ED 386 434

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SP 036 183

Dochy; F. J. R. C.; And OthersModularisation and Student Learning in ModularInstruction in Relation with Prior Knowledge.Open Univ., Heerlen (Netherlands). Centre forEducational Technological Irnovation.ISBN-09-358-0605-0; ISSN-0921-8408; OTIC-RR-88930p.Open University, Centre for Educational Technologyand Innovation, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, TheNetherlands (20 Dutch guilders).Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.College Students; Course Content; *Course Selection(Students); *Curriculum Design; *Educational Change;Educational Environment; Educational Practices;*Elective Courses; Foreign Countries; HigherEducation; *Learning Modules; *Prior Learning;Student Interests; Universities*Modularization; Netherlands

This report explores the development of modulareducation and its application in the Dutch Open University. Theorigins of modular education are examined from the first applicationsin American higher education and the development of electives and thecredit system to the role of modular instruction as the basis ofhigher education curriculum. Advantages of modular instructioninclude more choice and self-pacing for students; more variety andflexibility for teachers and staff; and increased adaptability ofinstructional materials. Disadvantages include greaterself-discipline and self-motivation required for students, increasedpreparation time and lack of concrete rewards for teachers and staff,and greater administrative resources needed to track students andoperate multiple modules. Changes in educational practices in theDutch speaking world are reviewed, comparing traditional to modularapproaches. The modular education program at the Dutch OpenUniversity, is described, including three modular course models(study unit model, the textbook-workbook model, and the essay/thesismodel) with the advantages and disadvantages of each one outlined.Finally, the paper looks at the importance of prior knowledge,suggesting that in a modular education environment, according to thechanging ideas in today's society on personal development, studentswill request a kind of instruction more fully in accordance with andappropriate to their personal characteristics and their priorknowledge state resulting in a more efficient and effective educationfor the learner. There is also the opportunity for students to skip amodule or to work through it more quickly on the basis of priorknowledge. (Contains 27 references.) (ND)

Modularisation and student

learning in modular

instruction in relation with

prior knowledge

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL r,ESOURCESINFORMATION DENTFI-I (ERIC)."

F.J.R.C. Dochy

L.J.J.M. Wagemans

H.C. de Wolf

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Eclutaho-,ai Research anc improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMAPC'NCENTER (ERIC)

O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

O Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions slated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

OTIC RESEARCH REPORTS

The Open University is responsible for developing andoffering open, higher distance education in .which specialattention is paid to innovations in educational technology.The research in this field is concentrated in "OTICH, that isthe Centre for Educational Technological Innovations(Onderwijs Technologisch Innovatie Centrum).OTIC is also engaged in running projects for other institu-tes. Here the Centre makes use of OTIC's knowledge andexperience acquired in research and development.The series of OT1C Research Reports consists of publicationsof the OT1C research projects and aims mainly at an audienceof fellow researchers.

RESEARCH PROJECT 'PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STATE'

This research project started from the idea that if thespecific prior Knowledge is taken into account, in a modulareducational system, students will have the opportunity of

following different learning paths in a more efficient way.The research is directed at a clear definition of theproblems and their solutions.

Educational Technology Innovation Centre

Open University

HODULARISATION AND STUDENT LEARNING IN MODULARINSTRUCTION IN RELATION WITH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

OTIC Research Report 8

F.J.R.C. DochyL.J.J.M. WagemansN.C. de Wolf

CIP- gegevens koninklijke bibliotheek, Den Haag

Dochy, F.J.R.C.Wagemans, L.J.J.M.de Wolf, H.C.

Modularisation and student learning inmodular instruction in relation with prior knowledge/

F.J.R.C. Dochy, L.J.J.M. Wagemans, H.C. de Wolf.

- Heerlen: Open University,Educational Technology Innovation Centre (OTIC)

- Ill. - (0.T.I.C. research report 8)

Met lit. opg., reg.ISBN 90-358-0605-0 geb.

ISSN 0921-8408SISO 450.43 UDC 371.012Trefw.: Prior Knowledge/Modular instruction/ Modularisation

c 1989, Open University, Heerlen

Save exceptions stated by the law no part of this

publication may be reproduced in any form,

by print, photoprint, microfilm or other means,

included a complete or partial transcription,

without the prior written permission of the

publisher.

OTIC Research Reports are available at:

the Open Universitysecretariaat OT1C/COPPostbus 29606401 DL HeerlenTelephone 045-762261 / 471

CONTENT

Summary 2

Introduction

3

1. The acdularity hypothesis and modular instruction.

1.1. The origins of modular instruction

1.2. Modules and implementation of modular instruction:a conmon and a more fundamental point of view.

1.3. Options for modular education

1.4. The diadvantages of modularisation.

3

3

5

101.5. A comparison between traditional and modular instruc-

tion.

2. 14alular education at the Dutch Open University.

