6.5Agency
As already indicated in various places throughout this report, the identification of agency has not been possible because of the nature of the documentation studied and because of the depth of the overall investigation. This section will therefore focus on attempting to develop an overall statement on the workings of agency at the five institutions in the study. That agency is important and that it is possible to examine its working in more detail is evident in Quinn & Boughey’s (2008) work on institutional audit. Their identification of key agents contributing and working against change was only possible because of the privileged insider view they were able to take in relation to their study.
What is evident from the level of analysis made possible by the study is the existence of key agents at institutional level. These key agents emerge from structure and include Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans and Heads of Departments. Some of the structures in which potential key agents are located have been termed ‘traditional’ in this study. The extent to which these agents will be able to exercise agency in ways which will lead to quality improvement is therefore open for question given the dominance of the discourses identified earlier in this report. Other potentially key agents are located in newer structures related either to the establishment of programmes or to the introduction of quality assurance. Once again, the extent to which their agency can/will be exercised will be dependent largely on the workings of the domain of culture.
At an institutional level, there are, nonetheless, ways in which the potential for the exercise of agency in relation to teaching and learning could maximised. Should the cultural conditions allow, a requirement that all programme co-ordinators should engage with some sort of developmental activity focused on assessment would empower them to interrogate assessment more rigorously at programme level. Similarly, engagement of Deputy Vice Chancellors with researchers working in teaching and learning centres could allow them to exercise their own agency in more informed ways.
Other mechanisms operating at a national level also offer the promise of improving the capacity of individuals to exercise agency. The inclusion of Deans on audit panels, for example, opens individuals up to alternative discourses and alternative experiences all of which could impact on their own willingness or ability to exercise agency in their home institutions.
The next section of this Report picks up on some of the ideas explored here as it attempts to explore the effects of audits on teaching and learning at the five institutions in the study.
This section of the Report will now look at the extent to which the audits conducted at the five institutions in the study picked up on issues identified in the meta analysis. It will do this by examining the commendations and recommendations made in each audit report where these can be said to apply to teaching and learning.
7.1The case studies 7.1.1The University of Pretoria
The Audit Report on the University of Pretoria makes 9 commendations and 17 recommendations. Of the 7 commendations, 3 can be seen to apply to teaching and learning. Of the 17 recommendations, 9 can be judged as applying to teaching and learning. The following table sets out which of the recommendations and commendations have been identified as applying to teaching and learning.
Commendations
|
Recommendations
|
The HEQC commends the University of Pretoria for:
2. the extent and effectiveness of thwork of the Quality Assurance Unit.
7. the many support structures that provide assistance to departments for the development of new programmes and for its robust approval system.
9. for the electronic resource developed by the Department of Education Innovation to support implementation of the assessment framework, which communicates pedagogical assessment principles and associated assessment policies, while also identifying their implications for assessment practices.
|
The HEQC recommends that the University of Pretora:
1. consider conducting an institutio wide debate on the meaning of the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovation generation’, in relation to both educational processes and institutional culture.
3. engage in a systematic assessment of the impact of the implementation of the language policy paying particular attention to staff loads, student success rates, the consistency with which the policy has been implemented across faculties, and the unforeseen consequences of the implementation on institutional culture.
4. consider conducting an institutional climate survey as the first step towards the development of a transformational strategy for the institution which reflects its willingness to contribute to an emerging and inclusive democracy in the country.
6. consider re-examining its 10 principles of education in terms of their usefulness and specificity to support the realisation of the University’s vision and mission. Of particular importance in this regard would be the examination of the view of teaching and learning informing the 10 principles of education and the extent and effectiveness of their application across the Faculties.
7. develop appropriate systems to monitor and approve the performance of the committees and other units, which impact on the core functions.
8. investigate the need and possible impact of the creation of an integrative structure or mechanism tasked with responsibility for the monitoring and review of teaching and learning initiatives across all Faculties.
9. reconsider the role and location of the Department of Education Innovation in the context of the urgent need to review the conceptualisation, organisation and operationalisation of teaching and learning at the institution.
10. reconsider the mechanism that it uses in programme review to ensure that good practice takes place within the core programmes.
