Chapter Two 

Evaluating Open Learning 

 Introduction 

Open learning, as defined in chapter one, is a set of principles directing the development and delivery of learning programmes and the education systems and institutions that support them, rather than the description of a method by which education is conducted. The principles together express a mission of particular importance for a South African education system that needs transformation. There is a danger, in developing criteria for evaluating open learning, that the mission will be lost in technical detail. However, there is an equal danger than the principles will be used loosely for appearance sake, and not be backed up by the necessary rigour of daily application. 

In chapter one, we have set out various principles of open learning. The thrust of this chapter is to find a way to develop and use these principles to evaluate the openness of learning programmes and courses. This is not simply intended as an academic exercise. First, we hope it will be useful to various educational providers committed to principles of open learning. Second, it forms the basis for our own assessments in this report of the relative openness of different educational systems in South African general and further education and training. 

One response to using the principles outlined in chapter one to evaluate the openness of learning would simply be to take the principles as they are and make them more precise (turned into assessment criteria or performance indicators) and then apply them to curricula or systems. However, this would be problematic, because:

•    The principles should be revisited in the light of developing understanding of what makes for successful learning;

•    The listing of the principles implies that they are on an equal level, and masks the nature of relationships between them; and

•    Taken separately, the principles often contradict each other.

The lack of an integrated approach to using these principles has resulted in a number of problems. By applying the principles selectively, mainly at the level of system rather than curriculum, it has been possible for providers to claim openness (and, by implication, quality) when little or no attention has been directed to improving the quality of learning. There is a temptation to accept large numbers of students simply because of the income their fees will generate, and justify this in terms of ‘openness’. Conversely, it has been possible for providers to justify a number of unnecessary barriers to access on the grounds of other of the principles, such as ‘ensuring success’. For example, a number of former Model C schools are currently refusing access to children clearly in their feeder area on the grounds that they will be unhappy because they will not be able to succeed in meeting academic demands of the school.

 A starting point 

Which of the principles should one start with in developing this approach? What is the main point about open learning? It is contained in the following sentence:

Open learning, then, can be described as an approach to education which seeks to increase access to educational opportunities by removing all unnecessary barriers to learning. 

Open learning is an approach to education that has a clear social purpose: increasing access to learning. Increasing access means, first, increasing the numbers and kinds of learners who are in a given programme or system. Of course, it is possible to accept different learners into an educational programme, and maintain its pedagogical structure, but the goal of learning is unlikely to be reached. It may be analogous to putting new wine into old wineskins – the new wine will burst the wineskins. If the goal is well-matured wine, the wineskins must suit the wine in order to achieve this. In the same way, increasing the numbers and kinds of learners in an educational programme will demand changes to enable learners to achieve the learning that is required. The main point about open learning is increasing access to wider groups of learners, and changing the programmes in ways that will make it possible for successful learning to occur.

In the above discussion, increasing access to wider groups of learners becomes the key social purpose, and other principles flow from this. It will be very difficult to increase the diversity of learner groups in different educational programmes without recognizing prior learning and experience, or by offering a programme too expensive for learners to afford, or if learners are required to study full-time in a centre far from where they live. There will be no point in increasing access without thorough understanding of the needs of the learners or provision of educational support that will enable a significant proportion to be successful. There will be no point in increasing access if programmes do not offer something worth learning, or lead nowhere. In a sense, commitment to increasing access is tested by how it is increased and the extent to which other requirements are met simultaneously. Everything hangs on the phrase ‘removing all unnecessary barriers to learning’. An evaluation of openness hinges on a judgement about whether or not limitations on access are necessary in the light of other considerations. 

Before developing generic strategies for evaluating openness any further, we will explore these starting points through evaluation of the openness of a particular programme, using this case study to establish what additional aspects emerge from it.

 Evaluating a sample programme 

A recent case study of a large scale distance education Further Diploma in Education (Educational Management) provides the following baseline information on one aspect of access – that of entry qualification and experience:

•      The minimum admission requirements are a professional teaching qualification at M+3 level; and

•      The length of time students can spend on the five-module programme is unlimited, although the minimum period is 18 months.

However, in interviews with the programme staff, some nuance was provided on this baseline data:

Although the submission to SAQA for interim registration of the qualification states that teachers must be in a position of post level 2 or above in their schools, in practice the programme often enrols teachers who wish to enter management posts in their schools rather than only those who are already managers.[1] 

This programme has a ‘necessary’ barrier – it admits students who have the minimum professional teaching qualification at M+3 level or above. If this barrier were not there, it would not be possible to assume the necessary knowledge of teaching and schools, and the qualification could not honestly claim in five modules over a minimum period of 18 months (not full-time) to be able to support students to achieve the necessary background. 

