The ecology of distance learning: Bridging the gap between university and student

Bridging the gap between the university and the student in distance learning in general, but specifically at Unisa, is the main focus of this article. In the study we explored epistemological perspectives from the evolutionary beginnings of humanity as well exploring cybernetic, complex and ecological thinking and discovered new epistemological horizons to view distance learning and student communication. In this philosophical reflection through analytical autoethnography, we grappled with ways to transcend the epistemological split between, on the one hand, our reductionist and mechanistic thinking that requires us to be efficient, and ecological and complex thinking that creates a caring and collaborative ecology. We propose the reclaiming of our humanity by co-evolving all role players in the distance learning context at Unisa into a new culture of learning and communication grounded in passion, curiosity and openness that will enable us to be responsible and participating citizens of the planet. Key terms: epistemology, ecology of distance learning, autoethnography, analytical autoethnography INTRODUCTION The relationship between the University of South Africa (Unisa) and its students has deteriorated over the past few years. This is evident both from formal research such as the Student Satisfaction Survey (2012, 16), but also by simply ‘listening in’ on Unisa’s social media platforms. Although the relationship between the university and distance-learning students is traditionally more distant than at residential universities to begin with, a number of factors have had an influence on the way Unisa relates to students. The merger between Unisa, Technicon SA (TSA) and Vista Vudec (Unisa Annual Report 2003) in 2004 led to rapid student growth Van Niekerk and Schmidt The ecology of distance learning 197 and a clash of institutional cultures. The consequence was the emergence of a more competitive environment that separated departments into competitive units, which created silos in the organisation. This led to fragmented services and this contributed to alienating students from the university. In addition, Unisa made a few decisions that contributed to the breakdown in communication, one of which is the closing of the call centre in 2009. Students could no longer call the university and became increasingly frustrated with the inaccessibility of staff. Although the student body grew significantly, the staff component did not, which further led to slow service and a lack of response to student needs. In the years that followed, various attempts have been made to bring the students and the university closer together or at least to improve student satisfaction. This included improved communication material in both print and digital formats and a new business model that would digitise processes in order for the university to become more efficient in communication and service delivery. All these attempts however seem to have failed and have not improved the relationship between Unisa and its students. Working in the field of student communication and with students, we felt that exploring student communication in the distance-learning field but specifically at Unisa was an important issue to investigate, especially since very little research has been done so far. When we consulted literature and research around student communication in the distance-learning environment, we found little work on the fundamental aspects of student communication and the relationship between the university in general and the student. Most research focused on a reductionist use of technology and pedagogy in the teaching and learning environment as opposed to a focus on the fundamental human relationship between the university and students (Heydenrych and Prinsloo 2010; Siemens, Gašević and Dawson 2015). Very little was found on how being human is inextricably connected to who we are as humans, how we live, how we communicate and particularly how we learn. This begged the question why and how we learn as humans and how learning and communication should work in the distance learning environment in general but in this case specifically at Unisa. We decided to pursue a philosophical investigation that included a literature review of the evolutionary beginnings of humanity and humanness where love and collaboration formed the foundations of survival, until the inevitable development of civilisation, competition, science and formal education so that we became alienated from our evolutionary beginnings (Headrick 2009; Maturana and Verden-Zöller 2008; Morin and Kern 1999; Siemens 2006). In an attempt to find an epistemological alternative, we explored, in a second literature review, cybernetics, Van Niekerk and Schmidt The ecology of distance learning 198 complexity and ecological thinking in order to find new epistemological horizons from which to view student communication in the distance-learning context (Bateson 1988; Maturana and Verden-Zöller 2008; Morin 2008). Through an intimate reflective struggle using autoethnography (Ellis and Bochner 1996) as research method together with the two literature reviews (Henning 2011), we tried to create a deeper understanding of how to create a vibrant student communication context. From the literature review, we derived some basic fundamental principles for creating a context of living, learning and communication that is truly human. We then used these principles as a map to track our own intimate personal experiences of working at Unisa in the field of student communication using analytical autoethnographic writing (Chang 2008). What emerged was a process of recursive philosophical reflection through analytical autoethnography. We did this by enriching the basic story of student communication recursively through mapping the theoretical principles onto the context of Unisa’s student communication. Then for a second recursive time we reflected on both these stories or combined them in a metareflection or view of the complexity of the issue of student communication at Unisa. The present article describes the process of how this new perspective aided in evolving a proposed framework for how Unisa should relate with itself and its students. FROM DISTANCE TO DISTANT Traditionally, Unisa was a correspondence university, with very fixed processes, support and communication systems. For more than 100 years, the system was characterised by slow and predictable processes and communication was aided by a relatively efficient postal system. Then in the early 1990s, the Internet was invented and South Africa became a democracy. Slowly the environment in which Unisa functioned started to change. Open distance learning became the ‘in’ thing and Unisa created more support functions for its students. These took the form of extended learning centres, discussion and tutorial classes and online environments. By the early 2000s, Unisa moved from a year module system to a semester system, which meant that twice as many registrations, assignments and examinations had to be done. There was an increase in the need for support functions in these areas. However, no concomitant increase in staff took place in these support departments. By mid-2004, through government intervention, Unisa merged with Technicon SA (TSA) and Vista Vudec (Unisa Annual Report 2003). The three organisations had vastly different institutional cultures and people had to fight for positions. Therefore, together with a new bonus-based performance management system introduced in the next decade or so, the merger Van Niekerk and Schmidt The ecology of distance learning 199 led to the emergence of a competitive culture. Between 2003 and 2013, the resulting strain on administrative and academic systems was exacerbated by the doubling of student numbers in less than a decade. In 2009, Unisa closed the call centre and implemented a communication system using email and SMS only. After an outcry from students who battled to have their enquiries answered, management gave instructions that all staff had to answer their phones. This was ineffective due to various reasons, but mainly because staff members were overwhelmed by enquires irrelevant to their fields of expertise, which meant that they could not assist students. It seemed that one of Unisa’s mechanisms to cope with the increase in students, administration and complexity was to standardise processes. Methods of communication were chosen, such as mass transmission of SMS text messages, to accommodate the lowest common denominator and this left little room for engaged conversations and communication. In 2013, the Unisa Council adopted a new Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) model, which meant that Unisa would become an online university over a relatively short period of time. All students had to be computer literate, own their own digital devices and have good access to the Internet. Unisa’s own business processes would also be more automated and there were rumours that the functions of the regional offices would be curtailed. Unisa started to refer to itself in terms of metaphors of architecture (Unisa’s Organizational Architecture: Interim Report 2012) and business, referred to its students as ‘clients’ or ‘customers’ and expressed the goal of becoming a high-performance university (Unisa 2013‒2015: Towards a High Performance University). The staff members were greatly affected by these changes. Administrators complained about large student numbers and their inability to cope with the bigger workloads. Academics complained about an increase in administrative functions and less time to teach. Of course, these changes as well as other environmental factors had a great effect on students. While there was less time for them to communicate with the university due to the semester model, the services of the post office slowed down due to strike action and often caused students not to receive study material on time. Stu