11.take steps to ensure that its assessment framework is adopted consistently across all departments and Faculties and across income generating units.
|
Perusal of the commendations and recommendations suggests that the audit panel was successful in identifying many of the issues identified as a result of this analysis. Several recommendations (1,4,6) are directed at the domain of culture and focus on the need for the institution to examine the assumptions which underpin its approach to teaching and learning. Problematic, however, is the separation, in recommendation 1, of ‘educational processes’ and ‘institutional culture’ since the analysis argues that educational processes are culturally and socially situated. Other recommendations (7,8,9,10,11) are directed primarily at the development of structures intended to manage quality in teaching and learning consistently across the institution. Closer examination of these recommendations in the light of the analysis offered in this Report suggests, however, that underpinning this focus on structure is a call for engagement with culture. The recommendation (7), for example, that the University should ‘develop appropriate systems to monitor and approve the performance of the committees and other units, which impact on the core functions’ speaks directly to the ‘light touch’ to the quality management of teaching and learning emerging from the granting of both trust and autonomy to traditional structures. Similarly, the recommendation (10) that the University should ‘reconsider the mechanism that it uses in programme review to ensure that good practice takes place within the core programmes’ speaks to the need for issues related to teaching and learning to be interrogated across the institution and therefore engages directly with the cultural assumption that teaching and learning should not be managed.
The Audit Report on the University of Cape Town makes 13 commendations and 16 recommendations. Of the 13 commendations, 1 can be seen to apply to teaching and learning whilst 8 of the recommendations can be seen to apply. Relevant commendations and recommendations appear below in tabular form.
Commendations
|
Recommendations
|
The HEQC commends UCT for :
4. the pioneering and innovative work done in the Alternative Admissions Research Project run by CHED.
|
The HEQC recommends that UCT:
2. continue to review trends in its undergraduate admissions and throughput rates and ensure better co-ordination of faculty planning and support mechanisms in order to accelerate improvements in the equity profiles of Black and especially South African born African students.
3. strengthens its transformation related initiatives to give effect to the interventions identified in the Portfolio, the Institutional Climate and Student Surveys and other relevant documents in order to ensure that the effectiveness of the core functions and the quality of their operations are not weakened by identified and unresolved transformation issues. This includes additional measures to strengthen the capacity of the Transformation Office in order to ensure improved co-ordination and implementation of the new proposed institutional interventions on transformation.
4. give serious consideration to re-positioning the QAWG as a Senate Committee, thus enabling it to insert its work into the formal academic oversight responsibilities of Senate.
5. explore a more substantial articulation between teaching and learning and research within a set of institution-wide arrangements that could give stronger expression to the conceptualisation of research-based teaching and address its implications for academic governance at different levels within the institution.
6. that UCT investigate more closely the impact that the casualisation of academic staff might be having on the quality of the student learning experience at the undergraduate level as well as the ways in which the employment of adjunct academic staff might be compromising high quality research-based teaching.
7. strengthens its admissions and placement strategies through a wider institutional use of AARP and ensure consistency in its implementation across all faculties.
8. strengthen its existing systems to track and monitor students’ academic progress. This should include a review of the collaboration between faculties and CHED to identify problems in teaching and learning and design appropriate interventions so as to ensure that CHED’s work is fully utilised in support of quality objectives for staff and students across the University.
10. give priority to the consistent implementation of the formal programme review system across all faculties, and address the consistency of the link between research and teaching within evaluation parameters.
11. consider instituting structured assessor training for all levels of the research and academic staff as a way of responding to national policy in this area and of improving a fundamental aspect of the teaching and learning process.
13. Give attention to clarifying the notion of ‘research-led’ through wider debate across the institution so that academics and students can contribute to its implementation across all core function s in a way that gives coherent and substantial institutional content to the notion.
|
Once again, the audit panel can be seen to have identified many of the issues identified as a result of the analysis described in this Report. Although the majority of the recommendations can be seen to be directed at the domain of structure, once again any action recommended by the panel requires an engagement with culture. Recommendations related to structure can be seen to relate to the need to exert a firmer touch on the management of quality in teaching and learning and also to draw on the work produced by CHED to improve teaching and learning. Since much of the research produced by CHED challenges dominant institutional assumptions, this call for an institutional resource to be drawn upon more rigorously also operates at the level of culture. Some recommendations are related more directly to the domain of culture. Recommendation 13, for example, calls on the institution to examine the meaning of being ‘research-led’, an issue existing at the level of culture and identified in this analysis as being common to all five institutions.
7.1.3Rhodes University
The Audit Report on Rhodes University lists 15 commendations and 19 recommendations. Of the 15 commendations, 3 can be seen to relate to teaching and learning. 11 of the 19 recommendations also fall in the area of teaching and learning. The following table identifies relevant commendations and recommendations.
Commendations
|
Recommendations
|
The HEQC commends Rhodes on/for
3. its initiatives for the professionalisation of teaching and learning at the institution, and the development of a mentoring system to support previously disadvantaged students.
4. the quality of research on teaching and learning undertaken by the staff of the Academic Development Centre.
