Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 May 2020 | Story Prof Thidziambi Phendla. | Photo Supplied
Prof Thidziambi Phendla.

Our lives as we know it will never be the same again because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The education system, among other sectors, will be subjected to changes in the provisioning of teaching and learning. 

School disruptions are a familiar phenomenon in both basic and post-school education in South Africa. In recent years, South Africa has seen waves of student boycotts, disruptions, and shutdowns of universities and TVET colleges. Most disruptions lasted for a few days, while some went on for several weeks. One case in particular is that of Vuwani in Limpopo, where more than 50 schools were either vandalised or burned to ashes; nevertheless, the school year was recovered, and learners progressed to the next level. The main difference between the usual disruptions and the current situation lies in the enormity of the shutdown, given that it is clouded at a national level by unpredictable decisions made by the National Committee. 

Shortening school holidays
If the June exams were to be scrapped, the chief challenge would be the lost opportunity to evaluate and assess the extent to which the students have achieved the academic objectives stipulated for the subjects in the curriculum. June examinations for the other grades may not have a serious impact on the learner’s progress to the next class, as other forms of assessment could still be used. However, for matric learners, scrapping the June exams may have a huge effect, since learners require quality assessed examination results to guarantee entrance into higher education institutions.

Shortening of school holidays may not have a huge impact on learners, as this system has been in operation for many years. Many of the best performing schools shorten the school holidays to assist learners in Grades 11 and 12. In many schools, learners continue with normal schooling during the June holidays and rest during the last week of the holiday.  This strategy is already being used by the best performing schools in their quest to support learners to achieve excellent matric results. Depending on the number of days lost during the national lockdown, the option of shortening the June holidays may be the most commendable.

At face value, the strategy to lengthen school days may be the most preferred, as a number of schools in the country are already implementing it at a deeper level. Increasing the number of teaching hours may, however, have an adverse impact on the learners, who may experience enormous mental exhaustion. If the day is lengthened, it is advisable to consider not more than five hours per week.  

Deliver modern and classroom-targeted technologies 
To complement the time recovery mentioned above, there would be a need for a series of changes in some, if not all, the fundamental elements of the effective provision of teaching and learning discussed below. First, change in pedagogical approaches is inevitable. Therefore, classroom teaching will not be the same again. Second, teachers will be compelled to adapt to the use of assessment data in their endeavours to drive teaching and learning. Third, teaching in the 4IR will no longer be negotiable, but will demand advanced skills to deliver modern and classroom-targeted technologies.

Fourth, it will be crucial for teachers to acquire innovative skills to manage students’ undesirable behaviour and conduct. Fifth, immense attention to curriculum mapping, integrated learning, and lesson planning will be required. Last, pastoral care responsibilities that include social and emotional support strategies will help provide the foundation to support teaching and learning. 

In conclusion, the principal elements that make teaching and learning possible and attainable, are the teachers who will be required to learn new skills and approaches to fast-track recovery of learning. If the lockdown is lifted and schools are reopened, the number of learners must be reduced dramatically from the average of 50 to a maximum of 20 learners in a classroom in order to maintain social distancing.

Prof Thidziambi Phendla is currently Manager of Work-Integrated Learning at the University of the Free State. She is the Founder and Director of the Domestic Worker Advocacy Forum (DWAF) and the Study Clinic Surrogate Supervision; and Chair of the Council of the Tshwane North TVET College (ministerial appointment).


News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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