How the Teaching Development Grant was used (and the problem of common-sense understandings of teaching and learning)
- Moyo, Temwa, McKenna, Sioux, Ndebele, Clever
- Authors: Moyo, Temwa , McKenna, Sioux , Ndebele, Clever
- Date: 2022
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/426917 , vital:72400 , xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i86a07"
- Description: Teachers at primary and secondary education levels are required to hold a professional qualification but, at the higher education level, all that is required is content expertise. This may well contribute to South Africa's low university throughput and retention rates, in response to which, since 2004, the state has provided ZAR5.5 billion in the form of the Teaching Development Grant (now the University Capacity Development Grant) to address poor completion rates. We present an analysis of the use of the grant across the sector using a social realist framework. Every academic and student has themselves been taught and so have developed untheorised assumptions about curriculum and pedagogy. Such common-sense assumptions about teaching and learning often serve to reinforce the status quo, which is particularly problematic in a sector with poor and racially differentiated throughput and success rates. Many initiatives funded through the grant evidenced a reliance on common-sense assumptions rather than on theorised accounts. In particular, student development often took the form of remedial, add-on initiatives that left the mainstream curriculum untouched-and staff development was often generic and short term. We also found that expertise in academic development, which could potentially challenge common-sense assumptions, was unevenly distributed.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022
- Authors: Moyo, Temwa , McKenna, Sioux , Ndebele, Clever
- Date: 2022
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/426917 , vital:72400 , xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i86a07"
- Description: Teachers at primary and secondary education levels are required to hold a professional qualification but, at the higher education level, all that is required is content expertise. This may well contribute to South Africa's low university throughput and retention rates, in response to which, since 2004, the state has provided ZAR5.5 billion in the form of the Teaching Development Grant (now the University Capacity Development Grant) to address poor completion rates. We present an analysis of the use of the grant across the sector using a social realist framework. Every academic and student has themselves been taught and so have developed untheorised assumptions about curriculum and pedagogy. Such common-sense assumptions about teaching and learning often serve to reinforce the status quo, which is particularly problematic in a sector with poor and racially differentiated throughput and success rates. Many initiatives funded through the grant evidenced a reliance on common-sense assumptions rather than on theorised accounts. In particular, student development often took the form of remedial, add-on initiatives that left the mainstream curriculum untouched-and staff development was often generic and short term. We also found that expertise in academic development, which could potentially challenge common-sense assumptions, was unevenly distributed.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022
Collaborative research in contexts of inequality: the role of social reflexivity
- Leibowitz, Brenda, Bozalek, Vivienne, Farmer, Jean-Lee, Garraway, James, Herman, Nicoline, Jawitz, Jeff, McMillan, Wendy, Mistri, Gita, Ndebele, Clever, Nkonki, Vuyisile, Quinn, Lynn, Van Schalkwyk, Susan, Vorster, Jo-Anne E, Winberg, Chris
- Authors: Leibowitz, Brenda , Bozalek, Vivienne , Farmer, Jean-Lee , Garraway, James , Herman, Nicoline , Jawitz, Jeff , McMillan, Wendy , Mistri, Gita , Ndebele, Clever , Nkonki, Vuyisile , Quinn, Lynn , Van Schalkwyk, Susan , Vorster, Jo-Anne E , Winberg, Chris
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66634 , vital:28973 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0029-5
- Description: publisher version , This article reports on the role and value of social reflexivity in collaborative research in contexts of extreme inequality. Social reflexivity mediates the enablements and constraints generated by the internal and external contextual conditions impinging on the research collaboration. It fosters the ability of participants in a collaborative project to align their interests and collectively extend their agency towards a common purpose. It influences the productivity and quality of learning outcomes of the research collaboration. The article is written by fourteen members of a larger research team, which comprised 18 individuals working within the academic development environment in eight South African universities. The overarching research project investigated the participation of academics in professional development activities, and how contextual, i.e. structural and cultural, and agential conditions, influence this participation. For this sub-study on the experience of the collaboration by fourteen of the researchers, we wrote reflective pieces on our own experience of participating in the project towards the end of the third year of its duration. We discuss the structural and cultural conditions external to and internal to the project, and how the social reflexivity of the participants mediated these conditions. We conclude with the observation that policy injunctions and support from funding agencies for collaborative research, as well as support from participants’ home institutions are necessary for the flourishing of collaborative research, but that the commitment by individual participants to participate, learn and share, is also necessary.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Leibowitz, Brenda , Bozalek, Vivienne , Farmer, Jean-Lee , Garraway, James , Herman, Nicoline , Jawitz, Jeff , McMillan, Wendy , Mistri, Gita , Ndebele, Clever , Nkonki, Vuyisile , Quinn, Lynn , Van Schalkwyk, Susan , Vorster, Jo-Anne E , Winberg, Chris
