Modular learning programmes has been on the agenda of technikons for a number of years. The introduction of outcomes-based education and training (OBET) has given both impetus and direction to the exploration of modular learning programmes.

Comprehensive research by representatives from all the technikons produced a number of research documents in July 2000. These inputs formed the basis of a two-day workshop to debate the experience with, and research on, modular curriculum structure.

I wish to thank all the persons from the technikons who participated in the research project. Through their participation we now have a core of informed persons across technikons who can pilot modular programmes. Ultimately, higher education can only benefit by their knowledge and expertise.

This report formed the basis of the theoretical analysis of learning programmes to determine the implications of implementing OBET.

Dr Ethney Genis

Chair: Curriculum Development Work Group

The concept of modularisation evolved in higher education in the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century (Theodossin, 1986). Interest in modularisation in the sector of vocational education and training is more recent. The introduction of a modular system in Britain for craft training by the Engineering Industry Training Board in 1968 marked the start of this approach to vocation training which was then emulated in many other industries (Roberts, 1987). The extensive International Labour Organisation (ILO) project on ‘modules of employable skills’ (MES) from the mid-1970s onwards, aimed at workers in developing countries, was a particularly significant initiative in relation to a modular approach to vocational education and training (ILO, 1984). Since the early 1980s, in particular, a variety of national and regional reforms, as well as many local variations, have involved the introduction and development of modules (Bruijn, 1995:1).

In South Africa the broader process of political, social and economic transition also impacts on the transformation of Higher Education. The new Higher Education system must meet the needs of a restructured technologically orientated economy and provide well planned teaching and learning programmes and contribute to the advancement of all forms of knowledge. Higher Education Institutions must encourage new learning and teaching strategies and in a particular modify traditional models of discipline-based and sequential courses and qualification (DOE, 1997b). Learning programmes, therefore, need to be redesigned to accommodate outcomes-based education and training. The model of modularisation will have to support NQF objectives and requirements.

The new programmes should be developed and be able to articulate within the NQF to encourage:

• an open and flexible system

• credit accumulation and multiple entry and exit points for learners

• proper academic recognition of prior learning achieved

• greater horizontal and vertical mobility by learners

• the promotion of a flexible learning system which must include a range of distant and face-to–face delivery mechanisms, using cost-effective combinations of resources-based learning and teaching technologies

Against this background South African Technikons have re-opened the "modular structure" debate – a debate that informed change internationally thirty years ago. There is a need to tie modularisation to emerging trends in educational thinking in response to a new paradigm shift in teaching and learning, especially in regard to the presentation of teaching and learning events through self-instructional, stand-alone learning packages.

It is interesting to note that there are some inherent difficulties in presenting the concepts and definitions associated with modularisation as being universally accepted, as the following statements explain:

As Tuxworth (1986: 219) puts it:

1. Modules

In light of the comments in the previous section a selection of definitions of a module is offered below:

• explicit aims
• specified intended outcomes
• specification of any prior learning requirements
• clarification of the methods of learning and the context in which the learning activities will take place
• provision of differentiated learning experiences

The credit allocation for a module

A module has a particular level. This is contained in the particular level descriptor in the module structure. These describe the level at which students should operate at various points in the programme.

1. Pre-requisites

Relates to any prior requirements for admission to the particular module.

 

2.4.2 Co-requisites

Indicates which modules must be taken in conjunction with this particular module.

 

SAQA has stipulated that: 1 credit equals 10 hours of notional time. Notional time can be defined as the informed estimated of the average time (this includes class time, tutorials, and independent study) an average learner entering with the correct level of assumed knowledge would take to master the specific outcomes of a unit of learning (SAQA Bulletin 1997: 10).

The choice made between the adoption of a standardised credit-value modular system versus a non-standard modular system is critical to the development of a system. The standardised modular system would be comprised of modules with the same credit weighting. The modular system based on non-standardised module size stipulates minimum and maximum credit values, e.g. between 8 and 16 credits, and modules can comprise any credit value in the range.

Module duration (width) is the time duration over which a module of a specific size or weight is offered. This could vary for a specific sized module within the generalised model from 1 week, 1 term, a semester or even a year. Within the functioning of a timetabling roster it would even be possible to have the same module offered over two different durations within the same course structure.

The module duration is considered to be a function of a size that is to be offered, and the presentation mode that is to be implemented. Cognisance would naturally have to be taken of any system constraints which would possibly have a bearing on the duration which would be practically implementable.

The presentation mode may be considered as an operational variable which caters for flexibility in the model in that it allows for modules to be presented from a variety of different available modes.

• Contact Teaching

All students in a learning programme enrol for set prescribed modules and all students attend class at predetermined times scheduled during the week. Learning programmes run over a predetermined time, for example, a semester.

 

• Block-courses:

A block-course is a module presented over a compact period of time. A typical example of a block-course is an intensive offering (e.g. 1 week full-time) after which the module is evaluated and considered as being completed.

