Since 2002 the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom has been funding postgraduate students in developing Commonwealth countries on distance-learning degree programmes through partnerships between British and overseas universities. Under the programme the Commission has funded over 500 students who were studying with British universities on master's level courses which include agricultural development, engineering, fisheries, health, education, and computer studies. Overseas partners are in Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia. Results from an evaluation are now available and are set out below. They confirm that the programme has enabled learners to combine their professional life with crossborder study and to do so cost effectively.

The purpose of this paper, and of the conference session based on it, is to explain what we and others running comparable programmes have been doing; outline the results achieved in terms of partnerships, of individual students, and of cost effectiveness; identify policy issues for universities, funding agencies and ourselves.

WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING?

Under the programme the Commission has funded 518 students between 2002 and 2006 who were studying with thirteen British university departments through eight overseas partners on a range of master's courses in subjects relevant to development. In some cases partner universities are recruiting students regionally from neighbouring countries as well as their own. So far only 19 students have withdrawn from the programme and, while many students are still part-way through their courses, it is possible to calculate likely graduation rates. Students on two courses have attended one-term programmes in Britain as an integral part of degrees otherwise taught at a distance. Estimates are now available for the likely cost per student and cost per successful student for these courses as compared with conventional courses involving one-year residence in Britain.

We launched the programme in 2002 inviting British universities to bid for a tranche of scholarships, explaining in each case how their courses related to the millennium development goals and telling us about their existing experience and track record in distance learning. Each university was asked to tell us about arrangements with their partner institution and to set out the functions that would be undertaken by each of the partners. We told universities that, the Commission will wish to see a clear statement on the proposed mode(s) of delivery. It will wish to take into account past experience of distance learning on an international level and the appropriateness of the delivery method to subject area and likely local conditions. For example, what systems exist for the provision of student support and pastoral care in general; are tutorial sessions necessary and how are they conducted; and is the choice of technology appropriate for local conditions?

We then went through a two-stage process, which we have followed in each succeeding year: first we assessed the proposals against these criteria and agreed to award a number of scholarships to selected institutions; then, second, we selected the students we were prepared to fund from those identified by the universities. The Commission wanted to satisfy itself both of the capacity of the institutions concerned and then to select students, using similar criteria to those used for conventional scholars. In the first four years of the scheme we agreed to support four annual cohorts of postgraduate students at the British institutions as set out in table 1.

Table 1: Courses funded 2002-6

PARTNERSHIPS

An important aim of the Commission's Distance Learning programme is to develop institutional capacity in partner universities of the developing Commonwealth. This was expected to happen through a variety of means. Staff in partner universities might be students themselves. Partner universities might set out deliberately to develop their own distance learning capacities with the intention of taking over the programmes themselves and/or offering new ones of their own. The following are examples of the comments we have received in the past year:

"The partnership experience has enabled us to train a cadre of faculty members in the delivery of distance learning and has also encouraged us to see distance learning as a potentially useful part in our delivery of agricultural courses."

"The partnership is a close one and the interaction has led to the development of new course material. Our expectations were that the partnership would provide useful international links and networking opportunities and these have been met. The expectation is that we will increasingly extend our on-campus tutoring role."

The partnerships, which vary widely, are supporting institutional development in three ways. In some cases there is significant professional development within the discipline in which the master's programme is running. Chainama College in Zambia, for example, has used the partnership as a means of upgrading the qualifications of many of is own staff, as well as others working in health in Zambia. Second, in others, the overseas university has been able to strengthen the kind of support it is offering to students. Third, some are using the partnership as a way of developing capacity in course development. Imperial College - Wye and the University of Pretoria, for example, have been moving towards a position in which some courses are developed at each university but offered at both.

The partnership model is not without its problems, and some partnerships have moved further than others toward the ultimate aim of the hand over of course delivery from the UK provider but it is evident that where they work well they have tremendous potential in terms of providing a focus of support for often very widespread groups of students.

STUDENTS

Students were selected on the basis of their academic and work record. Many have work and family commitments that mean that, even if conventional scholarships had been available, they would not have been able to travel to Britain for a one-year residential course. Furthermore, the programme enabled the Commission to concentrate its support in a way that is more difficult for its conventional scholarships, available in principle to scholars in any discipline from any Commonwealth country. (For scholarships funded by DfID they need to demonstrate its relevance to development and the reduction of poverty.) Competing pressures for conventional scholarships would have prevented us, for example, from funding 68 African students in agricultural disciplines over two years or 30 students in sustainable development working through Jadavpur University in Kolkata.

In terms of gender, the figures are at first sight disappointing; 38 per cent of our distance-learning students are women as compared with 44 per cent on conventional scholarship programmes. The figure largely reflects the nature of the courses selected to date, such as civil engineering, computer science and agriculture: we had few women applying for courses in these areas. Courses selected for support most recently show a greater emphasis on education and health and the Commission is confident that new cohorts of students coming on stream later this year will improve the gender balance significantly.

In considering the partnership arrangements we were concerned that the technologies proposed should be appropriate for students and have continued to monitor this. We have tried to ensure that all courses can be delivered by a variety of means and are not dependent on high-quality, broadband, internet access. Much course material is available in print as well as on the internet. Through feedback from students we are aware that reliable access to the technologies does present a problem for a significant minority of our students, many of whom are in professions that require them to work in rural and remote environments. In some cases students attend concentrated on-campus courses where there is good computer access. In others, students rely heavily on print for their teaching material while using internet links mainly for email links with their tutors.

All in all, despite problems of technology, student reaction has been warm and positive. Some students comment that their studies have led either to promotion at work or a move within their current employment where they can make a practical difference. One scholar writes

"In addition, during the course… I was re-assigned (by UNICEF) to work in Eastern Uganda in an area where approximately 400,000 people had been displaced by the LRA. I had the opportunity to support interventions for the persons living in the camps.. by applying the skills and knowledge acquired in the training."

A worker in the NGO sector in India, writes of his Sustainable Development degree "As a development worker… I have always felt that human resource in the sector is impoverished mainly due to lack of professional understanding of volunteerism.. and lack of opportunities for low level workers to improve upon their professional skills.. I personally feel this scholarship was one opportunity which took care of the above factors…"

COSTS AND EFFECTS

Students have now been working on the courses long enough for us to have a picture of likely graduation rates. Since February 2003, 518 scholars have commenced study, with 140 about to do so in 2006. Fifty-two scholars have graduated, a further 123 have passed 120 credits, i.e. through the certificate and diploma stages of their course, and are now completing their projects; 93 per cent of all modules started have been completed, with the overall dropout rate at less than 4 per cent. All our scholars were aiming for a master's level qualification, normally awarded after one year's full-time study but were expecting to take between two and four years to complete. In two cases - students of sustainable development in India and of education in Pakistan - a one-term residential course in England was built into the programme which we expected would hasten graduation, as well as bringing a set of broader educational benefits. Detailed results from the first two cohorts are in table 2.

This shows that the programme run between the Institute of Education and the Aga Khan University has been a dramatic success with a 100 per cent completion rate: a tribute to the students and probably to the inclusion of a one-term residential course in England. In other cases, reports from universities to us on student progress mean that we can be reasonably confident in expecting a graduation rate of over 80 per cent. Dropout rates have remained low.

We can, therefore, go on to ask questions about value for money and compare the cost of producing a graduate through distance learning with the cost of doing so through a conventional one-year master's course. In doing so we are necessarily leaving aside difficult and important questions about the merits of the two modes of study and the additional benefits which students may obtain through a year within a university. But, with that caution, some useful conclusions can be drawn. Of the 500 full-time UK-based Commonwealth Scholars completing conventional master's level courses between 1999/00 and 2003/04, 95 per cent successfully completed their course. With an award cost of over £22,000, including fees, travel and subsistence, it cost the Commission about £24,000 to produce one graduate - the graduate unit cost.

University fees vary widely for both conventional and distance-learning courses. The average tuition fee of those supported on distance-learning courses is £7,200. Assuming a 10 per cent dropout (which we hope will not be reached), the graduate unit cost would be £8,000, or one-third of the conventional cost. If five in six complete their course, they would do so at £8,750 per head. The graduate unit cost would be less than £10,000 even if only three in four finished, a significantly worse result than the one we and the universities are expecting. These are, of course, average costs and assume equal dropout rates across all courses. The two courses which included a period of residence within Britain naturally had higher costs and, if the Institute of Education pattern can be maintained, can be expected to have higher completion rates. Even with the higher costs we would expect the graduation unit cost to be between a half and two-third of the comparable cost for a one-year scholarship to Britain.

Table 2: Enrolment, progression and completion data

In supporting over 500 scholars, £2.5m has so far been expended on this programme over a four-year period. The budget for 2006/07 is a further £800,000. On a significant scale the Commission is generating skills for development at 30 to 45 per cent of the costs of more traditional methods.

CONCLUSION

The data we have collected make it possible to draw five conclusions, and identify issues that merit further exploration.

First, the model we have developed is broadly successful. The combination of working at master's level, supporting courses through partnerships, a careful selection of students, and assurance to them of funding, has resulted in favourable graduation rates.

Second, the data make it possible to compare the costs of three modes of study: travel to Britain on a conventional scholarship for a one-year course, studying entirely crossborder and through distance learning, and studying through distance learning with one-term in Britain. We expect to achieve costs per graduate for fully distance students with an average cost in the range £8000 to £8750. These figures are increased, and possibly doubled, if students spend one term in Britain. In contrast the unit cost per conventional graduate is now about £24,000.

Third, we do not yet know enough about the externalities and we still need to develop research methodologies that would enable us to balance the advantages of, say, spending a year in Britain studying full-time against those of staying at home and studying at a distance. We need more than cost-effectiveness analysis here.

Fourth, while there is positive evidence of the benefits of partnerships, they are taking time to develop and it may be some years before the overseas partners would in many cases be in a position to localise the courses entirely.

Fifth, budgetary constraints limit the number of scholarships we can offer. We hope that the success of the model we have developed may encourage other funding agencies to set up distance-learning programmes alongside conventional scholarships.

AND DISCUSSION

We look forward to discussing these points, of learning from other comparable programmes - including the Caribbean - Canadian scheme and that supported by the Rajiv Gandhi foundation for the IGNOU master's in distance education - and of discussing others that arise from the work. They include:

• sustainability and transfer: how sustainable are the courses we are supporting without our funds and what can be done to accelerate capacity building within partner institutions?
• technology: how far should we assume that problems of access to the internet and e-learning have been resolved, especially outside capital cities and main towns?
• what balance should we seek between building in a period of full-time study in Britain for distance-learning students against the fact that, with a fixed budget, this reduces the total number of scholarships we can award?
• evidence of developmental impact: we can properly support the programme only if we are satisfied that it is contributing to development and the reduction of poverty.
• the learning experience, and the practicalities for our students of combining work and study.