Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi]On: 06 October 2014, At: 05:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Africa Education ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raer20
A 21st century collaborative policydevelopment and implementationapproach: a discourse analysisJ. Nyoni aa University of South AfricaPublished online: 19 Oct 2012.
To cite this article: J. Nyoni (2012) A 21st century collaborative policy development andimplementation approach: a discourse analysis, Africa Education Review, 9:2, 289-307, DOI:10.1080/18146627.2012.721607
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2012.721607
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
289
ISSN1814-6627 (print) 1753-5921 (online)DOI: 10.1080/18146627.2012.721607University of South Africa Press
Africa Education Review 9 (2)
pp. 289 – 307
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach: a discourse analysis
J. Nyoni University of South Africa [email protected]
AbstractThe article used Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development to explore and analyse the views and experi-ences of academic lecturers and curriculum and learning development experts on the conceptualisation and development of the said framework and its subsequent implementation thereof. I used a qualitative poststructuralist paradigm underpinned by the case study research design to critically analyse the processes that were followed to craft the policy. I posit that a policy that is conceptualised by an inflexible classical hierarchical organisational structure without the full collaborative participation of all the stakeholders is bound to fail in its crucial implementation processes. I used online blogging, facebook, documents and face-to-face tape-recorded interviews to collect the data. Results indicated that the elite mass (traditional) policy-making model was used to craft the policy and as a result its operationalisation process received indiffer-ent attention and responses by Colleges.
Keywords: ODL policy-making process, elite mass (traditional) model, Foucauldian theory of discourse analysis, team approach
Introduction
The Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development at Unisa was crafted for the sole purpose of providing a bridge between policies related to tuition and open and distance learning (ODL) practices at Unisa. The philosophy behind the transformative change
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
290
J. Nyoni
was based on the notion that teaching and learning practices had to be re-aligned in order to comply with ODL principles and practices.
Guba & Lincoln (1997, 203; 2005) emphasise the need to involve stakeholders in an empowering evaluation and not [to] exclude them if they seem to have “insufficient knowledge or sophistication”. This can be achieved through interaction where common social constructs, ideas and concepts are generated that shape the thinking and operation, and ultimately effectively function as a collective in ODL-driven working environments (epistemology).
Contextual background
Since the merger between University of South Africa (Unisa), Technikon South Africa (TSA) and Vista University (VUDEC) in 2004, a number of policies aimed at transforming this new Unisa into a fully-fledged ODL institution dedicated towards delivering teaching and learning at a distance were put into place. In order to comply with the legislative mandate as provided for in the South African Higher Education Act (101 of 1997) as amended by Act No. 63 of 2002 (the Higher Education Amendment Act), section 1 of the Higher Education Act (Act No. 101 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as principal Act) was amended by enlarging on the definition of “higher education institution” as follows: “higher education institution means any institution that provides higher education on a full-time, part-time or distance basis and which is merged, established or deemed to be established as a public higher education institution under this Act”.
Because Unisa’s activities are governed by the above indicated piece of legislation among others, and in order for the institution to remain relevant and competitive both nationally and globally, it had to (re)design and (re)craft a new vision, 2015 Strategic Plan, ODL Policy and the Tuition policy to provide policy frameworks on how to transform old correspondence (1st and 2nd generation) institutional instructional learning and teaching delivery modes into a new fully fledged (4th and 5th generation) ODL approach (Taylor 2011). Unisa operates under the South African Higher Education Act (101 of 1997), and it is accredited by the South African Department of Education as well as the South African Council for Higher Education. Its qualifications are registered with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) in terms of the South African Qualifications Authority Act 58 of 1995.
Distance education in the technikon sector developed from 1980 with the founding of TSA (Technikon South Africa) as a dedicated distance education
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
291
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
technikon. Soon after, in 1981, the newly founded Vista University opened a distance education campus named VUDEC, targeting staff development of teachers. Hot on the heels of this new phenomenon, four teacher education colleges in four provinces in South Africa began offering distance education programmes. The South African government intended at the time to amalgamate the fragmented distance education institutions in order to transform distance education as a whole and thus the new Unisa was created to cater for open distance education (ODL). As a result of the merger, six Unisa colleges were created:
• College of Economic and Management Sciences.
• College of Education.
• College of Science, Engineering and Technology.
• College of Law.
• College of Human Sciences.
• College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.