 

• Part-time/Evening classes

This form of tuition is generally used for students who are not able to attend conventional daytime classes. These classes are generally offered in the evening and may be offered on the broad-based principle (conventional) or the intensive principle (block release).

 

• Telematic

This innovative and flexible form of delivery combines interactive electronic communication and information technologies that are accessed over a distance from the campus together with direct contact with the learning facilitator (face-to-face or via e-mail)

 

• Distance Education

This presentation mode is defined as those presentations made away from the campus. This mode caters for approaches such as franchising courses to private colleges.

 

• Experiential Learning

This mode caters for learning at the workface. It is built in as an integral part of the model.

 

Any combination of these modes could also be implemented.

A learning programme can be described as:

• Having a clear defined set of governing criteria

• providing entry points based on previous learning experience and exit points consistent with future aspirations

• composed of modules of a variety of types

• providing individual students with a balanced, progressive and coherent learning experience

• incorporating modules which also appear in other programmes

• sufficiently flexible to meet the changing needs and aspirations of students

The learning programme comprises the particular combination and arrangement of modules which have to be completed in order to satisfy the competency requirements for the course.

It must be noted that it is also possible to set up flexible structures which would allow students a certain amount of choice in determining which outcomes/competencies they wish to achieve. The flexibility is built into the system by allowing a structure with compulsory, optional and elective modules where:

• Core/compulsory /foundational modules: those which all students must complete towards a particular degree program.

• Optional modules: a choice between certain modules from within the subject domain of the particular degree program.

• Elective modules: these are modules which a student may take from other subject discipline areas in order to obtain competencies to further their career opportunities.

A credit accumulation basis for the implementation of a modular system provides a flexible system of tertiary education. The assessment of a students’ mastery of a module is done on completion of the module. The implication is that once a student has successfully completes a module there is no need to be subjected again to an assessment on that particular module. A student receives credit for that module. Accumulation of credits eventually leads to the attainment of an educational qualification. On the same basis a pre-test can be used in terms of the SAQA requirements to recognise experience and previous learning from other sources.

The restructuring of education and training in South Africa is one of the driving forces for modularisation of the curriculum, especially for further and higher education. The overall aim must be the design of an educational system which would optimise student performance through effective curriculum development and implementation, whilst at the same time minimizing costs in terms of efficient utilization of physical facilities and personnel.

The need to move from traditional education to outcomes-based education will see a shift from strict, syllabus-based curriculum to a more flexible, outcomes-based curriculum.

According to Watson (1989) the development of the modular course at Oxford Polytechnic, considered by many to be one of the United Kingdom trailblazers, was based on three principles which were regarded as being fundamental to the educational philosophy of the modular course. These principles were:

• Credit accumulation – the compilation by the student of a programme of passes in individual modules (‘credits’)

• Progressive assessment – modules are assessed on completion of the academic work, the extent to which a student has met the aims and objectives of a particular module is assessed and recorded immediately the module is completed

• Responsibility and choice – students have choice at several levels: of modules to study; of qualifications; and of modules from other learning programmes which may be studied to complete the requirements for the award of a qualification.

Three main arguments associated with flexibility and choice are currently offered as reasons for switching to modular schemes. The first emphasizes the student-centred properties of modular schemes; namely, that individual students can shape their courses of study to suit their needs. That includes the pace of study, the place of study (through exchange and transfer), and the length of study (given that various intermediate qualifications are available). The second argument stresses flexibility in the sense that programmes can be modified as the student goes along to meet changing circumstances or interests. The third – and related – argument revolves around the notions of responsibility and active learning, with the belief that students are better motivated by having to take greater responsibility for their choices of programme. (Gold: 1991)

In general it may be stated that a modular system is based on the following principles, namely, to:

• widen access possibilities and cope with increased student numbers.

• facilitate life-long learning and Continuing Professional Development.

• create sufficient viable entry and exit points within the system.

• facilitate mobility/articulation of students amongst institutions, both nationally and internationally.

• facilitate Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) as well as recognition of the work done by private institutions.

• optimise the use of existing facilities and resources.

• enhance ability to respond to rapid changes in industry and employment.

• facilitate portability.

According to Watson (1989) there are broadly two ways of going modular, one being the ‘creation’ model, and the other the ‘conversion’ model. He explains that the creation model ‘implies the ab initio design of a new course, including … the dissolution or suspension of an old course’. Such a course can remain relatively isolated within an institution that also offers more traditional courses. In the conversion model there is either ‘an internal (course-led) or external (faculty- or institution-led) decision to recast and develop current courses in a modular form’. The motivation for making these decisions is, Watson says, a crucial consideration. He argues that the way in which an institution has interpreted modularity will have led either to the development of a genuinely modular curriculum framework or to what Watson calls ‘phantom modularity’ manifested as schemes which imply promises which they cannot deliver (Watson, 1996).

