Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 11 Jan 2000 to 12 Jan 2000
From: Dr. M. Goswamy (mygos@del3.vsnl.net.in)
Date: Thu 13 Jan 2000 - 09:32:20 MET
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:32:20 +0500 From: "Dr. M. Goswamy" <mygos@del3.vsnl.net.in> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 11 Jan 2000 to 12 Jan 2000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the query from: F H B Serfontein <Serfofhb@unisa.ac.za>
>Subject: WWW as delivery mechanism
Yes, you are on the right track but you may need to do a little more of
planning and analysis to actually achieve the needs identified by your survey.
Your conclusions from a recent survey that the students with access to the
WW indicated that they would like the following:
>downloading of study material, interactive courses, self evaluation test,
>chat rooms and e-mail.
and your efforts to offer the courses using "different delivery mechanisms.
"
On the basis of the comprehensive evaluation of the 'Student Support
Services' of the National OU in India (IGNOU) after a decade of its
operations in 1998, an evaluation project undertaken by me and my team, in
which we had similar feedback (and our feedback and survey besides the
target group and enrolled students , included 'counsellors / tutors', study
centre coordinators, academics and other stake holders) I would like you to
first analyze the following aspects of your feedback more deeply and
consider some of the related issues before taking a rather simplistic
solution of replacing the 'traditional' delivery system for delivery
through the 'net' by providing the material via "HTML with the appropriate
links".
a. By providing the print material on website with some 'enhanced features'
like links added to it you would only be shifting the 'printing' of the
material from your end to the students. Unless done with proper
modification in the learning material and adapting it make it more suitable
as 'self-study' material the only gain would be avoiding the pitfalls of
delays in postal delivery and adding some 'glamour' to your course (which
may not be long-lasting). By the way, have you considered the impact of
passing on the cost of retrieving and printing of the material (as most
students will still use the material available on your site after
transferring it to print only ( mainly due to the same reasons for which
you had to think of alternative forms of delivery of the HTMLised product
to the student ) to the students end?
b. Your findings regarding the need for 'downloading of study material' ,
on the basis of our findings (which should be to a great extent similar
keeping in view the similarities in environment and needs of the distance
learners in the two samples) I feel is to a great extent linked to the
other felt-need for 'interactive courses' by your learners. These needs of
the learners is a combined outcome of the difficulties they face with,
firstly, the delays in material delivery due to postal problems. Though the
postal route may be bypassed in your proposed line of action (that also,
as per your own findings only in some cases; after all as you have written
'A large number of students have e-mail but not full access to the WW. '
and for them you will be sending 'Diskettes' using the same route as you
may have used for print material. I guess from my experience of working in
African countries the no. of such cases still would be in the range of
30-40% of enrolled students in your case!) Also be informed that you may be
able to reduce the delivery delays related problems, but it will lead to a
new set of problems most critical being the increased cost of both course
delivery as well the cost of accessing the material by the learner! Keep in
mind your own finding 'Most students in South Africa do not have direct
access to the web' and that increasing the dependence of the 'remote'
learner on external sources in the long run acts as a demotivating factor
who already have many difficulties to overcome to actually be able to
'study' to succeed.
Secondly, lack of appropriate 'tutor support' to meet their study-needs as
distance learner (one of the reasons for this being lack of appropriate
orientation of the tutor to adapt their 'tutoring' or 'counselling' or
'teaching' to the needs of the distance learner and supplementing the
course material which are by definition 'self-learning' material, which
apparently has not been addressed in your approach ). And finally, students
somehow generally have a feeling that courses available on computer based
platforms, including on-line courses, have better interactivity, which as a
distance education course provider you will agree may not be necessarily
true. So for your courses to meet these requirements projected by your
survey it is more critical and crucial that more energy and effort is spent
on course development and presentation along with improving on the
'delivery mode'.
c. Another factor you would need to consider is the 'type' of courses
vis-a-vis the contents and presentation requirements that you would like to
offer on your site using multi-media (which is what, I hope, you mean by
'enhanced features' ) . Not all courses stand to gain by adopting your
approach unless substantial effort goes into course designing to make it
'more interactive' (which is not easy if your presentation is based on
transferring the print content to a web-site in the form of "HTML with the
appropriate links" , the basic considerations for designing on-line
multi-media learning material are quite different than that of designing a
printed text).
