VOL. 15, No. 1, 63-80
The learning strategies, environment, and conceptions of 54 distance students at the University of the South Pacific were investigated through phenomenographic interviews. Two main strategies are identified: sequential and pragmatic. The learning conditions are extremely difficult for most students, who depend almost entirely on the course package. A range of conceptions of learning previously described among students elsewhere are identified. However, most students hold "low," mainly reproductive conceptions, and these, with the conditions of learning, lead them to adopt a surface approach to learning. Given the students' dependence on written materials, trial packages that facilitate deep understanding and are culturally appropriate should be developed.
Les stratégies d'apprentissage, l'environnement et les conceptions de 54 étudiants à distance de l'University of the South Pacific ont été étudiés grâce à des entrevues phénoméno-logiques. Deux stratégies principales y sont identifiées : séquentielle et pragmatique. Les conditions d'apprentissage sont extrêmement difficiles pour la plupart des étudiants puisqu'ils dépendent presque totalement de la trousse contenant le matériel du cours. On retrouve une variété de représentations de l'apprentissage telles que relevées chez d'autres étudiants ailleurs. Cependant, la plupart des étudiants démontrent surtout des conceptions de reproduction de « bas niveau » et celles-ci, de concert avec les conditions d'apprentissage, les amènent à adopter une approche superficielle dans leur apprentissage. Étant donné la dépendance des étudiants envers l'imprimé, il faudrait développer des trousses d'essai susceptibles de faciliter une compréhension en profondeur et qui tiennent compte de la dimension culturelle.
The major factors affecting the outcomes of formal learning are now well known. These are (a) how students approach learning tasks (Marton & Säljö, 1976), (b) their conceptions of learning (Säljö, 1979; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Beaty, 1993), and (c) the conditions of learning (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981). The initial research was conducted with on-campus students, but after reviewing both quantitative and qualitative research on approaches to study in distance education, Richardson (in press) concludes that they are comparable, whereas Marton et al. (1993) and Mugler and Landbeck (1997) have identified similar conceptions of learning among on-campus and distance learners.
The conditions of learning, however, are quite different for distance learners and affect learning outcomes significantly. The interaction is restricted, both between staff and students and among students, despite the use of telephones, satellites, and e-mail. Because this interaction is regarded as important for learning, large providers of distance education such as the Open University (United Kingdom) previously required students to attend summer schools, which provided face-to-face contact. Unfortunately, economic constraints have often forced these to be abandoned and replaced by electronic communication. Access to learning resources such as libraries, multimedia, and computing facilities is also limited. The growth of Internet materials has compensated for this and in some cases even made access to previously unavailable materials convenient. But this is only true where telecommunication facilities are good, and in this respect students in developing countries continue to be disadvantaged. Finally, in rural and isolated areas there is limited access to certain types of cultural facilities and events, which can provide rich resources for enhancing the quality of learning.
Such conditions mean that for some distance students learning is heavily dependent on the printed material they receive. Several studies have noted that relying solely on packaged materials fails to enable students to become critical, independent thinkers (Garrison, 1993; Ratuva, 1996). These authors stress that for these important attributes to develop, dialogue with staff and fellow students in learning communities is essential (Anderson & Garrison, 1995). The ability of distance education to develop independent learners is a hotly debated issue. Wood (1981), for example, argues that texts written for distance learners discourage independent learning because they are usually designed to be stand-alone and require no other reading. Morgan (1983, 1987) strongly advocates the use of project-based learning to develop independent thinking, although even he doubts that this can be achieved with teaching materials alone without teacher-student dialogue.
Together four concerns related to the exclusive use of print materials have been raised. First is the impact of the context on learning, and, second, the need for interaction either as a resource such as a tutor to provide direction or as an essential aspect involving discussion among learners, depending on one’s point of view. Third is the lack of development of critical thinking and learner independence, and fourth are questions about the structure of the materials and how this is linked to the study strategies students employ.
One region where learning conditions are particularly difficult is the South Pacific, where the University of the South Pacific (USP) is the major provider of tertiary distance education. This article reports on a research project on the learning conditions and study strategies of USP distance learners and discusses their effect on the quality of learning. It suggests the need to develop learning materials that encourage meaningful learning and are appropriate to the cultures of the South Pacific.