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66634 , vital:28973 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0029-5
- Description: publisher version , This article reports on the role and value of social reflexivity in collaborative research in contexts of extreme inequality. Social reflexivity mediates the enablements and constraints generated by the internal and external contextual conditions impinging on the research collaboration. It fosters the ability of participants in a collaborative project to align their interests and collectively extend their agency towards a common purpose. It influences the productivity and quality of learning outcomes of the research collaboration. The article is written by fourteen members of a larger research team, which comprised 18 individuals working within the academic development environment in eight South African universities. The overarching research project investigated the participation of academics in professional development activities, and how contextual, i.e. structural and cultural, and agential conditions, influence this participation. For this sub-study on the experience of the collaboration by fourteen of the researchers, we wrote reflective pieces on our own experience of participating in the project towards the end of the third year of its duration. We discuss the structural and cultural conditions external to and internal to the project, and how the social reflexivity of the participants mediated these conditions. We conclude with the observation that policy injunctions and support from funding agencies for collaborative research, as well as support from participants’ home institutions are necessary for the flourishing of collaborative research, but that the commitment by individual participants to participate, learn and share, is also necessary.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2017
Learning to teach in higher education in South Africa
- Council on Higher Education (South Africa), Leibowitz, Brenda, Bozalek, Vivienne, Garraway, James, Herman, Nicoline, Jawitz, Jeff, Muhuro, Patricia, Ndebele, Clever, Quinn, Lynn, Van Schalkwyk, Susan, Vorster, Jo-Anne E, Winberg, Chris
- Authors: Council on Higher Education (South Africa) , Leibowitz, Brenda , Bozalek, Vivienne , Garraway, James , Herman, Nicoline , Jawitz, Jeff , Muhuro, Patricia , Ndebele, Clever , Quinn, Lynn , Van Schalkwyk, Susan , Vorster, Jo-Anne E , Winberg, Chris
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66524 , vital:28958
- Description: publisher version , Preface by Prof Narend Baijnath: “Teaching and learning are never neutral. Every aspect is ideological in nature: from the admission of students, to the selection of curriculum content, to the adoption of learning materials, to the pedagogical approach, to the mode of assessment and the quality of the feedback. The form of disciplinary knowledge may vary from the more subjective and contentious to the more objective and broadly accepted, but teaching and learning remain highly political acts across all institutions, faculties and disciplines. So it is unsurprising that when a country undergoes major social change, ideological demands are placed on teaching and learning.” (HE Reviewed, CHE 2016 p.143). There are many and diverse influences on teaching and learning as a political act, from broad social movements that challenge what is taught, to the ways in which resources have historically been allocated, to the values and goals of different disciplines, and the more immediate institutional and faculty contexts in which they take place. Learning to teach in higher education in South Africa is a timely and well-researched contribution to understanding the influences of that more immediate layer, that is, of institutional contexts, on the professional learning of academics in their roles as teachers. It explores questions of whether it matters to the professional learning process whether one is teaching in a context in which resources are scarce, or whether the departmental leadership style is authoritarian, or whether an institution has a strong drive to increase research output. And if it matters, what are the implications for facilitating opportunities for academics to ‘learn to teach’ in higher education? Undertaken by a team of academic staff developers across eight institutional contexts, this research report offers a comprehensive, nuanced and theorised set of insights into the role that context plays in the ways in which academics learn to teach. Such insights can inform the development of professional learning initiatives at both the institutional and national policy levels. The report is one of the outcomes of a large-scale study carried out between 2011 and 2016, made possible by funding from the National Research Foundation. It has spawned many research articles, books and PhD studies (see Appendix One) and has thus in itself provided a vehicle for the development of further research and researchers on the subject. The team chose to work collaboratively, with all the possibilities and difficulties that that entails, as reflected on in Chapter 7. Thereby, it also offers an illuminating reflection