Workload and interaction: Unisa’s signature courses – a design template for transitioning to online DE?

Abstract

The principal contradiction of online distance education is the disparity that exists between economies of scale and the new interactive capabilities of digital technologies. This is particularly felt where mega-universities in developing countries seek to make better use of these affordances while at the same time protecting their economies of scale. This article interprets the course design of the University of South Africa’s signature courses (SCs) within this framework. The SCs combine a high class size – one teaching assistant (TA) supports 200 students – with frequent interaction enforced by the high number of deliverables (ten assignments per semester). This leads to a high marking workload for TAs reducing the time for facilitating online discussion. How this contradiction plays out is further examined with empirical data taken from one particular SC. The quantitative data analysis (based on simple word and message counts of students and TAs) is interpreted in the light of the semi-structured interviews with TAs.

Keywords:

• Economies of scale
• responsive interaction at a distance
• workload

Acknowledgements

We thank the Signature Course team for providing us with the necessary access and engaging with us in critical discussions. In particular, we would like to thank Gerda Mischke, Alice Goodwin-Davey, Jabulani Nene, Jurie Le Roux and Neil Eccles for many frank discussions though they may not agree with all our conclusions. We also want to express our appreciation to B. Tshili for her support as research assistant. Special thanks also go to Britta Zawada, who commented on various versions of the paper, and to Jenny Roberts for her constructive comments, language editing, and proofreading.

Notes

1. The term heutagogy (self-directed learning; Blaschke, 2012; Hase & Kenyon, 2000) is derived from the reflexive form of the Greek term autos and refers to, in combination with the verb agein (leading), to the ability to lead oneself. While children are led by a pedagogue and adults by an andragogue, the self-directed learner is led by him- or herself. Given the cognitive tools afforded by digital technology, there is sufficient valuable information out there which the self-directed learner can use. In this vein, the educated middle classes were/are enthusiastic about MOOCs, which offer a new format of study for the techno-savvy autonomous learner.

Few have looked at heutagogy under the perspective of cost analysis. However, if taken literally, the concept has obvious cost implications since it diminishes the role of the teacher, who is the major cost driver in education. Heutagogy points to an escape route out of the dilemma between economies of scale and interaction. Interaction as STI is a cost factor since it increases the variable cost per student, thus eroding economies of scale. Interaction as SSI comes at low or no cost to the institution. Heutagogy uncouples the linkage between interaction and costs by uncoupling increased interaction from the teacher’s workload. The teacher is asked to ‘stand back’ (Baijnath, 2013, p. 1999). Although the insight is portrayed as being derived from learning theory it is certainly welcomed by administrators interested in efficiency savings.

For heutagogy to work two conditions must be satisfied: The learner needs to have a certain level of capability to learn independently and must be sufficiently IT-literate to make use of the available knowledge sources. Hence, the question is: can heutagogy be used to create the conditions upon which it is predicated?

2. The break-even point (BEP) is defined as fixed costs/(income per student – cost per student). The cost per student depends on the class size. For a detailed discussion, see Hülsmann, 2016, p. 46ff.