Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
03 September 2020 | Story Mosa Moerane and Martie Miranda
Martie and Mosa
Martie Miranda and Mosa Moerane

Opinion article written by Mosa Moerane and Martie Miranda, Center for Universal Access and Disability Support (CUADS) within the Division of Student Affairs

The current COVID-19 pandemic has brought into focus the various socio-economic challenges that plague societies the world over, and higher education institutions have not been spared the rapid landscape changes necessary to survive. As a direct result of the pandemic, attention to long-standing issues within the higher education environment, such as glaring financial challenges that have been highlighted repeatedly, the lack of personal learning equipment, unconducive learning environments, and antiquated hierarchical student-lecturer relationships, can no longer be deferred. For several years, students had to contend with these and other challenges without sufficient support and structural adjustment. The higher education environment also plays an integral role in student success, since students are faced with multiple cognitive and emotional demands that need to be navigated. Students with disabilities, however, are often confronted with not only these environmental challenges, but with attitudinal barriers as well. The learning experience of students with disabilities is greatly influenced by negative views and attitudes; therefore, they need to develop reparatory strategies to compensate for and balance the effects of their shortfalls in order to achieve success.

Normally, support is required for individual needs, taking into account the specific and distinctive needs of each student related to their disability. The barriers experienced in their physical, social, emotional, administrative, and academic environment are additionally disabling, although the social model of disability indicates that a disabling world encompasses inaccessible physical environments, inaccessible information, barriers to communication, prejudices, and discrimination – which is not conducive to the integration of students with disabilities. An inaccessible physical environment includes buildings, transport, and poor design that do not take the needs of people with disabilities into account. Inaccessible information refers to difficult language use, written text, and inaccessible websites or e-learning facilities. Barriers to communication involves the unavailability of Sign Language interpreters and accessible equipment, and the assumption that everyone communicates in the same way. And lastly, prejudices and discrimination consist of experiences of invalidating attitudes, stereotyping, assumptions, and inflexible or unfair systems in organisations. Students with disabilities have been navigating all of the aforementioned and were denied certain adaptations and ways of learning.

The role of disability units within higher education institutions therefore needs to address the environments mentioned above in order to assist in reducing the need for special accommodation, as well as shifting perceptions to encourage all students to reveal their skills and talents, and to learn at an optimal yet individual pace. Disability units are therefore the prime negotiator between academic staff and students to assist with removing environmental and attitudinal barriers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown academic staff and our diverse range of students with varying abilities into an online space without specifically thinking of students with disabilities as being part of this diversity. There was understandably much concern around how students will cope with the new way of teaching, especially pertaining to the availability of resources and accessibility to technology. Academic staff had to start thinking about all students – without specifically thinking about students with disabilities – and the type of teaching, learning, and assessment that would work best for all students. The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to not only relook our curriculum as well as its design and outcomes, but also to focus on what needs to be learned and the various ways in which to do so. It is acknowledged that planned activities are important learning experiences. However, students also possess a wealth of previous experiences; these experiences are valuable and need to be brought into the learning process as well. Learning experiences for students with disabilities are both individual and social, while unique experiences help to develop an understanding of their personal restrictions in the social environment and the obstacles that hamper them in achieving their goals. During this time, the Center for Universal Access and Disability Support (CUADS) explored the ways in which academic staff started reducing barriers for students – including students with disabilities – by implementing accessible and equitable curricula and inclusive instructional design. Emphasis was placed on flexibility in student engagement, representation of content, and learner action and expression. This subsequently led the way to designing and delivering instructions that meet the needs of students in varying contexts. In addition, the three principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) have been implemented to assist the promotion of equity and flexibility for a diverse group of students. These three principles include multiple ways of representing information in different formats; allowing different ways for students to engage with learning material; and multiple means of action and expression to demonstrate knowledge. Incorporating such principles in the design of all course and assessment practices are valuable to all students, given their natural diversity (without necessarily focusing on students with disabilities). During the pandemic, everybody has been challenged and possibly rendered ‘disabled’ in the online space. Therefore, being truly inclusive means that we acknowledge that we cannot treat all students in the same way when there is so much diversity within this stakeholder group.

Academic staff also had to start gauging their students’ performance and allow interaction without necessarily contacting the disability unit for guidance. Similarly, students with disabilities had to personally interact with their lecturers without the involvement of the disability unit – which gave these students the capacity to make choices and decisions without having to necessarily deal with attitudinal barriers as a result of their disability. Since the disability unit was now often bypassed in the adaptation phase during COVID-19, CUADS distributed a tip sheet among faculties to assist in incorporating universal design principles in online teaching and learning material. In this way, CUADS could support teaching staff in creating and sustaining universal accessibility.

COVID-19 necessitated a timely response to challenges or had to face the collapse of the academic year. One of the most pivotal interventions was the emphasis on the need to ensure that teaching and learning continued through as many platforms as possible. This required innovation, creativity, and a positive attitude from both academic and support staff in order to rise to the occasion. Subsequently, this turnaround created a significant opportunity to assess what it means for accessibility moving forward. Now that we know what is possible, how can we capitalise on the strategies employed during this crisis to ensure that students from their plural walks of life continue to benefit from the opportunities presented during the pandemic? What opportunities exist – particularly for students with disabilities – to harness the flexibility for submitting assessments, presenting lectures, and communication beyond this moment?

In addition to these questions as they relate to students’ academic journey, questions also came to the fore regarding co-curricular programmes that students with disabilities (should) have the opportunity to participate in. Much of the out-of-classroom lessons takes place through various lectures, critical conversations, and other forms of dialogues instituted by different faculties and departments. To this end, CUADS has developed the Universal Access Checklist to help organisers of such events to ensure maximum universal access. The checklist has been developed in such a way that it can be migrated to online platforms as well. To encourage the use of this document, CUADS also provides training on the Universal Access Checklist.

Embedding universal access on an institutional level, an Integrated Transformation Plan – a Policy on Universal Access and Disability Support for Students with Disabilities – will serve before Rectorate. Recognising the talents, abilities, and potential of students with disabilities, the University of the Free State is committed to creating an enabling environment where fully equitable participation and progression become a reality for all its students. The policy has been developed through an extensive consultation process as required for all policies. Its implementation invites the commitment and attitudinal shift to achieve the institutional impact

that is necessary to move beyond the view of universal access as the exclusive responsibility of one department, but rather as the university’s collective aspiration.

Mosa Moerane
Holds BA Management and LLB degrees from the University of the Free State, currently pursuing an LLM (Legal Philosophy and Constitutional Law). Keen interest in decoloniality (and decolonisation), accessibility, and social justice within and outside of higher education.

Martie Miranda
Started at the University of the Free State in 2009 as South African Sign Language Interpreter, became the Head of CUADS in 2015, and currently serves as the Chairperson of the Higher and Further Education Disability Services Association (HEDSA), focusing on two important projects – advocacy and setting up services to support students with disabilities, and sharing best practices to assist in improving services provided to students with disabilities.

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