A dual mode institution provides educational courses by both the conventional, on-campus mode and by distance education. This article discusses the challenges encountered during introduction of distance education at the University of Botswana (UB). At the UB, introduction of distance education was piecemeal and left the Distance Education Unit disconnected from the academic mainstream and unable to fully implement its mandate to convert university programs to the distance education mode. The UB experience is used to identify important factors that can guide the process of converting to a dual mode university.
Background
Botswana gained independence from Great Britain in 1966. Since then, national development has taken place through a series of 5- to 6-year development plans. In 1997, Botswana enacted the Long Term Vision for Botswana, commonly called “Vision 2016” which identifies goals for the first 50 years of independence. One of these important goals is that by the year 2016 Botswana should be “an educated and informed nation.” Expansion of education is recognized as a key element in the strategy for realizing the Vision, and increased access to higher education is critical to achievement of this goal. Diversification of the modes of delivery of higher education thus became an important factor in achieving the Vision.
Education In Botswana
The University of Botswana has its origins in the Pius XII Catholic University, in Lesotho, which registered its first students in 1946. Twenty years later it became the University of Bechuanaland, Basotholand, and Swaziland (UBBS), serving the three southern African British colonies that became the independent nations of Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland. After the three countries attained their independence in 1966, the university was renamed University of Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland (UBLS), and had campuses in all three countries. In 1975, when Lesotho established a national university, UBLS became the University of Botswana and Swaziland (UBS). In 1982, when the University of Swaziland was established, UBS became the University of Botswana (UB). UB, a government-supported university, is the only comprehensive university in Botswana, and thus has a mandate to meet the educational needs of the country (University of Botswana, 2006a, p. 7).
During the first decade of independence, the Botswana government concentrated on expansion of access to primary and secondary education, and the number of primary schools increased from 376 in 1978 to 647 in 1991. Table 1 shows the increase in enrollment in primary, secondary, and tertiary education in Botswana from 1978 to 1997. It can be seen that enrollment in primary and secondary schools increased rapidly during this period. The University of Botswana also expanded, in response to the increasing number of secondary school graduates. By 2005-2006 total university enrollment was over 15,500 students (University of Botswana, 2006, 7b).
However, even with the rapid growth of UB, the demand for university education far outstripped existing resources. The university realized that it could not meet the national demand for higher education if it relied solely on the conventional mode of delivery, namely campus-based, face-to-face education. For example, out of a total of 19,372 students who completed Form Five in the year 2000, 7,710 (approximately 40%) were admitted into a postsecondary education institution including the University of Botswana, vocational and technical institutions, and Colleges of Education (Republic of Botswana, 2003). The demand for postsecondary training and education far exceeded available places (Table 2). Thus, UB seriously considered offering some of its programmes through the distance mode in order to increase access to a university education.
Development of Distance Education In Botswana
Botswana’s initial involvement in distance education was in 1960-1965, when some Batswana teachers were enrolled in the Salisbury Correspondence College in Rhodesia (Jones, n.d.). These teachers, who were sponsored by the Colonial Government, received distance education preservice training through the college.
This preindependence experience provided a basis for the first attempt by the government of the young republic to provide distance education. From 1968-1973, the Botswana Government sponsored a distance education programme designed to improve teaching skills of 700 primary school teachers. This was a 1-off 2-year in-service course which comprised three residential periods of intensive instruction followed by individual study (Jones, n.d.).
The first full-fledged distance education institution in Botswana was the Botswana Extension College (BEC), established in 1973. BEC offered distance education courses at the secondary-school level. The programs offered were mainly print-based self-instructional materials, supplemented by broadcast radio and face-to-face sessions at study centres or weekend residential schools. BEC was incorporated into the Ministry of Education’s new Department of Non-formal Education in 1978 and in 1996 became the Botswana College of Distance and Open Learning (BOCODOL) in 1996 (Republic of Botswana, 1994).
