BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
6.1 Research Participants’ (RPs’) perceptions of the changing students
176
whom they taught. Being fully aware that the responses gathered from the RPs in the semi- structured interviews are subjective in nature, I relied on this form of data collection to ascertain “the participants’ thoughts about and feelings for a situation” (Cohen et al. 2011:
290) which are engaged with critically in this Chapter. This was particularly applicable to this study because all the RPs only taught modules within the FP. As a case study, this study provided an example of real people in a real context. This Chapter also explores whether there were any changes to the modules offered in the FP and, if so, to ascertain the reasons that contributed to such changes. This is particularly relevant to this study since the FP is an alternative tertiary education access route for students from disadvantaged schooling backgrounds. Another issue explored in this Chapter are the views of the RPs in respect of the factors that could have contributed to the perceived challenges with discipline-specific literacies that feature in the science modules offered in the FP. The responses from the RPs were considered significant in light of the issues of transformation at HEIs in South Africa post-apartheid; and the call for redress, equity and the access to higher education for those who were previously marginalized. (These issues were discussed in Chapter 1 in this study).
177
Kenneth’s reference to ‘we’ appears as an attempt to distance himself from the perception of the type of students who enter the HE environment, shifting responsibility from expressing his own view, choosing instead to rely on voicing a collective view of the teaching staff. The response he offers is loaded with the expectations of the teaching staff as denoted by several references to ‘we’. The response conveys some measure of diminished interest in accommodating the type of students most HEIs in South Africa admit. His entire response is staff-centred in terms of what they expect from the students and the type of students they want. The contradiction in Kenneth’s response is that despite being aware of the “educational disparities” prevalent in South Africa; its “[apartheid]
history”; and the fact that the student cohorts have changed (“we are not necessarily dealing with the same type of students that we had say 12 or 15 or 20 years ago”), the expectation of teaching a ‘certain type of student cohort’ seems to persist (“we are not getting the students we want”).Giannakopoulos and Buckley (2009) make reference to the fact that with the demise of apartheid, student numbers at universities increased dramatically. Universities were not prepared for this influx in two ways: firstly, many of the learners were ill prepared and secondly due to years of apartheid many lecturers could not cope with the “new type of learner” (Giannakopoulos and Buckley, 2009: 3). In light of the transformation at universities in South Africa (discussed in Chapter 2); the research that supports the inclusion in the HE sector of those who were traditionally excluded (Akoojee and Nkomo; 2011); and the numerous references to the diverse student population at South African universities (Fraser and Killen, 2003; Frick, 2008; Smit, 2010), Kenneth’s statement is flawed.
It may be argued, however, that with massification of universities, the university has changed from being an “elitist to a mass system” (Reddy, 2004: 35). Universities are now characterized by a heterogeneous body of students whose socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, culture, language, level of preparedness for tertiary studies and schooling experiences differ. This means that HEIs and/or the academic staff are not going to get the students they “want” or prefer or expect. With the advent of democracy and transition, and the emphasis on equity, redress and access, HEIs are no longer demarcated by race, language and social class. They are no longer serving a homogenous student body or “their historical clientele” (Richardson and Fisk-Skinner, 1991: 14). In South Africa, university study is no longer the privilege of the elite; it is now the right of those who qualify for academic admission and universities now seem to be more reflective of the demographics
178
of the country. Even though “[t]he university was not really established for the type of students we are getting now” (Kenneth), the mindset needs to be changed and transformation needs to be embraced. Admitting a diverse group of students is one of the transitions that universities in South Africa have undergone. “All higher education institutions need to value [this] diversity, tap into its riches and work out how to make differentiated learning possible” (Smit, 2010: 5). Since the student profile at tertiary institutions has changed and reflects diversity, measures such as changes to the curricula, and teaching and learning practices need to be undertaken by those entrusted to teach the students.
