Dr Ethney Genis Chairperson and editor of this volume

Technikon Pretoria

Dr Ansu Erasmus Representative for Northern Gauteng

Technikon Northern Gauteng

Dr Gerrit du Plooy Representative for Southern Gauteng

Vaal Triangle Technikon

Ms Lesley Cooke Representative for Natal

ML Sultan Technikon

Mr Robert Gerber Representative for Eastern Cape

Port ElizabethTechnikon

Prof Marieta Welgemoed Representative for Western Cape

Cape Technikon

Ms Paulette Powell Co-opted member

Technikon Natal

The representatives coordinated the analyses in their regions and collated draft reports, which formed the basis for the final report.

Dr Genis and Dr Erasmus jointly compiled the final report.

A number of research projects were conducted on behalf of the Committee for Tutorial Matters in the course of the past few years. All of them focused on the improvement of education practice in technikons.

This report is the result of a mandate given to the Curriculum Development Work Group to investigate the possible implications of implementing outcomes-based education and training.

The research involved voluntary participation by teaching and academic support staff from all the technikons in four preliminary projects, namely, assessment, modularisation, learning guides and level descriptors. This was followed by qualification and learning programme analyses that implemented the concepts and findings of the foregoing projects, and had as purpose the determination of all the possible implications that technikons would have to take into account when planning the implementation of outcomes-based education and training.

The Curriculum Work Group acknowledges the considerable efforts of the many individuals who gave freely of their time and expertise, and who did so in addition to their normal tasks. The names of the persons who provided written input, and who participated in the workshops, appear at the end of this report. They represent the core of technikon staff who have the capacity to play leading roles in taking forward the implementation of outcomes-based education and training in their respective institutions.

The ability of technikons to compete within a framework of cooperation was amply demonstrated in the research projects, and all concerned benefited from the ensuing academic debate. The Work Group trusts that issues of mutual interest will continue to be addressed in this way.

Ethney Genis

Chairperson, Curriculum Development Work Group

The promulgation of the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act 58 of 1995), was arguably the most significant event for education in the mid-nineties. The effect of the introduction of a single framework for all qualifications, and the establishment of attendant structures and processes to develop and maintain that structure, had not initially been visualised within the broader context of institutional functioning.

The placement of qualifications on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was an excellent example of how the implications of implementing outcomes-based education and training (OBET) were underestimated. Technikons had fairly clear conceptions about the allocation of their qualifications to the levels of the higher education and training (HET) band and did not foresee the possibility of drawn-out debates in higher education on this issue. Experience proved the contrary. Only after three years of proposals and debate did an acceptable framework for the placement of higher education qualifications start emerging. Ironically, this framework virtually replicated the initial technikon proposals. The levels debate considerably delayed the development of level descriptors for the HE band, which in turn impacted on the effectiveness of Standards Generating Bodies in generating standards for the higher education band.

Engagement with the national and technikon processes of defining qualification standards had the benefit of alerting those responsible for curriculum development in technikons to the fact that changing the approach to education was more complex than generally anticipated. Over the past three years, the Curriculum Work Group of the CTM first focused on the process of defining qualification standards and placing them on the NQF. That work was extended to the exploration of these standards for learning programme design and assessment, level descriptors and study guides. Research on these issues produced reports on modularisation, assessment and study guides in 2000. In addition, considerable work was done on level descriptors and a viable model for the qualification framework in the HE band, which served as input to the HEQC Policy Task Team. The research on these issues is available as separate reports.

In the course of the research, it was realised that not only curriculum issues, but also resources, funding, administration and quality practices and systems would be affected when the new OBET approach was implemented. The Curriculum Work Group decided to coordinate a theoretical analysis of selected technikon qualifications, in order to explore all the possible links and implications of implementing the models of modularisation and assessment that had emerged from the earlier research projects. Curriculum development analysis, as applied in this project, was a useful exercise, and might become an indispensable tool for institutions wishing to reposition themselves in a rapidly changing higher education landscape, where effective and accountable utilisation of dwindling resources is imperative. The interpretation of the findings of the programme analysis project included some current debates, such as size and shape, where appropriate.

The research project was a collaborative effort, using a predesigned framework for interrogating curriculum design and development practice. Technikons participated on a voluntary basis, and this report thus reflects the input and opinions of interested and informed teaching and support staff from all the technikons.

This report addresses a wide audience. Some issues are of specific importance to the managers in technikons, while others address more directly the curriculum issues at classroom level.

The lists of programmes analysed and the individuals and technikons involved are attached as Annexure A.

2. THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

 

Curriculum transformation is just one element of the envisaged Programme for Higher Education Transformation (Education White Paper 3, 1997). As a process, it cannot occur in isolation. It affects, and is affected by, policy, management and resource provision in institutions. Curriculum change requires appropriate infrastructure and resource provision, and effective management and administrative system performance at institutional level, to facilitate the transformation.

At both institutional and programme level, the OBET approach requires philosophical changes and different approaches and strategies for the provision of education and training. The discussion below gives a perspective on the possible implications of OBET at the institutional level.