The University of the South Pacific is a regional institution founded in 1968 that currently serves 12 countries: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. The main campus is in Fiji’s capital, Suva, with three schools, several research institutes, and the main administrative and support services. Two other campuses, in Samoa and Vanuatu, have one school each (see Figure 1).
The formal education systems of the South Pacific were introduced through European colonization and have inherited some of the features typical of 19th-century Western education. From primary schools to tertiary institutions, classrooms tend to be teacher-centered and instruction exam-driven. At USP final exams accounting for between 40% and 60% of a student’s course grade are the norm.
USP was conceived as a dual mode institution, offering both face-to-face and distance learning. This early commitment to distance learning was born out of the knowledge that many people in the region would not be able to study full time on campus, given limited financial resources and the vast distances of the South Pacific where travel is often both difficult and expensive. In 1997 the distance mode accounted for 67% of total enrollments.
Courses offered by academic departments are administered through a central University Extension unit (UE) in Suva via a USP Center in each member country (and, in some, regional Sub-Centres also). In Centres and Sub-Centres, students are advised, enrolled, attend face-to-face or satellite tutorials, hand in their assignments, which are forwarded for marking to the appropriate department in Suva (or on another campus) or marked by local tutors approved by that department, pick up their marked assignments, and sit tests and final exams. They can study in the library and in some Centres have access to a science laboratory.
On enrolling, students are given a course package that typically includes an Introduction and Assignment Booklet, a Study Guide, a specially compiled Reader, a textbook, and occasionally an audio- or videotape. These materials are normally developed at USP, except for some textbooks and readings.
The South Pacific is characterized by huge distances and great diversity in culture, language, and economic circumstances, and this accounts for great variety in the learning conditions of distance students. The USP region covers over 300 inhabited islands and thousands of uninhabited ones. The member countries are scattered over 32 million square kilometers of ocean, so that some students live thousands of kilometers from UE in Suva and even hundreds of kilometers from their Center.
The region is traditionally divided into three broad cultural areas, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia, each of which is itself culturally and linguistically extremely diverse. Located at the heart of the most linguistically rich area of the world, the USP region itself is home to over 200 languages. English was introduced to the South Pacific through European contact. It has outlived decolonization and continues to have an official role in most of the region, including as the medium of instruction at USP. Yet it is a second language for nearly all students, and a third or fourth for many. In Fiji English also plays a significant role as a lingua franca, especially in urban areas. But elsewhere in the region it has limited functions, essentially as the official medium of instruction throughout the school system and as official or co-official language of government and in the media. It is spoken regularly by only a fraction of the population. This means that exposure to the language in which students have to acquire their tertiary education is for many quite restricted, leading to problems of comprehension and expression.
Many students have access to a tape-recorder, and some may have access to a VCR, but more basic resources (books, newspapers, magazines) are often scarce, unlike in remote locations in developed countries. Some students have no electricity and study by the light of a kerosene lamp. Many have no private study space at home. Family, community, religious, and work obligations often take precedence over studying, and although the family may support the decision to study, they cannot always help and sometimes do not even fully understand the student’s problems and needs. The isolated student is unable to get academic or psychological support from the informal networks that are such a source of strength to students in more populated and accessible areas.
The study addressed three main questions:
The study used a phenomenographic research method, described by Marton (1981), in which the researcher, through a semistructured interview, seeks to understand the experience of learning through the eyes of the learner (see Appendix). The experiences of the phenomenon of learning by the learners can then be described by a number of different conceptions of that phenomenon. Phenomenography is a “research specialization aimed at the mapping of the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand various aspects of ... the world around them” (Marton, 1988, p. 178). There have been several studies of distance learners at USP (Lockwood, Roberts, & Williams, 1988; Lal, 1989; Chief & Hola, 1995; Bolabola & Wah, 1995), but this is the first to use a phenomenographic approach to students’ experiences of learning.
Seventy-eight Extension students were interviewed in seven of the 12 member countries. The study was conducted in two phases, one in Fiji, the other in the rest of the USP region. Twenty-four students were interviewed in Fiji, the largest country, which regularly accounts for over half of all Extension enrollments (56.5% in 1997, USP Statistics). Time and financial constraints precluded traveling to every other member country, and the six selected include nations from all three geographical areas: Polynesia (Tonga, Samoa), Melanesia (Vanuatu, Solomon Islands), and Micronesia (Kiribati, Tuvalu).
