1
REPORT OF TECHNICAL TEAM
INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATE FUNDING OF
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
29 MARCH 2004
1
INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATE FUNDING OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
BACKGROUND
1.Between 2000 and 2002, technikons revised a number of their programmes in response to new policy initiatives, including SAQA regulations and the requirements of professional boards and of industry. The revision of these programmes has involved the integration of previously separate experiential learning (EL) components into the formal curricula, to ensure quality learning experiences that are properly assessed, evaluated and monitored.
2.These revised technikon programmes were submitted to the CHE, were approved by the IJC, and published by the CHE during February 2002 in a revised Policy Report 151. This Report 151 included the bulk of the revisions, and in particular the recommendation that the full-time equivalent (FTE) students of integrated EL components would become formal FTEs, funded by the State in full. In a letter dated 29 November 2002, the Minister informed the Chair of the CTP that he was not in a position to agree to a request that EL be funded by government in this manner. The Minister added in his letter:
“I understand the concerns you have in this regard, especially given the role that experiential learning plays in the technikon curriculum. However, I believe that the role and funding of experiential learning needs to be investigated in detail before any decision can be made”.
3.On 22 July 2003, CTP representatives and members of the Department of Education (DoE) met to discuss the investigation requested by the Minister. The meeting recommended to the Director-General (DG) of DoE that a tech-nical team be appointed to undertake the investigation and also made recom-mendations regarding membership of the technical team and the team’s terms of reference. On 14 August 2003, the DG approved these recommen-dations. Members subsequently appointed on the technical team were Prof J N Steyn (SAUVCA), Prof A P Staak (CTP) and Dr R Cilliers (DoE).
4.The approved terms of reference of the technical team were the following:
4.1The technical team should investigate the following matters:
4.1.1what the definition should be of EL, and in what kinds of programme EL should be included;
4.1.2what kinds of activity are currently being classified as EL by technikons and universities;
4.1.3what levels of service higher education (HE) institutions undertake, and deliver to students involved in experiential learning activities (a) off-campus, and (b) on campus;
4.1.4if the levels of service offered to students in EL activities differ, in what categories these activities could be placed;
4.1.5whether changes in EL components of any qualification justify changes to its total, formal and experiential time;
4.1.6related to 4.1.5 above, whether a distinction should be made between FTE formal and FTE EL students;
4.1.7if EL activities were to generate government funding, how and to what levels these should be funded;
4.2In considering the issues raised in 4.1.2 above, the technical team should focus on programmes with compulsory EL, and should take particular account of the studies already undertaken into EL in a group of 66 technikon programmes;
4.3The technical team should investigate any other matters concerning EL which it believes should be reported to the Minister of Education. The team could, where necessary, co-opt additional members with appropriate expertise.
5.Team members corresponded mainly via e-mail and informal discussions during the investigation. The team met for half a day on two occasions in Pretoria, namely 15 October 2003 and 4 February 2004. The outcome of the investigation is presented in the following sections.
A DEFINITION FOR EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
6.The current national definition for “experiential” is set out on page 6 of Policy Report 004. It is a lengthy definition (half a page) trying to distinguish between two types of experiential, instead of distinguishing between “experiential time” and “formal time”. What is confusing is that within this definition, an example of a university programme is used that is State funded, whereas current policy dictates that experiential time at universities is not funded. Although it does not directly relate to the content of the current definition of experiential time, what is even more confusing is the discovery, as will be discussed in paragraph 32, that the DoE funded experiential time at technikons, but not at universities.
7.Definitions for EL differ at national and institutional levels. Therefore, the proposed definition for EL focuses on supporting the national level, in order to simplify the structures to calculate possible State grants. In establishing an appropriate definition for EL, it should be noted that some components of a higher education programme are offered on the basis of a co-operation between a public HE institution and businesses/organisations in the industry for which the relevant qualification is intended. The part of a programme that takes place in the industry is called experiential learning (EL).
8.The proposed definition for EL is the following:
Experiential learning is a monitored programme component requiring a student to spend a period of time during the whole programme at an appropriate place of work.
9.The place of work is not intended to be on any site of a public HE institution. In principle, on-campus EL is not desirable and should be avoided as far as possible.