The transformation process that these colleges underwent in order to accommodate the ODL approach meant that curriculum and learning modalities, methodology and other andragogical fundamentals needed to undergo systemic changes. The merger meant that systems in place at Unisa also needed to reform guided by appropriate transformative policies. As noted previously, the Framework for a Team Approach procedural document was seen as the key link between the existing Assessment and Tuition polices and the newer ODL policy in transforming practice. However, the Council for Higher Education (CHE 2010) panel interviewed a cross section of academics who seemed to be experiencing ODL as primarily systems and technology, managed in a top-down fashion, while they felt that there was not sufficient space to deal with issues pertaining to the disciplines. The panel concluded that it was apparent, given the size of the institution and the complexity of most processes; academics often have no idea of what happens outside their own work sphere. The panel found problems and even resistance among Unisa’s staff. Against this background the following question served as a framework for research:
• What are the views and experiences of Unisa’s management, academic staff and Directorate for Curriculum and Learning Development (DCLD) personnel regarding the operationalisation of the Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
292
J. Nyoni
Theoretical and conceptual framework
Michel Foucault’s genealogy and social criticism and analysis of the uses of discourse to exercise power (such as his analysis of how knowledge is created in our societies and with what purpose or effect) provided the framework for the research. Foucault sought to show how the development of knowledge was intertwined with the mechanisms of (political) power. Unlike Marx, Foucault had no underlying belief in a deep underlying truth or structure: He argued there was no objective viewpoint from which one could analyse discourse or society.
Foucault focused on the way that knowledge and the increase of the power of the state over the individual has developed in the modern era.
The words of those in power are conceived as “self-evident truths” and the words of those that are not in power are dismissed as irrelevant, inappropriate, or without substance (van Dijk 2000). One of the central attributes of dominant discourse is its power to interpret conditions, issues, and events in favour of the elite. The discourse of the marginalised is seen as a threat to the propaganda efforts of the elite. It is for this reason that curriculum developers must engage in critical discourse analysis to make the voices of the marginalised foot soldiers (curriculum developers) heard and to take the voice of those in power into question to reveal hidden agendas and motives that serve self-interests, maintain superiority, and ensure others’ subjugation (Henry & Tator 2002). Discourse refers to expressing oneself using words. Discourses are ubiquitous ways of knowing, valuing, and experiencing the world. Discourses can be used for an assertion of power and knowledge, and they can be used for resistance and critique.
Discourses are used in everyday contexts for building power and knowledge, for regulation and normalisation, for the development of new knowledge and power relations, and for hegemony (excess influence or authority of one nation over another). Critical discourse analysis tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favour their interests. By unmasking such practices, the research was aimed at supporting curriculum and learning developers and encouraging them to craft their own good practice framework (Foucault, 2000). Discourse always involves power and ideologies, is connected to the past and the current context (is historical), and can be interpreted differently by people because they have different backgrounds, knowledge, and power positions – therefore, the “right” interpretation does not exist although a more or less ‘plausible’ or ‘adequate’ interpretation is likely (Fairclough 2002; Wodak and Ludwig 1999). While
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
293
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
the research focused on body language, utterances, symbols, visual images, and other forms of semiotics (signs and symbols) as a means of discourse (Fairclough, 2002), this article is limited to an analysis of the written language in the Unisa framework.
The critical challenge
Changing or transforming well rooted old organisations with their embedded traditions and cultures presents its own challenges. Initially, dealing with attitudes, perceptions and sentiments can be a herculean task. Challenges and other trends have a profound effect on the way curricula and learning development are crafted and adopted in ODL practices in South Africa. At Unisa for example, personnel with varied qualifications, cultures, race and experiences, some of which are not ODL compliant, may be worried by reform because it may threaten their comfort zones and might lead to uncertainties. Pityana (2010, 1) in his address to Unisa academic staff alluded to the fact that to equip and enable all academic staff given their varied backgrounds, in order for them to become constructively engaged and engrossed in the quality of teaching they offer was very important though complex, as not everybody appointed was necessarily competent to teach in the ODL way. It is important to note that change processes that are designed to influence ODL andragogical didactics in any institution of higher learning must incorporate change management strategies to calm down the “nerves” of those affected. Failure to do so might lead to resistance from staff and that has a detrimental effect on accountability, quality and performance. User-friendly and functional policy guidelines or frameworks that are collectively (team approach) agreed upon by all affected stakeholders are a prerequisite for allaying fears, empowering staff and giving them ownership of these guidelines. The challenge is to win the support and the participation of all stakeholders by using the persuasive team approach to participate in the process of crafting of policy frameworks for use as guidelines in their working environments.