The first phase conducted in Fiji tested the interview questions (many of which had been used in similar phenomenographic studies elsewhere), and helped us to identify the conceptions of learning held by distance learners. The subsequent study in the rest of the USP region confirmed the results of the pilot study and enabled us both to identify the approaches to study by the students and to describe their conceptions of learning. These were similar to those found in other cultures and indeed among USP students in a previous study we had conducted on campus (Mugler & Landbeck, 1997). During the interviewer’s few days in each country, as many interviews were conducted as possible, in case technical or other problems rendered some interviews unusable. Some interviews did seem particularly “thin” or unsuccessful and have not been transcribed. Overall, 30 interviews from outside Fiji were transcribed, yielding a total of 54 transcripts. These were summarized and analyzed separately by the two researchers, who then compared notes and examined the themes that emerged.
The students interviewed include men and women (25/29). Interviewees range from teenage school leavers to people in their late 40s, but most are mature-age students. This reflects the general Extension student population, with fewer than 3% under 18 in 1997, and 60% over 23 (USP Statistics 1997). Most interviewees work full time and study part time; a few study full time. Part-time students have a range of occupations: in Fiji most are teachers (16 of 24); in the region, public servants (11 of 30). Nearly all are enrolled in certificate, diploma, or degree programs, hoping that such a qualification will improve their career prospects.
Given the linguistic diversity of the region, it was impossible to conduct interviews in each student’s first language. The interviews were conducted in English, the normal medium of instruction at USP. Most students seemed to cope, but some clearly had difficulty with understanding, expression, or both. It is likely that they also have difficulty coping with their studies.
Studying by Extension is quite different from any other formal learning that students have experienced. Unlike in most lecture courses, detailed materials are supplied in advance. This provides flexibility, in particular allowing students to study at their own pace. For those with enough self-discipline and experience studying independently this is positive. But others are faced for the first time with serious organization and time management demands. Although this is also true of new full-time on-campus students, for the Extension student the task is compounded by the demands of work, family life, and other social commitments, which in the South Pacific’s tight-knit communities are significant. Because they study at home, distance learners are often not considered “real” students and allowances are not always made for their need for study time.
Although the course package is supposed to be sufficient, access to other resources can only enrich students’ learning experience. Yet many do not have access to such resources. Perhaps most important, there is no teacher to guide, correct, and answer questions on the spot. The missing teacher is the feature of Extension studies that our interviewees found most difficult. The uncertainty this absence creates is captured here:
Here, when you write through Extension, you just don’t have any idea what to do, you read the question and whatever comes into my mind, I just write that down. I don’t know whether it’s right or wrong because there is no one to guide me ... We don’t have any guidance from our lecturers ... We may be discussing things which may not be required. (VM, pp. 3-4)1
The main learning resource is the Center or Sub-Center library, and most students within reach use it, although early closing hours in some locations are inconvenient for working students. Others, particularly those enrolled in pre-degree courses, use high school libraries. In Fiji mini-libraries have been set up in high schools away from towns, but their resources are limited. Some interviewees report also going to government departments and other organizations (e.g., the tourism bureau) for basic information. But many students in remote areas have either few or no resources. Although they are often quite ingenious in seeking out sources of information, calling or faxing their USP Center, for instance, and try to make the most out of the little they have, they are hampered in what they can get out of a course.
The lack of resources in remote areas means that it is difficult to study certain subjects: for example, how can you take a law course in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands when you have no access to a law library? Should such a course be offered by distance learning at all? Or can it be designed so that the package includes enough resources to obviate the need for library access while still teaching essential principles?
Two interviewees have access to computers, but they use them only to word-process their assignments. The use of the Internet, offering unprecedented access to information in many forms to a wide variety of people, is limited in many parts of the region by limited telephone services, a narrow bandwidth, and unreliable hardware servicing. At this stage the gap in information access is widening between developed and developing countries such as those in the USP region.
