TOPIC 2:

Operational Structures

Overview

Source materials for this topic

The uses of open and distance learning

Basic education

Teacher training

University level

Non-formal education

Technical and vocational training

Structures of open and distance learning

Single mode institution

A department within an existing teaching institution

Co-operative arrangements

Hybrids

Factors for choosing a structure

The scale of the educational need

Educational purpose

Resources available

Degree of autonomy and control

Is there a ‘best buy’?

Practice exercise

Classifying open and distance learning providers

1. Overview

These materials assume that you have introduced your participants to the concept of open and distance learning and discussed the political context in which open and distance learning programmes become established. On this basis, the intention of this section is to support a more detailed discussion on the topic of the various operational structures used in open and distance learning. The discussion of operational structures is in four parts:

uses for open and distance learning;

administrative structures for open and distance learning;

factors to consider in choosing one of these structures; and

whether there is a ‘best buy’ among these structures.

The intention here is to prompt discussion among your participants of the kinds of open and distance learning structures they are using or considering, and why they have chosen those operational structures.

1.1 Source materials for this topic

Perraton, H. Administrative structures for distance education. London: The Commonwealth Secretariat and The Commonwealth of Learning, 1991.

Mugridge, I. (ed.) Distance education in single and dual mode universities. Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning, 1992.

2. The uses of open and distance learning

Open and distance learning is provided at five main educational levels.

2.1 Basic education

Open and distance learning used for providing basic education in the form of ;

second-chance programmes for adults; and

programmes for school-age children.

     Examples: The Open School was set up in India in 1979 to accelerate the provision of basic education for all and to serve as a model of cost-effective alternatives to secondary education. The Open Access College in Australia provides courses for both children and adults. (See the case study in this kit.)

2.2 Teacher training

Teacher training is one of the most widespread purposes for which open and distance learning has been adopted, due to:

the huge demand for education and a consequent shortage in the

supply of teachers;

the ability to retain teachers in their schools, save on resources,

and bring immediate benefits to classrooms

the fact that teachers are assumed to already possess study skills

and therefore are likely to succeed as distance learners;

the ability of school boards to provide teachers with motivation to

study (for example, promotions and wage increases); and

the ability to overcome the problems teachers face in remote schools.

2.3 Teacher training at a distance has taken three forms:

upgrading of existing primary school teachers;

initial training of primary teachers; and

upgrading of secondary school teachers.

    Examples: The Emergency Science Programme in Guyana, the Northern Integrated Teacher Education Programme in Uganda (nitep) and the Strengthening Primary Education in Kenya (spred II).

     A number of institutions offer teacher training at a distance. Three institutions University of Guyana, University of Nairobi, and the University of Botswana describe their teacher training programmes in the case studies in this kit.

2.4 University level

At the university level, open and distance learning may be offered through:

     Single mode institutions; Example: Indira Gandhi National Open University and the Open University of Sri Lanka as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

     Bimodal institutions; Example: Open Learning Institute of Charles Sturt University, the University of Botswana, the University of Guyana, the University of Nairobi, Massey University, the University of Zambia as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

     Mixed mode institutions; Example: Deakin University and Murdoch University as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

     Consortia and other co-operative arrangements; Example: The Commonwealth of Learning.

2.5 Non-formal education

In non-formal education, open and distance learning is offered in the following areas:

      rural and social development; Example: inades, l’Institut africain pour le développement economique et social-formation in Côte d’Ivoire.

     literacy;Example: the radio schools of Latin America.

      health. Example: amref, The African Medical Research and   Educational Foundation.

2.6 Technical and vocational training

For technical and vocational training, open and distance learning includes

workplace-based learning; and

employer-sponsored schemes.

Discussion: Contribute other examples of open and distance learning applications from your own and your participants’ experience, and from the institutions described in the case studies included in this kit.

3. Structures of open and distance learning

An open and distance learning programme can be set up in a number of ways. At the risk of over-simplification, these alternatives can be described in terms of the following organisational arrangements.

3.1 Single mode institutions

A single mode institution operates with a free-standing structure, assuming that the institution will itself undertake most of the following functions:

designing education programmes, including acquiring and

developing teaching material;

tutoring and counselling;

marketing programmes and recruiting learners; and

awarding credit (in formal education programmes);

producing, storing, and distributing learning materials;

keeping records of learners, inventory, and finance;

providing administration and finance;

evaluating programmes and processes.