Policy conceptualisation process: A team approach
Open and distance learning institutions, like any other educational institutions, are organisations established to translate their visions into learning programmes and actions to achieve desired learning “outcomes”. In such systems, there exist sub-systems designed to support complex but inter-dependent roles designed to deliver “outcomes”. In order to harmonise the functions of the sub-systems policies must be put in place. Failure to do so might result in sub-systems failing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
294
J. Nyoni
to work in tandem to achieve the set “outcomes”. In the 1980s organisations depended on the traditional contact-based modes of delivery. Policies adopted then relied heavily on simple linear processes. From about 2000 this changed and organisations became more focused on achieving targets and outcomes. For organisations to successfully achieve fundamental targets and outcomes, policy implementers need to be conversant with what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Organisations need to allow policy implementers to partake in the processes of policy conceptualisation and making. Poorly crafted policies and initiatives can wreck delivery by diverting management time – carrying out instructions gets in the way of better outcomes. Successful delivery therefore depends on a rounded understanding of the links between implementation, targets and outcomes. According to Mulgan et al. (2001), the traditional model of delivery can be understood as a relatively simple linear process:
• Managers identify a priority and the broad outlines of a solution (eg in the form of a new policy).
• Policy-makers in high offices design a policy to put this into effect, assembling the right collection of tools: legislation, funding, incentives, new institutions and directives.
• The job of implementation is then handed over to a different group of staff, an agency or local government.
• The goal is achieved.
The implication of this model is that implementation and delivery are more likely to succeed if there is:
• a tight process with few intermediaries
• simple lines of accountability
• clear prescription to minimise the scope for fudge
• tough penalties and rewards on each link in the chain to perform their task.
Democratic policy needs to be soundly based, enduring and coherent. Foucault’s argument frankly speaking is that those in power have no grounds on which to impel their interpretation of reality on others. Poststructuralist employees are more likely to resist such imposition in a democracy than in the past because they see no grounds for such behaviour. Organisations need to be able to harness support from colleagues working in a similar area of policy in different domains
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
295
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
or sub-systems. The aim of better policy-making is better policy acceptable to colleagues and related stakeholders.
Bullock et al (2001) suggest four critical approaches that an organisation can employ to cultivate the appropriate skills, culture and approaches to perform its tasks, and to ensure that policy-makers across sub-systems have access to the best research, evidence and international experience:
Training and development
All professionals at all levels and disciplines must be equipped with a range of programmes and events that reflect the priorities of improving effectiveness and support improved policy-making.
Promotion of good practice in policy-making
Support the process of identifying, analysing and promoting best practice in policy-making. It identifies what works, shares good and innovative ideas around sub-systems, and promotes their integration into policy-making.
Promotion of evidence-based policy-making
Identify, co-ordinate, encourage and enable the best ways of making research evidence and other resources accessible in order to support better policy-making. It leads on the development of knowledge pools and other resources for cross-cutting policy areas.
Promotion of excellence in organisational policy research and evaluation
The promotion of excellence in organisational policy research and evaluation provides a centre of expertise and advice in research and evaluation to ensure that institutional researchers are equipped to provide high quality research and analysis to support policy-making. It provides consultancy and advice on evaluation, undertakes a review of pilots, and runs a series of policy evaluation seminars. It also undertakes the design of a national demonstration project on retention and advancement in employment.
The outcomes-orientated policy-making process should take into account the impact on the needs of all people directly or indirectly affected by the policy,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
296
J. Nyoni
and involves key stakeholders directly. An inclusive approach (team approach) may include the following aspects:
• Consults those responsible for service delivery/implementation.
• Consults those at the receiving end or otherwise affected by the policy.
• Carries out an impact assessment.
• Seeks feedback on policy from recipients and front line deliverers.