10.This definition for EL might have to change, once a new HE qualification framework has been approved to substitute the current policy Report 116 for universities and Report 150 for technikons. The new qualification framework might possibly be linked to NQF credits, instead of “a period of time”.
NUMBERS OF EL STUDENTS AT HE INSTITUTIONS
11.One of many critical issues that needed to be resolved for State funding purposes was the number of FTE EL students in the system. It became clearly evident that the proper capturing and reporting of FTE EL students have been neglected in previous years at universities, technikons and the DoE. Reasons are 1) a vague national definition of EL, 2) EL students have never been used as input parameters in any formula to fund EL, 3) EL student data were never required to be audited, and 4) the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) has no standardised way of reporting EL students. The total neglect of ensuring that EL student data are accurate before excluding them from subsidy calculations has resulted in some FTE EL student data at universities and technikons being transformed, either intentionally or unintentionally, into formal time FTE students that are fuIly subsidised by the State as ordinary contact or distance FTE students.
12.In the case of universities, obtaining EL student data from the sector was not successful. However, lists of programmes, reflecting the formal, experiential and total study times of each programme, provided useful statistics. These lists were submitted to the DoE by 14 of the 21 universities during 2002 and 2003 as part of another DoE exercise to finalise approved programmes. Within only 9 universities a total of 124 programmes, some of which are duplicate programmes, contained EL components. These 124 programmes could be subdivided as follows:
12.183% were in the basic and clinical health sciences. The Department of Health currently funds most of these EL programmes, for example hospital internships.
12.2Veterinary science EL students at the University of Pretoria. There were about 116 FTE EL students in 2002. The DoE has always funded the Veterinary Science hospital facility at Onderstepoort via these students, as this hospital facility has no government partner other than the DoE.
12.313% were in social work. Telephonic enquiries indicated 83 EL FTEs at 4 universities. The State currently does not fund these students.
12.43% were in architecture, quantity surveying and construction management. Telephonic enquiries indicated only 47 EL FTEs at 2 universities. The State currently does not fund these students.
The above statistics shows unusually small numbers of FTE EL students at universities that are not funded by the State; symptomatic of the trend in previous years to neglect the EL category or to find ways to bypass national policy that states that EL within universities is not State funded.
13.In terms of the technikon sector, the CTP has made a considerable effort to obtain EL data from the sector. The summary technikon student data in Table 1 suggests 17 000 student heads involved in EL in 2002. Table 1 also suggests that an EL student is involved in EL on average half a year, or a semester, thus producing a total of 7 700 FTE EL students in 2002. In comparison, HEMIS reflects only 1 700 FTE EL students for 2002. However, EL FTE student totals in both Table 1 and HEMIS are relatively low, as technikons are currently not reflecting all their EL students properly according to the proposed definition. The loss of EL FTE students by not placing all potential EL students could have an impact on the number of students in the sector as well.
14.Even though accurate student figures could not be obtained, the numbers of FTE EL students at universities are expected to be small relative to technikons. Therefore, this report focuses mainly on the information contained in existing EL studies already undertaken by the CTP, as indicated in the approved terms of reference in paragraph 4.2.
