2002/2003
(7 pages)
March 24, 2003 – Cave Hill
Campus, Barbados
|
|
Policy points |
Remarks |
|
1 |
To incorporate DE operations UWI would function as a 'dual mode' institution. |
Has not happened. |
|
2 |
Consequently, DE would become an integral part of staff workload/normal duties. |
" |
|
3 |
'Dual mode' would not be restricted to academic arena only, but would apply to administration as well. |
" |
|
4 |
In delivering DE, priority would be given to print material supported by local tutorials and audio and videoconferences. |
Is being followed (minus video bit). |
|
5 |
UWIDEC to enrol 2000 students by 2002. |
2000+ since 1999. |
|
6 |
Consideration would be given to 'mature students'. |
Not done de facto |
|
7 |
There would be no provision for 'open entry'. |
Being followed. |
|
8 |
DE in campus countries would be the concern both of the three Campus Principals and of the BNCC/DE. |
DE is only BNCC/DE’s concern. |
|
9 |
Among others, UWIDEC's staff would include specialists in such instructional formats as are used for the Internet. (This is obviously a later interpolation.) |
Internet experts never thought of. |
|
10 |
“The professional faculties/schools are the natural home for professional continuing education, while some of this work will involve the DEC,…… much will not, and there is no particular reason to try to organise it as if it did.” |
The position is not clear. |
|
11 |
BNCC/DE offers ‘a platform for the exchange of ideas and plans between the faculties, campuses, and the specialised outreach units under the Board, so that duplication is avoided and emerging needs are attended to’. |
” |
|
12 |
DE operations would be under Centre Budget in order that on-campus students subsidise them. |
Principals don’t agree. |
|
13 |
As campuses incorporate 'dual mode', funding for DE will become more and more prominent in campus budgets. |
Has not happened. |
|
14 |
UWIDEC course fees would be close to those for on-campus students—20% of the economic cost |
Computation not clear. |
|
15 |
DE income during the initial period would be used for developing DE. |
Being followed. |
|
16 |
UWIDEC budget was increased from J$23.5 million in 1993/94 to J$143 million in 1998/99. |
J$ 143 million for 2000+ students is faulty estimation. |
As we move from general policy to its implementation, i.e., the actual operation, the scene is no better. The following profile of operations sums up the issues briefly:
|
|
Operations
|
Remarks |
|
1 |
Initiative for policy articulation and change lies with UWIDEC and The Office of BNCC/DE. Responsibilities of UWIDEC—management of network and course delivery, facilitating departments/faculties in planning and production of courses, etc….. |
UWI regulations do not allow it. Can’t be fulfilled without related powers. |
|
2 |
Academic aspects remain the responsibility of faculties and the other two Boards. For any course to be launched the faculty has to agree and implement. UWIDEC is responsible for initiating and sustaining the necessary dialogue among the campuses in case the disciplinary areas are found at more than one campus. Courses to be parallel to those on campuses. Contracts for new staff to make explicit mention of types of duty required by the 'dual mode' operations. DE work to be counted in the regular assessment and for purposes of promotion. Faculties to identify course developers to work collaboratively and UWIDEC to provide specialist assistance and ensure that cross-campus discussions take place. Departments to identify and appoint course coordinators who are responsible for briefing local tutors, providing support through teleconferences, preparing question papers and other forms of assessment, making arrangements for assessing exam scripts in accordance with the university regulations. Campus registries are responsible for examinations. Resident Tutors are responsible for the conduct of examinations at the University Centres.
BUS and BGS/R are responsible for the academic quality of DE and quality audit. As for Intellectual Property Rights, generally the DE material prepared for UWIDEC operations is the property of the University. |
An undefined area, so slipshod work. A nightmare: UWIDEC can’t bring them to a consensus. Being followed. This does not help/work. Not done. Not dependable. Cross-campus meets difficult. The system does not work well, as DE is considered an ‘added’ responsibility. Meaning not clear. Being done. UWI not serious about the quality of DE. Being followed. |
|
3 |
DE pedagogy: self-instructional printed course materials, readings, course guide, tutor's guide, audio/video tapes, web-pages, teleconferences and local tutorials. (Tutors to be appointed on the advice of the faculty concerned, who specify their duties. They may also serve as examiners). |
No equip’t or staff for video or Web (interpolation). Telecon. not sustainable. |
|
4 |
Resident Tutors to supervise Site Coordinators who will manage DE affairs at the University Centres. |
This arrangement never put in place. |
|
5 |
DE students are full students of the University. Matriculation requirements for DE students are to be the same as those for on-campus students. Students can move freely between DE and face-to-face modalities, but such movement is subject to the availability of seats and other resources at the receiving end. Student support system and personnel in position to help students. |
Not clear. Being followed. Not easy, raises problems. This had to be forced in. |
|
6 |
University Librarian has responsibility for DE students and libraries in NCCs. |
Some effort visible. |
|
7 |
Training Committee to take care of training activities for all categories of staff. |
Doesn’t exist. |
Of the 37
policy and implementation points, 29 points show 'negative' status. This is the
scenario UWIDEC has worked through during the past six years. Its role has
mainly been that of crises management,
because the University launched an operation for which the necessary mechanisms
had not been created, the required personnel had not been put in place [for
example, i) no staff was provided to handle course materials for about 2500
students—at an average of 90,000 items (3 courses per learner x 3 items per
course x 4 instalments per semester) and ii) computer labs were set up without
any technical support to keep them fully functional] and the whole operation had not been underwritten appropriately. Today
UWIDEC is surviving in its sixth year of operation, the first graduates through
the DE modality have already passed out, many with very good credentials (but
certainly all with bad memories). Relatively the results are very good and we
hope the good part of the related work will continue. But what has UWIDEC been
doing in the mean time?
October 16, 1998 (BNCC/DE meeting in St. Lucia): 'Proposed Re-engineering', a part of the UWIDEC report presented to BNCC/DE started with these words: “The motivation behind the proposals is my (Director’s) work experience of the past five months which may aptly be described as 'crisis management'. Knowing that the enterprise called DEC was set up in 1996, I thought the 'teething troubles' would have been eliminated by now, but they are there growing in size and intensity. If they are not attended to immediately they are bound to affect the cause of distance education at UWI.” It was emphasised “that UWIDEC is in a precarious situation (it has neither the authority to help learners and/or Centres/Sites out of their difficulties nor the power to purposefully influence the faculties and/or the administration) and that there was an urgent need for an overhaul as nothing short of an overhaul can help the distance education enterprise at UWI.” Under the sub-heading 'Ground Realities', nineteen (19) operational facts/problems (in relation to the operational environment, process of admissions, study materials, tutors, course writing, etc.) were identified to be detrimental to DE operations, and thirty seven (37) minor and major proposals were made to solve them. Only a few of these were approved for implementation, quite a lot met with incomprehension and some were scoffed at (concern about delays in examination results, for example). Some were submitted to BUS for consideration and action, and the BUS response was instructive and disappointing. It was instructive to learn that BNCC/DE was functioning on the periphery like a subordinate board, that DE operations were governed by regulations established decades ago for campus-based students, that to effect any reform one had to appeal to faculty boards, academic boards, BUS and BGS/R and wait for global consensus; and disappointing for even issues like 'pending examination results' were dealt with indifferently by so responsible a body like BUS. [An example: “The Board was asked to note that the late submission of grades by Examiners caused disruption at the start of the Semester.” (Minute 67.1, BUS Meeting of February 10, 1999.)]
The overall
reaction of the BNCC&DE was that UWIDEC should "articulate alternative models for the fundamental
ordering of distance education at UWI".
We had either to give up or
persist; we chose the latter course of action.
May 14,
1999 (BNCC/DE meeting in Cayman Islands): As advised to do, UWIDEC presented a note on
alternative models. The note began with these words: "It would not have been necessary to talk about alternative models, had
UWIDEC not experienced deeper fissures in the system". (I had by then
completed one year in my position.) We identified four broad problem areas:
administrative, financial, technological and academic. Bringing up five
distinct cases pertaining to administration, we showed to the Board that 'DE
students were treated as if they were nobody's concern'; six cases pertaining
to financial operations, we highlighted the tendency of counting DE students as
UWIDEC students rather than UWI students (the implications being obvious); five
cases pertaining to technology, we highlighted the vulnerability UWIDEC was
faced with in this area; and finally with five cases pertaining to academic
matters, we concluded that DE work was seen as an add-on and that 'so long as DE work is not seen as and
arranged to be an integral part of an academics' mandate at UWI, the Faculty
Driven Model remains a myth to be exalted in rhetoric and denigrated in
practice'. Reformative proposals were listed with each of the four
areas dealt with. The discussion was extensive and some of the proposals were
accepted for implementation, but most had implications for various units and
Boards of the University. Not enough
progress was made.
May 12, 2000 (BNCC/DE meeting in Belize): One more year gone, with no significant changes in train, UWIDEC approached the Board with a new thrust with these words: 'I (Director) must link this document with the proposal made at the Board Meeting in October 1998. At that time, I was approaching DE issues from the viewpoint of a distance educator, looking at DE students as our prime concern. With that context in view, I had outlined the problems, as I saw them, and proposed solutions. Since then I have learnt quite a few things about my work environment and I must share my reflections with the Board before I present a new line of thought.' I brought twelve (12) case points to the notice of the Board inferring that 'in (the prevailing environment) DE will not thrive at UWI along the lines of practice that obtain today as they are based on assumptions which have proved to be untenable. We need an alternative model.' A brief outline of the model was presented under the heading ' A different type of Management for DE Operations' with the suggestion that should the idea meet the Board’s approval, UWIDEC would put up a detailed proposal with all the necessary details regarding administration, budget design, etc. The idea was approved.