How OBET would be approached and implemented by individual technikons, was a function of their assumptions about, and interpretation of, national policy related to education and training. A first issue was therefore how assumptions and decisions regarding size and shape would influence OBET implementation. The mission, strategic goals, and three-year rolling plan of every technikon are directional in terms of both the types and number of qualifications offered. These, in turn, determine the nature of the learning programmes.

The structuring of learning programmes and, in particular, the way in which modules are conceived for two-, three- and four-year programmes, differs significantly. This difference might inhibit, and even prohibit, articulation between and within levels of the same qualification. For instance, the modules of a learning programme for a B Tech: Engineering, with no formal exit qualifications before 480 credits, might be comprehensive, complex and based on the achievement of clusters of competence, planned for completion and achievement over three or four years. The B Tech: Engineering structured to provide for a formal exit qualification after 240 credits, would be planned around the achievement of clusters of knowledge and skills with a definite application, after one or two years. The two learning programmes might ultimately deliver the same competence after 480 credits, but might go about it in significantly different ways. The traditional ‘spiral’ curriculum, where the same theme or skill is revisited at ever more complex and comprehensive levels, might no longer be appropriate. It was thought that the sum of the different modules, when there were intermediary qualifications after every 120 credits, might not be the same as that of modules planned for a first exit after 480 credits. One reason was that qualifications with smaller credit numbers (e.g. 240 credits and below) typically focussed on competence clusters that provided learners with employable skills, which could be attained incrementally, in a kind of stacking model. Qualifications with larger numbers of credits (e.g. more than 360 credits) could focus more on academic broadening, without the interruption of exit points, and, in addition, enabled the attainment of employable skills.

For the interim recording of qualifications in June 2000, commerce and industry were again consulted, to confirm the preferred formal exit qualifications. Importantly, in this process the national Diploma was generally understood to become a first degree. At the same time, the concept of a B Tech with a two-plus-two structure was tested. Stakeholders from industry generally preferred well-rounded and competent learners with a degree. Where a need for formal exit qualifications before the degree was indicated, the preference was for a qualification after at least 240 credits. This confirmed the experience of technikons that few stakeholders in industry and commerce planned for employee entry with certificates and higher certificates (120 and 240 credits respectively). Learners who exited form the system before completing the National Diploma could apply for certificates and higher certificates, but very few learners enrolled for these qualifications in the first place. That industry could employ such learners was mostly a function of the operational skills developed in the course of learning, and not because industry particularly planned to engage learners with certificates and higher certificates.

The implementation of OBET had to take into account short-term (2001 to 2002), medium-term (2002 to 2006) and long-term (post 2006) challenges.

All the programme groups that participated in the project reported that, on revisiting and reflecting on the qualification outcomes recorded with SAQA in 2000, the exit level outcomes were found to be less effective and/or appropriate than previously thought. In addition, some of them questioned the credit and level allocations. In many cases the assessment criteria were found to be either too broad or too vaguely linked to the outcomes, which complicated the identification of modules. The general consensus of those involved in the analyses was that both short-term and medium-term plans would have to accommodate a complete review of qualification descriptions, with learning programme design, development and piloting forming part of the medium to long-term planning.

A reasonable conclusion therefore was that all recorded qualifications would have to be reviewed. This had significant implications for the deployment of resources, and particularly for staff development in the short term (2001-2002), to achieve modularised learning programmes by 2003-2004.

To achieve these goals, senior management in technikons would have to play a decisive and motivating role. Virtually all the participants commented on the limit to which staff development, curriculum, academic support or quality functions responsible for the recording of qualifications could sustain the momentum of development. Until a nationally agreed framework for the placement of HET qualifications on the NQF, as well as the level descriptors to distinguish between HET levels were available, and the size and shape issues clarified, teaching staff would be reluctant to engage with the review process for 2003. Participant generally agreed that the leadership of senior management was absolutely essential for curriculum development progress over the next two to three years.

2.1.3 Policies and procedures

As mentioned earlier, institutional policy, based on the strategic plans, would strongly influence the "shape" of learning programmes, but the role of external policies could not be underestimated. The Skills Development Act has already resulted in considerable pressure from industry to structure learning programmes around skills programmes. The latter could typically be characterised by a strong career focus and achievement of employable skills, with relatively low credit values. This implies learning programme designs constructed around skills packages that could be achieved incrementally toward a formal qualification. While this approach might be enormously valuable at lower NQF levels, it generally does not support the preferred holistic and integrative learning approach of higher education. Provision for skills programmes, and their recognition toward formal qualifications, would require planning. The structuring of the curriculum in terms of associate degrees (minimum 240 credits) and full B Tech degrees (minimum 480 credits) might be one approach to the accommodation of skills programmes in degree programmes.

Institutional policy on the recognition of prior learning and access to programmes would also affect programme structure. Where access is fairly open, learning programmes would have to accommodate bridging or extended curriculum modules, to support learners who are not yet at the required level of learning regarding specific competences. While many institutions are currently doing this, it is not part of subsidised learning. Clarifying both external and internal policy on bridging or extended learning is essential for curriculum development.

