Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
What happens when an international learning module, compiled by an American University is adapted for a South African HEI, and implemented in a computer-mediated context?
This central question includes aspects pertaining to the international outreach programme that I explored. These aspects involved issues such as cooperative learning, cooperation at organisational level, the international Digital Divide, how to bridge the Digital Divide, HEIs, the role of technology, cultural diversity and cultural differences. The potential research collaboration originated from a discussion between a research expert from UP and a Co-director from the SUIOP, Stanford, at a conference in Cuba in 2004.
The project started when academic delegates from UP explored the possibilities of cooperation between Stanford, UP and TUT. The purpose of the collaboration was to introduce an existing Stanford international security course to a South African HEI. It was decided that UP would play an investigative role and that other South African universities would be invited to participate in the project as South African partners whose students should benefit from the course. TUT was identified as a possible research collaborator and meetings were conducted with various representatives from UP and TUT. The purpose of the meetings was to encourage participation and to establish a potential strategic partnership network, resulting in UP and TUT as research collaborators. The original outreach programme resulted in a decision to run a programme that lasted 19 weeks while the research focus was International Environmental Politics. This initiative involved the Department of Post-Graduate Studies in Education, the Department of Journalism as well as Telematic Education at TUT. Fourteen third and fourth year part-time journalism students participated in the study. Stanford had already initiated existing outreach programmes to HEIs in the former Soviet Union and some Eastern European countries. These programmes were running for approximately six years. The model entailed that Stanford brought a number of PhD students from these countries to Stanford for training in Social Sciences such as Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology. This model however, resulted in every student costing Stanford about $50 000 per year. This proved to be too expensive and therefore a more cost-effective model was considered. This model involved taking Stanford courses to students in their own countries, focusing on undergraduate students instead of graduate students. The Stanford team leader emphasised the fact that the rationale of the outreach initiatives to foreign institutions was not only to initiate collaborative research with foreign institutions but also to bring foreign courses to Stanford. The first teaching assistant mentioned that outreach programmes from HEIs such as Stanford to Sub-Saharan Africa entailed certain challenges to education. She was talking from personal experience as she had lived in Africa and had also visited numerous places in South Africa around 2000. According to her the ELISA programme certainly was a unique initiative, even at Stanford. The second teaching assistant also supported the idea of outreach programmes. For academic purposes she travelled to Tanzania in 2003 and showed a personal interest in rural areas. She compared the idea that education is taken for granted in the US to that of the rural East African region where that is not the case. In the latter instance she experienced that learners had less opportunities to be educated and to be exposed to new experiences than their counterparts in urban areas. This resulted in the East African students’ desire to learn, being exposed to many things and thus to a greater appreciation for opportunities. While reading through the assignments that the ELISA participants submitted for grading and looking at the video conferences, she noticed a similar excitement among the students. According to her they revealed a bona fide interest in the programme and had a real desire to learn about the environmental issues at hand.
The North–South phenomenon
The North-South phenomenon regarding the Digital Divide is clearly visible when the Stanford set up is compared to the TUT set-up. The main difference is that while the majority of Stanford students are well-resourced the majority of TUT students are under-resourced. While visiting the Stanford campus I noticed that the possession and the use of computers and laptops amongst students is an indication of the affluence level at Stanford. I attended four contact sessions as a visiting guest at different Stanford schools. During these sessions it became clear that the use of laptops and supplementary technology was normal procedure for Stanford undergraduates and postgraduates. The topic of the first lectures that I attended was Ending civil wars: The implementation of peace agreements. The auditorium was furnished with inter-active audio-equipment which enabled the students to easily follow the lecture and even put questions and join in the discussion. More or less 200 students attended this lecture. The second lecture that I attended was given by a Professor from the Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning (SCIL). The focus of the lecture was on the influence of innovations in communications technology on the learning process, thinking, and educational systems. The topic of the lecture was Online learning communities while the pedagogy was about How to build a wiki. The presentation outline covered aspects such as administration and questions about the students’ online communities, overview of the prescribed readings, Web 2.0 collaboration-design challenge which lead to a discussion, application of Web 2.0 techniques to support learning activities, design solution, presentation and discussion, community participation and wrap-up. A full-time teaching assistant for the session was available while the lecture took place in the state-of-the-art Wallenberg Hall. The third session that I attended was conducted by a Professor of Political Science. The topic of his lecture was the Origin of the genocide in Rwanda. Contrary to the previous two sessions the Professor did not use high-end technology but used board and chalk to explain to his undergraduate class what this conflict in Africa was about. He focused on power equality, the negative impact of colonialism and explained that conflict was almost always about control of the government. He expanded the discussion to European issues such as the autonomous provinces of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, conditions before World War I, the basic background of World War II, up to the situation in Germany during the 1990s. Although this was a lecture conducted without state-of-the-art technology, most of the eleven students that attended had their own laptops with them. The fourth session was conducted by a Professor of Education and (by courtesy) of Anthropology. The topic of the lecture that he conducted was Housing patterns in West Oakland, a suburb near Stanford. Students were divided into six groups and the assignment was to identify aspects that influenced housing patterns in a specific suburb. Students had the opportunity to map out the suburb, taking the following aspects into consideration: Negative environmental sites, property values, multi-family housing, police stations, public hospitals, free clinics, public transport, automatic teller machines (ATMs), minimum household income, commercial areas, shopping districts, bookstores, educational resources like community services, child care centres, libraries, high school districts and specialised schools. The emphasis of the lecture was on the purpose of education and each group had three minutes to collaborate and to present their feedback. After attending these different lectures and contact sessions I realised that the use of educational technology played a significant role in teaching at Stanford. Applications of specialised techniques to support teaching and learning was standard procedure. State-of-the-art technical equipment was available to all lecturers. The Stanford team leader confirmed my finding by saying that “most of the Stanford personnel and students are so tied to their computers and laptops” (Stanford team leader, personal communication, April 24, 2006).