Modular course models

3. Prior knowledge and modular instruction.

References

11

15

16

19

22

StminarY

nodular education is first adopted in American highereducation. From the first introduction of the elective systemin 1869 at Barvard University till now, there has been agreat variety in the definidon and use of modular instruc-tion and the implementation of modularisation.TOCay there is a distinction between the common view ofmodularisation and a more recent and fundamental view. Inthis report we posite this more fundamental view, whichstarts fram the fact that implementation of modular instruc-tion or modularisation is a radical change of the existingeducational setting. This change will be manifested in

consequensces towards the educational program, the studymaterials, the students, the teachers, the students and theorganisation as a whole. As with every educational adapta-tion, modularisation too has its advantages and disadvan-tages.Before we give an outline of the way in which modularinstruction is realised at the Dutch Open university, a

coRparision of the characteristics of traditional coursesand nodular courses is made. Modular instruction at the DutchOpen University has found its shape in the application ofvarious course models. The main models are described shortly.The final chapter of this report focusses on the link betweenmodularisation and the current knowledge state of students:one thinks of instruction fully in accordance with personalneeds and the prior knowledge of students, opportunities towork at their own pace, individual stattr paths and multifunc-tionality of ucdules.In short, one can call 'flexibility' and 'individualisation'the core concepts of modularisation, if the prior knowledgestate of students is taken into account at a reasonablelevel.

Introduction

There are various reasons for the increasing interest inmcdular education in the Netherlands in the last few decades.Cutbacks by the government and the associated restructuringand reorganization paay a role, as do the.wide range ofstudent requirements and the demand aum employers forflexible:graduates. For the consumers of education, mcdulari-sation means an increase in freedom of Choice; and for thosewho provide education, an increased access and/or consumptionof the educational supply.In this report, we shall examine the origins, significanceand pros and cons of the use of the modules in education.Mbdular education at the Dutch Open University will then bedescribed and compared with traditional education. Finallythe importance of the student's prior knowledge state inmodular education and related applications will be exmnined,as far as relevant for the 'prior knowledge' researchproject.

1. The =hilarity hypothesis and nodular instruction

1.1. The origins of mcdular instruction

Nobody seems to be entirely clear about where "modularinstruction" and the "modularity" wave came from. Some lookfor definitions in dactionaries, others mention the firstapplications in American and Canadian universities. It seemsthat some do look for the roots lf "modularity" in psycholo-gical research and in those theories which fall under theheading of the theory of mind or cognitive psychology. Therationale for mcdular instruction there seems to reside inthe mcdularity hypothesis. According to Brewer and Nakamura(1984), research has shown that the mind can be looked uponas mcdular and that it is necessary to develop differenttypes of theoretical entities to account for the differentcognitive processes (see Chamsky, 1980, for a similarargument). Of course, next to this hypothesis a lot of otherassumptions stay unnoticed.

Modular education, as we now know it, was first adopted acentury ago in American higher education. Educationalphilosophy emoured the growing acceptance of "student-centredleanninp and of Jdhn Dewey's advocacy of self-realization inthe pursuit of studies adapted to the individual's interest.

Harvard University introduced the elective system in 1869 toreplace the set curriculum. As a result of this studentswere able to determine, themselves, which courses they wanted

to take (freedam of learning and increased specializationoptions).

By 1884, Harvard students had almost complete freedam ofchoice. In the 1890s there was a shift towards measuringprogress towards a degree on the basis of the accumulation ofindividual courses rather than the completing of a totalcourse of study (Burn, 1974). In the meantime otherinstitutions were adopting similar practices.The movement towards electives was soon accompanied byincreasing recognition of a need to quantify educationalprocess, allowing students' progress along the various paths

towards a degree to be assessed.

The first units of measurement were the courses themselves,defined in terms of hours of classroom contact, with themeasure of achievement across the varied course offerings

based on a common time unit (Heffernan, 1973).Thus emerged the credit system, the forerunner of modules, asa means of aggregating the series of varied educationalexperiences. Here too, one sees the origins of the view thatAmerican higher education allows students total freedom ofchoice, a kind of cafeteria system in which the mcving trayis heaped with whatever fancy catches the mover's eye.Such was certainly not the intention. The elective/creditsystem's proponents saw it, not as curricular free-for-all,but as a means of breaking the straaglehold of the classical

curriculum.

However the elective system was not introduced across theboard in higher education, as schools gave preference toadapting to the entrance requirements /criteria of collegesard universities.

By way of compensation, a number of institutions hadintroduced a major and minor system, where the student chosesome department or group of studies in which he took a major,

for example a serie of courses presented by that department,

and one in which he took a minor.Tbday, the credit system has been used to accommodate a whole

range of approadhes undreamt of at its creation: self-paced

courses and independent study (Ziegler, 1972; Allen &

Christensen, 1974); life credits for mature students (Hill,

1975); contract learning (Lindquist, 1975), the forerunner of

our negotiated learning; credit for study abroad (Haas,

1982), and developments in the direction of non-attendance

(Burn, 1974) and towards award of credit by mastery ofcontent and examination (Lorimer, 1962; Spurr, 1970), and heabandonment of letter/numerical grades for satisfactory/un-

4

satisfactory (Soihultz, 1973) assessments.As will be apparent, the credit system is capable of movementin virtually any direction: towards greater or less studentautonomy, enhanced or reduced institutional control, greatercurricular cohesion or more fragmentation.