The first question to ask is: What would be the consequences of opening access more widely and accepting students who did not have the minimum professional teaching qualification? The first answer is that it would not be possible in the space of time and the nature of the focus of the qualification to support students without the required background. They would have access without a chance of success, would waste their money. Also, the institution would be claiming government subsidy, but would not be offering qualifications to improve the quality of teachers. The second answer might be that there are two categories of students without the minimum professional teaching qualification; those who have never taught and un- or under-qualified teachers. Unqualfied or under-qualified teachers need the opportunity for recognition of prior learning and experience, and could also be given additional support to complete what is missing from their prior learning and experience. If one denies such teachers access, one is closing down an opportunity for lifelong learning. 

The second question to ask is: If the barrier is necessary, is it sufficient? Should a programme be training teachers to be managers if they are not in a position to be managers, i.e. if they are not currently teaching in schools, or at a sufficiently high level (in this case, post level 2) to be managers? Is this not still a case of accepting fee and subsidy on false pretences? 

However, the overriding question is the extent to which an insufficient barrier to access undermines the learning that it possible on the programme. If one takes one aspect of quality learning (as defined in the Norms and Standards for Educators), integration of theory and practice, the following questions present themselves:

•      If the students are not in schools, how will they apply theory to practice?

•      If the students are not in line for management promotion, will the dynamics within the schools allow them to put enough of the theory into practice to make it meaningful?

The answer to the first question could be that students are supported by the institution to find placements in school, so that they can apply theory to practice. This gives currently unemployed but qualified teachers an opportunity to re-enter the teaching profession with better skills. The answer to the second question could be that the provider works with the district teaching and learning services to identify potential managers among ordinary teachers and to support them in dealing with the dynamics in the school. 

In both these answers, what has happened is that the challenge of opening access has been met, first for principled reasons (for example, to give qualified unemployed teachers a way back into schools), and, second, not at the expense of the quality of learning provided (in this case the opportunity to integrate theory and practice). 

Were one to look at another aspect of access: access to learners in terms of geographical location – the arguments would run in a similar way. The additional baseline information from this programme is:

•      There are approximately 3,500 teachers graduating from this programme annually, and they come from all provinces, but particularly Northern Province and Eastern Cape.

Interview information from the programme staff add nuance to this statement:

I would venture to say that the bulk of our students come from the former self-governing territories. The reasons for this may be varied – they may not have had the opportunities before. Given this information the programme could come out very favourably in terms of openness of access as follows:

It doesn’t matter where you live, we’ll reach you (we have designed a flexible programme that allows learning to take place free from the constraints of space and time). In fact, we want to reach you, because we know that the homeland system relegated you to inferiority and poverty, and you are a group in need of redress. In other words, the opening of access is on principled grounds.The large numbers of students also testify to the reality of access. 

However, what does not emerge from this picture is how the expense of open geo-political access is borne. Let us take another pre-requisite for quality learning as defined by the Norms and Standards for Educators - ongoing developmental assessment in authentic contexts for the development of applied competence (which should include practical, foundational and reflexive competence). The programme as it currently stands has a single assignment per course and extremely limited opportunity for feedback on progress. It does not assess competence in practical (authentic) contexts, but only through case studies in written examinations. The written examinations concentrate on foundational competence, and do not directly assess practical or reflexive competence. Quality appears to have been sacrificed for the sake of access. However, the question to be asked is whether everything possible has been done to maintain the quality of learning while allowing for access. 

The case study suggested the following:

•    More tutor marked assignments for each course with individualised feedback,

•    Project type assignments which require actual work in the schools,

•    Action research type assignments which develop reflexive competence,

•    Some form of observational assessment of performance[2].

The argument from the programme was that, particularly with regard to the final suggestion, costs (as well as complexity of organization and management) prohibited implementation of these ideas. It was implied that, for the sake of opening access cost-efficiently, the quality of learning needed to suffer in some respects. The case study did not extend, however, to an analysis of how money was spent in running the programme, so it is not known whether or not it would actually have been too expensive to introduce the suggested changes. Perhaps student fees might have had to be increased (thus reducing access), but perhaps the providers were making quite a large profit, in which case not introducing changes could not be justified. In addition, there are many different ways to introduce changes, some more expensive than others. Cost-effectiveness is not simply about keeping costs down. It is about balancing costs and quality.