The standards generated by the SGBs in the different fields would directly affect curriculum development. Continuous review of learning programmes would be required to ensure that nationally defined standards are accommodated in the learning programmes. Unit standards might even form the basis for the clustering of units or modules of learning in a learning programme.

2.1.4 Information systems management

1. A layered information technology system

 

The introduction of OBET and a modular learning programme had several implications for the information and technology systems of institutions. The definition of qualifications in terms of outcomes, together with their relevant credit and assessment criteria, and the learning programme to achieve those outcomes and credits, would require a layered information technology system. Both the qualification and learning programme characteristics would have to be accommodated, with clear linkages between them. At present the attainment of subjects defines the success of the learner, and, provided that all the subjects of a curriculum are completed, the necessary credits are also attained. In the OBET approach, the completion of learning programme modules, across successive years of learning, would all have to be linked to the final exit-level outcomes and credits. A simple relation between modules and outcomes might not always be possible, particularly where a qualification has a single formal exit after 480 credits.

 

The possible interface of learning results with the proposed national database for learning, the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) had further technological and quality assurance requirements, which would have to be planned for.

 

2. Identifying trends

The use of management information systems (MIS) to record and obtain continuous data about performance indicators across the range of aspects directly related to the education and training provision in a technikon is fairly common. Management information systems are typically used to track learner progress, success and drop-out rates. Tracking the progress of individual learners, for quality assurance, funding and certification purposes, is likely to be more complex when OBET is implemented, particularly when modules are subdivided into units of learning. Institutions would have to decide whether learner throughput would be expressed in terms of module completion, credits or qualification outcomes, or all of these.

2. Academic administration

 

The strategic decisions on the type and number of qualifications offered by an institution have implications for the whole academic administration system. Tracking learner progression in a "layered" system, as discussed above, is only one aspect of the technology implications for academic administration. The implications of multiple exit-level qualifications (certificate, diploma, degree) and the stacking of short courses (skill programmes) for technology provision (cf. 2.1.4) are equally applicable to the administrative systems that utilise the technology.

 

A closely related issue is the idea of "fast-tracking" of learning. This higher frequency approach implies multiple opportunities for enrolment and assessment within a calendar year, which could also impact on the volume of access, registration, assessment, and certification administration. "Fast-tracking", in combination with a skills programme orientation, might completely overwhelm administration systems.

 

The increased complexity of recording learner progress warrants special attention. Where current administrative systems record progress in terms of successful subject completion, the new approach requires recording of the progress with "units/subjects" within a module (formative assessment), as well as the summative result of progress with the module. The completion of modules, in turn, then has to relate back to progress relative to the qualification outcomes. The implication is also that faculty might require a separate database for recording the assessment process and results of the units of learning in a module. Feedback to the central administration system would consist of the summative assessment results of modules. This approach would have significant impact on the quality assurance at departmental level, because those records of learning progress would have to be available for scrutiny by the external quality assurance evaluators. Since examination of subject knowledge and skill would no longer be the focus, examinations are expected to be only one of the assessment methods applied. Records of all the other methods would have to be maintained by faculties. The scope of administration at department level in faculties might therefore be considerable, and would require careful planning of human and technology resource utilisation.

 

Teaching staff would have to provide carefully controlled input on the access to, sequence and combination of modules, and credit accumulation. Quality control would be crucial at both departmental and central administration level to ensure that the required credits, of appropriate modules, are attained.

 

An important issue was the retention time of credits for a module. Contrary to perceptions in the public domain, credits for modules cannot not be retained indefinitely, because the nature and scope of information in most career fields change rapidly. Institutions would therefore have to clarify the policies they follow in different programmes regarding the number of times a module might be repeated, and the maximum period for which particular credits might be retained in a field and at a particular level.

In an OBET approach, where the focus is on the outcomes of learning rather than the route to get there, demand for the recognition of prior learning (RPL) is likely to increase, particularly by mature, experienced adults. The introduction of modularisation should ideally be accompanied by the development of mechanisms for recognising formal learning as well as experience. While a number of technikons are already developing mechanisms for the recognition of experience, curriculum planning was not the point of departure, and the effect of large numbers of RPL applications on the administrative systems has not been researched.

 

At the same time, cognisance of the wider higher education platform would ensure that provision is made for learner mobility and articulation. Individual institutions would have to make decisions on the priority they placed on articulation. Some might want to articulate very smoothly with industry, especially where learnerships are involved. In other cases, articulation with other institutions or qualifications might be the main concern. As noted before, strategic decisions on the type of qualifications would affect the modular structure of learning programmes, and ultimately, the degree to which articulation and access would be promoted within and between education and training sectors.

 

3. Logistics

 

At learning programme level, curriculum structuring, and therefore modularisation, has a definite impact on the logistics of infrastructure deployment.

 

2.3.1 Scheduling of teaching and learning

 

The OBET approach requires the integration of knowledge, skills and values to achieve the learning outcomes. This implies a teaching approach, which supports integration. To effect this, the traditional approach where subjects of the curriculum at a particular level were scheduled without due consideration of the relationships between the subjects, can no longer apply. The relationships between elements of knowledge are important, and elements or units of subjects might have to be clustered to achieve integration of knowledge. This would require a different approach to the scheduling of contact learning. Forty-minute periods might no longer be the best way of organising contact learning. Block allocations for learning in a module, with engagement by staff from different departments, might be more appropriate. Indications are that teamwork among teaching staff would be essential for the implementation of an outcomes-based modular curriculum. Ultimately this might result in highly fragmented working schedules for teaching staff, which might not promote their engagement with research or the monitoring of experiential learning.

