In the mid-19902, various private providers and universities moved into distance education offering large-scale, low-cost correspondence courses, usually in teacher education. This was partly to make money but also to increase the proportion of black students enrolled in their institutions without having to change the complexion of their main campuses. Other, traditionally face-to-face institutions, embarked on distance education programmes to increase access to older, working students and students remote from the campus.
It was partly in response to these developments that in 2003 the minister of education tasked the Council for Higher Education (CHE), in conjunction with the SA Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE), with conducting an investigation into the regulatory, quality control and funding requirements of distance education.
WHAT IT MEANS
 Distinction between distance and contact education is blurring
Quality control has been tightened up
|
One response to the proliferation of substandard offerings would have been to restrict the provision of distance education to Unisa, at the time SA's one dedicated distance education provider. However, according to SAIDE director Jenny Glennie the investigation found that it was neither possible nor desirable to restrict the educational methods that institutions could draw on.
It was found that several contact institutions were offering quality distance education and in fact produced some of the best courseware in SA. Others were role models in providing extensive support to students in remote towns.
Furthermore, evidence was found that a sharp distinction between distance and contact education could no longer be sustained as a result of new information and communication technology.
"Distance education institutions now also offer tutorials, practicals and remedial support in face-to-face sessions, while contact institutions encourage more independent study, often with the assistance of well-structured study material," says Glennie.
Rather than restrict the methods available to institutions, the researchers made recommendations to the minister on ways to guarantee the quality of distance education.
The danger of student exploitation is a problem worldwide as distance students are invariably scattered, isolated and hail from marginalised communities.
Studies show that the mean student course success rate in distance education is 60% compared with 75% in contact education.
"Given that the vast majority of distance education students are working, this lower success rate is to be expected," says Glennie. "There is, however, some evidence that only a small proportion, and in some cases an alarmingly small proportion, of distance education students in three-year qualifications actually complete their qualifications."
Among the CHE's key recommendations were that institutional and programme accreditation criteria be identical for contact and distance education programmes, and that programmes moving to distance education and online delivery be viewed as new programmes requiring fresh accreditation.
Since 2004, the CHE's higher education quality committee has taken up these proposals.
Scrutiny and exposure of the poor quality of many of SA's teacher distance education programmes has resulted in the withdrawal of private provision in many cases.
Glennie says the investigation concluded that while distance education plays an important role, especially in providing access and redress to hundreds of thousands of South Africans, its potential has yet to be fully realised.
"In particular, two key issues need to be addressed: the first is ensuring quality in higher distance education across the system rather than in a few isolated pockets, and the second is the rigorous development of the role that distance education can play in expanding further education.
"The first process is firmly underway," she says, "while the second is still in its infancy."