The free-standing operational structures of single mode institutions:

are usually autonomous; and

have open and distance learning as their dominant or sole function.

They can be categorised into two types - A/B:

A. Single purpose or single mode institutions

Some open and distance learning colleges have been set up to

teach a single subject, especially for teacher training.

     Example: William Pitcher College in Swaziland was established to provide open and distance learning courses for the in-service training of teachers.

B. Multi-purpose, single mode institutions

     Open universities; Example: Indira Gandhi National Open University in India, the Open University of Sri Lanka, and the Open University in Britain.

     Open colleges, which offer courses at a number of levels; and Example: the Open Access College as discussed in the case studies in this kit, the Tanzanian National Correspondence Institute, and the National Extension College in Britain.

     Open schools. Example: the National Open School of India and the Open Access College as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

Arguments for a purpose-built system that teaches only at a distance include the following:

      the administrative structures of conventional educational systems are not the most suitable ones for developing and managing open and distance learning systems;

      conventional institutions may regard open and distance learning as a poor relation and consequently be reluctant to allocate it adequate resources;

      the requirements of distance learners are likely to be better served if the institution is wholly dedicated to their needs;

      the characteristics of the target audience are significantly different from those of campus-based learners (for example, adults have distinctive approaches to learning compared with young people at the tertiary stage of learning);

·     the pedagogy of open and distance learning is different than that of conventional systems; and

·     significant innovation is more likely to occur outside the framework of traditional educational institutions.

Example: These distinctions were true of the early days of the open universities of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Discussion: Feel free to disagree with these arguments, or to add to them.

3.2 A department within an existing teaching institution

Many universities or colleges decide to set up a distance learning department that works alongside other departments, specialising in open and distance learning but within an otherwise conventional institution.

Arguments for such bimodal or dual mode institutions include the following:

     the structured learning materials prepared by course teams provide consistent quality of instruction to both off-campus and on-campus learners;

     self-instructional materials encourage learning through activities and independent learning;

     learners are liberated from the constraints of the traditional lecture and tutorial system, and can move from one mode to another according to their needs;

     learners benefit from the esteem that comes from a conventional university and demonstrated parity of standards; and

     staff are freed to teach in more interactive ways.

Bimodal structures can take two forms - A/B

A. Subject-oriented departments

Subject-oriented departments teach externally in their own discipline.

Example: At the University of the South Pacific the Department of Education launched the first open and distance learning programmes for teacher education before the university began to teach at a distance in other subjects.

B. Distance education departments

Distance education departments take the main responsibility for planning and running open and distance learning within a bimodal institution.

Examples: The Distance Education Unit of the University of Botswana, and a number of ‘institutes’, such as the Institute of Distance and Continuing Education of the University of Guyana, the Institute of Distance and Continuing Education at the University of Papua New Guinea, and the Open Learning Institute of Charles Sturt University, as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

Variants within this structure include:

   distance education departments that are purely administrative with no teaching functions;

     Example: The University of Zambia can require staff to teach both face to face and at a distance but the specialist department only co-ordinates and distributes materials.

    specialist open and distance learning departments that have a pedagogical function; and

    Example: Murdoch University had at one time a specialist department that did not employ its own subject specialists but had staff with educational skills in open and distance learning who played a role in the development and use of materials that went beyond the purely administrative; and

      external teaching departments with their own subject-specialist staff concerned solely with external learners.

     Example: The University of Wisconsin Extension has a staff of well over 1000 and a full range of academic departments but exists in parallel with the University of Wisconsin.

3.3 Co-operative arrangements

In a co-operative arrangement for open and distance learning, institutions work together to teach and support learners and distribute the various functions between them. A distinction can be drawn between two types of co-operative arrangements.

3.3.1 National co-operative structures

    The functions of preparing materials, giving tutorial support to learners, and awarding credit may be carried out by different partners.

    Examples:

    The Chinese Television University produces materials that are used by a federation of universities who provide tutorial support to back the centrally produced courses.

    The National Extension College in the United Kingdom produces ‘flexi-study’ packs of learning materials, which colleges can purchase for their own use, with advice from the nec on running open and distance learning programmes.

    The University of Lincolnshire and Humberside have franchised their courses to other universities.

    The Open Learning Foundation is a consortium of tertiary level institutions in the United Kingdom which produces course material packs that are available at a discount to member institutions and at full price to non-member institutions.

