Student performance patterns in South African Higher Education between 2000 and 2005: implications for thinking about the curriculum

Presentation by Prof Jenny Clarence-Fincham, based on Scott, Yeld and Hendry (2007).

Purpose

To present some of the key findings from the Scott report, to consider their implications in the context of UJ and to raise some curriculum-related issues for further consideration in the Faculty

Outline

• Context for the Scott research • The cohort study• Evidence from performance patterns in the higher

education sector• UJ /Humanities student performance • Implications of the performance patterns for the

role and significance of extended curriculum programmes

• What is needed at UJ? In this Faculty?• Where to from here?

Context for the research

1. Higher education in the developing world

2. Higher education in South Africa

The significance of higher education in developing countries

• Increasing importance of graduate output – quality, numbers and national need

• The Lisbon Council (with reference to the EU)

– ‘First and foremost, our universities … exist to educate and prepare people to be fully-functioning, well-developed members of our advanced, post-industrial society.’

– ‘… seeking excellence in research should never be allowed to become an excuse for underperformance in the educational tasks [of higher education].’

Significance of higher education in South Africa

• ‘Skills’ shortages– key obstacle to economic and social development

• Special need for good graduates– HE’s unique responsibility– particular need for SET graduates

• Equity and social stability

Aim of the research

• To make a case, based on analysis and interpretation of current student performance in the sector, for improving graduate output by increasing the effectiveness of the educational process in higher education

• To provide an analysis of major factors affecting graduate output with a view to identifying educational strategies that can improve student progression, and consider the implications for policy development and capacity building

–

The cohort study

A longitudinal study of all students entering higher education beginning with first time entry students in 2000.

Data presented here is from the DoE HEMIS system and tracks the performance of the 2000 – 2005 cohort

How well are we doing in higher education in South Africa ?

Graduated in regulation time:General academic first B-degrees, excl Unisa

04: Business/Management 24%

15: Life and Physical Sciences 21%

22: Social Sciences 29%

12: Languages 28%

Graduated in regulation time:National Diplomas, excl distance ed (TSA)

04: Business/Management 18%

06: Computer Science 14%

08: Engineering 5%

12: Soc Services/Pub Admin 13%

Graduated in regulation time, by race:General academic first B-degrees, excl dist ed

CESM (classification of educational subject matter)

Black White

04: Business/Management 11% 43%

15: Life and Phys Sciences 11% 35%

22: Social Sciences 14% 43%

12: Languages 13% 52%

Graduated within 5 years: general academic first B-degrees, excl Unisa

CESM Grad Still in

04: Business/Management 50% 7%

15: Life and Phys Sciences 47% 13%

22: Social Sciences 53% 6%

12: Languages 47% 7%

Graduated within 5 years:National Diplomas, excl distance ed

CESM Grad Still in

04: Business/Management 33% 8%

06: Computer Science 34% 11%

08: Engineering 17% 14%

12: Soc Services/Pub Admin 29% 6%

Student performance after 5 years: Overall

Graduated 30%

Still registered 14%

Left without graduating 56%

Estimated completion rate 44%

Student performance after 5 years: Contact university programmes

Graduated 50%

Still registered 12%

Left original institution 38%

Students ‘lost’ ≈15,000

Student performance after 5 years: Contact ‘technikon’ programmes

Graduated 32%

Still registered 10%

Left original institution 58%

Students ‘lost’ ≈25,000

Participation rates* and their significance

•Overall: 16%

•White: 60%

• Indian: 51%

•Black: 12%•Coloured: 12%

* Approximate gross enrolment rates derived from HEMIS 2005:all participants as % of 20-24 age-group

Implications of the participation rates

• The view that a large proportion of current students ‘do not belong’ in higher education is not tenable

• Current intake has high potential–so what becomes of it?