Computers and Internet access can be regarded as an indication of the international Digital Divide.
The Stanford team leader mentioned that it was standard procedure that Stanford students had twenty-four hours per day Internet access. The residences on campus were all equipped for this service. Large numbers of Stanford students were spending many hours in Cubberley Educational Library diligently applying themselves to their laptops and making use of the available research collections.
Contrary to these facilities at Stanford, there was no Internet access in the residences on the TUT campus. Students could book a one hour Internet session at the learning centre on campus. None of the ELISA participants, however, lived on campus since they were all working students. Internet access in the library was reserved for library staff. The ELISA participants had to do most of their research for the assignments on the Internet. During the focus-group contact session one of the students said that “most of the research is done on the Internet. You don’t even go to the libraries anymore to look for the books” (Focus-group interview, 2006).
Chapter 1: Meeting
1 Introduction
2 Background
3 Theory and methodology
4 Method
5 Interpretation
6 Cultural limitations
7 Rationale
8 Research problem
8.1 Research question
8.2 Central question
8.3 Critical questions
9 Literature study
9.1 Educational technology
9.2 Higher Education Institutions
9.3 International learning programme
9.4 Globalisation
9.5 Digital Divide
9.6 Cultural differences
10 Research perspective
10.1 Theory building
11 Methodology
11.1 Research approach
11.2 Project description
12 Data
12.1 Data collection
12.2 Data collection instruments
12.3 Data analysis
12.4 Validity and reliability
Chapter 2: Literature study
1 Introduction
2 What happens when an international learning module, compiled by an American University is adapted for a South African HEI, and implemented in a computer-mediated context?
2.1 The International Digital Divide
2.2. How to bridge the Digital Divide
3 Higher Education Institutions
4 The role of technology
5 What dialogue emerges and why does it emerge?
6 How is shared meaning created and why is it created?
7 How do we deal with cultural differences?
8 Critical analysis
8.1 Direction of funds
8.2 Interpersonal differences
8.3 Curriculum innovation and contextualization
9 Which aspects of the process worked well and why and how can they be improved to compensate for those that did not work well?
9.1 National ownership
9.2 Combination of course material
9.3 Critical thinking skills and dispositions
9.4 Internet use
9.5 Feedback and motivation
10 Which aspects did not work well and why and how can they be improved?
10.1 Initial agreement with the University of Limpopo
10.2 Unequal power relations
10.3 Dismantling of prejudice
Chapter 3: Research methodology and design
1 Introduction
2 Case study
3 The intervention
3.1 Analysis
3.2 Design
3.3 Development
3.4 Implementation
3.5 Evaluation
4 The research
4.1 Sampling
4.2 Data collection
5 Data processing
6 Data interpretation
7 Validity and reliability
8 Ethics
8.1 Voluntary participation
8.2 Informed consent
8.3 Safety in participation
Chapter 4: Findings and results
1 Introduction
2 What happens when an international learning module, compiled by an American University is adapted for a South African HEI, and implemented in a computer-mediated context?
2.1 The International Digital Divide
2.2 Initiatives to bridge the Digital Divide
3 Higher Education Institutions
4 The role of technology
4.1 Cognitive divide
5 What dialogue emerges and why does it emerge?
6 How is shared meaning created and why is it created?
6.1 Goals, adversaries and incentives
6.2 Motivation
6.3 Cooperation and cooperative learning
6.4 Competition
6.5 Recognition
6.6 Interdependence
7 How do we deal with cultural differences?
8 Which aspects of the programme worked well and why and how can they be improved to compensate for those that did not work well?
8.1 Blended learning method
8.2 Content and workload
8.3 Critical thinking skills and dispositions
8.4 Internet use
8.5 Feedback and motivation
8.6 Components of CAI
9 Which aspects did not work well and why and how can they be improved?
9.1 Combination of course material
9.2 Workload
9.3 WebCT6
9.4 Schedule
9.5 Internet use
9.6 Components of CAI
10 Reasons for the discontinuation of the project
Chapter 5: Conclusions
1 Introduction
2 Summary
3 Discussion
3.1 Methodological reflection
3.2 Substantive reflection
3.3 Scientific reflection
4 Recommendations
References