The second institution in Botswana to offer distance education was the University College of Botswana (a college of UBLS), through its Division of Extra Mural Services (DEMS). From 1971-1979, DEMS provided community education through an alternative mode to faceto-face teaching, namely that of broadcast radio (Jones, n. d.). UB offered formal distance education from 1979 with the introduction of the diploma in theology (discontinued in 1990), followed by the certificate in adult education in 1983 (Youngman, 1991). The certificate in adult education was offered through the Institute of Adult Education (IAE), which had taken the place of the Department of Extra Mural Services in 1978 (Youngman, 1991, p. 8). Each of these activities involved a single programme that was initiated and offered by a single department.
The university recognized the role that distance education could play in increasing access to university education. In 1991, the Institute of Adult Education was divided into two separate entities, the Department of Adult Education, a teaching department in the Faculty of Education, and the Centre for Continuing Education (CCE), which was to be an outreach arm of the University as a whole. The CCE was to have within it a Distance Education Unit, which would be responsible for converting the programs of the university into the distance education mode. It was envisioned that the University would then offer its programmes through both modes, the conventional and distance education, and would thus become a dual mode institution.
Challenges of a Dual Mode Institution
Historically, universities have used either of two main models. In one model, fully integrated teaching staff are expected to teach in both the traditional and distance programmes. In the other model, most staff teach in either traditional or distance programs, but not both (Chick, 1992). These models have changed and slowly given way to other structures. Rumble and Latchem (2004) point out that the models are “fluid, transmuting and converging” (p. 134).
The basic structure of most dual mode universities requires that the distance education unit or department has responsibility for coordinating all aspects of distance education programmes. The functions carried out by this unit or department include: development of educational materials, distribution of these materials, tutoring and counselling students, maintaining student records, and assessment or accreditation (categorization by Perraton, 2004). The processes involved in delivery of an academic programme by distance education require both business and specific subject area skills. This skill and knowledge requirement is foreign to the governance and management of conventional university academic programmes. A conflict thus arises between academic freedom and the necessity for maintaining effective educational delivery mechanisms. According to Rumble (1981):
There is a need for a clear definition of the interrelationships between two broad areas, one of which is more in the nature of a business enterprise requiring appropriate management techniques and a hierarchical structure of management and control, while the other is more in the nature of traditionally conceived academic areas, in which the staff expect a style of management or governance reflecting traditional forms of management in conventional universities. A major issue confronting distance-teaching universities is the reconciliation of these two tendencies. (p. 179)
Because of the complex interdependence between the subject matter and business requirements of a distance learning programme, there is need for constant administrative supervision. Renwick (1992) argued that “dual mode universities have to acknowledge that their distance education activities must be managed in ways that are foreign to most face-to-face teaching responsibilities.” Renwick further reiterates Rumble’s call “to find ways of combining management and academic principles” (p. 149).
Writing about the experience of the University of Zambia, a dual mode institution, Siaciwena (1997) indicates that the distance education unit experienced problems arising from the integrated structure of distance education at that University. In an effort to resolve operational problems, a new model of distance education was created. The new model entails “an autonomous distance education unit which was responsible for the organisation, administration and co-ordination of all distance learning courses offered by various teaching departments” (p. 57). The greatest challenge to conventional universities that want to become dual mode institutions is developing appropriate organizational structures that effectively facilitate distance education.
Introducing Distance Education into The University of Botswana
The decision of UB to introduce distance education came in 1991 with the creation of the Centre for Continuing Education (CCE), which had one specialized unit, the Distance Education Unit (DEU). However, when the CCE founding director took office in 1994, he divided the center into four units: the already existing Distance Education Unit, a new Extra Mural Unit (EMU) responsible for part-time evening classes and short, noncredit courses, a new Public Education Unit (PEU) which provided general public education and awareness on different issues through seminars and public lectures, and a new support unit, the Technical Support Unit (University of Botswana, 1996).
This restructuring decreased visibility of the Distance Education Unit within the university. Furthermore, the divisions were not statutory, so all of the Units lacked autonomy. Even though its mandate was large, the DEU had a weak organizational structure that prevented effective implementation of the mandate. Recommendations from the DEU staff for the Unit to be upgraded to the status of a department within the structure of the university were not adopted (Tau, 2002).
In summary, the internal structure of the Unit, and its place within the Centre for Continuing Education, meant that the needs of the DEU were filtered through the center, a process that severely hampered the ability of the DEU to live up to the expectations of its stakeholders.