May 12, 2001 (BNCC/DE meeting in Turks & Caicos): The detailed proposal entitled “New Management of Distance Education Centre/Operations: A Proposal” brought to the Board focused on academic management, administration, financial management and maintenance of standards/quality assurance. A work plan indicating the timeframe and individuals/units to share responsibilities for the implementation of the proposal was also included for consideration. The ensuing discussion brought forth various suggestions, and the proposal met with approval for further action. One of the major follow up action points was to share the proposal with and seek (as appropriate) the views, agreements and/or approvals of UWIDEC and SCS staff, the Executive Management Committee and the University Bursary. By and large the proposal was supported by all the relevant bodies. Among other items under academic management, a separate body (to be named suitably, now agreed to be called ‘UWIDEC Academic Programme Committee) was proposed to look after the academic affairs of UWIDEC, but the budget design was yet to be developed.
May 10,
2002 (BNCC/DE meeting in Dominica): Having incorporated the inputs and
comments received from the relevant quarters, a revised note regarding the
proposed new governance of UWIDEC was presented to the Board. Included were an
elaborate note on the new UWIDEC budget design, the size of the required budget
provision including that for technology (which is non-existent in the present
provision), elaborated detail of the timeframe, the required staff provision
and details regarding the allocation and placement of the proposed staff. The
document met with appreciation and attracted approval for further concomitant
action. Further discussions with Professor Carnegie and at the Executive
Management Committee on June 17, 2002, brought in additional
inputs/modifications leading to the present status of the document and a path
for further action. Obvious immediate action points pertain to budget and
governance, the former because no reformative step should be taken unless (as
emphasised earlier) it is fully underwritten and the latter because a beginning
has to be made at the beginning. As we are preparing for the necessary steps in
this direction, the relevant documentation has already been submitted to and
discussed with the University Bursary for their consideration and action, and here we are commencing with the new
governance.
Composition
of UWIDEC/APC
1. Chairman, Board for Non-Campus Countries & Distance Education– ex officio Chair [1]
2. Academic, professional and technical personnel of the UWIDEC (i.e. Director, campus co-ordinators, programme co-ordinators, curriculum development specialists, telecommunications manager, finance officer and student support services co-ordinator). [1+2+5+3+1+1+1]
3. Two representatives of staff from non-campus countries, one of whom should be a member of the BNCC/DE. [2]
4. One representative of staff from off-campus centres. [1]
5. One representative of the student body. [1]
6. One faculty member each for the general areas of study offered by UWIDEC. [5]
7. One member each from professional and technical service units (i.e. Libraries, Campus IT Centres. [2]
8. DE Registrar – ex officio Secretary. [1]
In the first instance, the Chair will nominate members (other than the ex-officio ones) for a period of two (2) years. Subsequently, members who are not ex-officio will be nominated or elected by the respective constituencies. The Committee will meet in campus countries by rotation at least twice (February and August) every calendar year and one-half of its membership will constitute the quorum for each of its meetings.
Responsibilities of the UWIDEC/APC
The UWIDEC Academic Programme Committee shall have the following functions. [The following list incorporates the modifications to the list approved by the BNCC/DE (at its meeting held on May 10, 2002, in Dominica) as advised by the Executive Management Committee in its meeting held on June 17, 2002.]
1. To provide basic information and expert advice to the BNCC/DE for it to formulate the academic and operational policies that govern DE operations of UWIDEC and the UWI.
2. To provide technical support and advice to the BNCC/DE in considering and approving proposals and plans from departments, faculties, boards and other units of the University for offering DE courses/programmes.
3. To recommend to the Board for Undergraduate Studies (and the Board for Graduate Studies and Research) the appointment of course co-ordinators, examiners and tutors on the basis of appropriate consultation.
4. To recommend to relevant faculties and to the Board for Undergraduate Studies (and the Board for Graduate Studies and Research) the approval of student registrations, course exemptions, leave of absence and the consequential action.
5. To recommend to the Board for Undergraduate Studies (and the Board for Graduate Studies and Research) the approval of examination results of distance students.
6. To maintain the standards of the distance courses and programmes offered by UWIDEC and other units of the University in collaboration with the University Quality Assurance Unit.
7. To develop the University’s capacity for distance education.
To enable the Committee to function satisfactorily, the BNCC/DE advised that the following action points be materialized to begin with:
1. BUS and BNCC/DE should collaborate to create new rules and regulations specific to DE students.
2. The Standing Committee on Ordinances and Regulations should be asked by the Registrar to vet new regulations pertaining to programmes offered through DE.
3. Academic Boards should be kept informed but should no longer have direct responsibility for DE students who would not be tied to campus-based activities.
4. With regard to staffing, the posts would be adjusted to reflect the reclassification done by UWI.
5. There should be no expansion beyond the existing resources and the Site resource needs, which have been omitted from the document, should be included after consultation with relevant parties.