1.2. NCdules and implementation of mcdular instruction:a common and a more fundamental point of view.

Dictionary definitions of mcdule tend to suggest threeunderlying concepts : 1) reasurement, 2) a part of a whole,and 3) repetition. The term module, therefore features inconstruction work, especially in the erection of buildings,and it is employed to designate items of furniture which canbe assembled variously over tine by the purchaser.

In education, there has been a paethora of uses, for example,in timetabling to indicate a period of teaching/learning(Allen & Christensen, 1974), and in modular instruction torepresent self-contained sub-courses in a programme of self-instructional naterial. In the Ubited States, the previoususes are fairly commonplace. However, more traditionalJourses are described in terms of credit hours, and thegeneral structure in which they function is known as thecredit system. In Britain, it should be observed that"module" is used, most commonly, for credit hours; and"modular structure/course" for the credit system, noting byway of caveat that modules go by a variety of other names,e.g. units, blocks, course units, unit courses, courses(Theodossin, 1986).

The common and the more fundamental view on modularisation.

The plethora of uses has led, in particular in a complexsituation as is higher education, to several definitions andviews.In the common poilt of view - one could say the traditionalor perhaps the obsolete point if view - , a nodule can bedescribed as an independent educational unit of limited scopeprovided with a series of educational and learning activi-ties, which lead to a well described final level (Van Eijl,1987). At policy level, the module is seen as a usefulprogramming unit with a predetermined scope and duration. Itsays to make educational programmes easier to set up andchange and makes flexible use of education possible. It needsto be stressed, that this view is very limited. Within thewhole operation of mcdularisation, the module is the central

5

point. Van Eijl (1987) talks about compulsory and non-compulsory characteristics of modules.

The conviction that the flexibility of education can beincreased by using modules, that the emphasis in this type ofeducation is on self-instruction systems and on the indivi-dual learning paths of the students, has induced a new viewon the implementation of modular instruction.

In this more fundamental view, modularisation is much morethan cutting pieces. This recent view starts from the factthat the implementation of mcdular instruction or modularisa-tion is a radical change in the existing educational setting,which has consequences towards the educational program, thestudy materials, the teachers, the students en the organiza-tion as a whole. It must be stressed that intervention intoonly one or few of these aspects is insufficient to guaranteea successful modularisation.In this view mcdularisation leads to an institution focused

on facilitating individual learning processes (de Wblf,

1989). Mbreover, implementing modular instruction has

consequences for five components of higher education, all of

which are in phase with each other:

1. the educational program will be divided into independentlearning units;2. the students start from different entry levels, i.e. their

prior knowledge state ,their background and their needs andcan choose different learningroths;3. the teachers have to prepare and to give their courses indifferent ways; they have no longer one year or more to leada group of students towards a set of final objectives;4. the learnimmaterials will paay a more important role;5. and to make all this possible a lot of organizational

facilities will be necessary.

The difference between the common and the more fundamentalpoint of view on modularisation is outlined in the followingschemas (figures 1 and 2).

6

ii

institutions programmeteachers

subject-matterarDeadomain

Figure 1: Schematical representation of the common, obsoleteview on nodularisation.

availabilityaccessibility

learningstudyingexperiencing

subject-matter aret.domain

C.

Figure 2: Schematical representation of the new, morefundamental view on modularisation.

In the cartm iview, a nodule is a concise part of a curricu-lum with a defined entry-level and exit-level. The teachertakes decisions about the nedia on the basis of instructionalreasons, typical for this module.

7

12

The more fundamental view on modularisation stresses that the

student is the determinator in the whole instructional

process. A module is a part of a learning process. Thestudent is learning, studying and experiencing while movingtowards mastering the subject-matter area. The students takesthew availability and accessibility of subject matte into

account. He uses the educational materials he finds appro-priate, he asks for guidance or assessment to a teacher orsubject-matter expert. At the institutional level, theeducational media, the guidance and tutoring can play a rolein different modules related to the same or another domain.

1.3. Options for modular education

The consequences of mcdularisation can be looked upon aspositive or negative, as advantages or disadvantages.First, in the case of the students, their option for mcdularinstruction would be understandable.The advantages of modularisation for students can beidentified as being that:

It allows the student to proceed at his own rate. The belief

that self-paoing is desirable is based on the generallyaccepted assumptions that learners do not achieve at the samerate and are not ready to learn at the same time (Burns,

1971).

It allows the student to choose his own learning mode.