     Co-operative arrangements need not be permanent or all-purpose.

     Example: In Australia three universities co-operated on the development and running of a degree-level course in women’s studies, in a situation in which it would have been difficult for any one of them to offer the course on its own, and in which the universities were not working together on their whole range of programmes.

3.3.2. International co-operative structures

   Co-operation is also possible across national frontiers.

     Example: Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed in 1987 to set up The Commonwealth of Learning in order to promote co-operation in open and distance learning within the Commonwealth and to facilitate the sharing of resources among Commonwealth colleges and universities.

·     Several other institutions have been established to promote international co-operation in open and distance learning.

     Examples:

    ciffad, the Consortium international francophone de formation a distance, set up with support from Canada and France with broadly comparable objectives to those of The Commonwealth of Learning;

    cread, the Consorcio-red educacion a distancia, which links open and distance learning organisations throughout the Western Hemisphere;

     Eadtu, the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities, working on the sharing and joint development of teaching material.

To date, these organisations are not enrolling learners directly but are providing services to support the work of national institutions.

3.4 Hybrids

The operational structures outlined above are somewhat arbitrary, and there are both possible and actual hybrids among them. For example, in several cases an institution has broader functions than this account of structures might suggest.

Examples:

The Indira Gandhi National Open University serves both as an autonomous institution and a co-operative body in that it has co-ordinating and funding responsibilities for the other Indian open universities.

The Lesotho Distance Teaching Centre and Tanzania National Correspondence Institute are multi-purpose institutions but in their teacher education programmes work within a co-operative framework that might be labelled a ‘national co-operative’ structure.

In addition, an open and distance learning programme may be mounted by an organisation that is quasi-autonomous and free-standing in some ways but not in others because it is one component of a multi-campus, state-wide, or nation-wide institution.

Examples: The Open University of the Philippines is one of six universities that comprise the University of the Philippines as discussed in the case studies in this kit.

The Tele-université of Québec is one institution among several that comprise the Université de Québec. Empire State College in New York is part of the suny –(State University of New York) system. Yet another variant is the open and distance learning programme that is not yet institutionalised but is rather organised as a project, usually under the auspices of a government ministry, which may or may not eventually become an established component of the overall provision of education overseen by that ministry.

Examples:

Several upgrading schemes for primary teachers are operating under the auspices of ministries of education, as projects funded by donor agencies, and not yet formally institutionalised. Examples include nitep (Northern Integrated Teacher Education Project) in Uganda and the spred projects (Strengthening of Primary Education) in Kenya both offer upgrading schemes for primary teachers.

Athabasca University in Canada operated as a project of the government of the province of Alberta for a number of years before being chartered as the province’s fourth university.

Discussion: Are there arrangements in your own and your participants’ experience that do not easily fit in any of these categories?

4. Factors for choosing a structure

Of these various organisational structures, no one way is ‘best’. Rather, the choice of organisational structure depends on a number of factors, including educational goals and political and economic circumstances. Four factors that influence the choice of structure are discussed here.

4.1 The scale of the educational need

If the intent is to recruit learners in large numbers, it may be unrealistic to consider anything other than an open university with a full range of functions.

Example: Several open universities are labelled ‘mega-universities’ because they enrol one hundred thousand learners or more. Examples include the Indira Gandhi National Open University as discussed in the case studies in this kit, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University in Thailand, Universitas Terbuka in Indonesia, and the Open University of the United Kingdom.

On the other hand it would not make sense to set up such an institution if the intention was to recruit only a thousand learners.

Example: In Malaysia, doubts about the viability of degree-level open and distance learning led to the choice of a bimodal approach with the off-campus programme of Universiti Sains Malaysia recruiting learners in hundreds rather than thousands.

4.2 Educational purpose

If the purpose is narrowly defined ; for example, the upgrading of primary school teachers; the choice is likely to be limited to a single purpose, distance learning institution, a department within an existing institution, or a co-operative scheme.

The level at which the scheme is to work will also be important. For example, it may be difficult to set up a unit within another institution if the parent institution has no experience in teaching at the level concerned. There are significant exceptions;

Example: The Matriculation Programme for Women is a successful offering of Allama Iqbal Open University in Pakistan, and the University of Nairobi successful housed a unit working at secondary level for many years.

4.3 Resources available

The level and nature of the human, physical, and financial resources likely to be available also affect the choice of structure.