 Towards an approach to evaluating the openness of programmes 

The previous section has attempted to illustrate some of the complexities of applying open learning principles to the evaluation of educational programmes. This section attempts to draw out from that a way to adapt and use open learning principles to evaluate openness. We begin with some general observations. 

1.   It can be seen that choosing a single aspect of a programme (in the above case, target learners) and discussing it in terms of one of the principles (removal of unnecessary barriers to access), involves direct or indirect discussion of the other principles: success, learner support, recognition of prior learning, lifelong learning, flexibility, quality, cost effectiveness. 

2.   It can also be seen that choosing a particular element of a programme – target learners, and discussing it in terms of principles of open learning, led to a discussion of many of the other elements of the programme itself, most notably, assessment and teaching and learning strategies. 

3.   In addition, openness, as it emerges through these principles, can never be absolute. For example, some barriers to access are necessary. The boundaries of openness shift as one considers the demands of the other principles (some barriers to access must exist or learners will not have a chance of success). Likewise, principles are invoked in order to fulfil the demands of other of the principles. For example, if access is open to learners who cannot quite manage, they will need learner support if they are going to succeed. if access is open to learners wherever they live, then the programme needs to be provided in flexible ways. 

4.   It is difficult to discuss cost-effectiveness without a framework for imaginative and flexible financial planning and costing of options. If there is no reasoned scenario planning for the costing of programmes, cost-effectiveness can be used merely as an excuse not to meet the demands of quality, although this becomes significantly more difficult if the differences between cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness outlined in chapter one are applied consistently. 

5.   The final point is that in any discussions about the extent to which openness has been achieved, the chief consideration should be how learning is affected. In the educator development programme example above, the concern to maintain quality learning is the main means whereby openness is bounded, and the contradictions between various principles controlled. For example, if there is no minimum entry requirement, the learning on the programme could become too diffuse to be meaningful. Likewise, if open access results in large numbers of isolated learners spread throughout the country, special measures need to be taken to support and assess these learners so that the quality of learning is not negatively affected. 

• How is quality learning to be determined? The examples of quality guidelines (such as integration of theory and practice and ongoing developmental assessment) as applied to the educator development programme above imply that open learning principles give a necessary dimension to the evaluation of the quality of learning, but are not themselves a definition of quality. It is not within the brief of this document to give a full set of guidelines by which to judge the quality of learning in programmes. However, it can be asserted that quality of learning needs to be the key consideration in terms of which other open learning principles are balanced.

 What are the implications? 

From these points, an approach to using open learning principles to evaluate the openness of learning programmes can be outlined. 

The starting question is one of access: Has the programme made an effort to increase access? This is investigated by looking at target learners and entry level skills, knowledge, and experience. Thereafter, the other principles are used to explore necessary limitations to access. The major consideration in balancing the contradictory demands of the various principles should be quality of learning.

 Towards criteria for evaluating the openness of programmes 

The above approach provides an evaluation process, but does not make explicit the criteria that the evaluator will use in discussion. What this section does is attempt to make more explicit what is meant by the various principles, so that they can be used as evaluation criteria (in tension with each other, as explained above). Criteria are formulated by looking at evidence required, and means whereby one can judge that evidence. The central criteria have been posed in the form of questions under each of the principles.

Removal of all Unnecessary Barriers to Access

Such barriers would include geographical isolation, discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or physical disability, inability to take time off work for a course, lack of ‘appropriate’ qualifications, and use of pedagogical approaches that restrict accessibility to learning and expertise.

Analysis of Principle

Removal of all unnecessary barriers to access is the key principle in open learning, and contains within it notions of equity and redress. However, as pointed out above, increased access is not simply a matter of increasing the number and diversity of learner. Access should offer real educational opportunities rather than token acceptance into an untransformed system in which learners are judged in terms of how they match up to ‘standards’ set by the traditional arbiters of culture and privilege or, conversely, which offers learning of such inferior quality that the promised access is hollow. There are two parts to this principle – learners and learning. Openness is understood in terms of who is accepted into the programme, as well as the nature of the teaching and learning. Barriers to access could be unnecessarily rigid entry requirements, or they could be opaque ways of communicating or assessing an outdated and irrelevant curriculum. It is not only learners that might need to change; it is also what is learned and how it is learned. Although clearly pertinent to this principle, the issue of learning will be discussed under the next principle – ‘Learner-centredness’ – below.