Tutorial support, either face-to-face or via satellite, is provided in USP Centres and Sub-Centres when a minimum number of students justifies the cost (usually 7). Students enrolled in the same course sometimes are put in touch with each other by their Center or take the initiative to form study groups, where they discuss readings and assignments, do the self-assessment questions, and prepare for exams. Both conventional and peer tutorials can go far beyond helping students better understand the subject matter. They are an opportunity for a wider exchange of ideas, including some about study problems and tactics; they help to break down isolation and provide much needed psychological support:
You feel like studying because we are in a group and they are doing something more the same as you are doing ... Through their support we work together and seek each other’s help ... I feel that if I had my friends to work with I would do better. (CS, p. 2)
Peer tutorials seem more frequent in Fiji because Centres encourage them and because of the greater concentration of students, but they also take place elsewhere. A student from Kiribati said,
Yes, we’ve been working, working very closely with other colleagues and I think we find it, we get our understanding better by sharing ideas.... We meet twice every two weeks or every three weeks. (CI, pp. 2-3)
But for those living far from their Center there is nothing formal, and many students talk about feeling isolated. This is pithily summed up by one as “it’s just you and the books” (Mugler & Landbeck, 1998). Students living in remote areas who want to attend tutorials can be frustrated by late notices or transport difficulties. Many nonetheless try to find someone who can help—a friend who took the course before, a schoolteacher: “If it’s a statement or paragraph that I don’t have any idea abut it, then that’s the time I ask a teacher or someone to help” (WE, p. 10).
Another cause of anxiety connected to the absence of face-to-face contact with lecturers is the feedback given on assignments. The marker’s comments are often the only personalized guidance the student receives during the course. Good feedback is helpful, and some staff work hard to provide this crucial assistance, but inadequate feedback causes confusion and frustration:
Most of the assignments didn’t have any comments ... only the mark ... sometimes = you had to spend so many hours looking for the answer, and you’ve got nothing to show whether it’s a good answer, except you guess by the marks, I suppose, but you got no help to show you what was good and bad. (VK, pp. 3-4)
In spite of limited access to resources and tutors, some isolated students still manage to pass courses and get more out of their studies than one would expect.
Most students with full-time jobs study late at night, some after their children have gone to sleep, or early in the morning and on weekends. Full-time students (15% of those interviewed), for whom Extension provides an alternative route to further education, attend the Center daily and spend most of their day studying. Their timetable is similar to what they had in high school, but they still have to learn to study mostly on their own with limited contact with teachers. The Center normally offers a weekly one-hour tutorial for each subject.
On receiving their study package most students read the Introduction and Assignment booklet. This initial exercise varies from merely browsing to a thorough analysis of what is required for each assignment and a check of what references are available. Some students are focused and strategic, looking first for when assignments are due and what sections of the textbook or other reading are required to prepare for them. A few try to follow the suggested timetable for each unit, but most cannot, and good intentions about regular study are often quickly overtaken by various pressures.
Two study strategies are used by students: pragmatic and sequential. Those with a pragmatic approach focus on the material relevant to the assignment and limit themselves to what needs to be done to pass the course, ignoring all other material (compare Chief & Hola, 1995). Some say that they would like to study the material more thoroughly but cannot because of time pressures: “I mean, most of the time I look at the assignment and the first assignment is based on such unit, so those units I read first” (NG, pp. 4-5). “Because as much as I would like to learn the entire textbook, I have to read the important things that would come, that would help me out, you know, get the grades for” (NC, pp. 5-6).
An extreme example of this approach appears in this candid quote:
It’s written clearly what to do ... but if I don’t have time I skip. In most of the time we have to leave it until the end of the course when the exam is nearing ... Most of the courses I didn’t have time to read, you know, there is a Reader. I have never read any of that because I don’t have time ... I look at the assignments first and I see what topics do I have to read. (CD, pp. 7-8)
Later in the interview it becomes clear that this student’s experience of learning by Extension is quite different from that of a six-week face-to-face summer school course:
The courses that I did through Extension, I forgot most of the materials and I’m pretty sure that the materials that I did in my Summer School, I won’t forget for a long time and I think similar to courses that are run full-time. People don’t forget, they apply that. I think, well, the two reasons that I said, that there is a lecturer teaching you, and you sharing your knowledge with a lecturer and other students. (CD, p. 6)
For him the difference between the two modes is also a difference in the quality of learning. His extremely pragmatic approach may seem cynical but it has worked, at least insofar as he has passed his courses. Yet he is clear about what “real” learning means: “You can’t apply that knowledge to your place. I mean, why do you study? To apply that knowledge” (CD, p. 4).
Perhaps it is not so much this student’s approach that is extreme—he is far from the only one to have adopted it—as his candor. The interviews make it clear that this pragmatic approach is not a consequence of a low conception of learning as merely absorbing, storing, and reproducing information (see below), but of the constraints faced by most Extension students and their observation that this strategy often results in passing courses.