 

Designing the schedule for contact learning might, however, not be the greatest challenge. The flexibility of such a system to, for instance, respond at short notice to problems such as under-subscription of a module, might be the real challenge, since more staff would be affected.

 

Another issue was the accommodation of applied research, community service and experiential learning in the learning schedule. These elements would have to be structured as modules, with credits, but their actual implementation would require a high level of flexibility if partners in the cooperative learning environment cannot accommodate learners simultaneously.

 

2.3.2 Servicing

 

The integration of cross-disciplinary knowledge would require major adjustments to the way different academic departments contribute to a curriculum. This has particular implications for those so-called "service" subjects in current curricula.

 

Every field of learning contains some potential for so-called generic content. For instance, in the sciences, principles and concepts from the disciplines of mathematics, chemistry and physics form the basis of most learning programmes. Other examples of generic discipline knowledge are social psychology, research methodology, communication, computer literacy, and occupational health, safety and environmental aspects. Integrating the principles and concepts from these disciplines into the modules of the learning programmes of the different qualifications challenges the current "service subject" approach. A tendency is already developing in technikons not to utilise service departments, but to cater for these subjects within the programmes themselves. While this seems to be a feasible solution, it does imply the unnecessary duplication of human resources if such generic subject experts were to be employed in every department. Alternatively, it implies the loss of expertise where other subject specialists take over these functions.

 

A quality assurance and efficiency approach might require a fresh approach when designing modules for the OBET approach. Some technikons have already embarked on investigations to address this issue. The design of so-called "fundamental" modules (such as mathematics, chemistry and physics), that serve all learning programmes in a particular field, might be one solution. The down side of this approach is that generic modules might not promote understanding and application of principles and concepts to a particular field or sub-field context. The challenge to curriculum design is therefore to accommodate both efficiency and contextualisation demands. The challenge is, however, not limited to foundational learning. The wide use of, for instance, management and research methodology across learning programmes poses the same problem at other levels of learning programmes. A solution often applied is to give different names to such subjects, accompanied by some contextualisation of the particular field. In a new approach, collaborative design of generic content, involving the experts from the generic fields, followed by contextualisation of the content, might be the better solution. This, however, does not address the deployment of the experts in the generic fields. Service departments that have operated on the periphery of programmes because they had previously not been accountable for vocational competence would have to be drawn into the curriculum development process. This would address their responsibility toward competence development in learners, but, at the same time, recognise their contribution. How this might be achieved requires further exploration. Some service department offerings currently include learners from several departments to ensure efficiency. In future, how generic content is approached will determine whether or not this kind of practice still has a place in an OBET approach.

 

Regarding generic capabilities, it is interesting and significant that most of the participants in the project expressed concern at some time about the provision for generic competences such as academic discourse, entrepreneurship, numeracy, project planning, project management and research skills. In most instances, it is difficult to deduce how these would be catered for as core competences with definite credits, within the current framework of recorded outcomes.

 

4. Resources

(a) Staff deployment

The integration of discipline knowledge in modules might require a completely new way of deploying teaching staff. The integrated teaching and assessment of such modules would require a level of teamwork, cooperation and deployment that falls outside of current experience or practice.

Where large numbers of modules, or units of learning within modules, are implied, one possible strategy to address staff deployment might be to address learning development. The development of self-directed learners, might, in the long run, reduce the need for extensive contact time, and reduce the staff deployment problem. In the short term, more time might have to be invested in the development of learners, to effect the long-term changes in learning. This has particular significance for the teaching methodology at entry-level learning. Learners might initially require more support and consultation opportunities before they master self-directed learning.

The development of modular learning programmes might require the redeployment of selected staff to focus on the planning, design, material and assessment tool development for the modules. Selected staff might also have to be re-deployed to master the techniques and strategies of learner mentoring and assessment in the new education paradigm. This would be a first step in the development of a broad base of competence to implement and manage OBET.

(b) Staff development

The most obvious challenge of OBET is, arguably, the training of both teaching and administrative staff. All levels of staff have to be trained. This includes heads of department, deans, registrars and senior managers responsible for the facilitation of the transformation of the higher education system in general, and those responsible for the implementation of OBET across the different functions in technikons. Ideally, these development initiatives would be included in the workplace skills plan of each institution.

In the course of the project, it became clear that the perceptions of staff about modules were critical to the ways in which they approached the analyses of their programmes. A typical initial approach was to subdivide current subjects. As engagement with outcomes continued, the view of modularisation changed. The project group was probably representative of teaching staff in technikons, so it might be valid to conclude that, through training and analysis exercises, such as those of the project, staff could be orientated away from the subject-based interpretation of modules.