and insights into such research methodology. While the report does not specifically set out to offer anything new or surprising about the cultural and contextual differences between institutions, it does offer a coherent interpretation of such complex and intersecting conditions examined through a single theoretical lens. Indeed, the concepts of ‘structure, culture and agency’ as developed in the work of the social realist, Margaret Archer, formed the theoretical canvas for the study. The theory allows for the analytical separation of different domains for the purposes of understanding the interplay of relations, but it also offers a hope of bringing about social transformation through exercising particular modes of reflexivity. As the report argues, quoting Archer, transforming our positions in society is possible, but “their transformation depends partly on the subjective reflexivity of primary agents in seeking to play an active part in reshaping society’s resource distribution”. The researchers may not always have found it easy to apply a single theoretical lens, but the theory based study provides a coherent representation of the differences and similarities between the institutional contexts of the eight universities, throwing into relief their different influences on professional learning, and points to pathways towards the improvement of teaching and learning in South African higher education. A major contribution of this report that is likely to influence the discourse on teaching and learning significantly, is the conceptual shift from ‘professional development’ to ‘professional learning’. As an external reviewer noted, “in the context of the decolonization debate, [this shift] has the potential to offer a more flexible continuum in which to position different learning opportunities”. It also recognises the importance of group and individual agency and the importance of informal contexts in learning to teach. 12 | Monitor 14 | Learning to Teach in Higher Education in South Africa The publication of this research report takes forward the CHE’s ongoing endeavours to improve and enhance the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. It serves to complement the more practical implementation of quality assurance in higher education, which for the CHE has largely entailed a focus on teaching and learning, whether in accreditation, audits or the Quality Enhancement Project (QEP) that began in 2014 in which one of the four focus areas that universities were asked to engage with was “enhancing academics as teachers”. Participation in the QEP over the past three years has contributed to a heightened awareness across the sector of the importance of academics developing competence in university teaching, particularly given the increased emphasis being placed on student success by both the government and higher education institutions themselves. As a result, universities are becoming more intentional in their efforts to help academics develop this competence. The release of the study is therefore timely, as not only will it add to our collective understanding of the complexities and nuances in the interrelationships between structure, culture and agency that inform and influence academics in their roles as teachers, but it will serve as a useful resource for institutions in their efforts to enhance university teachers and teaching. The Higher Education Monitor series, as was elaborated in the first issue in 2003, “aims to stimulate research and the production of knowledge and interpretive frameworks that could contribute to better theorisation of higher education, more rigorous analysis of higher education complexities and more effective strategies for change and progress”. It is our hope that this report will do exactly that. , We thank the National Research Foundation for funding the project that made the study and the ensuing report possible, Professor Brenda Leibowitz for leading the team of researchers, our external reviewers, and the individual authors who took the time to present drafts of their chapters to Dr Webbstock of the CHE at a workshop in May 2016.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Council on Higher Education (South Africa) , Leibowitz, Brenda , Bozalek, Vivienne , Garraway, James , Herman, Nicoline , Jawitz, Jeff , Muhuro, Patricia , Ndebele, Clever , Quinn, Lynn , Van Schalkwyk, Susan , Vorster, Jo-Anne E , Winberg, Chris
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66524 , vital:28958
- Description: publisher version , Preface by Prof Narend Baijnath: “Teaching and learning are never neutral. Every aspect is ideological in nature: from the admission of students, to the selection of curriculum content, to the adoption of learning materials, to the pedagogical approach, to the mode of assessment and the quality of the feedback. The form of disciplinary knowledge may vary from the more subjective and contentious to the more objective and broadly accepted, but teaching and learning remain highly political acts across all institutions, faculties and disciplines. So it is unsurprising that when a country undergoes major social change, ideological demands are placed on teaching and learning.” (HE Reviewed, CHE 2016 p.143). There are many and diverse influences on teaching and learning as a political act, from broad social movements that challenge what is taught, to the ways in which resources have historically been allocated, to the values and goals of different disciplines, and the more immediate institutional and faculty contexts in which they take place. Learning to teach in higher education in South Africa is a timely and well-researched contribution