There are different magnitudes of modular structures which may be developed ranging from what Watson (cited in CNAA, 1990) calls the ‘minimalist’ position of modularising a single course to the ‘maximalist’ position of modularising all courses within an institution.

Modularity may be understood in terms of a spectrum of course structures, as explained by Squires (1986). At one end of the spectrum is the course which is entirely prescribed (no choice). Much more common is the degree course in which the bulk of the work is prescribed, but in which there are some optional elements. Further along the spectrum is the degree course in which the core is confined to the first year, and the sequencing after that is relatively open, and it is at this point along the spectrum that references to ‘units’ and ‘modules’ begin to appear. At the extreme end of the spectrum is the course which has only one or two prescribed elements, with open student choice. Squires describes the degree types along the spectrum as being either single track, characterised by a linear’ course structure that does not allow options, or disaggregated with small or large requisite ‘cores’ allowing between a third and 60 – 80 % of choice, or cumulative where the required core falls below a quarter. The latter type of degree is the key defining feature of a modular course (Squires cited in CNAA, 1990).

Some writers use a form of classification to distinguish between types of modular courses, for example Walker (1994) uses a Mark I-III typology to categorised modular systems by their patterns of access, delivery and credit:

• Mark I system – characterised by students engaged in taught modules on largely prescribed pathways within a common set of assessment regulations.

• Mark II – introduces the accreditation of prior learning and credit accumulation and transfer, encourages part-time learning opportunities, experiments with a wider range of learning methods (self-supported study, learning contracts, peer-tutoring and so on) and provides inter- and extra-disciplinary modules.

• Mark III (which no British University has yet perfected) – offers a sophisticated credit arrangement for prior learning and experience. Designs joint programmes with other educational institutions and with industry and commerce. Experiments with a wide range of assessment and recording methods (work-based profiles, portfolios – and so on) and assesses on demand in relation to contracted learning outcomes (Walker, 1994).

Certain types of modular innovation, characterised by structure and function, can be identified (Raffe, 1992).

• System-wide modularisation: in Spain, the Netherlands and Scotland this is part of the reforms and tends to have complex aims, such as providing a flexible structure for obtaining a range of qualifications at various levels. Their underlying concept of skill development, especially centred on competence, reflects modern qualification needs. There is considerable variety, however, respecting the way, the extent and the qualitative level at which the modern skill requirements are met.

• Programme- or sector-specific modularisation: for special target groups, e.g. in France, offering individual training routes to young people who leave school with no qualification.

• Project-related modular training: In Denmark and Luxembourg this is focussed on a pedagogical approach responding to modern skill requirements; it functions within an otherwise traditionally structured system.

• Stand-alone or ‘system-free’ modules: to complement existing provision, in particular transnational modules.

One criticism of modular systems is that they promote a mechanistic approach to learning. Therefore, it is important to consider the following:

Cognitive Learning Strategy

 

According to the cognitive strategy of learning (Smith & Ragan, 1999:231) learners employ at least two strategies to ‘control and monitor their own processes’, namely those for learning and those for thinking. In order to achieve the goals of modularisation and ensure that the achievement of outcomes (specified, critical, etc) in line with the OBE approach, a new method of teaching and learning, organising content and ensuring effective education management, is through a regulated yet flexible system. Improving analytical thinking and cognitive skills can be best achieved through organising and sequencing learning experiences (content, skills, etc) in such a way that the learner is able to apply/demonstrate the ability to analyse, apply, synthesise, and evaluate information. This implies that knowledge will have to be structured according to the way learners learn, e.g. provide strategies for processing information, organising information, memorising information, demonstration of competencies, application of skills, self assessment, problem-solving opportunities, etc. This could best be done through modularising the courses (presenting learning events in manageable chunks with feedback for self-assessment opportunities and end of module tests).

 

Behaviourism

 

The process of rewarding correct or desired behavioural responses (S-R) originated out of the behaviourist theories. Behaviourism has influenced teaching and learning practices for a long time and it seems appropriate that motivation and commitment from a learner can be ensured by rewarding, encouraging and supporting behaviour (Reigeluth, 1983:106-161).

 

Modules offer such periodic responses to support learning through constant assessment and feedback. The idea is based on the belief that knowledge is gained in small chunks based on previously acquired experiences and associations. For any such learning to be purposeful and directed at a specific outcome there must be built into the modules teaching and learning strategies that ensure performance, discrimination, generalisation, associations, etc. Modules enable performance to be measured immediately and rewarded.

 

Constructivism

 

Constructivism offers the learner the chance to realise their full potential by solving problems by themselves (Yule, 1994:72). The profile of the modern learner is very complex – he is equipped with some skills, knowledge and attitudes derived from the various media, life skills and prior learning.

 

Modules afford the learner the chance to realise their full potential by being responsible for their own learning and being in charge of the learning process. This is in line with the critical cross-field outcomes of the NQF that encourages independent thinking and potential for problem-solving potential in the learner.