Outcomes

• Among the CESMs and qualification types analysed:

– in the contact university programmes, only two cases where loss may be under 40%

– in the contact ‘technikon’ programmes, no cases where loss will be under 50%

• Students ‘lost’ from 2000 intake: 65,000– implications for economic development

Equity of outcomes:the central challenge

Under 5% of the black age-group are succeeding in higher education in South Africa

Equity of outcomes: Graduation within 5 years in general academic first B-degrees, excl UNISA

CESM Black White

04: Business/Management 33% 72%

15: Life and Phys Sciences 31% 63%

22: Social Sciences 34% 68%

12: Languages 32% 68%

Equity of outcomes: Graduation within 5 years in National Diplomas, excl distance ed

CESM Black White

04: Business/Management 31% 44%

06: Computer Science 33% 43%

08: Engineering 16% 28%

12: Soc Services/Pub Admin 29% 23%

Observations

• Among the CESMs and qualification types analysed in

the contact university programmes:– in all cases the black completion rate is less than half the white completion rate, and

– in all cases the number of black graduates is less than the number of white graduates

– so lack of equity of outcomes is neutralising the gains made in access

How are we doing at UJ?

UJ Student performance: 2001 cohort: general first B degree

Faculty Grad min time Grad min + 1 Grad min + 2

FEFS 33% 53% 62%

Health Science 32% 53% 60%

Humanities 34% 47% 53%

Management 24% 50% 59%

Science 38% 55% 63%

Total 33% 51% 59%

Throughput rate by race

Race Grad min time Grad min + 1 Grad min + 2

African 13% 34% 45%

Coloured 15% 22% 36%

Indian 20% 43% 54%

White 41% 58% 64%

Implications

• Output not matching national needs in respect of ‘economic growth … and social cohesion’ (Pandor 2005)

• Current system not meeting the needs of the majority– pressing need to widen successful participation

• The equity and development agendas have converged– catering successfully for student diversity has become a

necessary condition for economic development as well as social inclusion

• Substantially improving the performance of the majority is the central challenge

– but current mainstream system is not succeeding

Whose responsibility?

• Factors beyond the higher education sector’s control

– ‘money and poor schooling’ (M&G 2006)

• Factors within the higher education sector’s control

– The educational process in higher education is itself a major variable affecting who succeeds and fails

Many students arrive like this . . .

How do we to improve graduate output?

• The performance patterns are persistent– will not change spontaneously

• Limitations on increasing output by increasing the intake– growth will perpetuate or worsen existing performance

patterns if the process does not change

Improving graduate output

• Improving output depends primarily on improving the performance patterns

• The groups from which growth in output must primarily come are those that are least well served by the current system

– improving output depends on systemic change

What can be done?

• Analysis and understanding of undergraduate teaching and learning and the choices that can be made about it

• Focus here on academic issues in the context of a holistic view of student development

The extended curriculum as the national norm?

The extended curriculum

It is not a temporary band-aid measure but provides an informed, relevant and sustainable curriculum structure which meets the learning needs of the majority of our students

The extended curriculum

• Is not be simply more of the same over a longer period • Provides alternative flexible curriculum structures which allow

both access and success for all students • Balances depth and breadth • There is no one-size-fits all model • Needs to be developed in terms of Faculty needs• Considers the implications of “learning-to-be” for the

Humanities• Caters for a diverse student population and different learning

needs – traditional curriculum is clearly not serving the needs of the majority of our students

• Incorporates and integrates foundational provision• Needs to be flexibly designed so as to ensure the possibility of

accelerated progress for a minority of students

Thoughts from Humanities

Simply stretching the curricula over a longer period is not enough. addition we need:

• research focused on student profiling to inform interventions

• planned avenues of support and system

• training for academic interventions for students requiring different levels and kinds of support

• enough trained staff in ADS

• a functional well-funded tutorial

• attention paid to overburdening

• a functioning system of holding students accountable for their work

• a functioning system of monitoring input of academic staff and accountability in their turn.

• all interventions must be integrated into curricula, not separate, additional modules

• flexible structure which accommodates both fast and slow movers