Part 3

Lessons of Experience

 3.8  Are the communication, information and administrative systems responsive

 enough to support and maintain the learner support system? 

As noted in 3.6 above, most of the programmes lack a formal system for monitoring quality of provision so it is difficult to see how the learner support system will be improved in the light of practice. However, in general, communication, information and support systems seem adequate to sustain the current level and form of support, although there are some areas of weakness that need to be attended to. 

As noted above, in the ACCESSDL&T: ECD programme a lot of responsibility rests with local tutors to act on their own initiative for screening candidates and supporting them in their studies as “distances from Head office make frequent training impossible.” ACCESSDL&T has sought to compensate for the limited formal training available, by selecting experienced staff and supporting them with adhoc visits by coordinators and the CEO, newsletters, and telephonic and fax communications. Advance planning of contact sessions has helped learners make their own plans for attendance but no catch up mechanism exists if they fail to attend. Generally, tutors are available telephonically only at set times, which may not always be convenient for learners’ needs. Learners appreciate the fact that ACCESSDL&T is usually able to arrange the school visits. Learners are also happy with the turn around time on assignments, which is usually one month. To some extent the need for a formal monitoring of assignment flow in terms of deadlines has been obviated by the fact that a tradition has emerged of handing back assignments at the next contact session. 

The UNISA: ABET programme seems to be premised on a more informal and responsive model than most of the other programmes. As noted earlier, learners and tutors negotiate the times and venues for their meetings, and learners have tutors’ work and home telephone numbers, which introduces greater flexibility around seeking support. It is undoubtedly easier to have this more informal arrangement for a programme which can be tutored by the same person throughout, however: it is difficult to imagine the same sort of flexibility being possible on the UOFS: BML programme with its 26 different presenters, all of whom have other commitments.  No formal mechanisms exist on the ABET programme for catching up if learners miss a session, however it is standard practice to review previous work at the next contact session. The turnaround time for optional assignments marked by local tutors is 1 – 2 weeks, and for compulsory assignments marked at UNISA centrally it is 3 – 4 weeks. 

Most of the learners on the UOFS: BML programme live near the university and work in an office environment that offers easy ACCESSDL&T to communication technology. Consequently, extensive use is made of telephonic support and personal visits to staff. Built into the programme are mechanisms to get feedback from staff and learners and to adapt the course accordingly. It would therefore be interesting to continue to observe this programme as it matures to see how it changes in response to changing needs and perceptions. 

The most common lines of communication on the UP: B.Cur. programme are similar to those in other programmes: telephonic support is usually available during set times, although some tutors give their home telephone numbers as well; the fax is often used for administration matters and the turn around time on assignments is usually one month. Learners have suggested that timetabling of topics for discussion at contact sessions could be done more in advance and that directions to venues could be improved. There is a problem with the current televised lecture format in that learners cannot interrupt the broadcast to ask questions if they become confused and there is pressure to limit the time spent asking questions after the broadcast due to the high cost. A key problem of communication on the programme at the moment is a general lack of clarity on exactly what services and information can be provided by local support centres and which queries need to be directed to the central campus. If the learning centres were able to offer more information, and were to tighten up on their handling of assignments, it is more likely that “a paradigm shift in learners to use learning centres rather than the main campus for support” would occur naturally. It is also worth remembering that even when learning centres are decentralised, learners often still have to travel to get to them. If this is the case, they are still more likely to mail their assignments at the local post office than to travel to the learning centre to use a courier service, no matter how efficient that service might be.

Currently, the WITS: FDE programme is not designed to be particularly responsive to learners’ support needs since tutors are generally available telephonically only at set times and the centralised nature of the programme makes visits to support staff between sessions expensive.  

However, plans to introduce school-based support would be a major innovation and it will be interesting to see if and how the programme’s directors manage to overcome the current budgetary constraints in this regard.

See 3.10, recommendations 42 – 47.