 

Learners will benefit greatly from this arrangement by selecting the modules they prefer and even present themselves for assessment or accreditation for credits already achieved. In this way we shall be moving away from the current prescriptive academic pathway to a more flexible and democratic study programme.

 

 

The current learning programmes consist of a collection of subjects at various levels. The transformation of the learning programme to one in which the module is the building block is a crucial process. This process will be located at the level of the department offering the particular learning programme. The process is not however assuming that the old subject based system must be abandoned. Discipline-based knowledges are essential to a successful process. However, it is not advisable to simply break the individual subjects down into modules. This does not in any way transform the curriculum.

It is therefore important to consider the following:

• Qualification specification (Qualification document produced by convenor Technikons); and

• Existing subject-based programme

The following approaches were identified as current approaches to modularisation:

4.1.1 Top-down approach

A major consideration in this process is the implication for mobility and articulation. Whilst it may be possible for a student to move from one Technikon to another after achieving the learning outcomes for a given exit level (for example, 240 credits), mobility within a level may be constrained. This issue will require considerable academic debate.

4.1.2 Bottom-up approach

The bottom-up approach uses the existing subject-based programme as the primary source. The outcomes are developed from the current subject teaching practices.

4.1.3 Hybrid process

In practice a total 'top down' or 'bottom' up process of curriculum development could be combined to produce a hybrid pragmatic approach. For vocational and contextual reasons the process in each department will differ. The reasons for a hybrid approach are that:

• The existing programs were specifically developed for the workplace, thus relevant content and skills relating to learning outcomes can be identified and retained in the design of modules

• Developing outcomes for subjects allows interrogation of each subject in to ascertain to what extent the subject is required when compared with the programme outcomes. The process is thus one of matching what we do to what is required by the programme

• Different subjects can be tailored to meet the same outcomes. Thus the Critical Cross-Field Outcomes and the program outcomes can become firmly established in the minds of the learners through multiple opportunities to achieve them

• As a general statement, the bottom-up and hybrid processes would not facilitate the totally "fresh" approach engendered by the top-down approach.

2. Articulation as a basis

The use of this organisational principle is very relevant and of current interest. In the framework of higher vocational education, new study routes are developed in qualifications when learning materials and expert knowledge of different disciplines are put together. The following are examples.

4.2.1 Accommodating generic outcomes

Related study fields (qualifications) can have content in common such as physical science, informatica, methods, statistics, entrepreneurship, and management which may be learning areas of more than one study field or qualification. With modularisation these learning areas of common interest can be devised as generic modules. This reduces duplication and cost. Alternatively such a module might be too general for specific specialised fields.

Studyfield A Studyfield B

Educational grid/network between two study fields.

4.2.2 Articulation: Divergence and convergence models

When different qualifications in an institution become modular it can open up the opportunity for articulation and for developing new study routes from existing qualifications

5 MAPPING THE MODULES

A possible model for a 480 credit qualification. The credit at each level may vary (for example level 1: 130; level 2: 125; level 3: 125; and level 4 100) the total for the whole qualification is 480

Notes on the map:

C: Core module, compulsory for context of qualification

F: Fundamental module, grounding or basis needed for the qualification

E: Elective module, choice related to specialization, number of electives may vary from programme to programme, and between levels for example 2 electives in level 1 and four in level 4

Examples of pre- and co- requisite modules are shown

F* for example Research Methodology

Experiential learning will be distributed throughout the learning programme. Consideration will need to be given to the most appropriate delivery method to promote the achievement of the experiential learning outcomes by the learner. Thus, the Experiential Learning component may become a separate module, or may be integrated into several modules.

Horizontal and vertical progression may be essential for some modules, for example C1 must have F1 as a co-requisite, and must be followed by C2 and F2 in the second level of the programme etc. Other modules may e ‘stand alone’.

Current ‘service’ subjects would be distributed among the modules (based on the learning outcomes)

Points to note from the course map are the following:

• the course map is divided in competency levels

• modules with no arrows leading to them are entry modules

• progression to modules on higher levels takes place only if all preceding modules (those with lines leading to the more advanced module) have been mastered first

• experiential training is regarded as a module within the structure

• the dotted line in the map is inserted to indicate a level above which no student is allowed to proceed until all modules below it have been mastered

• the modular structure is such that there must be 120 credits at each competency level of study in order to cater for viable qualification exit points.

The parameters of the MSMS are discussed below in the technikon context.

• Selection /Access

The existing general entrance requirements of senior certificate or equivalent would still be applicable in respect of the modular system, but cognisance will have to be taken of developments in the SAQA and NQF.

In respect of the NQF consideration could be given to pre-testing to determine at what module level previous experience should be recognised. In fairness to the student such a pre-test must be based on measuring experience rather than a requirement to simply pass a pre-requisite module examination.

