Review of Distance, Open and Flexible Learning at Curtin University of Technology
JOHN BOTTOMLEY December 1998

The Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the Review are as follows.

To review distance, open and flexible learning at Curtin University of Technology with reference to the University's Teaching and Learning Plan. To report to the Deputy Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning through an options paper.

• Define distance, open and flexible learning within the Curtin context and its relationship to the Teaching and Learning plan ( http://lsn.curtin.edu/ssu/tlplan97_00.html )
• Identify policy and procedural requirements and key issues to be addressed in order to meet the University's strategic directions.
• Develop a distance, open and flexible learning framework suitable for Curtin's needs.
• Report on appropriate funding mechanisms.
• Review the management processes of distance learning and distance support.
• Identify the appropriate use of communications and information technologies for distance, open and flexible learning at Curtin.
• Identify future needs of the University and its stakeholders with respect to distance, open and flexible learning.

Definitions

The terms Distance Education, Open Learning , Flexible Learning, and Online Delivery are used throughout this report. The terms are used as follows.

• Distance education refers to those teaching activities at Curtin that are supported through central Distance Education funds distributed through the CEA. Most distance education at Curtin makes use of Curtin developed print materials which are complemented in some units with commercially produced learning resources and Curtin produced learning resources in other media. The teaching model is typically that of correspondence study with individual students working with learning resources, submitting assignments for assessment by mail and receiving feedback on these by mail.
• Open Learning refers to those teaching activities at Curtin that are supported and offered through Open Learning Australia. The teaching models involved are broadly similar to those employed in distance education although some units involve the use of radio and television broadcasts
• Flexible Learning refers to teaching activities that make significant use of resource based teaching models in which significant aspects of the educational process is conducted through the use of one or more educational, often information, technologies. Flexible learning can thus be employed for both on and off-campus teaching. Flexible learning provides students with educational opportunities that reduce or eliminate the need for a student to study at a given time or place.
• Online delivery refers to the use of the Internet for teaching purposes. Uses may include the provision of student access to learning resources, the facilitation of communication and collaborative working among and between students and academic staff, the assessment of individual student or group student assessment and the provision of administrative, student service and other forms of support.

Context: The University Strategic Plan and the Teaching and Learning Plan

The Curtin University of Technology Strategic Plan 1998 - 2000 states that one of the University's main goals is 'to achieve excellence in teaching and learning...' (Section 4) Five major objectives with regard to teaching and learning are listed. These are:

• To produce graduates who embody the University's values and are equipped for careers in their chosen fields;
• To satisfy the diverse learning needs within the student body;
• To foster self-directed learning among students;
• To encourage reflective practice by staff; and
• To promote, recognise and reward quality teaching and learning (Section 4)

These objectives are taken from the Office of Teaching and Learning Teaching and Learning Plan 1997 - 2000 which designates the Office of Teaching and Learning as the responsible body for 'developing and implementing policies and practices that support Curtin's goal of achieving excellence in teaching and learning'

The University Strategic Plan also states:

'The University values 'the search for innovative applications of technology to educational purposes and other social needs, emphasising continuous improvement'. Curtin is committed to the computer and information literacy of all students and staff' (Section 1)

'Efficiency and effectiveness in the use of information technology is essential. This can be achieved through the adherence to standards for hardware and software and through staff being well trained...

• The University will provide training and retraining for both academic and general staff in the appropriate use of IT' (Section 8.9.3)
• 'The University's resource allocation process is aimed at supporting excellence and adjusting to changing circumstances....It will...:
• Allocate an increasing proportion of its budget to support strategic initiatives and targeted areas of excellence' (Section 8.5)

Curtin then is strategically committed to quality teaching, to the use of technology for educational purposes, to the computer and information literacy of all its students, to staff able to make productive use of IT, to the strategic allocation of scarce resources to meet these ends and to continuous improvement in all its activities.

The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Deputy Vice Chancellor: Teaching and Learning on the means by which these ends may be achieved.

Distance, Open and Flexible Learning at Curtin

Curtin and its predecessor institutions have been involved in distance education for many years. It has been a participant in the activities of Open Learning Australia for several years and is presently a shareholder therein. Not all Schools and Divisions are involved in distance education or open learning. The present scope of activity and the organisational arrangements to support this are summarised in the balance of this section.

Scope of activity

Student unit enrolments in distance education have been growing steadily over the past five years. The table below provides details.

Much of this growth can be attributed to the growing number of units on offer in distance mode for this to has grown steadily.