Contained within the ‘learner’ section of the principle are two points that have a bearing on other principles:  These will be elaborated under ‘Flexibility’, and ‘Recognition of Prior Learning’ below.

•      Inability to take time off work for a course; and

•      Lack of ‘appropriate’ qualifications.

Evidence

The following evidence might suggest successful implementation of this principle: 

•       Learner records containing the following information

•          Demographic factors - for example, age, gender, geographic location, and occupation;

•          Language profiles - including language ability in main language of teaching and learning, language background, and multilingual language ability;

•          Motivation for learning - for example, for career purposes or personal interest;

•          Educational background/learning experience - for example, prior learning and experience, prior qualifications, experience of distance learning, learning skills and styles, and language background;

•          Special needs - for example, physical handicaps or learning difficulties;

•          Resource factors - for example, place of learning, times available for learning, access to electricity, access to media and technologies, and financial resources for purchase of additional materials;

•          Experience and knowledge of technology

•          Success rates of past and present learners [3].

•        Marketing information and processes.

• Openness of access could be judged on the basis of combinations of the above indicators of the diversity in South African society. For example, a programme could accept learners from a wide geographical area, widely differing in age, balanced in terms of gender, with a range of language backgrounds, but with a certain level of literacy in the language of teaching and learning. Records on past and present learners could also give an indication of numbers – indicating how widely, in numerical terms, the programme is opening access. 

• These kinds of statements imply that the larger the learner group and the more diverse it is, the more ‘open’ it should be considered. This clearly cannot be the case. For example, some programmes should only have a few learners – because there will not be enough jobs for too many graduates of particular programmes. Again, in some programmes it might be necessary to prevent entry of certain groups of people. For example, some programmes dealing with gender issues are open only to women, because it is argued that the presence of customarily dominant men will inhibit women’s development. 

• However, the danger of this kind of position is that it is all too easy to accept limitations on entry as necessary and even natural or obvious, when it is merely an excuse for not dealing creatively with diversity.

• In the end, it is a question of targets, of how the provider is widening the potential pool of learners in ways that are necessary for the development of the society/economy as well as the learners themselves.

• The key questions are therefore:

•           What evidence is there that the programme is widening access to diverse learners?

•           How is widening of access meeting the needs of society, as well as learners (in terms of employability and personal growth)?

• Effective marketing is critical in ensuring that more diverse learners hear about and register for the programme. In addition, an ‘open’ programme that has attracted learners under false pretences is obviously problematic. Additional important questions are therefore:

•           Is information about the programme publicly available in ways that will attract diverse learners?

•           Is the programme information sufficient, accurate, and not misleading in its claim?

 Learner-centredness 

The notion of learner-centredness is the primary prerequisite of openness. The principle of learner-centredness, in essence, acknowledges that the learner should be the focus of the educational process and an active decision-maker in an interactive process. To be successful, education should build on learners’ own experiences, using these as the starting point and basis for any learning process. This, in combination with efforts to encourage independent and critical thinking, empowers learners to be able to interact confidently and effectively with society and to construct their own lifelong career of learning. 

Analysis of Principle

There is an argument that learner centredness needs to be problematized as a concept. The argument runs that the focus of the educational process should not be the learner but learning, which involves both the teacher and the learner (and other stakeholders as well). The learner is a decision-maker, not the decision-maker. The result of making the learner the primary decision-maker is often a limitation on the effectiveness of the learning that is possible. For example, the educator (in consultation with other stakeholders) needs to make decisions about what the syllabus for mathematics will be because the learner does not know what s/he should learn before s/he has learned the mathematics and used it in the situations for which the programme is preparing her or him. The question to be asked is not what will suit/please/engage the learner, but what will result in the most effective learning. This will include consideration of what motivates the learner and what helps him or her engage actively in the learning. 

However, just as there is a danger that quality of learning will suffer if the learner is regarded as the decision-maker in matters which are best left to the experienced educator, there is also a danger that the quality of learning will suffer if the notion of learner-centredness slips and educators avoid the demands of changing learner needs as access widens. A way to resolve this is to understand learners as social groups, rather than only as individuals, and to balance individual learner needs with the needs of society and the demands of profession or discipline. This is indicated in the following statement from the NCHE report:

Programmes should be responsive to the social, political, economic and cultural needs of the country and all its people, while maintaining high standards of academic scholarship and professional training (p. 75). 