Choice among different learning modes is desirable, if we

assume that learners solve .problems and learn, using

different techniques based on unique behavioral repertoires

or prior knowledge (Burns, 1971). Modular instruction maytherefore include a large variety of instructional activi-

ties, such as reading textbooks and articles, examining

photographs and diagrams, viewing videofilms and computer

programs, examiningclemrstration materials, participating in

projects and experiments, and participating in relevant"extra curricular" activities.

It provides a choice among a large variety of topics within

any given "course" or discipline, if we assume that students

do not possess the same pattern of interest and are notmotivated to achieve the same goals (Burns, 1971).

It allows students to identify their strengths and weakneases

and to "recycle" through remedial mcdules, repetition, or a

change in learning mode (Elingstedt, 1971), if we assume that

it is desirable to save student time (frequent evaluation

permits early diagnosis) and to allow as many students aspossible to attain the stated objectives (Goldschmid and

Goldschmid, 1973). Recycling means also that the studentdoes not have to restudy large amounts of subject content.

Mbreover students can be tested earlier, progress andmeasures can be brought into line (control of duration ofstudy);

Also, towards teachers and staff some advantages can bestated:

a variety of instructional modes are possible withina module;mcdules are set up by an interdisciplinary team ofexperts;

staff work can be reduced by neans of self studycom-ponents with emphasis on the accompanying writtenmaterials;concentrated teaching sessions for the staff,consequently providing more time for other activi-ties;

the option of developing new mcdules in that time,adtustingmodules to meet the results of research andtesting or the supply of education;

Advantages for the learning materials can be stated asfollows:

the material can be presented thematically or in anintegrated form;the material can be divided into functional units;the material can be adopted to the student's learningprocess;Furthermore, relating to the organizational facilities,one can say that:

more planning and developing options for programmedesigners;and the rultifunctionality of ncdules can be seen asprofitable;

Finally, the educational program profits from:- the exchange of mcdules with other institutions;- and the fact that ncdUles can be multifunctional.

9

14

1.4. The disadvantages of modularisation.

MCdular instruction can also have a number of possibledisadvantages - or problems perhaps (Goldschmid and Gold-schmid, 1973).

What students need to and often do not realize beforehand, is

that:

Self-discipline has to be demonstrated in pursuingindependent study;The shift from the lecture method (passive) tomodular instruction (active) might be difficult forstudents;Choice among the available resources (e.g. differentinstructional modes, modules, etc.) might prove

frustrating;The self-pacing nature of modular instruction mayhave a delicate side-effect. Since same of thestudents will be fast and others slaw learners andstudents will have more or less prior knowledge,learning efficiency and student output will betotally different among students;

For teachers and staff disadvantages could be:

The time required to design mcdules is usually amajor problem. Other professional activities competewith a professor's teaching and course-preparationtime;Lack of concrete rewards may be a problem. Attempts

to innovate instruction and, as is the case, tooptimalize learning is often not rewarded;The professor no longer has "center-stage billing" :

his feeling of authority vis-a-vis the "audience"(his students) enhancedthrough one-way communicationin traditional imstruction, is diminished or

eliminated. He might result this loss;The shift fram the lecture method (passive) tomcdular instruction (active) might also be difficult

for them;

According to the educational materials, the time required to

design mcdules is usually a major problem. EXperience has

thaught that designing and construction of mater:;als (written

and CAI) takes more time and needs more expertise as planned.

10

Li

Aproblem for the program of the institution can be stated asfollows:- Switching between modules can arise when there is too

little structure in the madam:* trajectories, so thatthe student does not see the connectimbetueen them.

Organizational facilities could, in some cases, be anobstacle:

Additional clerical time might be necessary to recordwhidh students have completed what modules, etc.;Additional personnel may be required to assist in thesetting up and running of eqpipment for severalmodules at a time;Access to the instructional resources has to bemaximized:Grading and exam procedures must be adapted tomodular instruction;

1.5. A comparison between traditional and nodular instruc-tion.

From 1960, there was a change in educational ideas too inthe Dutdh speaking world. In educational practice there werea number of necessary changes. We can characterise thesechanges on a theoretical scale. A synopsis of the changededucational views is given in table 1 (Dochy and Van Luyk,1987). We emphasize that we are speaking of a theoreticaldifference; consequently, in practice the division isn't thatstrict.

11

16

Traditional views

1. Ehowledge is knowing that

2. First theory than practice

3. Subject-based education

4. Teacher-centred education

5. Transmission of knowledge

6. Educational programm

7. Staff direct and teach

New views

Education is knowing thatand knowing haw.

Theory and practice in

the curriculum

Integrated education

Student-centred education

Acquisition of knowledge

Study programs

Staff assist, stimulateand evaluate

Table 1: Changed educational idPaA (tahan from Dochy and Van

Luyk, 1987).