Average student unit enrolment per unit is as below.

The pattern of activity across Divisions

The pattern of activity in distance education varies across divisions and Schools with respect to numbers of enrolments and units offered. There is also variation in the degree to which enrolments are by students studying in mixed-mode (ie students who are simultaneously taking both on and off-campus units). The ratio of course-based to unit-based enrolment in DE within a school is taken as an indication of the degree to which the school is serving a true off-campus market. The higher the ratio the greater the proportion of 'true' off-campus students: the lower the greeter the degree to which DE is being used to provide Metro students with flexible access to programs. The tables below summarises the situation as at 31 August 1998.

Three divisions, Humanities, the Curtin Business School and Health Sciences account for 94.7% of student unit enrolments. Two divisions, Humanities and the Curtin Business School account for nearly three quarters: some 73.3%.

Within the Curtin Business School enrolments are distributed relatively evenly across all seven schools. The largest, Economics and Finance, enrol 44.9 unit-based EFTSU: the smallest, Information Systems, enrol 18.9 EFTSU. This pattern contrasts with the Divisions of Humanities and Health Sciences in both of which enrolments are concentrated in a small number of schools. In Humanities four of the ten schools, Information and Library Studies, Social Sciences and Asian Languages, Social Work and Education, account for 99.1% of divisional unit based EFTSU. In Health Sciences Nursing and Public Health account for 81.1% of divisional unit-base enrolments.

In addition to the above the University offers 21 units through Open Learning Australia which attract a further 936 enrolments.

Organisational arrangements

The Office of Teaching and Learning (OTL) develops and implements policies and practices that support Curtin's goal of achieving excellence in teaching and learning. A broad objective for OTL is 'To ensure that Curtin makes appropriate use of technology (especially information technology) to advance its major goals in teaching and learning as well as in research and development' (Learning Matters, May 1998).

OTL contains three major components: the Library and Information Service (LIS), the Counselling and Health Service (CHS) and the Centre for Educational Advancement (CEA). The CEA offers a variety of professional and technical assistance. Among the services provided are academic staff development, teaching and curriculum development, educational technology development, learning resources development and the administration of many aspects of the University's distance education activities.

A key aspect of this report are recommendations on the best strategic use of the resources of OTL in general and the CEA in particular in the achievement of the University's strategic Goals for teaching and learning.

Funding arrangements

Central funding for distance education is allocated as a block to participating Schools on a pro-rata basis according to their taught distance education EFTSU at the University set cut off date the previous year. These monies are used for the development of materials for new distance education units, for the redevelopment and maintenance of materials for existing DE units and for the reproduction (largely printing) of existing course materials. Approximately $600,000 is allocated annually for development and $100,000 for reproduction (printing).

Half the estimated development funds are forwarded to Schools at the beginning of the year once they indicate how they intend to use their funds and how developments fit into their distance education plans. Schools are required to indicate wheher units to be developed are related to a strategy to make entire courses available at a distance. An adjusted balance of development funds is distributed once actual print costs are known and schools have confirmed completion of funded developments. Schools who do not expend all thei allocated reproduction funds can carry these forward as a surplus to be used for further development or maintenance activities. Funds allocated for uncompleted developments are returned to the development pool for redistibution to all schools in the following year.

The CEA has very little control over the use of development funds once these have been distributed other than funds distributed for distance education strategic new initiatives. Some 10% of developments funds are distributed annually for such projects in which CEA staff are more closely involved in assuring positive educational outcomes

Annual development funding was relatively stable at about $600,000 and reproduction (printing) funding stable at about $100,000 over the period 1994 - 1998 During this period enrolments grew by some 87.9%. This has resulted in increased expenditures on printing leading to deficits and since 1997 in the expenditure of development monies to cover the deficits incurred from printing 'overruns'.

A new source of funding for schools is that allocated the Learning Effectiveness Alliance Program (LEAP). The aim of this program is to facilitate collective improvement in the quality of teaching and learning at the School Level through a range of incentives and rewards, concentrating initially on five Schools from across the University and bringing others in progressively in years two and three of the program. Funding has been allocated for LEAP at $600,000 per year for three years beginning in 1999.

A key aspect of this report are recommendations on the best strategic use of DE and LEAP resources in the achievement of the University's strategic Goals for teaching and learning.

Key issues

The terms of Reference of the Review and discussions with key stakeholders indicate the following are the key issues requiring comment.