Evaluation of learner-centredness in discussions of open learning should focus on whether or not content and pedagogical approaches are being used that restrict access to groups of people that require that learning and expertise. There is a need to develop curricula which embrace, where appropriate, the different cultural and social contexts of students and do not, by virtue of their focus or underlying philosophy, unnecessarily alienate students from different cultural and social contexts.(Open Learning Perspectives on the NCHE, p.55).

Evidence

•         Programme and course design data

          For programmes: Aims and learning outcomes, target group, style of learning and teaching, features of the learning environment and resources, pattern of assessment, and, where appropriate, accreditation arrangements and articulation with other programmes offered by the educational provider, in the workplace or other educational providers[4].

For courses: Aims and learning outcomes, credit rating and/or notional hours of

learning, target group, style of learning and teaching, features of the learning

environment and resources, and pattern of assessment[5].

Criteria

There are two dimensions to the criteria that emerge from this principle. One needs to be around research into the learners, the other around the curricula themselves. The chief ‘balance’ required in criteria emerging from this principle is between learner- and learning-centredness. This balance is contained in the criteria below, drawn from the Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa:

•         Is there systematic research into the learners and their changing needs?

•         Is learner information used to design programmes, courses, materials, and assessment?

•         Are programmes and courses developed with the needs, knowledge, and experience of the target learners in mind, as well as the required learning outcomes?

•         Is the content in the courses sufficient, accurate, up-to-date, relevant to aims and outcomes, free of discrimination, and does it reflect awareness of the multilingual and multicultural reality of South African society?

•         Are active learning and teaching approaches are used to engage learners intellectually and practically, promote learner responsibility, and cater for individual needs?

 

 Lifelong learning 

This concept is central to the notion of open learning. It argues that learning should continue throughout life (rather than being limited to childhood) and should be of direct relevance to the needs and life experience of learners. This, in essence, acknowledges that an understanding of education as an end-on preparation for life is no longer feasible.

Analysis of Principle:

‘Lifelong learning’ is a concept that indicates a changed understanding of the nature and function of education. First, it is recognized that learning is a continuing process rather than a once-off accomplishment. This has an effect on the way in which programmes are delivered. Education can no longer only constitute timebound, formal programmes for the young – it needs to be more flexible to meet the needs of older people with family and work responsibilities. It also has an effect on the kinds of curricula developed. These need to integrate formal, non-formal, and informal learning. Whether focused primarily on vocational, general formative, professional development, or personal development, programmes need to take cognisance of the other dimensions, leading to an emphasis on whole person curricula. 

Second, because of this change, there is an increase in the number and range of people involved in education. Instead of being the preserve of the teacher and his or her pupils, it is increasingly recognized that education is a matter of the whole community. For example, increasingly parents are involved in their children’s education and are encouraged to learn along with their children in family education programmes. In the workplace, competence is understood not simply as ability to do work, but ability to help other workers to do theirs or to learn from other workers. 

Third, the rapidly changing world of work means that the notion of education for employment has had to change to that of education for employability, which might mean changing the kind of work people do several times in your life. There is, therefore, a need to have articulated learning pathways that enable change as well as progression. There is a need to integrate education across sectors and sites of learning. There should also be an emphasis on generic transferable skills (particularly problem solving, information literacy, and development of student independence), and programmes should equip learners with reflective practice and critical self-awareness. Mastery of the content of a specific occupational field or discipline will be less important than development of a broad base of knowledge and skills which learners can use to meet new occupational and/or life challenges.

Evidence

•         Programme purpose and outcomes

•         Articulation and accreditation arrangements

•         Sites of learning

•         Teaching and learning strategies

Criteria[6]

The criteria below need to be balanced with considerations of the educational and social purpose of the programme, as well as the integrity of learning. For example, although it is desirable to have multiple entry and exit points in a programme, this could result in artificially constraining the ways in which the programme can be taught, or require too much in the way of summative assessment. Similarly, there is a place for some programmes to be targeted at a certain age group with very particular needs and characteristics (for example, life skills programmes for young people).

•        Are learners are made aware of credit requirements of the programme and the possibilities for transfer to other programmes in the same or other educational providers?

•        Is there a number of entry and exit points into the programme to allow learners to complete the programme in stages as they have the opportunity?

•        Does the programme facilitate movement between formal, non-formal and informal sites and types of learning?

•        Are the teaching and learning strategies sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of learners at different stages in their life and educational development?

•        Do the teaching, learning and assessment strategies encourage peer assistance and learning from people outside the boundaries of the formal educational organization?

•        Does the programme equip learners with generic transferable skills which they can use in the workplace or in other programmes?