Example: Small countries with a limited educational infrastructure that already have difficulty in staffing a single conventional university are likely to have difficulty finding the staff for a separate open university.

When populations are low it is difficult to achieve the economies of scale that make open and distance learning attractive. Small states are likely to be constrained in the way they use open and distance learning. At the same time, the isolation of small island countries suggests a role for open and distance learning in providing educational resources that would not otherwise be available.

Examples:

Countries in the Caribbean and the South Pacific have been able to resolve the dilemma of low learner populations by calling on the resources of the two regional universities, both of which have launched programmes of open and distance learning

The University of Namibia is extending the reach of its programmes in this large but sparsely populated country by giving the Centre for External Studies the mandate to offer its highest demand courses at a distance.

The price of this association may be that a unit teaching at a distance in one of these countries lacks the autonomy that may be enjoyed by institutions in larger countries.

4.4 Degree of autonomy and control

If we classify the structures according to the degree of autonomy they allow the open and distance learning programme, then open universities lie at one end of the scale and some of the co-operative schemes at the other.

Political realities are important to consider. There may be a political commitment to establishing a single mode or free-standing institution that could not be met by any other alternative. Or such an establishment may be strongly opposed by other educational or political interests and thereby rendered impossible.

Ease of access to services from other institutions may determine how far it is desirable or realistic to seek a degree of autonomy or co-operation.

Examples:

The case study for the Open Learning Institute of Charles Sturt University describes the challenges of the politics involved in collaborative arrangements with other institutions.

The Open Learning Institute of British Columbia (now the Open Learning Agency) decided from the outset to seek its subject-matter expertise primarily from the many tertiary level institutions that were already operating in the lower mainland of the province, rather than to hire permanent academic staff. This reliance on academics in other institutions could be seen as a form of dependence. On the other hand, it could also be seen as a form of collaboration with other institutions that helped establish the oli’s legitimacy as a provider of university-level programmes.

An organisation may wish to control some aspects or functions of the open and distance learning task and not others. Example: If the same organisation plans to develop teaching material and provide tutorial support for it, then it is likely to choose one of the bimodal structures.

If on the other hand it plans to concentrate on the production of material and leave tutoring to a more local organisation, a co-operative structure will have its advantages. Example: The Open Learning Institute in Hong Kong has developed co-operative arrangements with other institutions of tertiary education in Hong Kong to provide tutorial support for its learners, and works with universities outside Hong Kong from which it is buying teaching materials. It also develops some teaching materials in-house.

Who has control over and responsibility for teaching is a major issue in bimodal organisations. When open and distance learning units are only administrative, control over what is taught at a distance, who teaches it, and to a large extent how it is taught remains in the hands of the academic units.

It is more often argued, however, that the development and production of good learning materials and the provision of tutorial services requires specialist skills that are somewhat different from those needed for conventional teaching. This leads to the variant in which open and distance learning units have staff with these skills to work with the academics, led by managers who have among their tasks negotiating with academic units and persuading them to offer some of their courses at a distance.

Discussion: The case study for the Women’s Studies programme at Massey University in New Zealand offers a comparative account of the differences between offering this programme at Massey, a bimodal institution, and at Athabasca University in Canada, a single mode institution.

4.5 Is there a best buy?

Given the complexities of political context, needs, and resources, there is no consensus on a best buy among the structures as discussed. Some conclusions can be drawn, however, as follows.

Open universities have a record of success that compels attention.

Bimodal institutions appear to be most successful when

they have established a well-supported open and distance learning unit; and

they have their own educational staff who bring pedagogical expertise to developing open and distance learning. Single purpose or single subject departments and institutions appear to have evolved into broader institutions or to have closed down, suggesting they are most appropriate for doing a specific job over a limited period of time.

While many educators have expressed scepticism about co-operative structures, their potential for harnessing resources makes them of long-term significance nationally and internationally.

5. Practice exercise

5.1 Classifying open and distance learning providers

Instructions: Provide each participant with a copy of the following classification chart for the structures of open and distance learning organisations. Ask each participant to identify as far as they can how their own organisation should be classified (allow about 20 minutes). Then have participants pair up and discuss their classifications with their partners (allow 20 minutes). In the subsequent whole-group discussion, draw out the difficulties they encountered while classifying their programmes, and discuss why these difficulties exist.

Time required: Approximately one hour.

Materials required: Enough copies of the classification chart to provide one copy per participant.