to understanding the influences of that more immediate layer, that is, of institutional contexts, on the professional learning of academics in their roles as teachers. It explores questions of whether it matters to the professional learning process whether one is teaching in a context in which resources are scarce, or whether the departmental leadership style is authoritarian, or whether an institution has a strong drive to increase research output. And if it matters, what are the implications for facilitating opportunities for academics to ‘learn to teach’ in higher education? Undertaken by a team of academic staff developers across eight institutional contexts, this research report offers a comprehensive, nuanced and theorised set of insights into the role that context plays in the ways in which academics learn to teach. Such insights can inform the development of professional learning initiatives at both the institutional and national policy levels. The report is one of the outcomes of a large-scale study carried out between 2011 and 2016, made possible by funding from the National Research Foundation. It has spawned many research articles, books and PhD studies (see Appendix One) and has thus in itself provided a vehicle for the development of further research and researchers on the subject. The team chose to work collaboratively, with all the possibilities and difficulties that that entails, as reflected on in Chapter 7. Thereby, it also offers an illuminating reflection and insights into such research methodology. While the report does not specifically set out to offer anything new or surprising about the cultural and contextual differences between institutions, it does offer a coherent interpretation of such complex and intersecting conditions examined through a single theoretical lens. Indeed, the concepts of ‘structure, culture and agency’ as developed in the work of the social realist, Margaret Archer, formed the theoretical canvas for the study. The theory allows for the analytical separation of different domains for the purposes of understanding the interplay of relations, but it also offers a hope of bringing about social transformation through exercising particular modes of reflexivity. As the report argues, quoting Archer, transforming our positions in society is possible, but “their transformation depends partly on the subjective reflexivity of primary agents in seeking to play an active part in reshaping society’s resource distribution”. The researchers may not always have found it easy to apply a single theoretical lens, but the theory based study provides a coherent representation of the differences and similarities between the institutional contexts of the eight universities, throwing into relief their different influences on professional learning, and points to pathways towards the improvement of teaching and learning in South African higher education. A major contribution of this report that is likely to influence the discourse on teaching and learning significantly, is the conceptual shift from ‘professional development’ to ‘professional learning’. As an external reviewer noted, “in the context of the decolonization debate, [this shift] has the potential to offer a more flexible continuum in which to position different learning opportunities”. It also recognises the importance of group and individual agency and the importance of informal contexts in learning to teach. 12 | Monitor 14 | Learning to Teach in Higher Education in South Africa The publication of this research report takes forward the CHE’s ongoing endeavours to improve and enhance the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. It serves to complement the more practical implementation of quality assurance in higher education, which for the CHE has largely entailed a focus on teaching and learning, whether in accreditation, audits or the Quality Enhancement Project (QEP) that began in 2014 in which one of the four focus areas that universities were asked to engage with was “enhancing academics as teachers”. Participation in the QEP over the past three years has contributed to a heightened awareness across the sector of the importance of academics developing competence in university teaching, particularly given the increased emphasis being placed on student success by both the government and higher education institutions themselves. As a result, universities are becoming more intentional in their efforts to help academics develop this competence. The release of the study is therefore timely, as not only will it add to our collective understanding of the complexities and nuances in the interrelationships between structure, culture and agency that inform and influence academics in their roles as teachers, but it will serve as a useful resource for institutions in their efforts to enhance university teachers and teaching. The Higher Education Monitor series, as was elaborated in the first issue in 2003, “aims to stimulate research and the production of knowledge and interpretive frameworks that could contribute to better theorisation of higher education, more rigorous analysis of higher education complexities and more effective strategies for change and progress”. It is our hope that this report will do exactly that. , We thank the National Research Foundation for funding the project that made the study and the ensuing report possible, Professor Brenda Leibowitz for leading the team of researchers, our external reviewers, and the individual authors who took the time to present drafts of their chapters to Dr Webbstock of the CHE at a workshop in May 2016.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »