Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
12 November 2020 | Story Prof Francois Strydom | Photo Anja Aucamp
Prof J Francois Strydom is the Senior Director: Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of the Free State.

A university qualification is still viewed as one of the most powerful tools to change the economic prospects of students, their families and communities. In this sense universities can be generators of greater equality, social justice as well as economic prosperity. Improving all students’ chances of success is a notoriously difficult goal especially in one of the most unequal countries in the world.

Commitment to more equitable outcomes in student success is one of the less well-known achievements of the University of the Free State (UFS). Equitable outcomes refer to a university’s ability to offer students a chance to achieve success regardless of their background.

Change in student profile

The university’s commitment to success was started more than a decade ago but received significant strategic impetus in the UFS Strategic Plan: 2018-2022 in which improving students’ success and well-being is identified as the number one strategic priority. During the decade 2009-2019 the UFS has gone through a significant change in its student profile. The student profile has changed in different ways of which two are illustrated in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Increase in diversity

Figure 1 illustrates how the student body has diversified, in line with national and international trends, which has resulted in a richer learning environment and greater diversity in educational background and opportunities. An additional change over the past decade is the overall increase in first-generation students across racial groups. Seventy-five percent of first-year students are the first in their family to attend university. Although these students come with inspiring motivation to succeed, higher-education research shows that these students are at risk due to a lack of a role model in their immediate family. Other changes in the students’ profile have been increase reliance on NSFAS funding with 55% of UFS students making use of this funding for their studies.

In light of the financial background of our students the university has kept its degree costs as affordable as possible. A DHET comparison shows that the UFS has one of the lowest tuition fees in the sector.

Despite these challenges the UFS has stayed committed to the goal of creating more equitable outcomes for all students regardless of their educational and economic backgrounds.

 

Figure 2: Achievement gap according to success rates 2009-2019

Figure 2 shows that in the past 10 years the achievement gap between African and white students has narrowed by 5% (15% in 2009 vs. 10% in 2019). The figure also indicates that the UFS success rate has increased steadily by 9% between 2009 and 2019.

To achieve these gains three intentional approaches have been utilised:

  1. Re-designing the learning environment based on globally benchmarked research and practice

    The UFS success story regarding the improvements of students academic performance started with the South African Surveys of Student Engagement (SASSE), a national research project led by the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The survey is part of a global community of researchers who work on developing universities where students understand what they need to do to succeed and the institution knows which programmes or interventions need to be in place to provide all students with a chance to succeed. SASSE puts a data-driven student voice, based on strong empirical and theoretical foundations at the centre of institutional redesign. In addition to a strong research base, the UFS had the opportunity to learn from world leading institutions such as Georgia State University (GSU) through the Siyaphumelela Network which is focused on improving student success though data analytics and is funded by the Kresge Foundation.  

  2. Scaling high impact practices using data analytics

    Student engagement research identifies certain high-impact practices (HIPs). These are practices that enable students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to succeed and develop graduate attributes that make them more employable. In the past these high-impact practices were reserved for a small group of students in specific programmes. In line with international best practice and to enable greater success for more students, these practices have been scaled and linked to rigorous monitoring and evaluation using data analytics. Scaling of these HIPs has only been possible due to close collaboration between faculties and CTL. The four HIPs that have been scaled at the UFS are:

    • First-year transition support which employs 60 senior students to support first years to learn success skills in the compulsory UFS module for which 7888 students were enrolled in 2019.
    • Tutorials which employ 350 senior students as tutors and reached 18 300 students in 2019.
    • Academic advising which helps students hone success skills and to align their educational and career goals. Some 17 455 students participated in academic advising initiatives in 2019.
    • Academic Language and Literacy Development which helps students to develop the language skills they need to thrive through enrolment in literacy modules (10 500 in 2019) and/or make use of the writing centre (15 568 students in 2019) to support them with assignments.

       

  3. Leadership focused on evidence-based decision-making and innovation

The leadership of the UFS has actively emphasised greater evidence-based decision-making. An evidence-based focus has been enhanced by the UFS strategic plan 2018-2022 and the Integrated Transformation Plan (ITP). These plans have created an atmosphere which intentionally facilitates change and innovation based on the use of evidence to inform planning, monitoring and decision-making.

Using a crisis to imagine a different future

More than a decade’s worth of commitment to implement the above-mentioned approaches enabled the UFS to take an evidence-based approach to managing the impact on the pandemic. Within the first week of lockdown the Rector and Vice-Chancellor put appropriate governance structures in place. A survey of 13 505 UFS students assessed access to devices and data and informed the development of 16 nuanced strategies to support vulnerable students. The Academic Advising team created #UFSLearnOn campaign materials that have been viewed 77 000 times by students and shared with 177 000 people via Facebook. The #UFSTechOn campaign provided support for staff in adapting their learning and teaching has been attended by 3800 academics to date.

