity and Confidentiality
    • 3.6.4 Deception, fairness and caring
    • 3.6.5 Sampling
    • 3.6.6 Documenting the Interview Process
  • 3.7 Data Analysis: Transcription of Conversations using Atlas.ti
  • 3.8 Validity
  • 3.9 Limitations of the Research
  • 3.10 Conclusion
• CHAPTER DOCUMENTS, ACTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTED DATA
  • 4.1. Introduction
  • 4.2. Making Sense of Policy Analysis and Policy Research
    • 4.2.1 Analysis of Documents
    • 4.2.2 The Unisa Tuition Policy in the Context of National Policies
  • 4.3 Policy Text Analysis
    • 4.3.1 Unisa Tuition Policy
    • 4.3.2 The Open University of the United Kingdom Teaching and Learning Strategy
  • 4.4 South African Policy and Acts
    • 4.4.1 A New Academic Policy for Programmes and Qualifications in Higher Education (NAP, 2002, Chapter 3 and 4)
    • 4.4.2 White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education,
      • 4.4.3 The Higher Education Act 101 of
      • 4.4.4 The National Commission on Higher Education,
      • 4.4.5 The National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa (NPHE),
      • 4.4.6 Council on Higher Education: Distance Education Task Team Report,
  • 4.5 Acts and Policies in the Institutional Context
  • 4.6 Conclusion
• CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Context of the Policy Process
  • 5.3 Context of the Participants
  • 5.4 Making Sense of the Unisa Tuition Policy: Views and Experiences from Various Participants
    • 5.4.1 Basic Understanding of the Unisa Tuition Policy
    • 5.4.2 Focuses of the Policy (what is it addressing?)
    • 5.4.3 Participation in development of the Unisa Tuition Policy
    • 5.4.4 Implementation Hurdles or Obstacles
    • 5.4.5 Opportunities for Unisa Tuition Policy Implementation
    • 5.4.6 Views and Experiences of Students using the Entrepreneurship Law 1 Study Guide
  • 5.5 Reflections on Participants’ Views and Expectations
  • 5.6 Questionnaire Responses
  • 5.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
  • 6.1 Introduction and Purpose
  • 6.2 An Overview of the Study
  • 6.3 Contextualising the Findings
    • 6.3.1 Basic understanding of the Unisa Tuition Policy
    • 6.3.2 Unisa Tuition Policy Development
    • 6.3.3 Unisa Tuition Policy Implementation Hurdles
    • 6.3.4 Unisa Tuition Policy Implementation Opportunities
    • 6.3.5 The Impact on Teaching and Learning
  • 6.4 Acts and Documents
  • 6.5 Closed-Ended Questions
  • 6.6 Open-Ended Questions
  • 6.7 Discussion of Findings and Conclusion
  • 6.8 Recommendations
  • 6.9 Reflections on the Study
  • 6.10 Limitations in terms of Findings
  • 6.11 Conclusion
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT