Work-integrated learning (WIL) can be neatly and meaningfully accommodated within distance education (DE), assert Kamper and Du Plessis (2014, 77), based on empirical evidence. However, the opposite is valid about WIL and open distance learning (ODL). The notions open learning (OL) and ODL, attained substantial status in the ranks of DE providers they state. In the current era of massification of higher education, the branding as ‘open’ gained popularity mainly for student-centeredness, marketing political and reasons. “ODL has become the ‘hype’ to the extent that most recognised DE institutions wish to be viewed and accepted as ‘ODL institutions” observe. This unfortunately, resulted in careless use of the notion ‘open’ in some instances.
A distinguishing characteristic of OL is about choice—putting the decisions about learning into the hands of the students—for example: “To learn or not to learn; what to learn; how to learn; where to learn; when to learn; the pace of learning; who to go to for assistance; how to evaluate what has been learned, and what to do next.” Differently stated, the choice of DE students “with regard to the content, time, place, and pace of learning, method of instruction and nature of assessment” (Kamper and Du Plessis 2014, 81).
Kamper and Du Plessis (2014, 86) ask “Can WIL (as a ‘closed’, highly structured mode of learning) fit into the highly popular educational wrapper of ODL?” or “Can OL and ODL conceptually incorporate WIL?” or “Can an ‘ODL institution’ accommodate WIL?” They emphasise that the answers are imperative with regard to the trustworthiness of institutional identity and branding; and the resultant validity of perceptions and expectations. Based on empirical evidence Kamper and Du Plessis (2014, 87) point out that the highly structured, organised and scheduled features of WIL does not conform to the essence of ODL. They emphasise that “during the WIL part of their learning, students of an ODL institution cannot be regarded as ‘ODL students’ … thus constitute[ing] an untenable conceptual anomaly”.
Kamper and Du Plessis (2014, 86) caution that it is unacceptable for an institution to refer to itself as an ‘ODL institution’ if the institution cannot guarantee and provide student-driven openness in its distance learning offerings. The branding as ‘ODL institution’ should be educationally and ethically responsible.
Kamper, G.D. & du Plessis, E.C. 2014.) Some critical reflections on open distance learning, with particular reference to work-integrated learning, Africa Education Review, 11:1, 77-90. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/18146627.2013.853568
Comments