• What is the strategic role for distance, open and flexible learning at Curtin?
• What use should be made of information and communications technology to support teaching and learning at Curtin?
• What should be the relationship of a distance, open, and flexible learning framework to the University Teaching and Learning Plan and other University initiatives such as LEAP?
• How can Curtin maintain and enhance flexible provision?
• How can Curtin increase the appropriate use of technology to support flexibile and high quality teaching and learning?
• How can the University ensure and improve the quality of teaching and learning processes?
• What management and budgeting processes and models are needed to maximise the strategic benefits for Curtin?
• What should the balance be between central, divisional and school control of strategically important initiatives and activities?

Strategic Issues

The key strategic issues facing Curtin are:

• What is the strategic role for distance, open and flexible learning at Curtin?
• What should be the relationship of a distance, open, and flexible learning framework to the University Teaching and Learning Plan and other University initiatives such as LEAP?
• What use should be made of information and communications technology to support teaching and learning at Curtin?
• How can Curtin maintain and enhance flexible provision?
• How can Curtin increase the appropriate use of technology to support flexibile and high quality teaching and learning?

Findings re strategic issues

Discussions with key Divisional, School, OTL, LIS and CEA staff, a review of University documentation and a review of present practices and procedures suggest the following findings:

1. There is no clearly articulated operational 'vision' for distance education, open learning and flexible learning at Curtin .

The University Strategic Plan clearly articulates objectives for teaching and learning at the University. These are further elaborated in the Teaching and Learning Plan . No clear 'vision' however has been developed specifying the role of distance education, open learning and flexible delivery in the attainment of these objectives. There thus exist no criteria, objectives or milestones against which to evaluate competing claims for scarce resources for the development of these activities. Furthermore there exist no performance indicators or other measures against which to assess performance and hold organisational units and individuals accountable.

2. There is no consensus or clearly articulated policy at Curtin concerning the role of distance education, open learning and flexible learning in its operations.

Distance education programs and materials are used for at least four purposes. These are:

• to provide some degree opportunities for true distance education students
• to provide flexible access to students studying in mixed mode;
• to support on-campus teaching; and
• to support off-shore programs taught with partners

There are differences in degree to which the above purposes characterise the offerings of a given school or division. All these purposes are legitimate but it is far from apparent that the needs of these distinctly different cohorts of students are best served through the use of the same learning resources or teaching methods. Increasingly the use of print-based distance education materials may not the most effective and efficient way of providing on-campus students with learning resources or metro-based students with some flexibility in accessing part-time programs. As these, rather than the provision of programs to remote students ,are the key purposes of some schools, then more appropriate forms of learning resources and of flexible provision need to be adopted. If Curtin is to achieve the quality of teaching it aims for there needs to be greater clarity at the Institutional, Divisional and School level as to the purposes for which scarce resources are allocated to the development and administration of 'distance education' programs and learning resources.

3. There is no clearly articulated policy at Curtin indicating the manner in which distance education. open learning and flexible learning activities at the University should be complementary and mutually supportive in assisting the achievement of its strategic goals for teaching and learning.

A consequence of this situation is that there is a lack of strategic focus in the use of scarce development and support resources. This lack is manifested in several ways.

• Distance education development funds are distributed on a pro-rata basis to schools offering 'distance education' rather than on the basis of the University's strategic need to provide flexible access for a variety of student cohorts in the most educationally appropriate way. The excellence demanded in the Strategic Plan requires the strategic use of scarce resources.
• LEAP funds are to be distributed strategically but without it appears any explicit consideration of using them to complement the use of distance education development funds. The University will obtain the maximum benefit from scarce development resources if it uses them for mutually complementary and supportive purposes.
• Human resources within OTL and particularly the CEA appear to be used in a piecemeal rather than strategically coordinated fashion. Teaching development and staff development staff within the CEA appear to work in a mutually supportive fashion but there needs to be much closer cooperation and mutual support between the activities of the information technology staff and teaching and staff development staff. To a significant degree information technology development, teaching development and staff development are conducted in isolation rather than as mutually supportive activities. The University needs to regard these as three facets of the same activity: that of improving the quality of teaching and learning.
• The activities of CEA staff are not as closely tied to strategically important projects as is desirable. The work of development staff is not as closely tied to the use of development funds as is desirable. Additionally some of the time of media and information technology development staff appears to be used for purposes other than the support of teaching and learning. Given the mandate of the CEA and OTL this would appear to be inappropriate. The time of CEA staff should be directed as much to the furtherance of strategically important initiatives.