TABLE 1: TECHNIKON EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING STUDENTS IN 2002TECHNIKONS / Total number of EL students / Total FTE
head- / FTEs / FTE/head / enrolled / B/(B+C)
count / ratio / students
in 2002 1)
(A) / (B) / (B/A) / (C) / (%)
BORDER / 171 / 86 / 0.50 / 4 010 / 2.1%
CAPE / 1 363 / 641 / 0.47 / 11 065 / 5.5%
DIT / 2 035 / 875 / 0.43 / 16 459 / 5.0%
EASTERN CAPE / 437 / 184 / 0.42 / 6 114 / 2.9%
FREE STATE / 559 / 264 / 0.47 / 6 084 / 4.2%
MANGOSUTHU / 947 / 466 / 0.49 / 4 971 / 8.6%
NORTH WEST / 462 / 153 / 0.33 / 4 192 / 3.5%
NORTHERN GAUTENG / 823 / 377 / 0.46 / 8 588 / 4.2%
PENINSULA / 1 085 / 474 / 0.44 / 7 069 / 6.3%
PORT ELIZABETH / 746 / 373 / 0.50 / 7 130 / 5.0%
PRETORIA / 2 909 / 1 405 / 0.48 / 22 057 / 6.0%
SA / 3 198 / 1 194 / 0.37 / 27 254 / 4.2%
VAAL TRIANGLE / 1 044 / 516 / 0.49 / 11 323 / 4.4%
WITWATERSRAND / 1 227 / 738 / 0.60 / 10 240 / 6.7%
TOTAL / 17 006 / 7 746 / 0.46 / 146 557 / 5.0%
1) Excluding experiential learning FTE students
NATIONAL POLICY TO CAPTURE EL STUDENTS
15.This section deals with the issue of reflecting EL for State funding purposes. Current policy dictates that, although an EL component of a programme may consist of many small periods of EL, or consist of a few EL courses integrated into a curriculum, the accumulated period of time during the whole programme dealing with EL should be reflected separately as EL. This accumulated period of time should represent the minimum allowable period of EL time, and should be expressed as a fraction of the total number of teaching weeks for the programme, e.g. 8 weeks EL per annum out of 32 teaching weeks per annum for a 3-year qualification would imply a credit value for EL of 0.3 per annum, accumulating to 0.9 for the whole programme. The period of time for EL is usually finalised during the DoE’s process of approving a new programme or approving adjustments to an existing programme. Once an EL component is approved, it should be reflected as such in HEMIS on an annual basis.
16.According to existing HEMIS policy, any EL component of a programme should be reflected separately within the following 3 HEMIS study times:
Minimum Total Time:
The minimum total number of years (to the nearest tenth of a year) of full-time post-secondary study needed for completion of the instructional programme leading to the particular degree, diploma or certificate.
Minimum Experiential Time:
The minimum number of years (to the nearest tenth of a year) of full-time study needed for completion of the experiential part of the instructional programme leading to the particular degree, diploma or certificate.
Minimum Formal Time:
The difference between the “minimum total time” and the “minimum experiential time”
17.For example, a diploma programme that usually takes a minimum of 3 years to complete, with an accumulated period totalling 0.6 of a year during the 3-year period for the EL component, should be classified as minimum total time (3.0 years), minimum experiential time (0.6 years) and minimum formal time (2.4 years).
18.The manner of calculating EL time, as well as the notion of using minimum time, might have to change once a new HE qualification framework has been approved, as the new qualification framework might possibly be linked to NQF credits.
19.The distinction made between formal time and experiential time is necessary, because the approaches of the State towards funding these two categories of time have always, and will most probably always, differ. Credit values associated with formal time generate the normal FTE students, used as a basis in previous subsidy formulae as well as in the new funding framework to generate State funding for institutions. Credit values associated with experiential time, and ultimately experiential FTE students, have never been used to generate State funding for institutions at the DoE, except for Veterinary Science. The only way the distinction between formal time and experiential time could be eliminated is when policy would be accepted stating that an experiential FTE student would be funded exactly in the same way as a formal time FTE student. This would imply, for example, that an experiential FTE student in Funding Group 4 in the teaching input funding grid will be State funded in the same manner as an ordinary FTE student in Funding Group 4.
SERVICES PROVIDED BY HE INSTITUTIONS TO EL STUDENTS
20.In the new funding dispensation, government grants for institutions are intended to pay for the delivery of teaching and research related services. Apart from administrative support services such as the registration of students for EL and student financial administrative services, the following best practice of services that ought to be provided by technikons to EL students, have been compiled by the CTP:
ORIENTATION: WORK PREPAREDNESS AND LIFE SKILLS PROGRAMME.Students receive instruction to prepare them for the world of work. Policy and ground rules clarify roles and the obligations of the students, technikon and industry in the co-operative education partnership. Students acquire job-seeking skills such as CV writing, application procedures, interview and presentation skills. Other life skills such as time management, team building and communication are also introduced.
LEARNING PROGRAMME
Learning criteria and specific outcomes are documented to give guidance to the student and mentors on the work-based training and learning areas for the specific disciplines. Students are guided on how the work learning experiences should be integrated and recorded. Assessment criteria and evaluation timeframes are documented.
PLACEMENT PROCESS
The Technikon markets and promotes Co operative Education to commerce, industry and government and secures accredited workstation placement opportunities. Learners are introduced to a range of Companies and have to apply and secure their own placements. Technikons may facilitate the application and interview process as required and students are selected by the companies after short-listing and interview processes.