Most of these new insights are implemented in modUlar

education. The modular course had from its inception aconfiguration which has accorded with the tendency forchange.An overview of the differences between traditional andmodular instruction is presented in table 2. The differences,mainly according to Postlethwait and Russell (1971), must beseen as a general, e.g. applicable for all kinds of modularinstruction, such as open distance education at the Openuniversity or problem-oriamted education at the Unimersity ofLimburg. Again, the polarisation is a theoretical one. In thepractice of modularisation, some of the characteristics moveon a continuumbetmeen the stated poles.

12

Characteristic

Course success

Instructionalactivities

Learning experience

MasterY

Objectives

Participation

Traditional Course

Mostly judgedsubjectively bythe instructor

Mostly lecturesand writtenassignments; mediaused on basis ofinstructor'spersonal feelingsabout them

Oriented towardsteacher performan-ce, with emphasison teaching;knowledge transferby the instructor

It is expectedthat only a fewstudents will dovery well and samewill fail

Usually not statedin preciseobservable terms

Passive

18

13

Modular Course

Objectives andevaluation assurethat the instruc-tor is able tocorrect faultlyinstructionalmaterials andknows when hiscourse issuccessfull interms of student-learning

Many differentinstuctionalactivities areused to optimalizelearning; mediaused on efficacyestablishedthrough trial useby students

Oriented towardsstudent performan-ce and individualinstruction withemphasis onlearning;knowledgeacquisition by thestudent

All students areexpected toadhieve restery ofthe obj ectives attheir own rates

Stated in terms ofstudents behaviorsand presentedbefore instructionbegins

Active

Presentation ofmaterials

Rate (or pacing)

Reinforcement

Role of instructor

Testing

Grcup-oriented atpredeterminedtines an:I places

Students must allgo at the samerate

Utually only afterexaminations

D1sseminator ofinformation

Student typicallytakes one or twotests on thematerials whichdetermine hisgrade for theentire course

Biqhly indivi-dualized materi-als; eadh studentcan any or all ofthe instructionalmaterials,available atpreferred timesand places

Each sthdent canproceed at his amrate

immediate andfrequent, aftersmall units ofmaterial studied

Diagnosis,prescriber,motivator andresource person

Designed tomeasure nestery ofthe objectivesstated at thebeginning of thecourse; purposesare assessment ofprerequisiteskills, diagnosisof strengbts,weaknesses andmastery

Table 2: An overview of differences between traditional and

mcdUlar instruction.

In the following section we will explain briefly the nature

of modular education as it is used till now at the Dutch Open

University. For a more extended and detailed elaboration ofthis matter we refer to Van den Boom et al (1988a, 1988b),

Van den Brink (1989) and Van der Linden (1987).

14

2. Modular education at the Eutdi Open University.

The programme offered by the Open University does notcomprise complete pre-programmed disciplinary or yearprogrammes, but independent courses which can be takenseparately by the student in order to readh a totality ofinterrelated objectives. The courses are developed withinfields of study. These areas are interrelated wholes ofknowledge and insight within which the different academicdisciplines are represenbad.

Addstinction is made among fields of study such as Law/IegalStudies, Economics, Business and Management Study, Technolo-gy, Natural Science, The Humanities and Social Science. Acourse is developed within a particular field, but will inmany cases include elements from other fields. Furthermorethe structure in which the courses are produced - a matrixstructure in which course teams are brought togethez fromone, or more disciplines supplemented by educationaltechnologists - chosen so that the courses have a largelymulti-disciplinary character. A course can therefore beapplied to programmes within various fields (multifunctiona-lity).

A course comprises, two or sometimes three modules whichrequire 100, 200 or 300 hours of study respectdvely.There is often a cambination of media, integrated within thecourse (written material, video and sound tapes, computersimulations, computer aided instamiction), in which thewritten text has the major pert. The written material isproduced for the greater part by the Open University itself.In addition to its own texts, use is made of existingpublications, books, parts of them and/or articles, whichare combined to form a course component. The writtenmaterial is supplemented in same cases by material forcomputer applications, practical instructions and guidancefrom the study centres.The courses are developed at three levels, the first levelcomprising the introductory courses, the second level theacquisition of basic skills and insights and the third levela further theoretical, methodological and/or content depth.Each course concludes with official exams. When an exam ispassed, a fixed number (1, 2 or 3) of credits is gained,depending on the number of modules comprising the course.In the study guide, a course catalogue, a short descriptionis given of each course. The description contains thefollowing elements:- the primary field of study within which the course has

been developed;- the number of hours required for the course;- the level of the course;- the entry situation, which includes knowledge and

15

skills on which the course is predicated (the priorknowledge) and

- learning objectives, the objects of the course, in

terms of knowledge and skills that the student shouldpossess at the end of the course.