The CTL created a monitoring system using data analytics through weekly reports. These analytic reports have monitored the number of staff and students on the Learning Management System; how much time they are spending learning; and whether they are completing assessments. These efforts have resulted in 99.95% of students learning through the electronic Learning and Management System (Blackboard) in the first semester. For the 0.05% of students who were not able to participate in learning the UFS has developed plans to support their learning journey at the institution.

The UFS response to the COVID crisis has created opportunities to accelerate the development of e-tutorials, e-advising and innovative blended learning design for future teaching and learning and the scaling of new high-impact practices. 

As the last decade has shown, the UFS is committed to creating equitable outcomes through intentional student-centered design of interventions and the measurement of their impact using data analytics.

This means that a student’s destiny (or success) is less dependent on their demographics (race, generation status, disadvantage, etc.) and more on how they choose to behave and make use of success support at the UFS.

Opinion article by Prof Francois Strydom, Senior Director: Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of the Free State


News Archive

Institutional research culture a precondition for research capacity building and excellence
2004-11-16

A lecture presented by Dr. Andrew M. Kaniki at the University of the Free State Recognition Function for research excellence

16 November 2004
The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Frederick Fourie
Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans
Awardees
Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen

It is a great pleasure to be here at the University of the Free State. I am particularly honoured to have been invited to present this lecture at the First Annual Recognition Function for Research Excellence to honour researchers who have excelled in their respective fields of expertise. I would like to sincerely thank the office of the Director of Research and Development (Professor Swanepol), and in particular Mr. Aldo Stroebel for facilitating the invitation to this celebration.

I would like to congratulate you (the UFS) for institutionalizing “celebration of research excellence”, which as I will argue in this lecture is one of the key characteristics of institutional research culture that supports research capacity building and sustains research excellence.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to congratulate the University of the Free State for clocking 100 years of existence.

Ahmed Bawa and Johan Mouton (2000) in their chapter entitled Research, in the book: Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (ed. N. Cloete et. al Pretoria: CHET. 296-333) have argued that “…the sources of productivity and competitiveness [in the knowledge society and global economy] are increasingly dependent on [quality] knowledge and information being applied to productivity”. The quality knowledge they refer to here is research output or research products and the research process, which (research) as defined by the [OECD] Frascati Manual (2002: 30) is:

“…creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications”

The South African Government has set itself the objective of transforming South Africa into a knowledge society that competes effectively in the global system. A knowledge society requires appropriate numbers of educated and skilled people to create quality new knowledge and to translate the knowledge in innovative ways. To this end a number of policies and strategies like the Human Resource Development [HRD] Strategy for South Africa, the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE) and the South Africa’s Research and Development [R&D] Strategy, have highlighted human resource development and the concomitant scarce skills development as critical for wealth creation in the context of globalization. The key mission of the HRD Strategy for instance is:

To maximize the potential of the people of South Africa, through the acquisition of knowledge and skills, to work productively and competitively in order to achieve a rising quality of life for all, and to set in place an operational plan, together with the necessary institutional arrangements, to achieve this.

The R&D Strategy emphasizes that maximum effort must be exerted to train the necessary numbers of our people in all fields required for development, running and management of modern economies. Higher education institutions like the University of the Free State have a key role to play in this process, because whatever form or shape a university takes, it is expected to conduct research (quality research); teach (quality teaching – and good graduates); and contribute to the development of its community! Thus the NPHE states that the role of higher education in a knowledge-driven world is threefold:

Human resource development;

High-level skills training and

Production, acquisition and application of knowledge.

Quality research output or knowledge which as argued is critical in determining the degree of competitiveness of a country in the knowledge economy is dependent upon quality research (process). Both the process of producing quality research and its utilization cannot and does not happen in a vacuum. It requires an environment that facilitates the production of new knowledge, its utilization and renewal. It requires skilled persons that can produce new knowledge and facilitate the production of new skills for quality knowledge production. Such an environment or in essence a university must have the culture that supports research activity. Institution research culture (that is a conducive and enabling institutional research culture) is a precondition to research capacity building. Without an institutional research culture that facilitates the development and nurturing of new young researchers it is difficult, if not impossible for a university to effectively and efficiently generate new and more quality researchers. Institutional research culture is also necessary to sustain quality research and quality research output or research excellence. It facilitates the development and sustenance of the institutional and people capacities required to do research produce quality research and generally attain research excellence!

We do recognize that the patterns of information and knowledge seeking, and knowledge generation vary among field or disciplines. For example, we know that in the humanities knowledge workers often work individually, and not as collaboratively as do those of the sciences, they all however, require supportive environments – institutional research culture to achieve and sustain research excellence. An institution does not simply attain a supportive research culture, but as Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues, research culture has to be grown [and maintained]. It unifies all natural and engineering scientists; medical researchers, humanists, and social scientists.