VISITATION and MONITORING
Technikon staff visits students to ensure that their learning experience meets the expectations of all parties. The students, mentors and technikon staff meet to discuss progress. Logbook entries, presentations or any other agreed evidence portfolios or artefacts may be used to assess student progress. Visits to students at the workplace are planned timeously and by appointment. Frequency of visits will depend on geographical location, costs and related factors.
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Interim and continuous assessment may occur throughout the experiential learning period. Assessment and evaluation performed by mentors, technikon staff or external examiners. Logbooks, assignment reports, projects, presentations or any other agreed evidence portfolios or artefacts may be used to assess and evaluate student learning. Marks, credits or records of OBE competence may be used to reflect student success and learning outcomes. Structured and recorded feedback by students and industry can serve as a quality assurance tool for review and improvement.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Best practice presupposes dedicated administrative infrastructure and resources. This would include a database of participating companies, student's placement and work-record progress, as well as correspondence, communication and marketing material.
21.Five types of EL for which the services provided by the HE institution might have different State funding implications, are briefly discussed below.
On-campus and off-campus EL
22.Some contact tuition institutions provide on-campus EL, such as in food technology (hotel school), jewellery, secretarial services, public relations and electronics. No data of on-campus EL students at technikons were available, but it is believed to be a relatively small share of all EL students.
23.For on-campus EL students, the institution may have less of an administrative support function of marketing, placing of students and orientating students for the market in terms of issues such as job-seeking skills. S & T costs related to academic monitoring may be less as well. However, the institution would be responsible for the effective supervision of the EL student, and that carries with it hidden costs. In terms of State funding, it is proposed that, apart from veterinary science students, no distinction be made between on-campus and off-campus FTE EL students.
Directed and independent EL
24.Directed EL is where the student acquires or applies previously acquired knowledge and skills in a supervised situation that approximates or duplicates the conditions under which the knowledge/skills will be used. The instruction is typically individualised, with a high degree of interaction between the student and the supervisor. Typical examples are the hospital internship at academic hospitals which is funded by the Department of Health, veterinary science at the University of Pretoria which is funded by the DoE, and EL of the technikon diploma in telecommunications which is also funded by the DoE. Independent EL is those situations in which the student acquires knowledge or skills through independent experiences. There is no formal interaction between the student and the teacher/agent, but interaction does take place between the student and individuals encountered in the education experience, as well as between the student and the actual surroundings. A typical example is an architectural student working in an architect’s office.
25.The actual services provided by the public HE institution for these two categories of EL do not differ substantially. Therefore, it is proposed that, apart from veterinary sciences and EL funded by the Department of Health, no distinction in terms of State funding be made between directed EL students and independent EL students.
EL involved in contact and distance modes of instruction
26.Apart from different service approaches towards EL students in these two modes of instruction, the majority of EL FTE students involved in distance tuition are already situated in the work place. This implies that the HE institution’s administrative support function of marketing, placing of students and orientating students for the market in terms of issues such as job-seeking skills, are relatively small. It is therefore proposed to fund the services provided by a HE institution to a distance FTE EL student at a lower level than the services provided towards a contact FTE EL student.
Integrated EL and separated EL
27.During 2000 and 2002, technikons had a major re-curriculation exercise involving a re-design of all programmes in outcomes based format in order to comply with SAQA requirements and to register technikon programmes on the NQF. This exercise was co-ordinated by convenor technikons. Convenor technikons were requested to re-curriculate the EL components as well, by re-designing them in terms of outcomes with associated assessment criteria. These EL components, which have been integrated into the curriculum as any other subject, were classified as “integrated EL”. For “integrated EL”, the minimum experiential time component, which was usually reflected separately in Report 151, was now removed as a separate component and included or integrated into the curricula of the formal courses with an associated credit value in Report 151. The old types of EL component that has not yet had the opportunity to be re-designed and re-curriculated was classified “separated EL” and their minimum experiential time was still reflected separately in Report 151. Even though separated EL is evaluated, it is not outcomes based and students do not receive a % mark, but simply a “complete” or an “incomplete”. CTP studies show that about 10% of EL FTE students (805 FTEs out of 7746 FTEs) are still classified as “separated EL”. Hence separated EL should soon be phased out.