This strategy consists in proceeding step by step through the Study Guide following the instructions closely:
OK, when I first get my materials, I first look at Assignment and Introduction books to see the materials course, what should I get, should I get a textbook or Study Guide or whatever and I check it up and whether it’s complete materials or not and the time I found it’s complete and then after that I read the Study Guide and it says there to read from page, let’s say, 60 to 62 in the course text, so I read the course text and it says on the assignment questions and it says to be something to do with page 3, Reading what?, 3 of the Reader and I read it, so ... (WE, p. 4)
Most students must read the materials several times before the meaning becomes clear, and some have to look up many words in the dictionary, so that understanding complex concepts can take a long time. Many seem to have learned to first skim the text. Some students highlight their materials and most also write summary notes on what they consider the main points. Many stress the importance of using their own words, which facilitates retention.
I’ve got a personal notebook ... where I write down in note forms, not in points like writing down titles, these are three ways of what and what I write down. How I understand it, I just write it down in my own words in my notebook. (TA, p. 6)
These notes are always used to revise for exams and sometimes to help write assignments:
Well, those notes are very important especially if I come to my exams or to my self-assessment. They are very important. If I’m not to take note of it, then my chances of failing the course are very high. But I have to take notes. So those notes are my tools to assess myself whether I really understand the contents of the course or not. (AC, p. 12)
Students who use this sequential strategy display different degrees of involvement with the materials. Some are content with a superficial reading whereas others actively engage with the materials, thinking about them and trying to apply the concepts to their work—like teaching. But these students are often forced to become more pragmatic by impending assignment deadlines:
This booklet here tells us, well, when to start the assignment. Sometimes I can’t catch up with my reading. When the assignment is due, is about to due ... so what I have to do is to read the question ... and then look for the answer in the textbook. (DB, p. 4)
Preparation for final exams follows a pattern. Most students use their summary notes, a few go back over the entire Study Guide, and several also revise their marked assignments. Most use the sample exam in their Booklet (compare Chief & Hola, 1995), although two veteran students have begun to do so only recently. Most write outline answers to the questions, but a few try to write them in full. Some set themselves a revision timetable, whereas one took leave from his job to revise the course in detail. Two approaches contrast below, one organized and thorough, the other more superficial.
Firstly I put my work for my different subjects in order and then I read through them, and then when I get stuck with something that I don’t really understand, then I go back to the textbooks and then I just study the whole thing again and it takes time but it’ll help me understand, and then I just go through it until I finish, then I put the paper aside and then try and, you know, remember all that I’ve read through in my head. (NC, p. 8)
I just go through what I put down in my notebook, then I, most of the time that I did, just read a few past exam papers and then another attempt to go through the assignment again and some of the exercises that are provided in the coursebook. (GV, p. 10)
The interview also explored the students’ conceptions of learning and understanding (Mugler & Landbeck, in press). We summarize the main findings here because their relationship with learning strategies and conditions is important.
Conceptions of learning were first described by Säljö (1979) and later extended by Marton et al. (1993). The initial research was carried out in Sweden and the United Kingdom, but broadly similar descriptions have since been identified in other parts of the world (Watkins & Akande, 1994, Nigeria; Watkins & Regmi, 1995, Nepal; Mugler & Landbeck, 1997). The six conceptions of learning found by Marton et al. (1993) are: (a) increasing one’s knowledge; (b) memorizing and reproducing; (c) applying; (d) understanding; (e) seeing something in a different way; and (f) changing as a person.
Four of these six conceptions (a, b, c, and d) were identified among the interviewees. The most common were (a) and (c), as illustrated below.
(a) Learning as an increase of knowledge. Just under half the students have this conception, typically expressed as follows: “Learning ... it’s just getting to know things, gaining more knowledge of something” (HK, p. 12).
(c) Learning as applying. A third of the students described learning in terms of applying new knowledge: “I think learning is ... not only knowing new things, it is also knowing new things and just trying to put it into practice” (TM, p. 9).
Conceptions (a) to (c) are usually regarded as characteristic of reproductive learning, whereas (d) to (f) demonstrate transformative learning where the learner works with knowledge to derive meaning and comes to see the world in a new way.
Conceptions of learning are closely related to how students approach learning tasks (Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). Thus reproductive conceptions are usually associated with a surface approach to learning. Several decades of research have made it clear that the key to encouraging students to gain a deep understanding of a subject is enabling them to adopt transformative conceptions of learning. A deep understanding of a subject, rather than the ability to reproduce knowledge mechanically, is or should be a goal for students anywhere, including the South Pacific, if they are to contribute usefully and creatively to the development of their countries and of themselves.