4. Despite commitments in the Strategic Plan to the computer and information literacy of all staff and students and to the provision of training and retraining for both academic and general staff in the appropriate use of IT there is no clearly articulated policy regarding the use of information and communications technologies to support teaching and learning at the University.
This lack is manifested in two important ways.

• No systematic consideration is given to the ways in which the University intends to translate into action its commitment to computer and information literacy for those students studying off-campus through distance education. Existing off-campus programs do not systematically develop these skills in students. They need to do so if the University is to achieve its strategic objectives for teaching and learning and to avoid graduating students deficient in core skills of Curtin graduates. Off-campus programs must be educationally equivalent to on-campus programs. In several schools it is recognised that it is educationally imperative that such skills be developed. In others there is active opposition for such a requirement. This opposition is typically couched in terms of equity and access for the remote and socially disadvantaged. These are difficult issues but ones the University must address.
• There is insufficient integration in the provision of information technology training and the development of teaching skills in academic staff. Quality and efficiency dividends for the University will come only if applications to support teaching and learning are used in educationally appropriate ways. Teaching academic staff to use an application such as WebCT will do no more for the quality or efficiency of their teaching than will the mastery of word processing improve their academic writing. Furthermore the appropriate use of online technologies for teaching purposes requires the adoption of models of teaching that are quite different from either classroom teaching or print-based correspondence study. The mastery of new technologies needs to be acquired in the context of learning to teach in these new ways. The development of all these skills in academic staff requires the joint and coordinated efforts of teaching development, staff development and technology development staff.

Recommendations re strategic issues

The following recommendations need to be considered in conjunction with the recommendations on quality assurance and procedural issues that follow. The implementation of these recommendations will require the OTL to work in cooperation with many of the administrative divisions of the University: most importantly with Information Services.

Recommendation One

That the OTL, in cooperation with Divisions and Schools, further develop and refine an operational vision for the year 2002 for distance education, open learning and flexible learning at the University. This needs to be consistent with the University Strategic Plan and the Teaching and Learning Plan and to specify:

• the purposes and nature of each mode of study at the University;
• the manner in which activities in these modes are to interrelate and complement each other;
• establish implementation objectives and milestones for the years 1999 - 2002: and
• establish performance indicators against which to monitor progress.

Recommendation Two

That Divisions and Schools, in cooperation with the OTL and in particular the CEA, develop divisional teaching and learning plans consistent with the Teaching and Learning Plan and Operational Vision noted above. These plans need to specify:

• Divisional and School priorities for the years 1999- 2002 for the development of new programs, for the redevelopment of existing programs and for the deletion of existing programs.
• The cohorts of students to be served and the mode of provision to be employed for each.
• The teaching models to be employed for each cohort.
• The mix of media to be used to support each mode of provision.

The development of Divisional and School priorities should take into consideration the accreditation and re-accreditation procedures noted in recommendations concerning the quality of teaching.

Recommendation Three

The CEA develop new policies and procedures for the allocation of distance education development funds that articulate with policies and procedures for the allocation of LEAP funds. On strategic grounds both sets of policies and procedures need to be consistent with the attainment of objectives in the Operational Vision and Division and School Teaching and Learning Plans and with Section 8.5 of the Strategic Plan. Funds should be allocated only to projects with clearly defined objectives and milestones and which are conducted through the work of cross-functional teams involving staff drawn from Schools and the CEA.

These policies and procedures should take into account the recommendations below concerning the disbursement of funds for the reproduction of distance education materials.

Recommendation Four

The CEA allocate staff resources to the maximum degree possible to activities designed to assist in the attainment of objectives in the Operational Vision and Division and School Teaching and Learning Plans. ie as much as possible to the projects noted in Three above.

Recommendation Five

The CEA develop procedures and modes of operation that ensure teaching development, staff development and information technology development staff work together in cross-functional project teams. Procedures should ensure that technical staff are always supported by teaching or staff development staff when working with academic staff drawn from schools and divisions on matters concerning teaching and learning and the information technology support thereof.

Recommendation Six

The OTL further develop and refine, in cooperation with Divisions, Schools and Information Services, an operational plan for the years 1999 - 2002 for the use of information technology to support teaching and learning and for the provision of computer and information literacy skills to all students: including those studying off-campus. This plan needs to(a) ensure that literacy skills are developed by students in the context of their disciplinary studies and not as a separate 'add-on through the provision of a compolsorary IT skills unit or the like, (b) be consistent with the Operational Vision and Division and School Teaching and Learning Plans and (c) specify;

• the uses to be made of information technology to support teaching and learning in each mode of provision;
• the application or applications the University will support for each purpose;
• infrastructure requirements to support the above; and
• the nature of support and training provision for both on and off-campus students and for staff.