•        Does the programme provide for the ‘incremental development of self-directed learning’[7]?

•        Is the content of the curriculum selected and taught in ways that encourage its use across different occupational fields or disciplines?

 Flexible learning and learner support 

The concept of open learning entails increasing the flexibility of learning provision to cater for the needs of learners, allowing them flexibility in choosing what they want to learn, how they want to learn, and the pace at which they wish to learn. 

Increasing the amount and flexibility of learning opportunity is not effective unless it is accompanied by adequate learner support by educational providers. Learner support is multi-faceted, and includes pre- and in-programme counselling, support given by tutors and facilitators, the encouragement of interaction between learners, support built into course materials, and provision of access to the necessary facilities.

Analysis of Principles

These two principles are taken together because the principle of flexible learning, as expressed, represents a problematically ‘learner-centred’ statement (the learner cannot be the only decision-maker, as implied). As illustrated in the previous sections, flexible learning is necessitated both by the need to increase access and by the change in education from being a front-end preparation for life and work to being a lifelong process. Many people have constraints of time, place, and resources, and programmes need to be designed in ways that make it possible to learn despite those constraints. However, the freedom implied in choice of subject, method, and pace implies that all learners are already accomplished lifelong learners, with the ability to exercise the freedom of choice from an experienced position. The majority of programmes need to be directed towards creating independent learners, rather than assuming they exist. In addition, certain educational purposes could require constraints on subject matter as well as teaching and learning strategies.

Evidence

•        Teaching, learning and assessment strategies, with indications of how each of these supports the learner.

•        Learning materials.

•        Programme outlines for face-to-face sessions.

•        Course guides indicating overall structure of the course, face-to-face sessions, assessment requirements, equipment, and so on.

Criteria

The broad criteria relating to flexible learning have been articulated in the previous section. However, within those criteria, the following questions can be asked:

•        To what extent is the programme materials based?

•        Are the face-to-face learning opportunities that are required necessary and supplementary to the materials, or do they merely repeat the content that is provided in the materials?

•        Is there teaching on assignments through the provision of detailed feedback?

•        Is there evidence that the constraints and opportunities of working learners have been taken into consideration in the design of the course? (through work-based assignments, for example)

•        Are there different pathways through the programme, so that learners with different knowledge/skills and pace of work are not required to move through the programme in same way at the same pace?

•        Has thought been given to alternative ways of completing parts of the programme that require attendance at specific places and specific times?

•        Has thought been given to different styles of learning in the design of course materials as well as in the teaching and learning strategies adopted? 

The major questions to ask about learner support are derived from the Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa:

•        Are learners supported to become independent learners through the use of various forms of technology for tutoring at a distance, contact tutoring, teaching on assignments, mentoring (where appropriate), counselling (both remote and face-to-face) and the stimulation of peer support structures?

•        Is academic support is built into the design of the course materials?

•        Are sufficient contact sessions are arranged to enable learners to use the course materials effectively for learning?

•        Are tutors are accessible to learners for individual tutoring?

•        Are tutors trained to teach on assignments by giving constructive feedback?

•        Do learners have access to counselling before and during their course or programme, as well as after its completion?

 Recognition of prior learning and experience 

In opening access to learning opportunities, it is important that relevant prior learning experiences of learners are recognized and credited where applicable. In so doing, open learning extends the definition of terms such as ‘learned’, ‘knowledgeable’, and ‘competent’, and insists that institutions be transparent about their requirements for admission to and successful completion of, programmes of study. As part of increasing openness in education and training, learners should be able to accumulate credits, earned in the same or different learning contexts, which can lead to the achievement of national qualifications.

Analysis of Principle:

Although recognition of prior learning and experience (RPL) has always existed in a limited way (for example, mature age entry opportunities at universities), the principle has become more powerful with the advent of outcomes-based education. In an outcomes-based system, it is a matter of demonstrating achievement of certain outcomes rather than proof that a learner has followed a particular course of study at a particular place and over a particular period. This makes it possible to develop ways of assessing prior learning and experience, therefore opening entry to programmes to much wider groups of learners. It also makes it possible for learners to be credited with the achievement of some outcomes in a programme, and therefore to do a programme in a shorter time. Recognition of prior learning and experience is thus clearly in line with promotion of open learning. 