The implementation of OBET would require all teaching staff to be familiar with its principles, concepts and objectives. Curriculum development would therefore have to become part of the general capabilities of teaching staff. To effect this, extensive staff development would be necessary. In the short term, it might be necessary to redeploy current lecturing staff to staff and curriculum development units, to develop a core of competence in the OBET approach in an institution. The exercise of recording qualifications has shown that, although there is now general awareness, the level of familiarity and engagement with, and capacity to implement outcomes-based education, varies greatly within and across departments in technikons. The capacity in staff and curriculum development units might have to be strengthened to meet the demands for system-wide curriculum change. It is not only the design of learning modules, but also the recognition of prior learning, writing and interpretation of "unit standards", learning guide development, and strategies such as problem-based (PBL) and project-orientated learning (POL) and assessment that require development.

2. Financing

The particular model of state funding is important to curriculum development. A model (as in the UK), where so-called key and nationally desirable modules are favoured for funding, would naturally encourage a greater focus on such modules. To survive, learning programmes might then be structured to attract funding, rather than developing higher order competence and meeting particular programme and industry needs. So-called marginal modules, which may be very valuable, but do not meet the pareto principle, could be forced to discontinue. Funding based on subscription to that twenty percent of qualifications that attract eighty percent of learners, would almost certainly disadvantage those qualifications that typically attract fewer learners because the market accommodates limited numbers only. The nature of the funding formula would almost certainly result in some bias for curriculum development.

Income from learner fees requires particular attention in a modular system. From a learner perspective, a modular system may seem the more cost-effective route. Success may be more achievable the first time round in a system of independent modules, where completion and credit accumulation could be incremental. In practice, the total fee for all the independent modules may well exceed the typical current fee for a qualification. The calculation of the cost per module could be based on the number of credits for a module, which would require far more careful consideration of the composition of modules than has been the case to date.

Another issue for consideration was hidden costs. Where modules comprise a number of units of learning, which all have to be completed successfully, there would be a need for some policy on the number of opportunities to complete all units before learners have to pay additional fees. How many opportunities would be allowed without cost implications would have to be calculated carefully. Opportunities to repeat units, and additional assessment opportunities, are a cost to the institution. Clear guidelines in every programme would be essential to manage re-learning and re-assessment.

The accreditation of programmes is another aspect that requires specific planning in terms of the institutional budget. SERTEC is likely to be replaced by a number of external quality assurance authorities for the different fields. Where SERTEC panels typically performed the evaluations as a free service, evaluation panels are now likely to set fees. Should the cycles of accreditation be shorter than the current four-year cycles, external quality assurance would be much more costly. In addition, the maintenance of accreditation of assessors might be a permanent fixture in budgets.

The development of multimedia is generally supported as a way of promoting self-directed learning. In its application, however, the cost of development and maintenance has to be taken into account.

Some institutions favour an approach where a whole range of modules is made available, and learners may select modules in accordance with rules of combination laid down by programme coordinators. Learners are able to select modules, which enables them to achieve specific career competence as well as skills that are more related to their individual needs and interests. Whatever the preferred approach or model of modularisation, teaching staff will have to have a well-developed curriculum development capacity.

3. IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNING PROGRAMME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

 

The attainment of particular career knowledge and skills is a basic tenet of technikon curricula. The means to get there has been dominated by nationally agreed subject-based curricula and credit accumulation, with subjects typically reflecting trans-disciplinary content leading to career skills. The introduction of OBET, with its concepts of competence, credits and articulation, was thus neither entirely new nor problematic to technikons. The focus on outcomes, as standards to be achieved, was also quite compatible with the philosophy of cooperative education and training, which lies at the heart of technikon education.

The analysis of the outcomes recorded in 2000 was illuminating in that it revealed very diverse opinions about, and understanding of, modules, with much of the thinking initially following traditional lines of "subject offerings" rather than structures that focus on the achievement of generic and specialised competence. As the analysis of the recorded qualifications continued, and attempts were made to identify modules, the imperfections of the recorded outcomes, their credits and assessment criteria became obvious. Some outcomes were too broad, others had single assessment criteria, and many were clearly based on current content and not capability.

3.1 Approaches

In general, it seemed that using outcomes or unit standards as a basis for learning programme development was not problematic. OBET promotes various learner-centred teaching and learning strategies to effect the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes, as well as diagnostic, formative and summative assessment methodologies and strategies to achieve the holistic evaluation of learner capabilities. It is also compatible with some very useful other curriculum approaches, of which problem-based and project-orientated learning are good examples. These approaches are particularly useful in higher education because of their analytical, reflective and integrative nature, and also because they enjoy wide application in some European institutions. A further advantage is that these strategies also rely on cooperative learning strategies, which were at the heart of technikon learning. Many of the programmes analysed showed preferences for these latter two approaches as alternative bases for structuring modules.

