CHAPTER FOUR: ACADEMIC SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
4.4. ACADEMIC SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES - CRITIQUE
The above varied approaches to academic development highlights a key problem with work in this area, namely a lack of coherence within the field and a "bewildering variety of forms"
(Hofmeyr and Spence,1989 in Blunt, 1993, p. 86). Lack of agreement exists regarding the objectives and methods of academic development, and a more coherent set of activities, clearly defined research goals and a solid theoretical foundation is needed (Blunt, 1993; Moll, 1987 and Scott, 1994). Terms like "disadvantaged" and "under-prepared"are frequently used as a set of liberal sentiments, for example, with little theoretical debate concerning their meaning. Hence Academic Development falls into the trap of offering superficial, reactive solutions to the problems of poor performance and high attrition, without grounding these in solid educational theory and debate.
A central weakness, that the current study seeks to address, is the scarcity of evaluation research in academic development. Few conclusions regarding the efficacy of interventions can be drawn, because, apart from a few exceptions, evaluation is either non-existent, or confined to qualitative comments from a tiny sample of students (Mhlane, 1991). Research is needed into such issues as the impact of academic development on student performance, evaluation of the instructional methods used and characteristics common to participators in ADPs (Muhlopo, 1992).
A problem common to most academic development interventions is that, despite an idealised view of academic development, among practitioners, as curriculum focussed and mainstreamed, the reality is somewhat different. In many cases academic development is still tutorial based, supplementary to lectures, and aimed at providing black students with the academic and linguistic skills believed to be lacking as a result of their education, with any attempts at integration resisted:
From the survey conducted for this study itwould appear that the call for the integration of academic development had met with little success. In fact many respondents reported resistance to their efforts to get any kind of 'ownership' of the extra tutorial programmes
from many academic departments, let alone integration of these into the mainstream
courses (Bulman, 1996, p. 112).
This resistance to integration may be due to several factors. Lack of commitment by university executives may filter down to apathy at departmental level. Alternatively academics may resist changes despite commitment at executive level, due to perceived threats to their academic autonomy and their most powerful resource, the curriculum. They may also fail to see the relevance of investing energy in academic development, due to the inadequate research referred to earlier. Unless easily available quantitative data, such as longitudinal changes in class
demography, student academic entrance level, or course performance are made available to academic staff, they are unlikely to take seriously the need to mainstream academic development (Young, 1992).
The criticism perhaps most relevant to this thesis is that most academic development
interventions are somewhat reductionist, focussing on cognitive, meta-cognitive and linguistic development, at the expense of emotional and social development. As the discussion of the Science Foundation Programme illustrated and as discussed in the previous chapter, academic performance is equally dependent on a set of non-cognitive, psycho-social factors. Before attempts to develop adequate cognitive skills can prove successful, therefore, it is essential to directly address these issues.
Psycho-social factors which have a particular impact on academic performance are students' experiences of powerlessness and alienation at the bottom of the university hierarchy (Suen, 1983). Academic development's focus on mainstreaming and wider processes of transformation thus omits a crucial step, namely the empowerment of students to take control of their learning and contribute as rightful participants in processes of change. Hence the central premise of this thesis is that students' engagement with the curriculum and participation in its transformation depends firstly on addressing the experiences of powerlessness described in the previous chapter.
Page 56
Anneckeet al. (1994) and Masenya (1994) also criticise academic development for its silence regarding the power imbalances between educators and learners and between groups in the broader South African society. According to Masenya (1994) current Academic Development discourse contains racist overtones, by focussing solely on the academic deficits of under- prepared students and trying to assimilate these students into an unchanged university, while ignoring questions related to the issue of under-preparedness as a broader social phenomenon.
Academic development therefore needs to go beyond its superficial goal of addressing cognitive deficits and improving academic achievement, to challenge the ways in which universities and other social institutions contribute to students' under-preparedness:
Academic development programmes have come to be conceptualised as being
synonymous with the 'under-preparedness' of black students rather than with the under- preparing socio-educational realities in our society which, to a very large extent, are indicative of power relations between the subordinate and dominant groups
(Masenya, 1994, p. 197).
I agree with Masenya's claim that academic development appears somewhat silent about the role played by the university power hierarchy in student development. I further argue that the
assumption that an exclusive focus on cognitive development, while ignoring issues of
powerlessness and alienation, is sufficient to develop a sense of control and mastery of learning among students, is somewhat short-sighted. In this thesis, I therefore advocate a new approach to student development, one which equips students with the resources to take control of their own learning, and allows them to develop the skills to actively contribute as empowered participants within the university system. I further suggest that the Theory of Empowerment provides both a theoretical base and practical applications of how this can be realised.