One Developing World University’s Faith in Technology to Deliver

Adopting solar technology

In early November 2010, the President of Divine Word University (DWU), Papua New Guinea (PNG), Fr Jan Czuba, outlined the key challenges the university was likely to face in 2011 and asked how as a team the staff could face these going forward:

·         We need to explore ways in which we can contribute to the achievement of National Vision 2050.

·         How can we increase the enrolment at our university?

·         Do we have the necessary policy to ensure quality of research, teaching, learning and community service?

·         What is our progress to become a paperless and green university?

·         Are we incorporating ICT into our teaching, learning?

Contained in the challenges are competing realities that DWU must confront and manage. If it wants to be a reliable and leading national and regional higher education player, DWU has to increase access. It must do so whilst keeping costs down, assuring quality and being socially responsible. These are big calls for a university that is not financially well-endowed and one operating in a financially stringent environment. 

However, DWU management is leveraging technology including ICT, prudent financial management, and the policy mechanism to respond to the demands and manage risks. The technology and policy strategies adopted include:

• promoting e-learning as evidenced in the provision of laptops with Internet access to students; as well as the promotion amongst  staff to incorporate e-learning technologies in teaching and learning.
• the promotion and use of solar-technology and energy-saving devices.  The project to light up its campuses with solar lighting is being rolled out. (picture above)
• adopting energy efficient and paper minimisation policies

More information on DWU can be sought from: http://www.dwu.ac.pg

What Value do PNG Higher Education Providers see in their Students?

Recently, on my university’s intranet discussion forum, I posted the question: What value do we see in our students? I was prompted to ask the question of my organization having just read the Times Higher Education edition of 26 November, 2010 article by Simon Baker, Hefce head denounces likely loss of arts teaching funding, in which the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Sir Alan Langlands, is quoted to have had this caution for the Higher Education (HE) sector in his country:

If we value our students simply for what we get out of them or what they might earn in the future, be assured that they will in turn estimate our value by what they can get out of us and I think that would be a betrayal of our higher education system in the UK.

Such sentiments in the global HE arena are linked to a fundamental question being asked, heatedly debated on and even literally fought over. The question is:

 Is Higher Education a public good and therefore be funded as a public service, or is it a private good and as such the cost be borne by those who benefit most from it, the clients?

Many nations the world over, including England, Canada and Australia, for instance, have redefined HE as a private good rather than a public good. The changed perception of the purpose of HE has staunch supporters and detractors. In the news recently you would have read or seen the protests in England following announcements of more funding cuts to universities.  The protests, some elements of which have been responsible for the destruction of property, are but some of the immediate socially detrimental consequences of the changed perception of HE being played out. 

In Papua New Guinea, there are those within  its higher education sector who would like to see HE cast in a more vocational mold. This is yet another outcome of the changed view of the purpose of HE.

Many commentators on higher education see that the impact of the redefinition of the purpose of HE is being felt and will continue to be felt both in the short and long term at the personal, institutional and at the societal levels.   From the perspective of the paying student or client, the simple economic logic increasingly defines choice of program of study: If I am paying a high cost for HE, than it is an investment for which I expect high returns, the sooner the better. At the institutional level, HE providers facing financial shortfalls will focus provision on programs that are in high demand as these translate immediately to revenue generation.  The kinds of programs that are more likely to meet the provider and client expectations are programs mainly in the business and vocational fields. The providers view students as clients and value them for the money that can be made out of them. In my own institution, a whole organizational unit is set up to capitalise on the growing demand for vocational education or client-tailored HE.  For us, if we assure the quality of the  products/programs, this leads to a win-win situation for both, where the clients’ needs are met and the institution generates much needed income to support organizational functions.

However, there are dangers to society of having its higher education institutions pursue a primarily private or instrumental goal. In another Times Higher Education article, Roger Lister, a professor at Salford Business School, University of Salford, decries that such a narrow focus does a disservice not just to some of a nation’s best young minds but also to the greater good of society:

Today's disadvantaged are the graduates of degree courses that, with government encouragement, have imparted "marketable" education in the narrowest sense. Such faculties are operating as de-disciplined skills factories rather than universities.

As to what purpose PNGHE should serve, one of my colleagues who contributed to the discussion in response to the question I posted expressed this view:

Putting it simply,… our institutions of Higher Learning or Higher Education for that matter, must take on board both enterprises, the vocational and the academic disciplines; i.e. the enterprise of feeding the labour market with skilled labourers whilst at the same time engaging in the more intellectual pursuits in view of instilling well-roundedness in our students for general life.
My own view is that this is an important issue for the PNGHE sector, particularly universities, to be engaged in by critiquing public policy. In so doing they will help shape national HE policy for the short and long-term good of the nation, the users of HE service and the providers of Higher Education.  This is an opportune time to be actively engaged as the sector deliberates on and develops  its Higher Education Development Plan III.