However, the assumption that it is irrelevant how, where, and when learners acquired the learning and experience, is being challenged. It is argued [Shalem and Slominsky, 1999] that the context and period over which learning takes place has a substantial effect on the character of knowledge and understanding achieved. Although RPL might be acceptable if relatively low-level occupational skills were being assessed, more complex competence is problematic. This could mean that recognition of prior learning and experience should not be attempted. However, the imperatives of equity and redress make recognition of prior learning and experience a necessary social endeavour. Numbers of people are doing work for which they did not have the opportunity to qualify, and numbers of people would not be able to engage in further accredited learning were their experience not credited. What needs to be understood are the implications for programme design, assessment and management.

Evidence

•        Programme planning documents, containing outcomes, assessment criteria, credit allocations, account of the assessment strategy.

•        Assessment policy and information documents.

Criteria

The fundamental criterion is obvious:

•        Do entry requirements of the programme include recognition of prior learning and experience?

However, other questions are necessary to ensure that the programme is organized in ways that will make it possible to design the assessment of prior learning and experience:

•        Do explicit exit level outcomes and assessment criteria make the requirements of the programme clear?

•        Is there a statement of the credits for the qualification and its various components (unit standards or courses)?

•        Is the strategy for the assessment of prior learning and experience congruent with the outcomes and assessment criteria of the programme?

•        Are the procedures and evidence for the assessment and recognition of prior learning and experience made clear to all assessors and learners?

•        Is counselling and support available to guide learners in the preparation of the necessary evidence for the assessment of prior learning and experience? 

Furthermore, because of recognition of prior learning and experience, the programme needs to recognize and cater for learners who enter with different learning/work backgrounds, or might enter at different points in the programme:

•        Are arrangements made to orient learners to the skills and knowledge demands of the programme?

•        Is support provided (in the form of diagnostic tests, supplementary or additional practice materials, or tutorial support) to help learners in areas in which they may lack the necessary skills and knowledge?

•        Are there processes whereby the diverse knowledge and experience of the learners can feed into and enrich the programme?

 

 

 Expectations of success 

Offering learners a reasonable chance of success not only involves offering opportunities to complete learning programmes successfully, but also ensuring that the qualifications earned have value in the occupational marketplace.

Analysis of Principle

The point made under ‘A Starting Point’ above – linking access with the learners and their successful learning – means that this principle remains in the framework of evaluation for the sake of emphasis, rather than because it introduces a new idea. The importance of not opening access under false pretences has already been raised, as has the fact that programmes should be of value to the learner and society. The point has been made that opening access is not enough unless programmes are designed with learner needs and experience in mind or an understanding of the central role that learner support plays in ensuring success. The point has also been made that there needs to be a change in what we understand as success – that non-formal learning and experience needs to be taken into consideration. In other words, what has been discussed is what needs to be put in place to assist learners to be successful. What has not been discussed, however, is how to see whether or not learners have been successful.

Evidence

Learner success is usually measured by looking at pass rates and throughput rates. Pass rates refer to the number of learners passing individual courses. Throughput rates refer to the number of learners completing the programmes for which they are registered. Because programmes, rather than individual courses, are generally what add value in terms of employability or status or opportunities for further study, throughput rates are more significant indications of learner success than pass rates.

Criteria

•        Do the assessment results and/or evaluation and monitoring mechanisms show that sufficient numbers of learners complete the programmes for which they are registered?

•        Do the assessment results and/or evaluation and monitoring mechanisms show that sufficient learners achieve the outcomes that are established for individual courses within the programmes?  

 Quality learning 

An essential tenet of open learning is that the education offered should be of the highest quality, and that it should be evaluated and adapted on an ongoing basis. This requires well-structured quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that expectations of success created by open learning can be effectively met by educational providers.

Analysis of Principle

‘Expectations of success’ as a principle focuses on the success of learners, while ‘Quality learning’ focuses on ensuring the success of the provider, through quality assurance. The Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa defines quality assurance as follows:

Quality assurance involves establishing and maintaining self-improving processes and systems in an institution or programme. In order to be self-improving, the establishment of systems and processes needs to be followed by action, evaluation and revision, followed by more action, evaluation and revision in a cyclical pattern. The aim of quality assurance is to anticipate problems rather than merely react to them. 

The importance of research into learner needs and design of programmes, courses, and materials in light of their needs has already been mentioned. This would be part of a process of quality assurance that would ensure that, when learners obtain access to programmes, it is possible for them to engage with and learn from those programmes. 

A dimension of access not raised in previous points is that provided by administrative and management systems. Inefficient administrative systems or systems that are not responsive to the needs and difficulties of learners are major unnecessary barriers to learning.