8. for the way in which the staff development function of the Academic Development Centre has been conceptualised and implemented, resulting in enhanced levels of professionalism in teaching and learning, especially among young staff.
|
The HEQC recommends that Rhodes:
1. consider the possibility of initiating institution-wide debate about the meaning of the liberal arts tradition in order to contextualise its value and currency in South Africa and address its compatibility with the University’s claimed African identity. Such a debate may provide critical reference points fro the discharge of the three core functions and for conceptualisations of quality in those core functions.
2. develop a recruitment strategy that indicates firstly, institutional enrolment targets for African, Coloured and Indian students; secondly the resources and mechanisms that will be put in place in order to achieve those targets, and thirdly, the support mechanisms which the University will institute in order to facilitate the academic success of students.
5. consider the development of a bold and transparent strategy to address negative impacts of its institutional culture. This needs to include an institution-wide implementation plan to transform relevant aspects of Rhodes’ institutional culture and clear monitoring mechanisms to track progress.
6. engage with the issue of how, within a decentralised system of quality management, faculties and academic departments could actively engage with and give expression to the achievement of institutional level objectives, which pertain to the conception of quality as both fitness for and fitness of purpose.
7. consider, within its framework of collegial governance, a re-conceptualisation of quality management to give greater weight to quality support, development and monitoring as strategic tools for the achievement of institutional level objectives.
8. consider the identification and use of a set of performance indicators which could reinforce the institution’s planning and quality management functions, and explore the utilisation of suitable benchmarking tools in a formalised and regular manner to support decision making for academic planning and quality improvement.
9. review its current arrangements for monitoring the implementation of its teaching and learning policies to enable the institution to ensure that high quality teaching is consistently offered across all academic departments and that appropriate developmental initiatives are in place where required. This should be done in a way that is consonant with the requirements of departmental autonomy and collegiality.
10. develop and implement appropriate mechanisms to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the Extended Studies Unit of the ADC and its programmes. In the design of such mechanisms, the institution should consider the need to document the ways in which extended programmes contribute to the throughput and success rates of different groups of students in different disciplines.
11. explore an appropriate mechanism to monitor the effectiveness of its voluntaristic approach to the evaluation of teaching and learning. This should entail the incorporation of student evaluations of courses in the evaluation of teaching and learning as well as the development of appropriate mechanisms to monitor the extent of and frequency with which evaluation of courses and whole qualifications are being used to improve teaching and learning.
12. review the identity, functions, and resourcing of the Academic Development Centre. This should include a review of its relationship with the University’s central planning structures and the senior leadership responsible for teaching and learning.
13. Formalise its policy on external examinations and ensure that the systems needed to monitor and respond to external examiner reports are effective in achieving appropriate and consistent management of summative assessment at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study.
|
Possibly more than in any other of the audits studied, the panel auditing Rhodes University identify structural issues related to the management of teaching and learning. Underpinning all of these issues of structure, however, are discourses related to the ideal of collegiality which comes across so strongly in the Institution’s Self Evaluation Portfolio. The Panel can therefore be seen to be working at the level of culture even though their focus appears to be structure. As at the Universities of Cape Town and Pretoria, the recommendations and commendations also focus on the role of a structure intended to contribute to the quality of teaching and learning, the Academic Development Centre, and attempt to reposition it more centrally in the functioning of the University. The recommendations also include a direct call for institutional culture to be interrogated although the construct of ‘culture’ is not overtly seen to include teaching and learning issues. Given the ‘social’ model of teaching and learning identified in this Report, this is arguably an omission.
7.1.4The University of Stellenbosch
The Audit Report on the University of Stellenbosch makes a total of 9 commendations and 21 recommendations. Of these, 3 commendations and 11 recommendations can be seen to apply to teaching and learning. The following table identifies relevant commendations and recommendations.
Commendations
|
Recommendations
|
The HEQC commends Stellenbosch University on/for:
3. the work done by the Centre for Teaching and Learning to develop and improve the quality of teaching and learning at the University within the framework of the Teaching Management Plan and Vision 2012.
5. its innovative use of technology to support learning processes as demonstrated in its E-campus initiative.
6. the development and successful implementation of the Programme for the Educational Development of Academics (PREDAC), which inducts new academic staff members into different aspects of teaching and learning at the institution.
|
The HEQC recommends that Stellenbosch University:
1. conduct a rigorous review of its access model in order to identify its key determining premises and the major preconditions for its successful implementation. This should include a critical assessment of the extent to which the current Language Policy supports quality teaching and learning at the undergraduate level and enables the institution to give effect to its commitment to serving a broader community and embracing diversity. The review of the new access model should also include the development and operationalisation of faculty specific indicators for equity and access, which could form part of the performance management system for faculty staff.
