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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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