Figure 1 Collaborative Functional Process model
As shown in figure 1, suggests that in the interest of achieving a greater sense of plausibility and hence to increase the likelihood of implementation of any new policy, it is probably desirable to engage workers in mutually agreed combination of activities in order to achieve the best of the best outcomes: encouraging institutional development as managers using the good practices in policy; engaging workers with high levels of involvement in the policy making process, with other workers, and with the institution; and implementing regular, thoughtful, and periodic evaluation procedures to provide an on-going feedback: to workers about the progress of their implementation processes, to advisors about the efficacy of their mentorship, and to colleges/departments about how well their programme is meeting its objectives (Nyoni 2010).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
297
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
Overcoming resistance in Open Distance and Learning in education (ODL) policy making process
A resistance to change is a sign that something is wrong albeit natural. Transforming organisations are staffed with people who harbour different feelings, fears, perceptions and have different cultures, language and political orientations. If organisations can be understood from the stated background, the powers that be need to sell a proposal for reform or change. Leaders should find out causes of resistance and work to overcome them. Some effective ways of overcoming resistance to organisational change are:
• Education, information and communication.
• Consultation.
• Participation and involvement.
• Support.
• Negotiation and agreement.
Providing good communication and education advocacies about a planned change is essential to overcome resistance to change. Communication should be honest, sincere, legitimate and truthful. In education advocacies, it is important for the change agent to communicate with the client system in language it uses and understands. Negotiating for possible agreement before implementation is yet another avenue or technique of overcoming resistance to change. During the negotiations, the change agent should democratically and in a friendly manner solicit for change (Mulgan et al 2001).
Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development
The purpose of the framework is to provide a bridge between policy and ODL practice at Unisa. It incorporates -
• the team approach advocated by the Tuition Policy as part of international best practice in the design and development of learning experiences and environments for distance education students; and
• the developing Council on Higher Education (CHE) and Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) quality regime. (Unisa 2006 Framework)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
298
J. Nyoni
Fostering institutional change and transforma tion in line with the institutional identity includes revisiting policies, systems, processes, culture, internal politics and procedures to ensure compliance with the ODL business model. Unisa’s 2010 Institutional Operational Plan (IOP) emphasises the assurance of quality in the curriculum and learning development process but provides very scant detail on how to do it in multi-cultural and multi-racial communities like Unisa.
Curriculum craft and innovation in open distance education (ODL)
Unisa is one of the key stakeholders in the provision of education in South Africa and the world over. In order to stay in line with socio-economic as well as political influences, Unisa needed to make adjustments with regard to ODL policy but also with regard to its students’ and stakeholders’ expectations. Naturally these adjustments would also have an effect on curriculum change and innovation. The changes would impact on ODL teaching approaches. There is need to move away from 1st and 2nd generation of ODL practice to 5th generation. 5th generation ODL practice is characterised by appropriate resources, learner support, admission criteria, assessment and flexible learning (Taylor 2011).
Research design
Research approachThe author employed a qualitative poststructuralist paradigm underpinned by the case study research design to critically analyse the views and experiences of lecturers and DCLD education consultants. The author employed the stratified random sampling technique so that the sample identified would be representative of all racial groups at Unisa. Furthermore the author wanted to obtain a gender balance. Age differentiation was not an issue at the time. Data was collected in stages until data saturation was achieved. Interviews were undertaken via an on-line blogging facility. Participants were in the main academic lecturers, middle-line managers and consultants from DCLD.
Data collection techniques and tools
Online interview and bloggingThe author used online interviews involving blogging facilities. Participants were allowed to log in to the site and post responses in a conversational
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
299
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
form. The was strictly about the views and experiences on the processes that followed on conceptualisation and development of the Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development. They could express their feelings, frustrations, expectations, fears, etc. They were also free to criticise the processes and to offer suggestions. Discussions were open ended.
Online journalingThe actions that the author took were firmly rooted in the author’s practice and the locus of control remained with the author. The author’s journal played a vital role in this discourse. It could not stand alone, however, and the author thus needed to seek external validation for insights. The journal provided an audit trail that others could follow to judge the validity of the research for themselves.
Document analysisDocument analysis provided insight into existing legislative instruments and institutional policies aimed at regulating dynamics and initiatives in the provisioning of education in Higher Education (HE). I did CDA analysis of legislative instruments such as the South African Constitution, Higher Education Act and other related policies detailing approaches to ODL mediated learning.
RigorRigor in qualitative data analysis is a necessary element for maximising the potential for generating meaning. As subjects, social actors attach subjectively intended meaning to their behaviour. According to qualitative epistemology, this “meaning” relates to the subject, not to what positivists consider as an objectively correct or metaphysically explored true meaning (Weber, 1949). In order to discover this subjectively intended meaning, the author had to empathise with social actors and appreciate the purposes, motives and causes that underlie their actions (Krauss, 2005).
