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

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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