2. Designing and mapping learning programmes

 

The analysis of qualifications required participants to design and map out the modules that would constitute the learning programme to achieve a particular qualification. The levels, credits, sequence and nature of modules had to be mapped out so that the complete learning path, including experiential learning, was clear. A fundamental requirement was that the learning programme would demonstrate cohesion, and not be characterised by independent and unrelated modules, which did not logically lead to the attainment of the competence or outcomes of the qualification. The linkages between outcomes were critical, and the structuring and sequencing of modules had to support these linkages. Integration was a key concept in both the structure and assessment of modules. Because no rule about the scope of a module could be made, a major concern was that scholarship might be compromised if learning were fragmented into small, narrowly defined modules. All teaching staff who engaged in developing tentative modular learning programmes expressed, at some time, the view that perhaps there should be agreement on some minimum module size (credit) within an institution, or even across technikons, to prevent the fragmentation of learning programmes into very small modules. The design of the modules had to contribute to the holistic view of the competence to be achieved for a particular qualification. It was agreed that more complex, comprehensive modules would retain the cohesion between cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills. Integrated and applied competence would probably not be achieved via fragmented, loose-standing modules, based on the "shopping basket" concept of credit accumulation.

 

The relationship between modules and outcomes statements is a critical one, but no hard and fast rules regarding this relationship could be defined. In some cases, an exit level outcome formed the perfect basis for a module, while in others it was too comprehensive and complex, and modules rather had to be based on the specific outcomes. By inference, a single unit standard would probably not necessarily be the basis for a single module, although this cannot be ruled out.

 

Another important aspect was that the hierarchy of outcomes statements, which may be clearly expressed in the exit-level outcomes and their specific outcomes, was not reflected or recognisable in the modular map.

 

Most of the modular maps in the analysis included both serial and parallel modules. Typical modules that required serial sequencing were, for instance, the comprehensive, foundational modules at the initial stage of the learning programme. These mostly comprised the knowledge and skills in the basic disciplines (e.g., mathematics, physics, chemistry, and verbal, written and electronic communication skills). More field-specific modules, mapped as either serial or parallel, depending on the relationships between them, generally followed the foundational modules. In some fields, theory and practice could be separated and offered as parallel modules because industry had specific applications for the practical modules as skill development programmes for assistants in those specified fields (e.g. laboratory technicians). Such learners could later acquire the theoretical foundation as part of the continued learning path. These learning programmes were identified as potential learnership material.

 

In structuring the modules, consideration was also given to the mapping of core/compulsory and elective modules. This was linked to prerequisite and concurrent learning. An important issue that arose was the difference in credits for elective modules in a learning programme. Care would have to be taken when including elective modules in learning programmes, to allocate more or less the same credits to electives. Failure to do this could lead to perceptions that some specialisation alternatives in qualifications were inferior to others.

 

An alternative route for learning programme design is the problem-based learning (PBL) approach. The first step in PBL curriculum development is to determine the holistic profile of knowledge, skills and attitudes of future graduates in a particular field. The next step is to identify problems from relevant practice in that particular field. The curriculum could then be divided into phases, and each phase further subdivided into blocks. Each block has a central theme, with the blocks organised around the multidisciplinary, integrated problems related to the theme. The problems form the basis for content exploration by the learners.

 

When PBL is integrated into an OBET environment, broad outcomes (exit-level outcomes) could, for example, be used to structure the blocks (modules). The more refined outcomes (specified outcomes) could be used as topics around which to formulate the problems, and around which the block content is organised.

 

3. Modes and methods of delivery

 

The different modes of learning facilitation are closely linked to the nature of the competence to be developed. Both contact and distance modes are applicable to theoretical, practical, field and experiential learning, in different combinations and varying degrees. The level of learning and the nature of the qualification form an integral part of the consideration of the appropriate mode. The contact mode is generally dominant where the understanding of concepts and principles was critical for further learning. Contact learning is also considered conducive to the development of information management skills, the use of language in academic discourse, and ultimately, independent learning. With increased independence, and at higher levels of learning, distance modes become more appropriate. In almost all the programmes analysed, self-directed learning, such as on-line learning and research projects, were the favoured modes for learning after NQF level 5.

 

The nature of the outcomes influences the methodologies selected to facilitate their achievement. In the analysis, methodologies like demonstration, simulation, problem posing, analysis or practical learning were matched to those outcomes they would best serve. The size of the learning group also strongly influences the methodology. Programmes that required access to laboratories and specialised equipment and technology typically found that the size of learner groups was limited by the capacity of the infrastructure. This generally favoured experimentation with different methodologies and other compatible approaches, such as PBL. One possible reason was that smaller numbers of learners made the monitoring of progress and participation manageable.

 

The teaching modes employed were also influenced, and even dictated, by the assessment methods selected for particular competences. This was especially true for learning at NQF level 6, where self-directed learning forms the basis for research projects, and telematic modes are often favoured. Evaluation by panels was a favoured mode where competence had to be demonstrated through practical work or aural questioning, and had a close link to contact modes planned around group work. What became obvious was that there was greater exploration of learning facilitation modes and methodologies. Project work, development of portfolios, and group work were favoured, revealing a possible trend toward reduced emphasis on contact learning as methodology.