A continuous selection process would be applicable within the modular system.

• Registration

The implementation of a modular system would require a revision of the registration procedure. A move towards an idealised modular system would of necessity require a move towards a "continuous registration" system.

It is essential within the present subsidy system that semester students are registered in March and September. This subsidy system would of necessity have to be revised to accommodate the modular system.

• Assessment Procedures:

Assessment of student performance is an extremely important aspect in the determination of academic standards (quality control). Within the modular system assessment may be performed via a number of methods:

Formal examinations. This method is suitable for modules with a strong theoretical basis, such as mathematics. The use of methods such as case studies would also be classified under this method.

Practical assessment. Examples of this type of assessment include the practical assessment of computer skills or the building of portfolios for art type subjects.

Continuous assessment for project type work or other presentation modes.

In all cases the examination assessment procedures will have to satisfy the current SERTEC requirements.

• General:

Consistent with the concept of the Credit Accumulation System all credits attained can be accumulated towards the award of a qualification.

External moderation of terminating modules at level 4 is essential from an academic standards viewpoint, irrespective of the method of evaluation. It is recommended that this same requirement be applicable in the modular system for exit at level 3, but not at levels 1 and 2,

• System Quality Control

Monitoring, for example that integrative assessment is taking place

7 REASONS FOR CO-OPERATION ACROSS TECHNIKONS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

 

In order to make modularization work effectively, technikons will have to align themselves with the White Paper on Higher Education and Training, The Skills Development Act, cooperative education, adult education principles, etc.

Furthermore technikons will need to work closely with other institutions, for example by establishing joint courseware development teams, such as the TAFE sector in Australia. Joint ventures may result in possibilities such as those outlined below:

• Joint designing and development of courseware (modules).

• Agreements on cross-accreditation of modules and or units.

• Establish module standards and criteria for effective teaching and learning.

• Establish programme teams comprising instructional designers.

• Each technikon would have the option of buying modules from other technikons at a reduced cost.

• Modules would be made to be available to a wide variety of clients (Moon, 1988:115) from the module banks.

• SAQA and NQF criteria for the development of courseware would need to be strictly adhered to by all technikons.

• To ensure that the modules are credit-linked for qualifications.

• Assessment arrangement would have to be agreed upon by all technikons to cater for all categories of learners anywhere, anytime.

• Inclusion of technology in the learner’s study package for maximum access and flexibility.

• Uniformity in the way modules link with workplace needs such as portfolio – building and credit accumulation and RPL.

• Establishment of policy for technikons to manage the development of modules.

• There will be a need to revisit the semester system (whether it is supportive of or in line with the modular system).

• Formulation of modules in outcomes and or competencies (this needs a whole revision of existing courses).

• Decisions about the current full courses, half courses, semester and year courses.

It is important to note that the positive and negative features of modularisation discussed in this section are taken from the international literature. It cannot be automatically assumed that the same benefits/drawbacks would be experienced in the South African Higher Education system.

• improved flexibility and choice
• new study route
• broader overview
• new building blocks
• updating to ensure relevance
• less overlap and duplication
• educational renewal
• organisational renewal
• increased motivation
• increased efficacy/efficiency/economy
• better educational planning in modules
• more educational freedom for lecturers
• better control and quality assurance with educational change
• combines well with computer-based and computer managed systems
• better future perspectives
• a very attractive innovating system
• progressive assessment/continual feedback
• assessment in terms of explicit criteria and close association with learning
• credit building, portability, transfer and mobility across institutions
• improvement in pass/throughput rates

• over assessment
• resistance to change
• continuity
• unclear outcomes
• danger of fragmentation
• too many exemptions
• problematic choices
• teething problems
• difficulty with new administrative changes
• modules too short
• no coherent interaction between modules
• not playing by the rules
• takes up more time than expected
• not enough renewal with self-study materials
• standardisation
• self-study modules/ work impedes the progress of students
• over-prescription
• problems with linking modules
• tactical choices by students (related to assessment)

Other factors that may be considered are:

• Focus on disadvantage students: Several modular reforms have had as their main emphasis the support of disadvantaged students, including low attainers, the unqualified, drop-outs and the unemployed, by providing more flexible learning methods and individualised training routes. These reforms aim to help students achieve the same results (qualifications) as mainstream courses, but by different means.

• Focus on skills: Other modular reforms have mainly emphasised new skills demands, either in terms of the responsiveness of the system of vocational education and training or in terms of the pedagogical approaches required to develop transferable skills. By contrast with reforms focusing on disadvantaged students, these reforms are both concerned with changing the results (qualifications) and-or-through-changing the means by which they are achieved.