The structure and the organization of the course at the OpenUniversity offers naximum opportunities for a student'sindividual choice.Flexibility is guaranteed by course structure, registrationper course and the credit system. The subdivision of thecourses into broad learning areas and the fact that thecourses frau one field can be part of study programmes inanother im=reasethe options available.The student can make a highly personal choice fram thecourses on offer which relates to his/her wishes andpreferences, in relation to cccupations, interests, inclina-tions and/or social involvement.

In the following section, we will shcrtly review the threemain modular course models, used at this university.

Modular =arse modals

The modular coarse mcdels of the first level are mainly basedon the "study unit" model. First, we will describe thecharacteristics, the advantages and disadvantages of thisbasic model.

In terms of the study unit model a great deal of material issubdivided into learning units of approximately four hours,in which "nee' material and revision alternate. A learningunit is an interrelated whole in terms of subject natter,instructions and (self)testing. This leads to the achievementof one or more learning objectives. The (self)testing allowsthe students to assess their acquired knowledge and

insights.

The study unit model may be characterized as follows (Van denBoom, 1988):- most of the study texts are newlywritten;- frequent use of didactic tools, sudh as educational

objectives, study hdnts, assignments and tests;- the texts and didactic tools are integrated;

- the course is highly structured and is divided into anumber of self-contained parts, called study units;

- the study material is put at the student's disposal in

its entirety;- the electronic media are an integrated part of the

course design.

16

If the object is to transfer information as efficiently aspossible to the students then the learning unit model isextremely suitable. It makes information as clear as possibleand leads the student through the information systematicallyand stage by stage. The chance of the student getting stuckor lost in the material is mdninal.

The advantages of the learning model are (Am. der Linden, etal., 1987):1. students receive optimal guidance by means of the

instructions in the material;2. at a given time, students know in time what is required

of them;3. the learning material is selected by the team, in

terms of relevance and need;4. students don't get stuck so Pasily, because the

information is so clearly and fully presented andconsequently students' problems are anticipated;

5. the study path is clearly indicated;6. students who still have to learn how to study get a

chance via study instructions etc.;7. uncertainty on the part of the students about their

progress and perfcrmance is minimalized by theintroduction of didactic tools;

8. students respond positively to a model that allowsthem to study independently at the time and pace thatsuits them.

The application of the learning unit model has also shownthat there are a number of disadvantages attached to it:1. as the course is phased as a complete and sequential

whole, the rcdel is extremely linear;2. students have little freedom, they have to follow the

study path indicated;3. as the courses are highly prestructured there is a

danger of students becoming dependent on this sort ofmaterial which has consequences for their studyabilities and skills in a efficient seardh for newinformation;

4. the model offers no opportunity for the student towork through large amounts of specialist literatureusing his own initiative;

5. everything has to be rewritten, which demands a greatdeal of time and creativity of the authors;

6. the model is less suitable for learning skills andattitudes;

7. as everything is fixed in a course, it is extremelydifficult to adjust it to the needs of individualstudents.

17

2 2

Comparing the advantages and disadlnultages, the Ou educatio-nalists concluded that this model is fitting to the needs ofstudents starting with first level courues (van den Boom,1988). In order to counteract the disadvantages at higherlevels, other models were to be introdtxxxl, such as thetextbook/workbook model, the workbcok-source material modeland the essay/thesis model (Van den Boom, 1988; Van denBrink, 1989).

The most striking aspect of the textbook-workbook model isthe fact that the subject matter is not offered to thestudents as an integrated whole; there is a separation ofcontents and didactic tools. The textbook contains thecontent-specific information of the course. In addition tothe textbook there is a workbook. The workbook has a widerange of didactic clues whidh the student ray use whenstudying the textbook. The workboak for instance contains anoverview of objectives, self-assessment tests with matchingfeedback, cases, comments on the textbook, study hints, anindex, introductions and summaries and a sample test. Theadvantage of the textbook-morkbook model over the study unitmodel, is that it enables the students to experience the manyways in which authors present the subject matter in textbooks, articles, etc.Another important characteristic of this course model is thatit gives students a certain freedom in choice cl their (self-)study strategy. Students are free to use the workbook ornot.In courses built on the base of the "workbook-sourcematerial" model, the workbook encourages students to usedifferent information sources such as handbooks readers,audiovisual productions, etc. From the source material theyextract information necessary to find the answers toquestions, or solve problems, cases, etc. presented in theworkbook. Metly, the workbook only mencions possiblesources, which the student would have to find or purchasehimself. This course model also offers opportunities for amore problem-oriented approach. One could organize higher-level courses around the practising ct skills such asinformationprocessing and application.

Finally, the essay/thesis model is most useful when theobjective is to produce a written presentation such as anessay or a thesis. The course itself may consist of a shortmanual and the provision of support facilities by theuniversity. These facilities may consist of brochures on forinstance: "how to set up a good research project?" or"writing reports", but also personal supervision by universi-ty staff umbers or external experts (Van den Boom, 1988).

