Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education

My letter to the MHRD on the draft Policy issued for comments:

To
Dr. D.K. Paliwal
Deputy Educational Advisor (DL)
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Education
Room No. 325-C
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi

Dear Sir,
This has reference to the Public Notice dated 28th August 2009 regarding “New Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education”. While the attempt of the Ministry needs appreciation, I would like to submit before you some points for kind consideration of the intelligentsia of the Country so that we are able to create a knowledge society that recognizes the importance of 'learning' and for that matter Life Long Learning through Distance Education (DE).

Let me first appreciate the good work done so far. Probably for the first time in India, a policy statement on open and distance learning in higher education sector has been placed before the public for discussion. This is a bold attempt to admit past mistakes, rectify the errors committed, and willingness to improve and promote DE as a mode and discipline as recommended by the National Knowledge Commission. It is not possible for the Country to meet the challenges resulting out of the commitment towards Universalisation of Secondary Education, if we do not strengthen the DE systems of the country. Towards this, the policy clearly emphasizes the significance of distance education. The emphasis of use of ICT, research in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and training programmes on ODL for teachers and administrators should be appreciated and implemented carefully.

The quality concerns on 7 (d) is really good as most institutions (including Open Universities) consider distance education as something in which with least investment can receive higher returns! Insisting on having full-time appointed faculty before starting any programme should help establish credibility of a programme, and this is something that should be insisted upon.

As mentioned in 7 (c), franchising of distance education by Universities should be stopped. It is where most distance education institutes and Open Universities, without proper quality checks join hands with private/less quality (private is not always less quality) institutions to offer programmes in the name of Private-Public Partnership (PPP) though a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) making it a perfect understanding to earn revenue from student fees. So, all the Open Universities and Distance Education Institutes offering programme through such MoUs and not having their own investments in the Study Centres should immediately be stopped.

Now, some suggestions and concerns.

1. That the policy should emphasize the significance of distance education for fostering a knowledge society by encouraging life long learning.
2. That the policy be re-named as “Open, Distance and Online Learning in Higher Education”.
3. That the emergence of National Commission on Higher Education and Research (to be established) would call for amendment to IGNOU Act 1985, especially the role assigned to IGNOU for maintenance of standards in distance education systems. It is appropriate that the nature of IGNOU (as a single mode distance teaching open university) may also be reviewed, as it has already started on-campus face-to-face programmes (which should fall under the approval of UCG). The IGNOU Act, Clause 4 emphasizes that IGNOU should in spirit be a University that uses various communication technologies to deliver instructions. So, in the light of the new Commission coming up, it is imperative that the IGNOU Act be amended suitably and its nature be clarified. Moreover, the DEC of IGNOU will have no role after the new Commission is established. Till then the modalities suggested are good to streamline operations.
4. That distance education will not be permissible in programmes having “extensive practical course work” is something of a major concern. What is meant by the phrase – extensive practical course work? Do we as a nation want our disadvantaged students to learn only Social Science and Humanities through DE? Do we believe that Science and Engineering subjects can't be taught through DE? This calls for a change in the mindset and understanding about DE and instructional design as such. Distance education can and should provide sufficient practical opportunities necessary for achievement of learning outcomes of a course/programme. If a programme that requires practical and does not have adequate provisions for the same in its design then that programme should be stopped. There are laboratories in colleges, universities and research institutions all over the country that are not utilized during week-ends, holidays and vacation period, and why can't we utilize such opportunities to provide practical experiences to DE students? Why can't Open Universities establish centralized/regional labs as done by the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University? Let's all of us think -- What we want? Do we want quality education of all types for all or just one type of education for the large segments of population and another for the elite? My humble submission is that all kinds of programme should be allowed through distance education, provided the programme design adheres to the basic professional requirements of the programme and addresses the competence framework specified by the quality assurance agency ( what ever that may be).
5. It is also not understood why exemption is being given for the time being to Universities offering programmes before 1991 and established before 1985. Quality is a matter of process and attitude and not age of the institution. Earlier established institutions do not necessarily follow the quality benchmarks, and therefore, everyone should be treated equal. We should not create different types of institutions within the system and thereby create confusion in the minds of the students.
6. The point 7 (ix) is going to create hardship to the students who have already undergone a programme of study some years back. The suggestion of one chance appearance in another examination is probably not well thought out, and it is submitted that its operational mechanisms may be considered before the policy is finalized.