 

The block approach to contact learning facilitation was one of the emerging trends. Many participants were of the opinion that intensive learning facilitation, covering a number of consecutive days, and focussed on one learning area at a time, would be more effective than the current practice of a few periods per week spread over a number of weeks. This approach would obviously affect teaching staff deployment. The use of tutorial groups was another emerging trend. With each group supervised by a tutor, these group sessions, for instance, twice weekly, could explore and discuss structured problems. In such an approach other structured learning opportunities, such as lectures, practical work and laboratory work, and attitude awareness training, were also used, but the main part of the week (in terms of hours) was devoted to self-directed study based on the problems posed in the tutorial groups.

 

Experiential Learning received particular attention in the curriculum structuring process. Although just one of the methodologies to facilitate competence achievement, the placement of experiential learning modules was a critical element in programme structuring. Some programmes considered it appropriate to place experiential learning at the end of the programme, i.e., in the final year of study, while others placed it after foundational knowledge had been achieved. What emerged was that the nature of the qualification, that is, whether it was a diploma or a B Tech, influenced the placement of experiential learning. The allocation of credits to the modules implied formal assessment and control of this learning mode.

 

4. Modes and methods of assessment

Assessment in both PBL and OBET does not focus on pass or fail as categories of progress, but on the diagnostic, formative and summative picture of learning that emerged. These three aspects are respectively aimed at determining the learners’ level of competence, providing feedback to both learner and lecturer and measuring, interpreting and judging what had been learnt.

In the foundational modules, continuous, formative assessment, mostly through written tests, is a common assessment methodology. The focus is on feedback as essential input to continued learning. Learning units from different disciplines could be arranged in some sequence within such modules, but generally absolute sequencing is not required. Within composite modules, such as foundational modules, progress is not inhibited when some unit has not been fully mastered. The assessment methods applicable to PBL also correlate well with the OBET practices of continuous assessment of technical skills, attitudes, ethics, knowledge, understanding, and problem solving.

At higher levels, portfolios, integrated projects and presentations are favoured methods for learning, and assessment of these sometimes requires teams or panels of teaching staff, and even some representatives of professional bodies. While these practices are likely to result in more objective assessment, they could also be time-consuming and their application would need careful planning.

Some participants supported a system where formative assessment followed the typical expression of results in percentages, although class averages would not be the focus of feedback to the learner. The reasoning was that learners were familiar with percentages and would therefore be able to interpret their own progress relative to the set criteria. The designation "not yet competent" was considered too vague a form of feedback for formative assessment to assist learners in gaining some appreciation of their level of performance.

Summative assessment was identified as necessary at the completion of comprehensive modules. The outcome of summative assessment would be the competence defined in the outcomes. The learner would be assessed as competent-non-competent, with some additional opportunities for acquiring competence, where the candidate was graded as not-yet-competent, provided.

External moderation was not generally perceived as necessary in the progression prior to the exit level. The current practice of second examiners (assessors) from within the institution was considered both appropriate and sufficient. At the formal exit level, however, external moderation of summative assessment of modules was essential. External moderation was also considered appropriate where completion of a module gave direct access to employment, as in the case of skills programmes.

Some implementation issues were not resolved, For instance, every programme would have to consider whether candidates found not-yet-competent would automatically have another opportunity for assessment, and at which point a repeat of all or some learning would be required. Decisions in this regard would also have to take into account the composition of assessment panels, their availability, and the cost. Opportunities for relearning some units of a model were not necessarily limited to repeating scheduled learning opportunities. One alternative is to utilise mentorship as a way of overcoming learning gaps, and preparing learners for reassessment, rather than requiring repeats of units within modules. A fundamental issue, which every programme would have to clarify beforehand, would be the policy on module sequence and completion. The completion of compulsory modules and the sequence of such completion would have to be very clear for both access and registration purposes. The opportunities for repeating modules would also have to be set out very clearly for learners. The frequency of the provision of learning opportunities for every module, together with all the administrative and staff deployment requirements for the planned frequencies, would have to form part of the business plan for every learning programme.

The analysis of programmes to determine the implications of OBET emphasised the interrelatedness of institutional functions and the elements of curriculum. It became increasingly clear that teaching staff could not simply design new modular programmes as isolated activities. All the other elements of the curriculum, as well as the human and physical resources and systems of the academic, administrative and operational functions in their institutions, would be affected. The attempts to modularise learning programmes stressed the interrelatedness of level descriptors, outcomes, modular structuring, modes and methods of facilitation and assessment, quality assurance, recognition of prior learning and learning resource development. The overwhelming impression was thus that multifunctional project teams should drive curriculum development. Programme teams, which include administrators (who handle the data gathering and capturing of credits), need to become a common feature of curriculum development. Operational and administrative staff should be just as informed about OBET as academics. A re-engineering of the structuring of academic and administrative functions within technikons might be necessary for effective teamwork.

Participants in the analyses reported that, in general, the thinking about curriculum structuring was still very traditional, in that subjects/content still formed the basis for modular construction. What was encouraging, was that the analyses stimulated critical reflection and awareness of how curricula could be approached from different theoretical and philosophical bases.

Other key conclusions were the following:

• The importance of strategic planning in institutions emerged as the key to curriculum development. The inclusion of OBET implementation in the strategic planning of institutions is a fundamental requirement for progress with OBET.

