Access through sharing materials Lessons of experience from the implementation of a national upgrading programme – the NPDE Tessa Welch 24 January 2005

The National Professional Diploma in Education (NPDE) ▪ A 240 credit national programme for Foundation, Intermediate and Senior Phase teachers –Distance education delivery –Delivered in all provinces by 17 providers –300 to students per provider –Enrolling over teachers in the first cohort.  Point of the qualification –Access to qualified teacher status –Access to the new qualifications framework.

Materials for NPDE modules 36 modules x 120 hours NLH per module 10 hrs per hr learning time for mats dev. = hrs 5400 days = 30.8 full time staff for a year!! Foundation 55% students Intermediate 35% students Senior Phase 10% students Literacy Numeracy Life skills Language Maths Life orientation Social studies Natural sciences Technology E.M.S. Arts and culture Language Maths Life orientation Social studies Natural sciences Technology E.M.S. Arts and culture Fundamental 3 modules – all students Communication and literacy modules Numeracy module Core 9 modules – all students Teaching and learning Assessment Classroom management School and profession Integrated assessment Elective ( 3 x 8 modules)

Variable response to constraints on materials development  Some outsourced materials development.  Some used outside expertise to build capacity of own staff.  Some assumed their staff could develop materials without assistance.  One proactive risk-taking institution started own materials development process at least a year before programme approved.  Eight providers went with own existing materials - with variable degrees of adaptation.  Two providers got all their materials from other sources and adapted them.  Nine providers found about half the materials from other sources, and used the first year of delivery to develop materials for the second year.

Findings and conclusion from materials evaluation Findings  5/9 providers had average to good materials.  1/9 had materials good for workshops, but not for independent learning.  3/9 had materials of such poor quality that it was recommended that they should scrap or radically revise them.  Numbers of teachers affected by these 3 providers: 2149 in first cohort. Conclusion  Over of the teachers would find it well nigh impossible to learn anything meaningful from the materials/course.

Improving access to learning materials in teacher education  Recognise that quality materials development requires:  Materials development capacity and skills  Professional development in both materials development and course design  Upfront financing  Sufficient lead time  Planning to ensure that considerable costs of high quality materials can be recovered over time.  Develop strategies for discovering and then sharing high quality materials across providers, especially in large scale national programmes.

Ways of sharing materials across providers  A range of existing good materials relevant to the programme is identified, described and made known to providers.  If necessary, material for national core modules is commissioned.  Providers select from and adapt this material (own course design and assessment).  Standard protocols for sharing/ purchasing materials are developed.  Where gaps exist, providers develop own material.  Not all providers offer all learning areas, but students can access different learning areas from different providers.