18

23

3. Priar knowledge and wail ar ins-traction

As we have stated earlier, in mcdularisation it is necessaryto take account of the consequences related to components ofeducation. One important aspect of education is the learner.First of all, modularisation is directed towards moreefficient and more effective education in profit of thelearner. According to the changing ideas in today's societyon personal development, students will request a kind ofinstruction more fully in accordance with and appropriatewith their personal characteristics and their prior knowledgestate.Secani, mcdular instruction creates the opportunity forstudents to work at their aim pace. Furthermore there is theopportunity for students to skip a module or to work throughit more quickly on the basis of prior knowledge. This is themost radical phenomenon in respect of the return on instruc-tion, both for the student and the institution.It seems that not all the institutions working on the base ofa nodular structure do profit frc.a these opportunities yet.

Theoretically the approach of modular education alwaysshould include a pretest to determine the level of thestudent. According to Goldschmid and Goldschmid this has thefollowing consequences:

"If the student does not have all required prerequisites, hemay need prior instruction. If he is already competent inthe area of a particular module, he can proceed to a moreadvanced module or to one with a different content. taxoncompletion of a module the student is again evaluated. Ifthe post-test indicates that the student has not achievedmastery of the mcdule's objectives, he might be recycledthrough the module or through parts of it or he may take aremedial module. If he does succeed, he proceeds to the text(or, to another) module. The pre- and post-test also allowfor empirical validation of the module itself."The learner's options are charted in Figure 3.

19

24

HPAIMM NSIWOION

11.. -P.MODULE I MODULE 2PRE- MS1- PE- POST- PPE.

TEST INSTRUCTIONAL 1 ST TS INSTRUCTIONAL TEST TEST

ACIWITIES ACTIVITIES 2 3

REPEATS mODULE 011

PART Of It

SKIPS THIS MODULE

REPEATS MODULE OltPART Of It

SKIPS THIS MODULE

Figure 3: Flow chart of the learner's options in mcdularinstruction (adapted from Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1973).

This sort of approach actually makes it possible for studentsto follow individual paths as we described above, whichrelate to their prior knowledge. In this sense mcdulareducation is fleuible and directed at individualization.Theru is always a spectrum of options offered in which priorknowledge in principle can be the determining factor in thechoice. In this sense, it does not natter if the priorknow.Ledge deficiencies are filled within the mcdule itsPlf,within a remedial mcdule or by the presentation of a largeknowledge base.

In this context, and in the light of returns to the institu-tion and interinstitutional cooperation, the development ofmultifunctional mcdules has become a topic (de Wolf, 1988).From the student's point of view, the domain specificity ofthe subject is impartant, and the learning process can beregistered in several categories.When a student gets information on a subject, the firstquestion is how much of the information he or she canunderstand, i.e. how proficient he is in the terminology.Science usually has its own jargon which has to be learned.Secondly, scientific arguments often present technical or

20

2 b

scientific intellectual procedures, same even implicit ones,which have to be studied to be able to follow discussions onthe subject. Thirdly, every discipline has its own knowledgepatterns and views which one can only master through muchpratice. Finally, every discipline requires domain-specificcognitive and other skills whinh one has ta master.With the help of these categories, and one can.thihk of more,it is possible to order and organize study processes. Thenalternative study paths within and betmeen modules are reallypossible.Nevertheless, valid and reliable information on the damain-specificity and on the student's prior knowledge state arethe primary condition for the design of completely nultifunc-tional modules.

The view that this type of flexible education on the basis ofthe stated flow chart is only rendered feasible by usingcomputer based courses, may indeed be valid. Most forms ofmcdular education offer a relatively vague indication of therequired entry level. The Ou courses also are limited toindicating the concepts assumed to be known by students andthe available literature.

A true assessment of the individual level with the resultantadvantages does not occur. If anewants to adjust the returnon education and allow the student to learn as efficiently aspossible then it is neoessary to explore these options. Thislast does seam to cause some trouble. Napping a student'sprior knowledge can be approadhed frcm various angles. Priorknowledge is more than just the knadledge acquired in earliertraining and courses (Dochy, 1989). nTerience which peopleacquire can to a degree influence the manner and the speed inwhich they learn to command new material. FUrthermore,attention nust be directed at relevant prior knowledge, inrelation to the objectives to be pursued. Working slowlytowards an ideal situation vis a vis the learning path to befollowed both within and between modules can be adopted asthe basis of a researdh based approach directed moreexplicitly at increasing returns.

21

26

References

Allen, D.W. & P.R. Christensen (1974). Using time, space andpeople effectively. In: Allen, D.W. & J.C. Hecht (eds.),Controversies in education, New York, W.B. Saunders.

Brewer, W.F., and Nakamura, G.V., (1984). The nature andfunctions of schemas. In: Wyer, R.S., and Srull, T.K.,

Handbook of social Cognition. 1, 119-160. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Boom, W.J.G. van den (1988). Basic models for courses at theDutch Open University. In: Enckevort, G. van & Wolf, H.C. de(1988). The Open University of the Netherlands after fouryears: facts and developments. Heerlen, Ou.