• Focus on the system of vocational education and training: The third emphasis is on the efficiency, coherence, flexibility and co-ordination of the system itself. (de Bruijn, 1995:3)

The move towards the modular system has system-wide implication. The Technikons will have to give a serious consideration to policies, procedures and strategies. The discussion below outlines some and serves to open the debate on the issues:

Modularisation has been found to place increased demands on record keeping and administration. It will be necessary to investigate this more intensely. Each module will have a name, code, level, and credit value. It will also be associated with one or more learning programmes as core, elective or foundational. In addition it may also be a co- or pre- requisite. All information must be captured, stored and analysed for the awarding of qualifications and credits.

2. Selection/Access

The existing general entrance requirements of senior certificate or equivalent would still be applicable in respect of the modular system, but cognisance will have to taken of developments in the SAQA and NQF.

In respect of the NQF consideration could be given to pre-testing to determine at what competency level previous experience should be recognised. In fairness to the student such a pre-test must be based on measuring experience rather than a requirement to simple pass a pre-requisite module examination.

A continuous selection process would be applicable within the modular system.

9.3 Registration

This is a key area and is related to the academic administration process. The process must be flexible enough to either allow continuous registration or to accommodate registration at various points in the academic year. A module may be offered two or more times, and the credits accumulated must be reflected immediately.

4. Resources for staff

The staff development implications are significant, both for academic and administrative staff. For academic staff the following need to be considered:

• Ownership

• Time allocation for working on documents

• Increased administrative load

• Mind shift of staff

• Learning needs regarding OBE and modularisation

• Changing roles in a new system

For administration the following need to be considered:

• Learning a new system (and a new language)

• Tighter deadlines for processing assessments

• Greater awareness and knowledge of the academic structure

• First level counselling and guidance of prospective students

The institution will be required to allocate resources to prepare students for the new system. Counselling and guidance regarding selection and combination of modules is essential.

Besides the issues listed above, it is essential that ownership by all levels of management should be visible at relevant workshops.

The already congested timetable will have to be reconceptualised. Modules can be offered more than once in the academic year and in more than one faculty. The academic timetable will have to be centrally designed to enable the flexibility this requires. Some of the implications of this include:

Physical facilities are only booked for the time that they are used i.e. for contact time and not for self study or library project periods.

Heads of Departments will be able to better plan the optimum use of human resources.

Remedial actions can be built into the notional hours concept for guidance of weaker and less well prepared students

I n some systems, e.g. the Netherlands, modules are assessed wholly or in part, by examinations or end-tests which cover a whole programme. Other systems, e.g. Scotland, are introducing synthesis modules, with an assessment function which covers several modules (Raffe, 1992).

In South Africa a combination of formative and summative evaluation may be implemented, either on a modular base or on combination of modules. This would also satisfy the SAQA requirement that each module should be specified outcome specific, thus summative assessment will ensure that the specified outcomes are attained. Assessment in modules should:

• be in relation to outcomes made explicit to students, staff and employers

• be based upon a range of strategies through which a student can demonstrate what he/she knows, understands or can do

• be based upon a range of evidence appropriate to the activity

• include review and reflection and lead to the identification of future goals and targets

• facilitate the formative recording of achievement

• be supported by appropriate quality assurance

• enable students to gain credits for their attainments

Other implications include:

• resistance towards change by administration

• differences in the perceptions of administration and academic staff

• ownership

• variations in module size will potentially cause problems

• time tables

• the implications for resources if on-demand modules are offered

• assessment and progression must link

• the range should be broad
• the process of decision-making should be non-prescriptive
• should module size be Technikon sector–wide or institution–specific with a suggested minimum (e.g. 4 credits)
• institutions will have to decide whether to develop their own modules or to work collaboratively with others (regional/partnerships with other HEI’s)
• the advisory committees will play a significant role in programme development
• convenorships may need to be reconfigured

• Relationship between institutional mission and modular systems
• Funding modules, programmes, throughput, pass rates
• Size and shape of HE
• Mechanisms for entry into HE
• Co-operative education in a modular system: integrated or modularised
• Student bursary system

• Quality Management

• Institutions provision to outside clients

• Identification of target markets

• Institutional typology

The following key areas for consideration have been identified:

• ideal size for modules is 16-20 credits (but contextually could be smaller or bigger)
• time-tabling to be considered in terms of a 4 year qualification (intake and registration)
• different modes of delivery (for example, would need to relate to flexible registration)
• development of a programme-based assessment framework
• development of decentralised examinations
• re-engineering of institutional administration system
• development of a structured implementation process to accommodate evolving mind sets
• the process of curriculum development must be thoroughly planned and implemented
• the Modular system must be OBE-based and internally re-curriculated
• the additional resources required by modularisation
• the need for staff development workshops
• the need for staff release/support for engaging with the process of Curriculum Development
• developing mechanisms to overcome resistance and the initial increase in workload

The Modularisation working group recommends the following:

• The groups/programmes selected to conduct the ‘theoretical pilot’ should attend a 1-2 day regional workshop for sensitisation to the key issues. This should include representatives from the administration sector in each Technikon.