d. Another factor that may be necessary for you to consider is the
'preparedness' and 'willingness' of the enrolled groups to accept your mode
of delivery. All surveys dealing with evaluation or need-assessments talk
in terms of statistics and even if a small group of your learners are not
'well-prepared' (mentally, psychologically or even culturally) for
computer-based delivery (in our studies we did come across student groups,
though in minority, particularly adult-learners enrolled in continuing
education programmes, who (though not any less motivated than the majority
group) not only prefer print-based material with some f2f support than
having on-line materials (we must remember that 'time-management' and
matching the course requirements and personal and family needs for such
learners is a grave issue for these learners and also that drop out rate
for DE courses are comparatively higher due to many such 'obvious'
problems). This may not be serious issue for adult learners and distance
learning courses in comparatively advanced countries due to assimilation of
IT based systems in their day-to-day existence and their stage of
development but it certainly would affect your course demand and costings
particularly if all your learners are not from Capital City or metros. I
feel (and many agree with me) that a distance education provider must give
special attention to the needs of a 'distance learner' who is at more
distance, and hence less privileged in terms of facilities, infrastructure
support and access to latest technologies like e-mail, access to www etc.
(unless of course you are operations are part of a commercial and purely
business proposition) After all a learner in the capital city with access
to these supports services and facilities have also got other avenues and
means to address his/ her educational needs while the learner placed in a
geographically remote place (with probably the postal means as the only
means of delivery) has no other option than going for a distance learning
course. Looking at your statements starting with ' Most students in South
Africa do not have..... etc. etc. you must look at your option from this
angle too and make conscious efforts to cater to the 'minority' (even if it
is only one learner) whose need may not have been reflected in the
statistical analysis of your survey (it is for the disadvantaged learner
group that the strategy of distance learning courses have more relevance).
So you may like to still consider retaining a print form of your course
delivery until your facilities are suitably developed and "Most students in
South Africa" do have the facilities to utilize the web-based programme
delivery more meaningfully at optimum cost. You may be aware that the needs
identified in your survey can be fully met by adopting even better delivery
mechanism (e.g. you may also provide the necessary hardware and modem, and
connection too, and arrange for necessary local support by the University
as a part of the course and charge for it , like UKOU did consider for one
of their programmes in computing a few years back) only problem is that
your courses will become unaffordable for "Most students in South Africa".
e. When any component of a course (be it material or delivery or a
facility) is accessible (or usable) by only a sub-group of your enrolled
population you are actually depriving the rest of the members from an
aspect of your course. In case on a future date any correlation
(intentional or unintentional) in success rate with availing the component
is noticed (or associated without scientific justification) your programme
may suffer from adverse consequences due to mis-conceptions generated among
the target group (in one of course delivery evaluation study we found that
the enrollment in a particular course dropped substantially as an
impression (though wrongly) was created that the students enrolling for
the on-line version get 'better' attention and support than the traditional
(print-material based) delivery group which by extension created the
impression that the later group have less chances of 'passing' hence the
target groups from non-metro cities and cities not offering on-line version
simply did not enroll for the said course (so much so that many centres
stopped offering the course as the no. became unviable!).
f. What have done regarding self-evaluation test? What sort of response /
feedback would it generate for the learner? The effectiveness and
usefulness of the delivery will also depend on this aspect to a great
extent. If the response is going to be limited to right / wrong or scoring
only then it won't be of much help as a 'self-evaluation' tool for the
learner. For a distance learner interactivity becomes meaningful only if
it (the evaluation) results in not only 'suggesting' what may be lacking
and its remedy but also how can it be improved? As you may have realized
through experience as distance learner 'evaluation' for distance learner
is also a form a self-assurance that he is on the right track (much like
you!) than a mere knowledge of 'where does he stand'. In print material
providing the possible alternatives / problems / shortcomings and
discussing them may suffice but in an interactive media-based learning much
more is desired. This implies the material on web will be 'complete' only
if you have also integrated 'self-evaluation' (rather than 'self-testing'
only) within the material and if experience is any guide it is easier said
than done.
g. Finally, please don't under-estimate the importance and impact of the
practical suggestions and caution provided in the response by Lester
Gilbert in reply to your query. I would like to add that any shortcoming
in meeting the expectations of the learners and problem arising out of
adopting your approach without sufficient preparation and upgradation of
the study material will ultimately do more harm to the programme's
reputation (and , if you are not careful, by extension to your reputation
too). As long as you are trying the approach only (and only) as a viable
alternative to course delivery (strictly speaking 'material distribution')
you are on the right track but to make it a reasonably successful
alternative for the current course delivery approach (both physical and
academic) you will have to dwell on adapting (or redesigning) your material
much deeper than just putting it on a web-site with some links. It may also
be advisable to analyze the costings and 'course maintenance' (including
upgradation and revision of your website material and links) related
factors critically before actually implementing the strategy (hidden costs,
both tangible as well as non-tangible, are too many!).
Best of luck and regards,
Dr. M. Goswamy
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu 13 Jan 2000 - 09:52:09 MET