Recommendation Seven

The OTL coordinate the development of a University Policy regarding equity and access to educational technology. This policy needs be consistent with the University's strategic committment to the acquisition of computer and information literacy in all graduates and to recognise that the future credibility of Curtin degrees depends in no small part on the University being successful in operationalising this committment.

In short I recommend that the OTL, working as necessary with the University community, very clearly identify operational objectives for the attainment of the University's strategic objectives for teaching and learning, allocate scarce development and human resources to the maximum degree possible for the achievement of these objectives and to conduct on a cross-functional project team basis those activities required for their attainment.

Such an approach will result in Schools not receiving distance education development funds on a pro-rata basis. Rather they will need to demonstrate to that their proposed developments each year are consistent with Division and University, and not just school, Teaching and Learning Plans . Some Schools will inevitably therefore not receive funds each year for development purposes. This however is a regrettable inevitability if the University allocates resources for maximum strategic effect.

Quality Assurance and Improvement Issues

The University Strategic Plan commits Curtin to a regime of continuous improvement . A key quality issue facing the OTL is therefore:

• How can the University ensure and improve the quality of its teaching and learning processes?

Findings re quality assurance and improvement issues

Discussions with key Divisional, School, OTL, LIS and CEA staff, a review of University documentation and a review of present practices and procedures suggest the following findings:

1. Processes are in place though to systematically collect student feedback on their experience of teaching in all units. Some of these processes are voluntary and some routine. I am unable to comment on the extent to which this feedback is used by Divisions, Schools and individual academics to make needed changes in teaching practice. The University needs to have processes in place that ensure appropriate actions are taken in all Divisions and Schools. This will involve the University in the development of validated instruments that are used routinely for all staff in all schools as well as in the development of University wide processes and procedure concerning their application and use.

2. Staff in both LIS and the CEA act as troubleshooters for complaints received from distance education and open learning students.

3. Significant curricular and resource review, development and redevelopment takes place without the input of teaching and staff development staff in the CEA. This will become an increasingly problematic situation as the progressive introduction of flexible learning requires staff to teach in new ways.

4. There appear to be few if any University controls on which courses and units are offered in which modes. These decisions appear to rest with Divisions and Schools and in the case of distance education to be based to a large degree on historical precedent Such a situation, unless rectified, will inevitably lead to a non-strategic use of scarce resources and impacts on the quality of teaching .

5. There appear to be inadequate University Academic Board course review and re-accreditation policies and procedures. Quality teaching and learning programs require systematic program level curricular review and re-accreditation as well as the evaluation of the teaching of individual academic staff. Such reviews need to take into account the impact of changes in the external environment and seek systematic input from, professional societies, graduates and employers of graduates. Such reviews will need to be conducted to complement the program reviews conducted by the Quality Office. Reviews conducted at the course level will require the input of CEA staff.

6. The University appears to make little systematic use of CEQ and GDS results. In fact the University is one of very few to obtain such poor response rates from its graduates that its CEQ results are not reported in the recently posted DETYA publication The Characteristics and Performance of Higher Educational Institutions . The University needs to take seriously the collection of data for these indicators are required to form part of the University's Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan required by DETYA. DETYA funding for teaching programs will in all probability become increasingly performance based. The public will also in all probability make increasing use of these indicators to inform their choice of University of attendance. As such both direct and indirect negative consequences will flow from poor performance. The use of results as internal indicators of teaching quality as they apply to programs, Divisions and Schools should be considered. CEQ scales are research grounded scales indicating the extent to which the teaching experienced by students reflects elements and behaviours that are known to produce superior learning outcomes. As such higher scores should indicate superior learning outcomes. Only the single item, Overall Satisfaction, can rightly be regarded as a measure of student satisfaction. Other scale scores make defensible indicators the data for which is required to be collected for DETYA reporting purposes.

Recommendations re quality assurance and improvement issues

The following recommendations need to be considered in conjunction with other recommendations. The implementation of these recommendations will require the OTL to work in cooperation with many of the administrative divisions of the University.

Recommendation Eight

The Quality Office, in cooperation with the OTL, academic and administrative divisions as required, develop staff performance review and development policies and procedures that require academic staff to engage in appropriate staff development activities to address identified teaching skills deficits.