• There is an urgent need for further research and development

Allan, J. 1996. Learning outcomes in higher education studies in education. Higher Education, 21(1).

Allen, R and Layer, G. (1995). Credit-based Systems: as vehicles for change in Universities and Colleges. Managing Change in Universities and Colleges. Susan Weil (ed). London: Kogan Page

Bell, G. H., and Wade, W. (1993). 'Modular Course Design in Britain: Some Problems, Issues and Opportunities.' Journal of Further and Higher education 17: (1)

Blank, William, E.: Handbook for Developing Competence Based Training Programmes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs. 1982.

CTM (Subcommittee) 1996. Memorandum: A modular system of teaching and learning with specific reference to its applicability to technikon education. May, 1996.

CTM. 1997. The development of a model for the implementation of a modular system for academic curriculation at Technikons.A.R.157/98 (2).

Committee of Technikon Principals: A Minute on the Enhancement of Career Education. Johannesburg/Durban. 1991.

Council for National Academic Awards: The Work of the Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme. London. 1989

Council for National Academic Awards: Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme. A Guide for Students Registered Centrally with the Scheme. London. 1989.

Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). (1990). 'The modular option.' . London: 1990

De Bruijn, E. & Howieson, C. 1995. Modular vocational education and training in Scotland and the Netherlands: Between specificity and coherence. Comparative Education, 31(1): 83-99.

Dinkelmann, E. R. The development of a model for the implementation of a modular system for academic curriculation, 1995. .

Dinkelmann, E. 1993. Planning for the Upgrading of Arts Course (unpublished document).

Eckert, W.H. 1972. The modular calendar of Mount Vernon College. Liberal Education. December 1972.

Embling, Jack: A Fresh Look at Higher Education. Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York. 1974.

Enslin, Beatrice, Towards transforming the field of ETD: A methodology and model for qualifications and standards-setting from the education, training and development (ETD) project, SAQA Bulletin Volume 1 Number 2, November 1998

Fourie, D.I., Oberholzer, M.O. & Verster, T.L. 1993. Education 3. Pretoria: Via Afrika.

Fowler, M. 1993. The Realization of Self-Directed Learning through a Modular Approach to Technikon Education: UNISA.

Fowler, M.P. 1994 – 1995. Peritus: semester bulletin, 10-11:29-36. Pretoria: Buro vir Personeelontwikkeling, Technikon Pretoria.

Further Education Unit: Curriculum Development Through YTS Modular Credit.  Report. London. 1990.

Garraway, James, Unpublished Discussion Document on Curriculum Development, February 2000

Gold, John R., Why modularisation, why now, and what implications does it have for geographical teaching? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1991, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p180, 8p

Goldschmid, G. & Goldschmid, M.L. 1973. Modular Instruction in Higher Education: A Review. Higher Education (2).

Government Gazette No 17970: South African Qualifications Authority. Pretoria.1997.

Government Gazette No. 17970: South African Qualifications Authority. Pretoria. 1997.

Graff, J.G. 1991. New Life for College Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grey, D.J.: A Preliminary Investigation into Modular Physical Science for Standards and 10. HSRC-Report. Pretoria. 1989.

Gunter, M.A., Estes, T.H. & Schwab, J.H. c1995. Instruction: A models approach. 2^nd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hass, Glen: Curriculum planning: A new approach. Allyn and Bacon Inc. Boston. 1980.

Holmberg, Börje: Growth and Structure of Distance Education. Goom Helm. London. 1986.

Holsgrove, Gareth, Lanphear, Joel ; et al, Study guides: An essential student learning tool in an integrated curriculum, Medical Teacher, Mar 98, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p99, 5p

Holt, Maurice: The Tertiary Sector. Hodder and Stoughton. London. 1980.

Hunt, K.O. 1997. Modularised instruction and its implementation in Technikon training programmes. South African Journal of Higher Education. 11 (2): 166-173.

Jansen, C.P. 'n Model van 'n kurrikulumsentrum vir die RSA. Ongepubliseerde D.Ed-proefskrif. Universiteit van Pretoria. Pretoria. 1984.

Jenkins, A. & Walker, L. eds. 1994. Developing Student Capability Through Modular Courses. London: Kogan-Page.

Joanna, A. 1996. Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Volume 21 No. 1. Wolverhampton, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education.

Johnson, K.A. & Foa, L.J. c1989. Instructional design new alternatives for effective education and training. New York: National University Continuing Education Association.

Jonathan, R. 1987. The case for and against modularisation. Scottish Educational Review, 19:86-97.

Kämäräinen, P. & Streumer, J. 1998. Curriculum development, new learning environments and transfer of innovations in Europe. Vocational Education and Training. Thessaloniki.

Kozma, R.B.; Belle, L.W.; Williams, G.W.: Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Educational Technological Publication, New Jersey. 1978.

Krüger, R.A.: A Modular Curriculum for Tertiary Education. In: Bulletin for University Teachers, 20 (2), 1988: 111 - 118.

