Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
02 October 2019 | Story Anneri Meintjes | Photo Charl Devenish
Anneri Meintjes
Anneri Meintjes from the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the UFS.

The #FeesMustFall student-led movement started in 2015 to protest against increasing student fees and to call for increased government funding of universities. At the end of 2016, the protests led to mass disruption of academic activities in higher-education institutions countrywide. Some universities, including the University of the Free State (UFS), suspended academic activities for extended periods which necessitated online and blended learning approaches (the combination of face-to-face and online learning) to complete the academic year. In most cases, these methods were unplanned and unstructured, and knowledge gaps in good blended learning practice were identified.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York funded a two-year research project in collaboration with the University of Pretoria, UFS, University of Cape Town and University of Johannesburg to investigate the use of blended learning at the end of 2016, during the campus disruptions, as well as how these respective institutions used blended learning in 2017.

The prohibitive cost of data in South Africa means few of our students have access to the internet off-campus. The most recent data on UFS student digital identity shows that only 21% have consistent, reliable access to the internet at home. This is a challenge not only for the UFS but for all universities in the country.

“For technology to be used in a way that contributes to learning and teaching, we needed to investigate what works well and what does not, considering our contextual challenges” says Anneri Meintjes from the Centre for Teaching and Learning, who was the principal researcher for the UFS on this project. In the first phase of the research, she wrote a case study on the UFS’ approach to blended learning during and after the protests in 2016. The findings of this phase of the research were presented at a national convening of higher-education institutions across South Africa.

In the second phase of the research, the four participating universities produced open educational resources on good, blended learning practice to share with universities countrywide. The UFS was responsible for the development of online assessment resources and general best-practice guidelines for the use of blended learning. Anneri says: “While we had laid solid foundations for the effective use of online assessment at the UFS prior to 2016 through the investment in online assessment software and staff development in online assessment design, we learnt many valuable lessons during that time. It provided momentum for the establishment of formal online assessment procedures and refinement of best-practice guidelines. This research project gave us an opportunity to share our work on a national platform.” The number of lecturers that use online assessment in their modules has grown considerably at the UFS since 2016. In 2016, 211 online assessments were completed on Questionmark (UFS online assessment programme) and in 2018, this number had grown to 743. Institutional Blackboard use data shows that at least one online assessment tool is used in 47% of all modules on Blackboard.

Resources developed by the other participating institutions include a self-evaluation app that academics can use to reflect on their existing blended learning practices, and an online utility that assists lectures and course designers to plan blended learning modules.

Anneri also coordinated the development of the national website, which was launched at the Flexible Futures conference hosted by the University of Pretoria on 9-10 September 2019. The website and resources were praised at the conference for being a timely response to a critical need in the higher education community in South Africa.

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept