Modularization

 

  • Modular Instruction in Higher Education: A Review
    The principles and purposes of modular instruction (MI), its advantages for both students and instructors, and a comparison between the conventional and modular approach are presented. Separate sections deal with implementation and management of MI and include a discussion of evaluation and cost. Several examples of modular formats in use at North American universities are described.

    Present evidence suggests that MI meets the needs of today's students more adequately than traditional instruction both with respect to the quality of learning and the content. However, certain problems may arise in implementing MI. These are presented from the perspective of the student, instructor, and administrator. Given its emphasis on individualized learning and its adaptability to large numbers of students, MI has emerged as one of the most promising alternatives in higher education today.
  • The Opening of Higher Education (Change, The Magazine of Higher Learning)
    In a 1974 report presented to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Martin Trow laid out a framework for understanding large-scale, worldwide changes in higher education. Trow's essay also pointed to the problems that “arise out of the transition from one phase to another in a broad pattern of development of higher education, a transition—underway in every advanced society—from elite to mass higher education and subsequently to universal access” (Trow, 1974).

    The movement from elite higher education (where up to 15 percent of the graduates of secondary education go on to higher education) to mass higher education (16 to 50 percent) is so evident that today it is hardly noticeable as a defining concept. Yet in 1974 the changes in almost every aspect of higher education and its institutions were considered relatively independent objects of study and concern. Trow's model enabled researchers and higher education administrators to see these changes “as integral and variable aspects of the process of growth rather than as discrete issues.” He therefore provided a landscape or a context to analyze and understand the process of change in higher education (Trow, 2010).