The above submissions are made before the Ministry for its kind consideration as a concerned Citizen of the country and as a professional practitioner of distance education and educational technology. Views expressed are personal and have nothing to do with the official position of the undersigned.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,


Sanjaya Mishra
Reader in Distance Education
STRIDE, IGNOU
Maidan Garhi
New Delhi 110068

Role of Teachers in Distance Education

The Social Science Discussion Forum (SSDF) of the School of Social Science, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) organized a Panel Discussion on “Role of Teachers in Distance Education: Challenges and Prospects” on 26th August 2009. The Panelists were Prof. J.M. Parekh, Prof. P.R.Ramanujam, Prof. A.S. Narang, and Prof. Swaraj Basu. I attended the same and shared my observations and reflections on the presentations vis-à-vis the developments in the University. This is interesting to note that the topic of the discussion came out of the suggestion made by Prof. Basu to the Convener, Dr. Japgpal Singh on the basis of a University wide appeal sent by Dr. Ranjith of the School of Journalism and New Media Studies to discuss on the challenges before the University due to start of face-to-face classes. While all the Panelist and most of the speakers shared their views that the start of face-to-face is beyond the scope of IGNOU Act, I personally emphasized on the topic as I had written about dual-mode teaching at IGNOU previously in my blog, and the discussion was expected to be on role of teachers in distance education.

As a teacher of distance education as a discipline, I have always considered that teaching is teaching, irrespective of the mode, and urged the teaching community of the University not to consider themselves different as there has always been attempts to marginalize teachers as “academic managers”. The roles of teachers irrespective of the mode of teaching are: Curriculum design and development, Content presentation, Assessment of learner performance (continuous and term-end), Learner support, Research and publication (disciplinary and on learning technology), and Extension service and consultancy. So, it is only in the area of content presentation the method differs in distance education, as it uses media (print, audio, video, multimedia, web-based courses) to deliver teaching. These materials are designed with special care to facilitate learning, and are said to have the qualities of a teacher. In the face-to-face teaching, the teacher only delivers lectures and engage the class in various interactive methods. The other roles being same, there is on reason for always comparing distance education to face-to-face education system. Moreover, we do not compare oranges and apples!

The most important activity as such is preparation of learning materials. Interestingly, in order to quickly develop learning materials, the University adopted in the beginning a mode of taking help from teachers from the face-to-face colleges and universities to develop materials. Thus, without use of the term “Outsource”, it practiced outsourcing of the unit writing tasks. The teacher in the University writes only some units of a course that he/she teaches, and thus is labeled as “Course coordinator”. This is a serious issue, and teachers in the University need to assert themselves of their role as teachers, and develop courses without depending on external course writers. So, as we outsource unit writing, the University has taken it little further to outsource development of programmes to external agencies through MoUs and partnerships! This is marginalization of the teaching function, as there is a growing belief that courses and programmes can be developed elsewhere and can be delivered by an Institute/University without having faculty on its roll. In this connection, the role of Distance Education Council (DEC) needs to be re-looked. Interestingly the DEC is supposed to maintain quality and standards in the Distance Education System in the country; but it has failed to develop a credible system, and it is teachers of IGNOU who go in accreditation teams to different institutions in the country and approves them, without questioning the process adopted by the DEC.

There has been a serious degradation in professional ethics of teachers at IGNOU, as all the programmes and courses are approved by statutory bodies like the School Board, Academic Council, where there is sufficient representation of teachers. There is rarely any instance of dissent to any item in any of these statutory bodies. Thus, all the recent developments are proposed and approved by the teachers in the University. Once these items are approved, people talk about these issues outside in private (non-relevant platforms). It also seems that there is serious lack of integrity of teachers!

Many times, colleagues at IGNOU boast of their quality materials. It is time to have self-reflection. Who certified that our material is good? Even if, it is good, what is the “goodness of the good”? Are we aware of these? IGNOU is one kind of distance education system, and that can’t be a benchmark for others to follow. Most of the time, decisions are taken that are not in tune with distance education practices worldwide, making our system vulnerable to criticism and others looking at us as untouchables. If the recent developments in the University are not addressed seriously, there is every danger that the students of the distance education system shall be at a disadvantage!

I thank the convener of SSDF for organising a Panel discussion on such an important topic. The participation in the meeting was highly satisfactory as over 25 faculty members attended the same. Interestingly, non of the Directors of the 22 Schools of Studies of IGNOU attended the meeting!