Given their learning environment, how can USP enable students to take a deep approach to learning? Face-to-face contact with staff and other students—so important for intellectual development—is often limited, and electronic communication as a substitute for face-to-face contact is not viable at this stage. The onus for developing deep understanding, therefore, still falls heavily onto the written materials.
Despite efforts of instructional designers, USP’s current learning packages, unfortunately, do not generally encourage deep approaches to learning. Furthermore, one study showed that USP distance students performed at the reading level required by the materials in only one of the six courses evaluated (Lockwood et al., 1988). There is no recent readability study, but our research suggests that promoting deep understanding cannot occur before the readability of materials is improved.
Part of the problem is that course writers are academics, most of whom have little or no training or experience in writing distance learning materials or designing appropriate assessment items. Some are also not familiar with the conditions our distance learners face. As Waqa (1984) observed, some staff face considerable pressure in carrying out both on-campus and distance teaching. Although both types of students are equally important, the pressures of on-campus students are more immediate, and Extension work (marking, course development, and revision) often suffers.
Because learning strategies are mainly assessment-driven because of inevitable factors like work and family commitments, it seems sensible to design the course starting with assessment tasks that test meaningful learning. Taylor and Williams (1997) recently designed such a course: an encouraging innovation but one whose success it is too early to judge. Attending to assessment, which has a powerful effect on learning, is one way to achieve a great deal without having to redesign an entire course.
It is surprising that, in spite of the wealth of research into student learning, little has been done to develop courses that encourage a deep approach to learning. Kember (1991, 1995) has listed some of the requisite design components: identifying the most important concepts of the course (rather than concentrating on covering content); sequencing them; helping students relate them (with advance and graphic organizers, for instance); and helping them work through misconceptions toward new understandings. This last aim, although vital for the development of deep understanding, is extremely difficult and seems almost impossible to achieve in this present context.
A second important issue is the cultural appropriateness of learning materials. Guy (1991), in a detailed survey of developing nations, shows that two models, Open University and the University of New England in Australia, have played a significant role in the provision of distance education. But this can be considered another kind of colonization, and South Pacific educators raise concerns about the suitability of such models. Va’a (1997), although acknowledging the importance of improving science teaching, pleads for a curriculum that does not alienate students from their cultures. Similarly, Wah (1997) criticizes USP distance programs for conflicting with students’ cultures, whereas Mugler and Landbeck (1997) discuss cultural learning styles and institutional culture. For many years Thaman (1997) has argued for more culturally appropriate teaching and learning in education in general.
I believe that with more and better knowledge and understanding of the cultural contexts of education in Pacific island countries together with an appropriate dash of audacity and imagination, it will be possible to develop strategies in distance education that could generate culturally sensitive pedagogy as well as genuine equality of opportunities for Pacific Island people. (p. 34)
Unfortunately, this “culturally sensitive pedagogy” has never had a chance to develop at USP. There is considerable pressure to maintain traditional Western-style courses, partly because of a perceived need to compete internationally, and designing culturally appropriate courses may require less conventional teaching and assessment. Sadly, the “dash of audacity and imagination” is missing.
In this study we show that, because of their learning conditions, students are forced to rely almost entirely on packaged written materials and that these are generally designed to develop a deep understanding of the subject. We suggest that two experimental courses could be designed, tested, and evaluated, one based on Kember’s ideas (1991, 1995), encouraging a deep approach to learning and the development of critical thinking, and a more culturally appropriate course, as suggested by Thaman (1997). They could provide models for future course development, which should lead to an improvement in the quality of learning. Such experimentation should be strongly supported, because it would make an important contribution to providing appropriate distance education based on the cultural background of South Pacific students and could also be a more appropriate model for other parts of the world.
We thank the USP students who agreed to be interviewed for this study, personnel at the USP Centres and Sub-Centres in the countries under study for facilitating interviewing, and Margaret Dutt and Roshila Singh for transcribing some of the interviews. Special thanks for Eni Ramere’s assistance. The study was supported by research grants from the USP, and we are grateful in particular to the University Research Committee for its continued support.
Anderson, T.D., & Garrison, D.R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconferencing context. Higher Education, 29, 183-199.
