Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 August 2025 | Story André Damons | Photo André Damons
Prof Hanneke Brits
Prof Gert van Zyl, Dean for the Faculty of Health Sciences, Prof Hanneke Brits, a family medicine specialist at the Free State Department of Health, as well as the Department of Family Medicine at the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Anthea Rhoda, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic, and Prof Nicholas Pearce, Head of the School of Clinical Medicine before the inaugural lecture.

Universities have an obligation to ensure that their assessments are sound and defendable when they confer degrees for professional qualifications, such as in medicine. Can institutions confidently defend these results and what are the implications if they pass a student who is not competent?

These were some of the questions Prof Hanneke Brits, a family medicine specialist at the Free State Department of Health, as well as the Department of Family Medicine, at the University of the Free State (UFS), addressed during her inaugural lecture on Tuesday (12 August). The UFS, she concluded at the end of her lecture, titled To pass or not to pass: Can we confidently defend the outcome of our assessments? can defend its clinical assessments with the implementation of effective workplace-based assessment and trained examiners. 

 

The implications of passing incompetent students 

According to Prof Brits, who has supervised numerous undergraduate and postgraduate student research projects, she chose this topic because decisions have consequences. She gave an overview of the assessments in the clinical years of the undergraduate medical programme. In so doing, she also answered other questions including what may happen when universities pass students who are not competent and what may happen if they fail competent students. When the university passed a candidate, she said, that candidate may register with a professional body like the Health Professions Council of South Africa to work as a doctor. 

“What are the implications if we fail to fail a student who is not competent? The implications are that patients may suffer if they are treated by an incompetent doctor, which may lead to the doctor running into trouble if it is found that their work is not up to standard. This may further lead the faculty being labelled as poor for training substandard doctors. 

“The throughput rate of the university may go down and the university may not get subsidy for the students. The student must repeat his module with a lot of emotional and financial burden. They public may suffer because there are not enough healthcare professionals to treat them. Therefore, we must get this right,” she said. 

When assessing students, assessors should start at the bottom: students should know, then they should know how, then they should show how and then they must do. All assessments should meet the basic requirements of validity, reliability, fairness, educational impact and feasibility, explains Prof Brits. 

 

Workplace-based training and assessment

During her PhD study, she looked specifically at assessments in the clinical years of the undergraduate medical programme. “It is quite complicated,” said Prof Brits, “to do assessment for professional qualifications as you need to obey to the rules and regulations of the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Health Professions Council of South Africa, the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa because they are our examining body, as well as our own university rules and international assessment guidelines and best practices.” 

She compiled a framework to measure what they do at the UFS and found that the decision reliability was excellent – meaning the students that passed during the year passed at the end of the year and those that failed, failed. The reliability of some of the methods used for the final assessment was not good, however, if more assessments with supplementary exams were included, it was better. 

The conclusion of her study was that the UFS mostly complied with the regulations of the regulatory bodies. The recommendation from this study was to implement workplace-based assessment (WBA) to improve both the validity and reliability of assessments and to make it more defendable. Prof Brits explained that WBA is where students get regular assessment and feedback while they work and receive training in hospitals or clinics. “For example, the student is seeing a patient in the emergency department who was stabbed with a knife on his hand. Is the student able to assess the severity, can the student manage the wound and what about follow-up? 

“The advantage of WBA is that we train in real life situations and manage conditions that occur commonly. In real life situations, students use many senses while learning, e.g., seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, which all enhance knowledge retention. It is important that students receive feedback and that we document these encounters. To ensure a holistic approach to the management of patients we use Entrustable Professional Activities or EPAs – something that I can trust a person to do. It is a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes.”

News Archive

Judgement in the Supreme Court of Appeal about UFS Language Policy
2016-11-17

The University of the Free State (UFS) is pleased with the judgment handed down in the Supreme Court of Appeal this morning, relating to the university’s appeal against the implementation order granted on 12 September 2016 by the Full Bench of the Free State High Court. The implementation order barred the UFS from implementing its new Language Policy in 2017, pending the outcome of the appeal of the review application.

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the application brought by AfriForum and Solidarity failed on a legal and factual level, and was misconceived. The court accordingly upheld the appeal by the UFS against the implementation order, setting aside the order, and directing that AfriForum and Solidarity pay the legal costs of the UFS in respect of both the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal proceedings pertaining to implementation.

The effect of today’s judgment is that the UFS may proceed to implement the new Language Policy in its pilot programme next year, pending the appeal of the review application which will only be heard early in 2017.

In March 2016, the Senate and then Council adopted with overwhelming majority a new Language Policy that strives to achieve multilingualism. The new policy entails English as primary medium of instruction, but with the introduction of a tutorial system in Afrikaans and progressively in Sesotho to support students’ learning in their first and second year of study.

The policy will be piloted in 2017 with first-year students in three faculties: Law, Health Sciences, and the Humanities. In these faculties, the majority of students indicated their preference to be taught in English. The Afrikaans-English policy will be maintained in the rest of the faculties in 2017 and phased out according to an implementation plan as from 2018.

Current registered students will be able to complete their studies in the language they selected upon registration.

 

Related articles:
Implications of new Language Policy for first-year students in 2017: 17 October 2016
UFS to proceed with appealing to Supreme Court of Appeal regarding new Language Policy: 29 September 2016
UFS to lodge application to appeal judgment about new Language Policy: 22 July 2016
High Court ruling about new UFS Language Policy: 21 July 2016
UFS Council approves a new Language Policy: 11 March 2016

 
Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27 51 444 6393

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