Semi-Annual Report of Institutional Progress
Yüklə 0,54 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Long-term Zululand
- N OTE: Short-term : 70 Long-term : 12 Workshop Activities
- Workshops Female Male Total
- Total 68 1500
- Workshop Date Female Male
- Recommendation for Year 5 It
Workshop_Activities'>N  OTE:
Short-term : 70 Long-term : 12 Workshop Activities Staff Development activities have taken place across the spectrum of curriculum development, institution specific, linkages, and student academic development activities. While UNCFSP acknowledges some difficulties with tracking the numbers of workshop participants, it has been able to obtain more reliable numbers from evaluation forms. The charts below were designed to provide an overall view of the approximate number of workshops conducted during Year 4 in the various components. The figures reveal that a total of 68 workshops.
The chart below provides a summary of Workshop Gender-based Attendance Random Workshops. During Year 5, UNCFSP will make a concerted effort to track all gender-based participation at TELP sponsored workshops.
51 V. Research Research interventions are designed as cross-cutting activities that are
As reported in previous Institutional Progress Reports, the most significant and the most prominent role in research continues to rest in the PILs. However, as linkage research reports become much more detailed, there is evidence that Linkage activities are also yielding substantive research output. Particularly, notable are linkage activities that are being conducted in sustainable development, in such areas as water resources, food resources, the environment; and engineering. Particularly, the Durban Institute for Technology, Peninsula Technikon, University of the Western Cape, Eastern Cape Technikon and Mangosuthu Technikon have made notable achievements in the area of research related to sustainable development. Linkage Partners have completed joint research projects, launched research journals, and have developed research training programmes for staff completing advanced degrees and for postgraduate students. Research units have been established at a number of institutions since the inception of TELP. Through the PIL process, research units have been established at Mangosuthu, Technikon Northern Gauteng, the University of Durban-Westville and the Durban Institute for Technology. Substantial research activities have been reported on in the institutional semi-annual progress reports for Peninsula Technikon, University of the Western Cape, and Eastern Cape Technikon. Linkage researchers have played a more active role in communicating the results of the linkage research activities. Linkage researchers are gaining capacity to audit activities and the determine the benefits to their institutions. Nonetheless, Linkage Researchers need training in research methodology and more opportunities to share their findings at workshops and conferences. An indication of the most prevalent issues with the linkage research were discussed by the U.S. Linkages Program Manager, Dr. Shelby Lewis. Dr. Shelby Lewis reported that while the Linkage Research reports provided encouraging information on the achievements and outcomes of linkage activities and made recommendations for improving the effectiveness of linkage grants, the quality and content of the reports were uneven. Some of the reports were based on carefully prepared and analyzed survey data, while others provided apparently casual observations about linkage grant activities. It was instructive to note that there was a positive correlation between the 52 quality and comprehensive nature of reports and the effectiveness of linkage grant activities. Furthermore, not all researchers provided sections on best practices and lessons learned. Some subsumed all problems, lessons learned and best practices under the umbrella term: Challenges. Despite the variations in section titles, comments on challenges and problems were grouped into two general categories. Both were seen as constraints to the success of linkage grants. The first category is management and institutional resources. This issue in this category focuses on constraints within the HDIs. The second category has to do with equity and roles within the partnerships. The issues focus primarily on concerns about U.S. partners. On the matter of management and institutional resources, researchers emphasized the negative impact of faculty and staff shortages and turnovers on the delivery of programs. As one Linkage Researcher put it: "faculty turnover was a hindrance to the continuity of project activities as was lack of enthusiasm from some university leaders in ensuring that objectives are accomplished. Additionally, timeliness was frequently sited as a challenge. Researchers felt that coordinators did not inform people in good time about important activities/workshops on campus and suggested that partners should discuss and agree on programs, place them into their workplans and adhere firmly to the timeframes. The importance of U.S. partners strengthening institutional relations by visiting senior management when on campus was emphasized in many reports. Researchers noted that it was essential that site visits be used to obtain firm commitments from management regarding timelines and activities. This was viewed as a useful way to mediate institutional rigidity and lack of understanding, especially regarding the implications of constraints such as delays on project implementation. On the matter of equity, collaboration was seen as the most important feature of successful partnerships. In this regard, the systemic factors that undergird the problem of inequity were indiscriminately tied to relational and process problems between linkage partners. One researcher noted that "programmes must be designed by institutions which see each other as equal partners." Another researcher addressed the same issue by saying that "linkage leaders must tackle difficult issues collaboratively... a problem which involves two institutions requires all stakeholders to at least engage in an attempt to solve it professionally." A third researcher noted that "Healthy and ongoing communication between partners cannot be overemphasized." On the whole, researchers concluded that both parties should operate at the same level in order to facilitate progress and a long lasting linkage relationship. Regardless of constraints and/or frustrations, all of the reports indicate that real progress is being made by linkage partners. There are, however, significant variations in project objectives. In instances where the focus of 53 linkage activities were clearly defined at the outset, outcomes are unambiguous and problems related to collaboration and equity are few. Moreover, when senior management is involved in linkage activities, on both sides of the partnership, delays, frustrations and relationship problems are minimal. Both outcomes and challenges are highlighted in the individual summaries that follow. As in previous years, the greatest challenges for the research component remains that of funding for research activities. Because the research focus area was subsumed under the other project activity components, its importance has somehow evaded some of the institutions. More activities need to be forged that bring attention to the important role that research plays in curriculum development, management and administration, and student academic development. Recommendation for Year 5 It is recommended that more specific guidelines be provided to Linkage Researchers to ensure that they are able to effectively communicate the strengths and weaknesses of their grants. Yüklə 0,54 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||