Lee, Roger, Modularisation and the curriculum: Flexibility and empowerment in teaching and learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1991, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p205, 6p, 1 chart

Lindsay, C.W. 1988. Teaching students to teach themselves. New York: Nichols.

Luckett, Kathy, Programmes Hand-Book: Guidelines for Programme Design, Specification, Approval and Registration at the University of Natal, Tertiary Education Studies Unit, University of Natal. March 1997

Masterman, Richard, Modularisation--an administrator's view, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1991, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p197, 8p

Moon, B. (ed.) 1988. Modular curriculum. London: Paul Chapman

O’Carrigan, E. 1997. St. Martha’s School.

Pascal, C.E. & Geis G.L. 1977. Teaching and Learning: Designing instructional modules. Centre of Learning and Development. McGill University.

Raffe, D. (ed.) 1992. Modularisation in initial vocational training: Recent developments in six European countries. Edinburgh: Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh.

Raffe, D. (1994). 'Modular strategies for overcoming academic/vocational divisions: issues arising from the Scottish experience.' Journal of Education Policy 9:(2) 141-154.

Raffe, D. 1996. Issues in the Scottish reform programme. In Lasonen, J. (ed.). 1996. P. 207-218.

Ramm, A. 2000. Outcomes based education. Internet: Education Department of Western Australia

Reigeluth, C.M. 1983. Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

RSA. DOE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). 1997a. General Policy for Technikon Instructional Programmes. (Report 150 (97 / 01)). Pretoria: Government Printers.

SAQA Regulation see South Africa. 1998.

Schuster, D. 1995. University Educational Structure: The American Module.

Smit, S.J. 1988. Die Moontlikheid van die Modulestelsel vir 'n Nasekondêre Onderwysinrigting: 'n Ondersoek. The South African Journal of Higher Education, 2(1): 117 - 125.

Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. 1999. Instructional design. 2^nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

South Africa. 1995. South African Qualifications Authority Act 58 of 1995. Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. 1997. Higher Education Act 101 of 1997. Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Ministry of Education. 1997. Draft White Paper on Higher Education: A Programme for Higher Education transformation. General Notice 712 of 1997.

South Africa. 1998. Regulations under the South African Qualifications Authority Act 58 of 1995 (Proclamation R452 of 1998). Government Gazette, 393, 28 March 1998, 18787, Regulation Gazette No. 6140. Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Ministry of Education. 1998. Education White Paper 4: A programme for the transformation of further education and training (Notice 2188 of 1998). Government Gazette, 399(1), 9281, 25 September 1998.

Spady, W.G. 1994. What it means to be a fully operational outcomes-based school. Santa Cruz, CA: High Success Program.

Squires, G. (1986). 'Modularisation.' . Manchester: Consortium for Advanced Continuing Education and Training (CONTACT).

Strydom, A.E. 1995. Accommodation of the modular system of tuition within the guidelines of instructional programmes at technikons. Peritus, 11(2).

Swedish Higher Education Report: 1192, Freedom - Responsibility – Competence.

Theodossin, E. (1981). 'The modularisation of English Higher education.' Research in Education No. 26 89-103.

Theodossin, E. (1986). 'The Modular Market.' Studies in Further Education. Blagdon: Further Education Staff College. 135

Thomas, G. 1993. Some reactions to the teaching of science using a modular scheme. Educational Review, 45(3):213. Abstract and full text from: Academic Search Elite. Item:9707131267.

University and Technikon Advisory Council Report 316: 1995. Possibilities for Articulation in the Post Secondary Education Sector in South Africa.

Van Eijl, P.J., Cappetti, C.L.P.F., Merkx, J.J. & Van Muyden, J.N.1988.Onderwijs in Modulen. (New Ed., 1992). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Vermeulen, L.M. 1997. Curriculum 2005: Outcomes-based education and the Curriculum A guide for teachers, students and parents. Vanderbijlpark: PUK.

Walker, L. 1994. The New Higher Education Systems, Modularity and Student Capability. In.: Jenkins, A. & Walker, L. eds. Developing Student Capabilities through Modular Courses. London: Kogen-Page.

Watson, D. (1985). 'The Oxford Polytechnic Modular Course 1973-83: a case study.' Journal of Further and Higher Education 9:(1) 11-22.

Watson, David: Managing the Modular Course: Perspectives from Oxford Polytechnic. SHRE and Open University Press. Milton Keynes MKII IBY, England. 1989.

Wraga, William, The Educational and Political Implications of Curriculum Alignment and Standards-Based Reform. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, Fall 99, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p4, 23p

Young, M. 1995. Modularization and the outcomes approach: Towards a strategy for a curriculum of the future (169-181). In Burke, J. (ed.) 1995. Outcomes, learning, and the curriculum: Implications for NVQs, GNVQs, and other qualifications. London: Falmer Press.