The approaches used by institutions to introduce distance education are as varied as the institutions themselves. Nonetheless, a number of factors have been identified as affecting the success of distance education in a dual mode university. Croft (1992) identified four conditions that would ensure successful implementation of distance education in a dual mode institution: it should be an administrative unit with significant authority; it should have cooperation from other units; it should have a well-trained staff; and it should have secured sound funding. Ntloedibe-Kuswani and Tau (2006) argue that it is important for institutions planning to introduce distance education to first conduct a front-end analysis so that the institution is prepared to address potential challenges that might negatively impact the success and quality of distance education.
However, many institutions have followed a piecemeal approach in which the introduction of distance education was not sufficiently planned, either structurally or operationally. Banathy (1992) and Robinson (2004) have concluded that the incremental approach to the reform of educational systems has not worked well, and this approach has contributed to the challenges of converting a conventional university into a dual mode institution. The Distance Education Unit at UB was created with a mandate to increase access to the University of Botswana. UB failed to appreciate the fact that the unit would have to function together with the other subsystems and be fully integrated into the University in order to achieve its goals.
The mandate required the Distance Education Unit to work collaboratively with the teaching departments to convert existing university programs into the distance mode. DEU would provide expertise in distance education as well as the day-to-day administration of programs, while the teaching department would be responsible for content and quality assurance. The goal was to take existing university programs to as wide a community as possible and thus increase access to a university education.
Implementation of the mandate became a serious challenge for the unit. There was no framework to guide and facilitate the process. The unit could not convince the academic departments of the university to offer programs through the distance education mode. Resistance has been attributed primarily to a heavy staff workload and lack of interest in distance education. The absence of a formal policy also meant that there was no requirement for academic departments to convert their programs to the distance education mode (Tau, 2002). In addition, the support functions needed to provide distance education (academic services, financial services, student affairs, library services and/or others), were only marginally informed about their roles and about the expectations and special needs of distance learners. In short, the new unit was not recognized and did not receive sufficient support within the university.
The multiplicity of departments and units that must be involved in providing a distance education course makes it imperative for a carefully formulated implementation strategy to be in place, with active support at all levels within the University. Albrecht and Bardsley (1994), writing about the planning process, note that it must be carefully designed and supported by all those who will be involved. This is essential, they write, “so that the leadership and all other participants have involvement with and confidence in the process. Without full participation, the process will be incomplete and likely to fail, no matter how well it is diagrammed from beginning to end” (p. 68).
Introduction of a distance education programme can be initiated by a teaching department, or following a request from a stakeholder, such as a ministry. For example, the Botswana Ministry of Education perceived a need to upgrade teaching skills of primary school teachers, and approached UB for assistance in meeting this need. In 1994, the Revised National Policy on Education sought to improve the quality of primary education, which the country regards as foundational to the education of its citizens. The Ministry of Education intended to change the minimum requirement for teaching at the primary school level from a certificate to a diploma in primary education. The ministry concluded that the skills of 10,000 teachers (certificate in primary school holders) needed to be upgraded to diploma (Republic of Botswana, 1994). Other than through distance education, there was no other way to accomplish this within a reasonable time.
The UB Distance Education Unit regarded this request as being in line with its mandate to increase access to university education. However, the enthusiasm of the unit was not shared by the Department of Primary Education, which could provide an academic home for the programme. The department had its own priorities and distance education at that time was not one of them. In addition, the department did not have the resources needed to embark on a new activity of such a large scale. Since the DEU was unable to persuade the department to provide the academic home for the programme, CCE together with the Ministry of Education had to devise alternative means to offer the needed programme by distance mode. The program was run collaboratively with the Department of Teacher Training and Development with students registered as bona fide students of the four colleges of primary education.
From the systemic context of UB, what emerged was that the process of creating the Distance Education Unit had not been carried through to completion. UB had attempted to develop distance education programs without the needed supportive structures. One aspect of this was the absence of an implementation strategy or policy to guide, which would create new structures and align existing ones to the mandate of the DEU. The critical relationships needed to facilitating the work of the Unit did not exist. Most importantly, there was no effective relationship between DEU and teaching departments whose courses and programs would be converted into the distance education mode. There was thus a call to go back to the drawing board and reconceptualize the whole organizational structure of CCE including DEU (Tau, 2002).