In terms of this study in particular, the point “We’re hoping that when students get here they would adjust to the system” conveys the notion that the HEIs remain unchanged while students need to adapt to its existing culture and identity. This is the type of view that has been previously opposed. Mphahlele (1994), for example, argues that the university should attempt to socialize students into the new higher education culture. When students enter university, they need to acquire the Discourse and discourse practices (Gee, 1990) to help with epistemological access and the chance to forge an identity within a discipline in the university. They need to be able to gain membership into the discourse community. This can be achieved if they are “socialize[d] into the kinds of Discourse associated with academic learning” (Gibbons, 2007: 704). For this to happen, the Discourses (Gee, 1990) need to be made explicit. Students do not just “adjust to the system” as assumed by Kenneth. They do not just acquire knowledge through “intellectual osmosis” (O’Toole, 1994 cited in Barker, 2000: 2). They need to be assisted in the adjustment process, more especially in cases where their educational backgrounds might not have prepared them for enculturation into the tertiary environment. In any event, students do not just “reap success in their learning” (Kenneth). If the HEIs expect students’ performance and throughput rates to improve, they would have to factor in suitable learning and educational support mechanisms and the teaching staff would have to implement specific pedagogical practices to accommodate students through the learning process.
Responses in respect of the type of students that enter the tertiary institution have been more specifically directed at FP. According to the RPs, some of whom have been teaching in the FP in science since 2001 (prior to the institutional merger of higher education in South Africa), the former FP students were able to cope with content and curriculum
179
despite its intensity and volume. Lara, who has been involved in the teaching of foundation students for almost a decade, illustrates this point in her comment regarding a biology module that was offered in the previous Science Foundation Programme at UDW from 1999 until 2004, a year before the institutional merger:
“From 1999, UDW operated its own Science Foundation Programme. It was open to any student who did not meet the criteria for mainstream study. Since the biology module was only offered in semester 2, the biology tutors taught a language module in semester 1 which serviced that SFP. The language module was compiled by the then Department of Languages, with the focus being on writing and reporting skills. The content of the language module was based on physics and chemistry and some language tasks. Students attended these courses for extra tuition in the subjects and to gain writing/reporting skills needed for science. They did not necessarily have difficulties with expressing themselves in English. The content material was from science texts and were not scaffolded” (Lara).
In respect of the module described above, Lara explains that “ ... the pace was a bit faster.
I mean they could manage a whole lot of content. Our teaching then was different from how we teach now but owing to the kind of students we had then, they coped”. A significant point in Lara’s response is the biology module she refers to was not exclusively for students from a disadvantaged educational background, or black students or exclusively for South African students. According to Lara, “the landscape of students [then] was different ... we had a lot of Indian students to start with, we had a lot of black students that came in from ex-model C schools62, students from privileged schooling backgrounds [which are schools with access to an abundance of resources and more than adequate infrastructure], international students, some whose language was really very good”. In light of this – especially in terms of educational experience – it should thus be less surprising that such students were able to cope with both the pace of teaching and content material. The changing student cohort that Lara refers to has also been a consequence of the admission of students into the university sector through alternative access routes, as such students would not have “normally qualified for entry into the Faculty” (UKZN Faculty of Science and
62 “‘Model C’ is generally used to describe the former white schools as they existed under apartheid. Former Model C schools are adequately resourced. They are equipped with modern computers; well-resourced libraries and laboratories; and well-qualified teachers In April 1992, Piet Marais, the then Minister of Education announced that all white schools would become Model C status schools. This meant that these schools would be converted into state-aided schools managed by the principal and a management committee.
The state paid the salaries of a set number of teachers whilst the rest of the costs at these schools became the responsibility of the parents. The management committee had the power to appoint teachers, determine admission policy and impose fees. Although, in theory, white schools could admit black pupils as from October 1990, many black learners were barred access to these schools due to high school fees and inability to meet certain selection criteria.” (Arendse, 2011: 343).
180
Agriculture Handbook, 2011: 60) due to their low matriculation points. Kenneth and Lara seem to feel the same way about the students then and now.
The student cohort Lara refers to is the [former] SFP which was launched in the former UDW in 1999, where the student number in each of the campuses started with very small numbers and increased each year “up to 572 students alone in 2003 in the former UDW”
(Kioko, 2009: 17). However, following the institutional merger, and the launch of the CSA in 2005, enrolment requirements into the access programmes in science had changed (as discussed in Chapter 1); enrolment was capped at 500 across the two UKZN campuses, i.e.
Westville and Pietermaritzburg. Students accepted into CSA would have had a disadvantaged school background determined by the quintile of the school from which they had matriculated.
All South African public ordinary schools are categorised into five groups, called quintiles, according to their poverty ranking and availability of resources in the schools. The poorest schools are included in quintiles 1 and the least poor in quintile 5. Hall and Giese (2009) explain the two steps in the classification of schools. First, a national poverty table, prepared by the Treasury, determines the poverty ranking of areas based on data from the national census including income levels, unemployment rates, dependency ratios and the level of education (literacy rates) in the area. Provinces then rank schools from quintile 1 to 5, according to the catchment area of the school. The quintile ranking of the schools is relevant to this study as students accepted into the CSA (including the FP) come from quintiles 1-3 schools. Besides this criterion, the students would have had to satisfy the minimum criteria required for entry into the access programme based on their NSC results (these requirements have been explained in Chapter 1 of this study).
Apart from the minimum criteria discussed above, selection into the CSA was, prior to 2011, based on performance in internal selection tests in Mathematics and Science. The tests were designed and refined by the former CSA and tested the students’ aptitude to be successful in a science degree. Students who performed satisfactorily in the selection tests were admitted into the FP (Appendix 10 has a sample selection criteria that was used to admit students). From 2011 onwards, students’ aptitude for the science subjects was gauged from their NSC Mathematics, Physical Science and English marks. Once accepted into the CSA, students had to write an internal [English] language test, the Standardised
181
Assessment Test for Access and Placement (SATAP), which was used to test students’
language proficiency for placement into one of the two AL modules63 offered in the CSA64.
The SATAP test (of 2½ hour duration) comprised reading texts based on a specific topic (e.g. eco-tourism); comprehension questions; multiple choice question types and a writing task based on extracting and interpreting information from the reading texts. The majority of the students accepted into the FP are black African. At the time of data collection for this study, the student distribution by race in the FP comprised 98.83% black African students and 1.16% Indian students. Unlike the former SFP (offered before 2005) which Lara referred to, the current tutor to student ratio in the FP is small (1:35 at most) to ensure that students are given almost individual attention.
The current FP offered at UKZN cannot operate within the framework of the original approach of its predecessor (the SFP) (discussed in Chapter 1) which was a “vehicle for the development of useful scientific skills” (Grayson, 1997: 107) or as a mechanism to “try to build up students’ stamina by increasing the amount of work they do continuously over the year, until by the end of the year the workload is nearly up to that of a first year student ...
and over the year most students learn to work faster and to cope with more work”
(Grayson, 1997: 109). To work along such a framework is to then relegate the FP as a skills-based science programme when it needs to be used as a mechanism to allow students access into the science community by engaging them in discourse participation. In addition, the learning environment of the FP should optimize learning of science and the pace at which students in the FP work should be an attempt at “epistemological access” (Morrow, 1994) and acculturation. These are vital to help the students achieve reasonable outcomes at the end of the foundation year, rather than having them cope with the work load equivalent to first year students, especially since they are not in first year but in the transition between matriculation and first year (the objectives of foundation programmes offered at HEIs have been explained in Chapter 1 of this study).
63 “Based on their performance in a language test at the beginning of the year, FP students will be provided with a language module that is most appropriate for their needs: SCOM or Scientific Writing and Reporting (SWR)” (63) Aim of SWR: “To develop students’ ability to access and read scientific sources, and their ability to write and make oral presentations in science” (UKZN, Faculty of Science and Agriculture Handbook, 2011: 63; 258). Students who scored <65% in the SATAP test were registered for SCOM (Communication with the ALSs). The nature of SCOM has been explained in Chapter 1 of this study.
64 Since versions of the SATAP tests were used for assessment/placement, it was not possible to include these in the appendices. Similarly, since the internal selection tests in Mathematics and Science were previously used for admission into the CSA, it was not possible to include these in the appendices.
182