TrustworthinessTrustworthiness involves establishing credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability (Lincoln and Guba 2000, 105–177). In order to establish trustworthiness the author used a variety of other data sources in addition to the journal and the author placed much of the journal on line where others were encouraged to view it and could add their comments and insights to it. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
300
J. Nyoni
journal needed to provide an audit trail that others could follow to judge the validity of the research for themselves. The author applied reflection techniques, particularly those of Gibbs (1988, 231) (other techniques may also be used for the learning journal).
Data analysis technique
The author used content analysis to analyse documents, text and speech to confirm and identify common themes. The point was to find out what people talked about the most, how themes related to each other and to identify latent emphases, political views of curriculum and learning development, to determine whether the views were implicit or explicit (Weber 1990, 25).
Discourse analysis was also employed. The author used a tape recorder so the discourse could be played and replayed. The author recorded one head of department and one staff member (Gee 1992, 160). An audit trail was created in order to identify themes that emerged from on-line blogging responses. Recordings from participants were played and replayed in order to identify themes that could be matched with on-line responses. Notes in an on-line journal were also compared with other responses from different sources.
Limitations and delimitations
Findings are deliberately confined within the parameters of the systems theory and discourse analysis as practised at Unisa. Limitations of the study include the small scale of the research and the fact that only Unisa participants were part of the research study. The results can thus not be applied to other ODL institutions in South Africa and elsewhere.
Discussion of results and findings
Emergence of the main common themes The research set out to determine how the framework for the implementation of curriculum and learning development was conceptualised. The initial interaction with participants was intended to build trust as a way of trying to win support. Most of the honest and unbiased responses were generated during this phase. The author’s interactions with management and different layers of staff suggest that the understanding of the team approach in curriculum and learning development is varied.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
301
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
This was reflected in the uneven levels of understanding and implementation of the key elements of the “team approach” to curriculum and learning development. Online interviews with different role players did not provide a consistent and cogent view of the relationship between the two elements from a pedagogical perspective. There was no consistently sophisticated understanding of ODL teaching and learning as a process supported by pedagogy across the institution.
One common theme stands out from the five colleges:
We are expected to use the “team approach” to design our curriculum and learning development in line with the Unisa policy framework using ODL pedagogical principles but no hands-on capacity building was ever done and some of us were not involved in its conceptualisation.
Despite a few commendable and remarkable exceptions, there was a clear message that was indicative of minimal conceptual engagement with the pedagogy underpinning the idea of learner-centeredness in an ODL context at Unisa (CHE 2010, 16).
The other general theme that emerged was that certain individuals ostensibly holding expert knowledge were “overshadowing” fellow staffers and were trying to dictate the direction the curriculum change should take. They focused extensively on conventional subject knowledge but very little attention was given to ODL principles and practices. Perhaps this is a clear indication that they were not sufficiently grounded in ODL practices which are very much student-centred.
The following was the general question that participants posed repeatedly during the study,
“How different is this ODL approach to the traditional approaches we were using all along?”
The recordings from the three sources yielded fascinating results. The DCLD was emphatic that their role was advisory in nature which was to professionally advise individual colleges on curriculum and learning development. This directorate is staffed by professionals referred to as consultants. They are specialists in specific learning areas and/or programmes. They have no power to direct colleges and/academics on how to comply with ODL practices when crafting relevant content (subject matter) and delivery to students. The following emerged as a common theme:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
302
J. Nyoni
We are an expert-oriented department with specific knowledge and skills in specific individual consultants who give specific advice to specific knowledge base on cur-riculum.
What became clear was that some individual college personnel use some of these consultants to produce modular materials to meet deadlines as there was a strong belief that materials produced by these consultants would not be subjected to serious scrutiny for quality and appropriateness in line with ODL norms and standards. Some used the DCLD to speed up the process of complying with national legislation.
This tendency, co-opting some DCLD advisors to produce study material directly would seem to deny those individual academics in those Colleges the opportunity to create their own ODL compliant materials as they see fit in their areas of expertise. The argument possibly would be that at least academics are in a position to defend their own pedagogic approaches they have selected to pursue in line with ODL principles and practices.
Nevertheless, I stress that despite the availability of guideline policy frameworks; there is a discrepancy between interpretation and implementation of the policy by most of the middle and lower level staff members. There is a dissonance in the institution between different understandings of the ODL Unisa Framework and the absence of an ODL national policy does not help in correcting this. There was a small group of academics, education specialists and some senior managers involved in the development of an exciting ODL compliant teaching and learning approach (for instance in the signature courses as they are affectionately known at Unisa). Signature courses refer to well written courses that meet the minimum standards for accreditation. The research also discovered that courses are often simply produced without being initially referred to DCLD. On the issue of crafting an appropriate code of best practice, common themes emerged from what was to be included. The themes indicated that there was a need to benchmark ODL practices. There was a feeling among participants that each college was doing its own thing and that was problematic when it came to benchmarking their professional activities – particularly in terms of ODL principles and practices as well as in terms of the quality of the product. Surely Foucault would welcome each College crafting their own activities provided they are able to provide plausible rationale for their approach as long as they comply with ODL principles and practices in line with mission and vision of the institute.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
303
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
Conclusion and recommendations
The discourse of the 21st century focuses on how organisations should strive to achieve targets and outcomes. It is logical therefore to involve all stakeholders on a vertical level in policy-making processes. Traditional top-down policy-making models in organisations such as Unisa may not necessarily be appropriate. Bureaucratic linear processes that are inflexible generate resistance from the implementers. Under such circumstances, the powerful elite use much of their productive time trying to make incompatible sub-systems work in tandem. The study found that the Unisa framework had no impact because it was not conceptualised in a sufficiently collaborative way as implementers felt that there was unnecessary intrusion by management and other departments in individual College affairs. As a result there was an element of resistance to and/or ignorance of the existence of the framework. Unisa should consider embarking on the path of the 21st century collaborative functional process model of policy-development. This can be achieved by discarding the elite mass (traditional) model and sensitising professionals and stakeholders from different sub-systems, internal and external, towards crafting policies that are inclusive.
References
Argyris, C. 1993. On organizational learning. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Babbie, E., Mouton, J., Vorster, P. and Prozesky, B. 2001. The practice of social
research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.Blaikie, N. 2000. Designing social research, Cambridge: Polity.Bogan, C. and English, M. J. 1994. Benchmarking for best practices: Winning
through innovation adaptation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Bullock, H., Mountford, J. and Stanely, R. 2001. Better policy making. Centre
for management and policy studies: Available on www.cmps.gov.uk. (accessed 22 May 2010).
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. 2008. Read the declaration. Available on www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration. (accessed 6 February 2010).
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. 2001. Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage.
Council for Higher Education, 2010. Audit Report on the University of South Africa Executive Summary January 2010: Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
304
J. Nyoni
D’Antoni, S. 2009. Open educational resources: The way forward. Deliberations of an international community of interest. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 2007. The landscape of qualitative research. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), 2000. Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 2000. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dzvimbo, K. 2010. Unisa E-news Vol. 2 of March 2010. (accessed 3 April 2010).Gapp, R. and Fisher, R. 2006. ‘Achieving excellence through innovative
approaches to student involvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector,’ Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, (pp. 156–166).
Gee, J. P. 1992. Discourse analysis. In M. LeCompte, et. al. (Eds), The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gilmore, T., Krantz, J. and Ramirez, R. 1986. ‘Action based modes of inquiry and the host researcher relationship.’ Consultation, 5(3): (160–176).
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). 2005. The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Fairclough. 2002. The dialectics of discourse. Available on http://www.geogr.ku.dk/courses/phd/glob-loc/papers/phdfairclough2.pdf]. (accessed 6 May 2010).
Henry, F. and Tator, C. 2002. Discourses of domination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Holmberg, B. 2001. Distance education in essence: An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century. Open Learning, 17(3): 259–271.
Foucault, M. 2000. The essential works of Foucault. York: The New Press.Gilmore, T., Krantz J. and Ramirez. R. 1986. ‘Action based modes of inquiry and
the host-researcher relationship,’ Consultation 5.3 (Fall 1986): 161.Inglis, A., Ling, P. and Joosten, V. 2002. Delivering digitally: Managing the
transition to the knowledge media. London: Kogan Page Limited. Kemmis, S. 2006. Participatory action research and the public sphere; Educational
Action Research Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2006, (pp. 459–476).Kilfoil, W. R. and Groenewald, T. 2005. Mergers and change management at
the micro level: a case study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2005, 3(2): 11–18.
Krauss, S. E. 2005. Research paradigms and meaning making. A Primer. Universiti Putra, Selangor, D.E.: Malaysia.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
305
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
Kukla, A. 2000. Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacIsaac, D. 1995. ‘An introduction to action research.’ Available on http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html. (accessed 22 May 2010).
McNamara, S. and Moreton, G. 1995. Changing behaviour. London: David Fulton. Manning, P. K. 1987. Semiotics and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McGregor, S. 2003. Critical science approach – A primer. Available on http://
www.kon.org/cfp/critical_science_primer.pdf] (accessed 12 May 2010).McMahon, M. 1997. Social constructivism and the World Wide Web – A paradigm
for learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth: Australia.Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. 2005. Distance education. A systems view. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.Mulgan, G. 2001. Better policy delivery and design. Unpublished paper.Naidu, S. 2006. Commonwealth of learning, e-learning guide book of principles,
procedures and practices, revolution: How we adapt to longer life (pp. 145–172). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Nyoni, J. 2007. School admissions and principals’ craft-competency and craft-literacy in case law compliance. Unpublished masters dissertation. University of Pretoria: Pretoria.
Oliver, P. 2003. The student’s guide to research ethics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pityana, B. 2010. Unisa E-news, Vol. 2 of March 2010. (accessed 3 April 2010).Republic of South Africa. South African Higher Education Act (101 of 1997).Republic of South Africa. South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act
of 1995.Ryan, R. M. and La Guardia, J. G. 2005. What is being optimized?: Self-
determination theory and basic psychological needs. In S. Qualls and R. Abeles (Eds.), Psychology and the Aging.
Smith, M. S. and Casserly, C. M. 2006. The promise of open educational resources. Change, 38(5): 8–17.
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant observation. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Taylor, J. C. 2011. An Open University for the 21st Century. Invited presentation to
the “Follow the Sun” Learning Futures Festival Online 2011, Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester, United Kingdom.
The Open University. 2008. About the OU. Available on: www.open.ac.uk/about/ou/p2.shtml. (accessed 13 May 2010).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
306
J. Nyoni
Thompson, M. 2002. ICT, power, and development discourse: A critical analysis. Available on http://www.jims.cam.ac.uk/research/seminar/slides/2003/030529_thompson_ab.pdf. (accessed 12 May 2010).
UNESCO. 2002. Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries: Final report. Available on www.wcet.info/resources/ publications/unescofinalreport.pdf . (accessed 11 May 2010).
UNESCO. 2005. Towards knowledge societies. UNESCO world report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. 2007. Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? Paris. UNESCO Publishing and Oxford: University Press.
University of South Africa. 2010. Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development at Unisa. Implementation procedures for the tuition policy. Pretoria: Unisa’s 2010 Institutional Operational Plan.
University of South Africa. 2005. Unisa 2015 Strategic Plan. Pretoria: Unisa.University of South Africa. Unisa’s 2015 Strategic Plan Revisited Plan. Pretoria:
Unisa.University of South Africa. Unisa’s Tuition Policy. Pretoria: Unisa.University of South Africa. Unisa’s e-news Vol. 2 of March 2010.van der Molen, H. J. 2001. Preface: The virtual university? Educational
environments of the future. In H. J. van der Molen (Ed.), Virtual university? Educational environments of the future (Proceedings of symposium, Wenner-Gren Centre, Stockholm, October 1999) (pp. vii–ix). London: Portland Press.
van Dijk, T. A. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Available from: http://www.discourse-in-society.org/OldArticles/The%20reality%20of%20racism.pdf. (accessed 11May 2010).
Weber, R. P. 1990. Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. 2008. Open educational resources (OER)
– making high quality educational content and tools freely available on the web. Available on www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/OER/. (accessed 12 May 2010).
Wodak, R. and Ludwig, C. (Eds). 1999. Challenges in a changing world: Issues in critical discourse analysis. Vienna: Passagenverlag.
Wolf, M. M. and Eisert, J. 2005. Classical information capacity of a class of quantum channels: New J. Phys. Vol. 7: 93
Yarrow, A., Millwater, J. and Fraser, B. J. 1997. Improving university and primary school classroom environments through pre-service teachers’ action research. International Journal of Practical Experiences in Professional Education, 1(1): 68–93.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
307
A 21st century collaborative policy development and implementation approach
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kin
g M
ongk
uts
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y T
honb
uri]
at 0
5:31
06
Oct
ober
201
4