Thus, development of the Distance Education Unit was slow, hampered by:
Ignorance of the unit’s mandate by the rest of UB, particularly the teaching departments which were expected to work collaboratively with DEU to develop distance education programmes;
Lack of an implementation framework and/or a poorly articulated strategy;
Lack of an effective organizational structure both within the unit and in relation to the university faculties and teaching departments.
In response to a seemingly ineffective Distance Education Unit, the UB in October 2000 commissioned a consultancy to undertake a comprehensive review of CCE in order to “redefine its vision, operations, priorities, and to develop a modus operandi that is fully compatible with both national and university planning developments” (Nhundu, 2005, p. 1). The main findings of the consultancy were that the main barrier to increasing access to university education through CCE included a policy vacuum and marginalization of CCE within the University. A corollary problem was that CCE’s relationship with the Faculties was under-developed (Yerbury, Dunlop, & Glackman, 2001). Tau’s study (2002), conducted in late 1999, came to similar conclusions in that it identified the lack of an implementation strategy to guide the work of DEU as one of the major flaws that negatively affected the quality of its work. This vacuum had a negative impact on the development of effective relationships between DEU and other components of UB, and led to the minimal success of the DEU in carrying out its mandate, particularly during the early stages of its development.
To implement the recommendation of the external review of CCE, a restructuring process was initiated. The purpose was to redefine the center’s vision, operations, procedures, and priorities so as to make it fully compatible with both national and university development plans. Along with this restructuring exercise, the UB Distance Education Mainstreaming Policy was approved in 2005. The main-streaming policy attempts to fill the policy gap that has impeded provision of distance education since the creation of the center with a “specialised Distance Education Unit” in 1991. The policy provides the framework within which University functions that should take part in the distance education process will operate. It also creates some critical structures needed for the development of programs and courses. These structures help to define the relationship of the Department of Distance Education with Faculties and teaching departments. It attempts to mainstream distance education in the university system.
However, the new structure that has resulted from restructuring does not suggest a radical change from the status quo except that the status of the DEU is elevated to a department within CCE; instead of four units, CCE now has two departments: the Department of Distance Education and the Department of Extra-mural and Public Education (University of Botswana, 2006c). The author contends that as long as the Department of Distance Education is located within another unit of the university and not within its academic structure of university faculties, some of the limitations, such as competing for resources and having its needs filtered through the center, are likely to persist.
In spite of the many challenges that the unit has faced since its creation, it has forged ahead. By January 2007, the Department of Distance Education offered eight academic programs, including four business degree and four diploma programs, while one master’s, two bachelors degree, and one diploma programs are under development. Besides, the relationship with the faculties and teaching departments has improved, guided by the mainstreaming policy. Furthermore, some departments have identified the need to offer some of their programs through distance education and are in the process of doing so; they include two bachelor’s degree programs: bachelor of information and library studies and bachelor of primary education.
Conclusion
Failure to be systemic in its approach to the introduction of distance education at UB meant that:
Distance education as a subsystem was introduced into a system that was not ready for it.
The Distance Education Unit as a subsystem of UB was not aligned with the rest of the UB academic structure.
As a result, DEU could not perform the process of providing education at a distance to the optimum level.
The long, meandering route that the dual mode University of Botswana took in order to arrive at a point of relative success was not necessary and could have been avoided if a systems view and approach had been used to introduce distance education. The processes of providing education at a distance are cross-functional; as such, all necessary functions should be fully integrated within the university. The organizational structure and the relational arrangements among the departments can limit or expedite the delivery of distance education, thus directly impacting its success or failure.
For a distance education enterprise to work in a dual mode university, the process of converting the institution should be informed, among others, by the following considerations:
The university should conduct a front-end analysis to guide all the decisions including that of the distance education model to be adopted.
The organizational structure that is devised should ensure that the distance education unit will not be isolated from the academic mainstream;
An implementation framework should be developed to guide the process.
A systems approach must be used to ensure that all the other units and departments of the university that will have a role in the process of distance education provision are fully informed and readied for the endeavor.
