Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Building a university where everyone can succeed

12 November 2020 | Story Prof Francois Strydom | Photo Anja Aucamp

Prof Francois Styrdom read more — 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:

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.
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.
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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger

2007-11-26

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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