• Strategic decisions on the size and shape of the institution and academic policy are crucial for OBET implementation.

• A common understanding of modularisation is essential. Feasible modular learning programmes will only evolve if staff are well-informed and trained in curriculum development. The analysis project demonstrated how the view of modules could change once there was engagement with OBET and curriculum concepts.

• A process such as that followed in the analysis project would be beneficial to all programmes. The analyses were more than just modularisation exercises. They identified the feasibility of learning programmes in terms of administration, finances and methodologies.

• Programme analyses enabled staff to identify learnership and skills programme opportunities, as part of cohesive learning programmes.

• The approach explored in 1998, when technikons used the current curriculum as point of departure for identifying outcomes, has shown itself to be inappropriate. When starting from the current curriculum of subjects, and modelling modules within this framework, the relationship between every module and a single outcome had to be established. In this scenario it was possible for every module to have some element that could contribute to a single outcome. This did not support recognition of prior learning that would prevent relearning of mastered content or skill. When the achievement of one outcome was embedded in a number of modules, the entire learning programme still had to be completed, although recognition could be given. Exemption from modules was thus difficult or impossible.

• Every institution has to consider the implications of cross-disciplinary integrated modules. The development and utilisation of programme teams, comprising staff members from different departments, might be the answer, but this, in turn, has implications for the process and approach to management in technikons. In addition, programme group staff would have to develop methods whereby the experts in particular fields would remain the main evaluators, even when content from different fields was integrated. This has very specific implications for all fields of learning that are common to qualifications, such as the current so-called service subjects of language, mathematics, computer literacy, etc.

• The focus on the individual learner and the need to fairly judge the competence of the individual could have far-ranging implications for the time spent on assessment.

• Examinations in established subjects had, in many instances, established the validity and reliability of such assessment. The development of modules, based on the clustering of appropriate cross-discipline content, together with the new methods of assessment, would require numerous longitudinal studies before validity and reliability were established.

There was fairly strong agreement that some form of piloting would be essential in every institution. The mass introduction of modularisation, without the benefit of identifying barriers and problems in smaller pilots, could result in the failure of a very useful approach. The fragmentation of current subjects into smaller units is not an acceptable interpretation of modularisation. A learning programme consisting of more comprehensive and complex modules, characterised by academic broadening, integration of discipline knowledge, and development of applied competence, was the preferred basis for qualification achievement.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Curriculum development is fundamental to the quality of the core business of education and training in technikons. In view of the findings resulting from the programme analyses, it is recommended that:

• Senior management in technikons lead and support OBET implementation.
• Curriculum development become one of the general capabilities of all academic staff.
• Familiarity with different approaches be developed. OBET is just one approach, and knowledge of more compatible approaches would enhance the quality of learning at technikons.
• Curriculum development training be continued to effect a common understanding of modularisation, and these initiatives be supported by senior management.
• The continued responsibilities of convenors regarding qualification design and development be clarified before the curriculum development plan of action for the next two years is finalised.
• All current recorded qualifications be reviewed in 2001/2, and the outcomes, credits and assessment criteria revisited, in preparation for the final recording of qualifications by June 2003.
• Continuous reviewing of learning programmes be established, and adaptations be made as national standards in the different fields are developed.
• Modular structuring and mapping be conducted for all learning programmes, and the implications of such structuring formulated, as part of a process for the next three years.
• This process be approached in an organised way, piloting selected projects rather than the simultaneous modularisation of all programmes.
• Those programmes in need of curriculum review according to their review cycles, be part of the first phase of piloting.
• Plans for implementation, based on the analyses, be supported by senior management.
• Mapped learning programmes be evaluated against the following criteria:

• Defined outcomes as the point of departure for curriculum development. From there the process continues downward, with the defining of learning outcomes, selection and structuring of content, and selection of assessment strategies and methodologies. In this model, the relationship of an outcome, or a cluster of outcomes, to a learning programme module can be demonstrated clearly. It supports recognition of prior learning and assists the identification of remaining modules to be completed. No repetition of learning will be necessary.
• The programme modules demonstrate cohesion and logical progression.
• The modules are not too small and numerous.
• Short course/skill programmes are not the basis for the modular structure of the learning programme, but are accommodated by the structure.
• Current "service" subject content is integrated into the modules.
• Frequency of provision of learning opportunities is planned.
• All the staff, resources and administrative implications of the modular programme are accounted for.
• Facilitation and assessment methodologies for the modules are identified.
• The selected methodologies are appropriate to the programme, nature of the field and size of the learning group.
• The costs for the development, implementation, maintenance and review of the programme are estimated.
• The costs for moderation and external quality assurance are estimated.
• Multi-functional project teams, comprising teaching, operational and administrative staff, evaluate all the implications for administration, resources and technology.

The participants in the programme analysis project trust that this report will have a positive influence on decisions on, and the approach to, OBET implementation in technikons.

CTM Quality Promotion Series 2001: Modularisation. Curriculum Development Series, no.1. CTM: Pretoria:Technikon Pretoria.

CTM Quality Promotion Series 2001: Assessment. Curriculum Development Series, no.2. CTM: Pretoria:Technikon Pretoria