Bow, W.J.G. van den, Schlusmans, K. H.L.A. (1988) . Vanafstandsonderwijs naar open onderwijs (From distance learning

to open education),Iriterimmapportage.Heerlen, Open Universiteit.

Brink, H.J. van den et al., Tekstboek-werkbadk cursusmodel(rextbook - workbook coursemodel). Open universiteit,

Heerlen, (in preparation, expected publication date 1989).

Burn, B. (1975). 'The American academic credit system'.Structure of studies and place of researdh in mass highereducation. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment.

Burns, R. (1971). Methods for individualizing instruction.Educational Technoloay,11. 55-56.

Chamsky, N.(1980). Rules and representations. New York:

COlumbia University Press.

Dochy, & Van Luyk, S.J. (1987). Handboek vaardig-heidsondewijs (Handbook on skills education). Lisse: Swets &

Zeitlinger.

Dochy, F.J.R.C. (1989). Indicering van het concept 'Priorbeinvloedende variabelen en een conceptueel

model voor verder onderzoek. Heerlen, Open Universiteit,Onderwijstechnologisch Innovatie Centrum.

Eij1, P.J. van (1988). Onderwijs in mcdulen. Groningen,

Wolters-Noordhoff.

Goldschmid, B. & Goldschmid, M.L. (1973). MCdulair instructi-

on in higher education: a review. Higher education, 2; 15-32.

22

27

Haas, G. James, (1982) 'Undergraduate transfer credits fromabroad'. Cbllege and University, 57 (Winter), 218-225

Handboek voor c usontwikke1ing (iandbook for coursedevelopment), thiru draft, Cpen universiteit, Heerlen, 1983

Heffernan J.M. (1973) 'The credibility of the credit hour:the history, use and shortcomings of the credit system'.Journal of Higher Education, 44 (1), 61-72.

Hill, F. (1975) 'Life credits attracting more maturestudents'. Times Higher Education Supplement. 21 March.

Elingstedt, J.L. (1971). Developing instructional mcdules forinavianalized instruction, Educational Technology,11, 73-74.

Linden, C.J.A.M. van der et al., Onderwijskundige aspectenvan cursusontwikkeling van de Open universiteit, Openuniversiteit, Heerlen, 1987

Lindquist, J. (1975) 'Strategies for contract learning'. D.W.Vermilye ed. Learner-centred reform. 75-89. San Francisco.Jossey-Bass.

Lorimer, M.R. (1962) 'How much is a credit hour?'. Journal ofHigher Education, 33 (6), 302-306.

Postlethwait, S.N. and Russell, J.D. (1971). Minicourses-The style of the future ? In: J,C, Craeger and ELI,. Murray(Eds.) The use of mcdules in college biology teaching.Wadhington: Commission on Undergraduate Education in theBiological Sciences, The American Institute of BiologicalSciences, pp. 5 -8.

Schultz, R.E. (1973) 'Outreach programmes in the UnitedStates Community Colleges'. Short-cycle higher education, asearch for identity. Paris. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Spurr, S.H. (1970) Academic degree structures: innovativeapproaches. New York. McGraw-Hill.

Theodossin, E. (1986). The modular market. Studies in furthereducation. The Further Education Staff College, Bristol.

H.C. de (1988). Development of courses and qualitycontrol, instruments for educational innovation. In:Enckevort, G. van & Wolf, H.C. de (1988). The Open Universityof the Netherlands after four years: facts and developments.Heerlen, Ou.

23

28

H.C. de (1989). Modularisering, een diengaande

oniamijslomliige venandering. Paper gepreserteerd op destudiedag over modulariseren van het BEA0 op 17 maart inBunnik.

Ziegler, W. (1972). 'An approach to the futures - perspectivein American education.' Alternative educational futures inthe United States and in Ebrope: methods, issues and policyrelevance. Paris, Centre for Educational Research andInnovation.

24

`&

Previous reports published in this series.

The 'Prior Knowledge State' of studentsand its facilitating effect on learningF.J.R.C. Dochy

Variables influencing the indexation of the'Prior Knowledge State' concept and aconceptual model for researchF.J.R.C. Dochy

Students' views on Prior KnowledgeF.J.R.C. Dochy, W.H.L. Steenbakkers

Inscript: een scripttaal voor hetsystematisch ontwerp van interaktieveleersystemenE.J.R. Koper

Boekje open over Hoger OnderwijsW.J.G. van den Boom, K.H.L.A. Schlusmans

Een didactisch kader voor open hoger onderwijs:modellen en begripsomschrijvingenK.H.L.A. Schlusmans, W.J.G. van den Boom

Uitgangspunten voor het gebruik van ervaringslerenals bron van voorkennisL.J.J.M. Wagemans, F.J.R.C. Dochy

30