3. review the way in which different faculties give effect to the institution wide goals in the three core functions and monitor their achievement, with a view to the acceleration of the implementation of the institution’s 2000 Strategy and Vision 2012.
4. develop appropriate and viable mechanisms to ensure that the quality of tuition, infrastructure and support services in the Faculty of Military Sciences at the Saldanha campus is comparable with acceptable standards at the rest of the University.
5. review the resourcing of the Division of Academic Planning and Quality Assurance and the Division of Institutional Planning in order to strengthen their roles and capacity in supporting the work of the Quality Committee at an institutional level.
6. investigates the most appropriate means to achieve a more consistent understanding of quality and its operationalisation at the different layers of the academic structures while giving due attention to concerns about the appropriate levels of academic freedom and collegiality, necessary for the development of innovation and critique which are characteristic of academic life.
7. consider ways in which to make a clear and strong link between the renewal of teaching and learning and the institution’s strategic goals as articulated in its Strategic Plan and Vision 2012, as a way of integrating change in this core function with the operationalisation of change at institutional level.
8. consider strengthening the importance of teaching and learning at the institution by redefining the position of the Committee for Learning and Teaching in Senate, revising its composition to include representation from the Academic Planning and Quality Assurance unit and reviewing its relationship to other committees such as the Programme Advisory Committee.
9. consider as a matter of urgency the possibility of exploring new avenues to raise institutional awareness of the critical importance of teaching and learning and its equivalent significant status with research as a core function of the university. This should include the introduction of a more centrally monitored arrangement for the improvement of teaching skills across faculties as part of the performance management system for academic staff.
10. review the function and effectiveness of the different Senate and related committees involved in academic planning and teaching and learning (e.g. APC, CLT, PAC) with a view to streamlining the governance of programmes and strengthening the arrangements for the assurance of quality of teaching and learning across the institution.
|
Perusal of the recommendations and commendations made by the Audit Panel at the University of Stellenbosch shows that both follow the same broad trends as those identified at other institutions. Recommendations tend to focus on structural changes which will result in a firmer touch on the management of teaching and learning. Underlying these structural changes are changes at the level of culture. In the list of recommendations made for Stellenbosch University, moreover, there is a direct appeal at the level of culture for the status of teaching to be raised. As at other universities, the panel also commends the work done by the Centre for Teaching and Learning and thus, in an indirect manner, affirms its value to the institution.
What the Panel does not do is engage with the autonomous model of teaching and learning identified as a result of analysis of the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy and discussed in 5.4.1 above. Given the overt statements about teaching and learning made in the Strategy document, this could be considered an omission.
7.1.5The University of the Witwatersrand
The Audit Report on the University of the Witwatersrand makes a total of 10 commendations and 17 recommendations. Of these, 1 commendation and 7 recommendations can be seen to apply to teaching and learning. The following table identifies those which are relevant.
Commendations
|
Recommendations
|
The HEQC commends the University of the Witwatersrand for/on
3. the development of a strategy to professionalise teaching and learning as a way to improve the quality of students’ educational experience at the institution.
|
The HEQC recommends that the University of the Witwatersrand:
1. develop a common understanding of what it means to be in the ‘top 100’ research-driven universities in the world, why this is important for the university, and the measures to be undertaken to achieve this goal.
2. continue to develop and implement strategies that will allow it to identify and act upon those areas where the tension between central management and academic collegiality may be endangering academic freedom and discouraging innovation and creativity. Similarly, it needs to identify aspects of this tension that might be used to resist change.
5. consider developing an overarching plan that gives clear expression to the institution’s conceptualisation of teaching and learning, and which sets out objectives, targets, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, as well as allocation of responsibilities and committed resources at Faculty level.
6. consider creating some form of co-ordination of academic development activities and projects as a way of providing more systematic support for institutional commitment to the professionalisation of teaching and learning.
7. examine the implications for teaching and learning of its vision of being a research focused university, in order to define innovative and more substantial articulation between research and teaching and learning.
8. reconceptualises staff development as a mechanism of support for the development and implementation of its conceptualisation of teaching and learning and that it finds a mechanism to align its approach to staff development. and the range of its offerings to the actual needs of staff.
|
Scrutiny of the recommendations and commendations made in the final case in the study affirms the trends identified in other cases. Recommendations are directed at structural issues but, underpinning each of these, is a need to work at the level of culture particularly where culture relates to the privileging of autonomy and of research. More directly than in some other Audit Reports, the Panel also asks the Institution to consider its identity as a ‘research-focused’ university with an ambition in relation to teaching and learning.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