Bolabola, C., & Wah, R. (Eds.). (1995). South Pacific women in distance education. Studies from the countries of the University of the South Pacific. Suva: University of the South Pacific and the Commonwealth of Learning.
Chief, I.Y., & Hola, L. (1995). Patterns of study behaviour of the University of the South Pacific Extension Students. Suva: University Extension, University of The South Pacific.
Garrison, D.R. (1993). A cognitive constructive view of distance education, An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education, 14, 199-211.
Guy, R.K. (1991). Distance education and the developing world: Colonization, collaboration and control. In T. Evans & B. King (Eds.), Beyond the text: contemporary writing on distance education (pp. 152-175). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 20(4), 289-310.
Kember, D. (1995). Open learning courses for adults. A model of student progress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lal, V. (1989). The study strategies of outstanding distance education students at USP. Suva: Fiji Center, University of The South Pacific.
Lockwood, F., Roberts, D.W., & Williams, I. (1988). Improving teaching at a distance within the University of the South Pacific. International Journal of Educational Development, 8, 265-270.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: Exploring different conceptions of reality. In D. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent revolution (pp. 176-205). New York: Praeger.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Morgan, A.R. (1983). Theoretical aspects of project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 66-78.
Morgan, A.R. (1987). Project work in open learning. In M. Thorpe & D. Grugeon (Eds.), Open learning for adults (pp. 245-257). London: Longman.
Mugler, F., & Landbeck, R. (1997). Learning in the South Pacific and phenomenography across cultures. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 227-239.
Mugler, F., & Landbeck, R. (1998). “It’s just you and the books”: Learning conditions and study strategies of distance learners at the University of the South Pacific. In J.F.J. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 113-135). New York: Garland.
Mugler, F., & Landbeck, R. (in press). Learning, memorisation and understanding among distance learners in the South Pacific. Learning and Instruction.
Ratuva, S. (1996). Pedagogy from a distance: A sociological critique of extension education. In Publications Committee (Eds.), Negotiating the distance, a collection of experiences in teaching extension courses at the University of the South Pacific (pp. 31-38). Suva: University Extension, The University of the South Pacific.
Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
Richardson, J.T.E. (in press). Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s experience. 1. Some common-sense conceptions. Report No. 76, Department of Education. Gothenburg: University of Göteborg.
Taylor, R., & Williams, I. (1997). PS203 applied research methods in psychology II. Suva: University Extension, University of the South Pacific.
Thaman, K. (1997). Considerations of culture in distance education in the Pacific Islands. In L. Rowan, L. Bartlett, & T. Evans (Eds.), Shifting borders: Globalisation, localisation and open and distance education (pp. 23-43). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
USP Statistics. (1997). Planning and development office. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.
Va’a, R. (1997). Cultural accountability in the USP science courses at a distance. In L. Rowan, L. Bartlett, & T. Evans (Eds.), Shifting borders: Globalisation, localisation and open and distance education (pp. 83-97). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Wah, R. (1997). Distance education in the South Pacific: Issues and contradictions. In L. Rowan, L. Bartlett, & T. Evans (Eds.), Shifting borders: Globalisation, localisation and open and distance education (pp. 69-82). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Waqa, M.V. (1984). The University of the South Pacific: Dimensions of time and space. In K. Smith (Ed.), Diversity down under in distance education (pp. 95-100). Toowoomba: Darling Downs Institute Press.
Watkins, D., & Akande, A. (1994). Approaches to learning of Nigerian secondary school children: Emic and etic perspectives. International Journal of Psychology, 29(2), 165-182.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1995). Assessing approaches to learning in non-Western cultures: A Nepalese conceptual validity study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(2), 203-212.
Wood, G. (1981). Pearls of wisdom and blobs of knowledge: Foundation course tours. Teaching at a Distance, 20, 13-23.
1. The students interviewed are identified by coded initials. Page numbers refer to interview transcripts.
Roger Landbeck was founding Director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching at the University of the South Pacific until 1997. He has since led workshops on teaching and learning for staff in theological colleges in the South Pacific. His e-mail address is Landbeck@ozemail.com.au.
France Mugler is an associate professor of linguistics at the University of the South Pacific. She has conducted research on the sociolinguistic situation in Fiji, particularly on Dravidian languages. She has been involved in research on student learning at USP with Roger Landbeck since 1993. Her e-mail address is mugler_f@usp.ac.fj.