Evidence

Aspects of administration that have particular effect learner access are:

•        Enrolment practices (including published information, response to queries, fee administration and handling of registration information).

•        Learning materials production and despatch

•        Procedures for the management of assessment

•        Management of equipment and facilities

•        Management of communication and information.

Criteria

•        Does the educational provider have quality systems in place to ensure continuous self-improvement?

•        Are the needs of the least advantaged learners met in the administrative arrangements made for registration and communication?

•        Is the production and despatch of learning materials fast, accurate, and reliable?

•        Is the turnaround time on assignments short enough to enable learners to use the feedback on assignments to help them with the following assignment or examination?

•        Are learners oriented to equipment, facilities, and communication and information systems so that they can use them effectively in their learning?

 Cost-effectiveness 

Cost-effective education is not simply education offered as cheaply as possible; it is education which uses the full range of resources available, in the most appropriate and effective educational combinations for different contexts, in order to offer the highest quality education to as many people as possible. The principle of achieving cost-effectiveness in education is the driving force behind an education and training system committed to open learning approaches. This is particularly important because inefficiencies are most heavily borne by institutions providing education for the poor and marginalized.

Analysis of Principle

The most basic element in cost-effectiveness is affordability of the educational provision both for the learner and for the provider. Affordability is not a principle as much as it is a fact of life. In South Africa, concern for equity and redress has resulted in large-scale donor funding of institutions, and provision of bursaries for learners. This has meant that it has been possible to avoid facing the real costs of provision, and therefore patterns of provision have been set up which are not sustainable in the long term. This is not to say that learners should be expected to bear the real costs of provision. The constitution[8] states that 'Everyone has the right...'

(a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and

(b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

In terms of the constitution, the state needs to take considerable responsibility for educational provision. However, as the recent raising of the school-going age to seven years demonstrates, the state is having to make educational decisions on the grounds of affordability. It can afford only ten years of free and compulsory schooling (basic education), and therefore has to determine when this will start and when it will finish. 

As in the above example, the demands of affordability apparently contradict the demands of access to educational opportunity. The question to ask is whether the argument of affordability is not being used as an excuse to renege on a principle. This is where cost effectiveness comes in. The resources available are the bottom line, but the principle guiding use of those resources should be the highest quality for the greatest number of people, rather than how cheaply education can be provided. Access and quality govern how providers use resources, but the limitations of resources also need to be faced. Evaluation should, therefore, not necessarily look for whether or not the evaluators agree with the decisions made, but how the decisions were made. Were all the available resources looked at? (for example, in the above example, even the allocation of resources from defence spending, or from public service salaries). Was there a thorough consideration of alternative scenarios for use of resources in light of the need for both access and quality?

Evidence

•        Audited accounts

•        Financial planning for programmes and courses

Criteria

There are three levels on which the cost-effectiveness of provision needs to be evaluated – at the level of resource, at the level of planning processes, and at the level of results. The following questions, partly derived from the Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa, cover these areas:

•        Does the educational provider have financial results that afford the learners a reasonable prospect of completing their studies, and sufficient surpluses to ensure the future development of products and services?

•        Do financial planning processes ensure that the allocation of resources is governed by the demands of access and quality as well as affordability?

•        Is affordability for learners considered, as well as affordability for the institution?

•        Do sufficient numbers of learners complete the individual programmes and courses successfully to justify the cost in time and personpower for the design of the programmes, courses and learner support system?

 Conclusion 

The above analysis has helped to draw out some of the issues and complexities surrounding the ideas presented in chapter one. With this additional insight in place, it is now possible to begin reflecting on key aspects of South African GET and FET, using the frameworks provided in chapters one and two as a guide. We begin this analysis by reflecting on Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET).

 Footnotes 

[1] South African Institute for Distance Education, 1999, --- Further Diploma in Education (Educational Management), a Case Study for the Educator Development and Support Project , Paul Musker and Associates for the Teacher Development Centre of the Department of Education, p.8

[2] Ibid, p.40

[3] As specified in Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa: A Statement of Policy, Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, Department of Education, p.12

[4] As specified in Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa: A Statement of Policy, Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education, Department of Education, p.13

[5] Ibid, p.15

[6] First three questions based on the Criteria for Quality Distance Education in South Africa, p.12

[7] Walters, Prof. Shirley, 2000, Lifelong Learning Development: Towards a Learning Nation, Research Report Commissioned by the National Centre for Curriculum Research and Development, Department of Education, South Africa, p. 17

[8] The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, Clause 29 (1)