Recommendation Nine

The Quality Office, in cooperation with the OTL, in cooperation with academic and administrative divisions as required, develop staff performance review and development policies and procedures that ensure the OTL and the CEA are informed of the collective teaching skills deficit profiles of each School and Division and that these be used by the CEA to inform its staff development activities as appropriate.

Recommendation Ten

The OTL consider the operation of an off-campus help desk to act as a single point of contact for off campus students faced with real or perceived problems regarding their programs of study.

Recommendation Eleven

The OTL, in cooperation with Schools and Divisions, develop policies, procedures and guidelines concerning the choice of mode or modes through which to offer new and existing programs or units of study. Such policies, procedures and guidelines will need to address the size of potential or actual student cohorts, the cost of program development and the sustainability of programs as well as directly academic issues.

Recommendation Twelve

The OTL develop, in cooperation with the University Academic Board, policies and procedures for the systematic and routine review and accreditation of all taught courses offered through the Divisions and Schools. Such reviews need to be conducted on a rolling basis with each program being reviewed, and re-accredited if appropriate, at least every five years. Policies and procedures need to ensure such reviews take into account the impact of changes in the external environment and seek systematic input from, professional societies, graduates and employers of graduates.

These reviews should form one basis for the strategic redevelopment of courses recommended in Recommendation Two above.

Recommendation Thirteen

The Quality Office, in cooperation with OTL academic and administrative divisions as needed,;

• develop policies and procedures for the improvement of Graduate Destinations Survey and Course Evaluation Questionnaire returns;
• mandate the use of CEQ and GDS returns as performance indicators for the quality of teaching and learning for Schools and Divisions; and
• establish objectives for the improvement of these indicators and incorporate these in the DETYA mandated University Quality Improvement Plan.

The above recommendations are consistent with a standard quality improvement process of evaluation of processes, modification of processes on the basis of evaluation data and the further evaluation of modified processes. This cycle of continuous improvement needs to be applied at all levels within the organisation and to be conducted routinely and systematically if the University is to meet its strategic objectives for teaching and learning.

Operational Management and Procedural Issues

The key procedural issues facing the University are as below.

• What management and budgeting processes and models are needed to maximise the strategic benefits for Curtin?
• What should the balance be between central, divisional and school control of strategically important initiatives and activities?

Findings re management and procedural issues

Discussions with key Divisional, School, OTL, LIS and CEA staff, a review of University documentation and a review of present practices and procedures suggest the following findings.

• 1. The budget process for the allocation of distance education development funds is not strategically informed. Problems are threefold:
  • other than the 10% of development funds allocated for new strategic intiatives development funds are distributed on a pro-rata basis with no reference to University strategic goals,
  • other than for the non-completion of funded projects Schools and Divisions are not accountable to the CEA for their use; and
  • scarce development funds are used to fund the printing of increased volumes of course materials.
• 2. There is no formal mechanism to ensure the coordinated and complementary use of distance education development funds, LEAP funds and the human resources available through OTL.
• 3. Funds allocated for the printing of course materials are inadequate to cover present demand.
• 4. Management and resource allocation processes within the CEA are insufficiently strategically informed.
• 5. There is no CEA Operational Plan , consistent with the Teaching and Learning Plan, Operational Vision and IT Operational Plan . Such a plan should specify objectives and milestones for the CEA, its sub-divisions and for individual staff. The plan also needs to specify performance indicators with which to judge achievements. Individuals and management need to be held accountable for their performance with respect to the attainment of objectives.
• 6. There is no clearly defined project management methodology within the CEA for the establishment, resourcing and management of cross-functional project teams involved in development projects funded through distance education development and the LEAP project.
• 7. The Distance Eduction Unit appears to function effectively and efficiently but suffers from growing workloads with no commensurate increases in resources and from a significant shortage of quality storage and non-desk work space.
• 8. Concerns expressed concerning the services of the distance education unit include:
  • the length of the lead times for changes to print materials required by their use of the University's Printing Services;
  • the length of their turnaround times for the production of print materials;
  • their inability to cope with registrations that are 'off-sequence'and
  • poor routine communications with Schools.
• These concerns are almost exclusively attributed to a lack of resources rather than to the inability or willingness of Unit staff to provide good service.
• 9. There is no significant belief held by School and Divisional staff that the functions of the Distance Education Unit should be devolved to the Schools or academic or administrative divisions.