I therefore am of the view that Institutional Research Culture is critical to research capacity building and research excellence. I therefore want to spend a few minutes looking at the characteristics of research culture. To be effective, institutional research culture has grown and sustained not only at the institutional level, but also at the faculty, school and departmental levels of any university.

What is Research Culture?

In the process of researching on institutional research culture I identified several characteristics. Many of these overlap in some way. I want to deal with some of these characteristics; some in a little more detail while others simply cursorily. In the process what we should be asking ourselves is the extent to which an institution, like the University of the Free State, and its faculties, individually and severally, is growing and or sustaining this culture.

Institutional Research Strategy: As a plan of action or guide for a course of action, the institutional research strategy must spell out research goals that a university wants to achieve. It must be a prescription of what the university needs to be done with respect to research. As a strategy it is neither an independent activity nor an end in itself, but a component part and operationalization of the university policy or mission. ( Related to this is the Establishment of Institutional research policies)

Includes and makes public the targets, e.g. achieve so many rated scientists and make sure that every year we have so many SAPSE publications. That way people keep an eye on research agendas of the university and nation.

The UFS is obviously on its way, having launched its own Research strategy (A Strategic framework for the development of research at the University of the Free Sate. August 2003). Note that this strategy refers specifically to the “Culture of research” Fig 1

A set of administrative practices to support and encourage research. Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues that that research activity and output within the her Faculty (Arts) were very low and, in spite of the numbers of staff, with no Associate Dean for Research in the Faculty as though they had accepted that research belonged to Medicine and Science and Engineering, and teaching, separated from inquiry, belonged to the Arts. With the change in the thinking about research and development of research culture, it became clear that there was a major role for research support in a faculty her size (now about 360 full time continuing academic staff). The faculty developed a support system for research and began to address the SSHRC issues.

Reduce the bureaucracy system and micromanagement of research! This however, also implies that there is capacity and policies and procedure to manage and guide research processes

Establishment of Intellectual Property regulations and assistance

Research ethics policy and safeguarding by research administration

Focused, applied and suitable nature of the delivery mode (an institution open to new methodologies for conducting research

Programmes suited both full and part-time study particularly at graduate level (Mainly at Faculty/school and department level, and depending on what’s manageable)

Hiring senior academics to engage in, teach on and supervise postgraduate students to facilitate exchange of and transfer ideas and most importantly mentorship especially in view of declining numbers of researchers in particular fields

Quality instruction and facilitation in learning about research processes

A high retention rate of students maintained by the supportive and challenging learning environment and the use of online facilities to support collaboration and in-class learning

Availability of research grants: and awareness of sourcing funds from external sources like the National Research Foundation; Water Research Commission; Medical Research Council, private philanthropies and others outside the country. For example an institution should be able to assess how much of the slice the available funds (NRF etc) its able acquire and possibly top slice from institutional budget.

Adequacy of the financial reward system to encourage university staff members to do research (General Celebration of achievement for research excellence and achievement. This ranges form Annual reports mention; celebratory dinner. At Alberta researchers were given lapels. I don’t know of any academic who do not feel a sense of achievement to get into print or recognised. Access to research facilities within and outside the institution

Provision of infrastructure to support university-based research (e.g. equipment, admin support, etc.) – but also awareness of publicly funded and available research facilities and equipment!

Internet connectivity and changes in the bandwidth of the internet to download articles

Subscription to related bodies by the library so that researcher can download articles

Facilities and resources to attend international conferences to keep one updated

Number of visiting professors/speakers targeting senior scholars and invite them to lunch to ask them to participate and to encourage their best graduate students to do so within the institution and across institutions

Research training seminars for research students including young academics

Participation of staff/students in delivering research papers to national and international conferences

Establishment of research groups to provide interaction frameworks to achieve critical mass of research-active staff

Facilitation for more research time: Targeting new scholars and giving them reduced teaching loads in their first year or two for the purpose of developing their research programs. For the purpose of helping new colleagues to see the shape of South African research support, personalizing it, and creating research community

Take research to the community and argue its necessity, and utility

And, finally celebrating excellence. We must recognize achievement - parties and public recognition for colleagues who achieve splendid things in their research.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that research culture has to be grown it does not simply exist in an institution. If it is grown it needs to be nourished, nurtured and sustained. An institution cannot simply leave on borrowed reputation and expect to remain research excellent. It is on this basis that instruments like the National Research Foundation rating system recognizes excellence within a given period of time and not necessarily for a life time! This it is believed encourages continued research excellence.

THANK YOU and best wishes

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