Chapter 7 

Issues Related to Academic Policy 

This chapter does not propose policy per se, instead it attempts to engage with a number of implementation challenges and issues currently facing those who design, teach and administer academic programmes. These challenges are not originated by the New Academic Policy. They have been raised by the policy as well as the practices that have constituted the context of higher education since 1994. Where appropriate, this chapter points out how the New Academic Policy might relate to the issues under discussion.

7.1 Admissions and the Widening of Access 

Currently the admission requirements for higher education are as follows: 

Admission to Univerities 

To register for degree study at a public university in South Africa a learner needs to be in possession of a Senior Certificate with a matriculation endorsement, a certificate of complete or conditional matriculation exemption, or needs to be awarded graduate status. The ministerially approved regulations published in terms of the provisions of Section 74 of the Higher Education Act, as amended, set out the criteria and rules under which the various types of certificates of endorsement, complete and conditional exemption may be granted. The administration of this admissions policy is undertaken on behalf of the universities by the Matriculation Board of SAUVCA. The rules governing both endorsement and exemption status are extremely complex, especially in terms of the required combinations of Grade 12 subjects. Some universities also offer initial diplomas, e.g. in the case of teacher education. For these programmes, students may be admitted to a university with only a Senior Certificate. 

Universities are also allowed to set additional admission requirements for specific programmes over and above the minimum mentioned above. This is established practice for professional degrees, especially for the health professions. In most cases this has been due to infrastructural limitations and to agreements between the universities and the professional board/council in question. In those programmes where mathematics and science feature strongly, it is common practice for universities to specify minimum Grade 12 performance levels in these subjects. More recently, as universities have developed more focused programmes in response to demands for greater relevance and responsiveness, this practice has become more widespread. An increasing number of universities are now also specifying additional minimum requirements for language. 

During the 1990s, exceptions to this admissions policy were allowed and the number of students admitted by exception is on the increase due to the misfit between the policy, the government’s strong equity agenda and the reality that the number of students exiting the schooling system with matriculation endorsement or exemption is on the decline. The Joint Statute of the Universities allows the Matriculation Board to issue a certificate of conditional exemption ‘to a person who, in the opinion of the senate of a university, has demonstrated, in a selection process appointed by that senate, that he or she is suitable for admission to bachelor’s degree studies, which certificate shall be valid for admission to that university only’. This practice, known as Senate Discretionary Conditional Exemption, has been used with increasing frequency in the past few years as universities have responded to falling student numbers and the inadequate matriculated throughput from the schooling system. Senate Discretionary Conditional Exemption could be viewed as a form of recognising prior learning, in that the university concerned admits students who do not meet the statutory admission requirements, provides them with an academic development programme (a form of appropriate prior learning) and then assesses and recognises this prior learning as the equivalent of a Senior Certificate with Endorsement/Exemption. Under the New Academic Policy, this practice will be streamlined through the recognition and subsidy of Foundation programmes and Certificates which will be designed to articulate with, and to provide access to, a range of higher education programmes.   

Also under the Senate Discretional Conditional Exemption concession, some universities have recently instituted institution-specific entrance tests for prospective students. In most cases, all students with a Senior Certificate below a certain aggregate are required to write these tests. The results are normally used to assist university administrators make alternative admissions and placement decisions. This development is due largely to the now widely accepted fact that the Senior Certificate is only a good predictor of academic performance for those students with the top range of scores. Admissions based solely on Senior Certificate results for those with lower range scores are therefore believed to exclude unfairly many students with academic potential. However, it is undesirable in the long-term to allow a system of dual testing to develop (whereby students are required to write both a school-leaving and a university entrance exam). Ideally, we need to develop one form of assessment which can serve both purposes. 

Admission to Technikons

As is the case for universities, admission requirements for study at a technikon are determined in the Joint Statute for Technikons by the CTP. At present a learner must be in possession of a Senior Certificate to be eligible to enrol for technikon study. Technikons are also empowered to set additional admission requirements for specific programmes. Once again, programmes which involve the study of mathematics and science often have such additional requirements. Contrary to universities, technikons do not distinguish between admission requirements for diploma and degree study. This is because the admission requirement for the Bachelor of Technology Degree is currently an appropriate National Diploma or equivalent (a Career-focused Bachelor’s Degree under the New Academic Policy). Since admission to a National Diploma requires only a pass in the Senior Certificate there was no need to introduce a different admission requirement for degree study at the technikons.   

Obviously, the fact that current academic policy allows for lower admissions requirements for the technikon sector than for the university sector poses a problem for the alignment and articulation of qualifications from the two sectors on a common qualifications framework. The New Academic Policy seeks to overcome this difficulty by introducing the Articulation Column, (see Chapter 4) which prevents the assumption of automatic progression and provides a ‘curriculum space’ for additional learning to be completed prior to further progression on the framework. Furthermore, the framework is based on the assumption that a common minimum statutory admissions requirement, the Further Education and Training Certificate (FETC) will be developed for all higher education sectors in the future.

The basis for this development has been laid in the new legislative and policy context. The White Paper commits government to promoting equity of access to higher education and to increased and broadened participation in higher education, specifically in terms of race and gender. Based on this commitment, the White Paper proposes a FETC to replace the present Senior Certificate, as the minimum statutory requirement for entry into all higher education programmes. In addition, the White Paper strongly supports the development of criteria and mechanisms to recognize prior learning with a view to admitting non-traditional students to higher education institutions. 

The Higher Education Act does not specify a minimum admissions requirement for study in higher education. While providing for the continuation of present admission arrangements to public higher education institutions as administered by the Matriculation Board of SAUVCA and by the CTP, it also re-affirms the right of public higher education institutions to determine their own admissions policies subject to the provisions of the act. This includes the right to determine entrance requirements for particular programmes, student numbers for particular programmes and the manner of their selection. Institutions are obliged to publish their admissions policies. The act also requires that ‘the admissions policy of a public higher education institution must provide for the redress of past inequalities’. The Higher Education Act does not attempt to set a legislative framework for admission to private higher education institutions. It is assumed, however, that in applying for registration with the registrar of private higher education institutions, information concerning admission requirements will have to be furnished.   

As mentioned above, the public statement of admissions requirements is also required for the registration of qualifications with SAQA, applicable to both the private and the public sectors. For each qualification submitted for registration, SAQA requires a statement of the ‘learning assumed to be in place’ before learning for the qualification commences. Recently, in its FETC Policy Document (April, 2001), SAQA proposes the abolition of the Higher/Standard Grade distinction made in the current Senior Certificate exam and recommends that a simple pass in the FETC should be the statutory minimum requirement for admission to all institutions in the higher education sector. SAQA regards the endorsement/exemption requirement on the Senior Certificate for admission to universities as an obstacle to widening access. But, whilst SAQA is against the imposition of an additional overlay (or coarse sieve) on the proposed FETC, SAQA is obliged to recognize the right of individual higher education institutions, granted in the Higher Education Act, to impose additional entry requirements (a fine sieve) at the level of particular programmes (on condition that these are publicly and transparently stated). SAQA has proposed that the FETC serve three purposes:   

There is now general acceptance that these three purposes will not be met in a single assessment. There are likely to be multiple FETCs one of which will have an academic focus, designed to articulate with higher education entry requirements. 

In the National Plan, the DoE makes more explicit its position on access, already outlined in the White Paper. It suggests that the current participation rate of 15% of the 20–24 year old cohort is too low and that, as a middle income country, South Africa should boast a participation rate of at least 20%. However, the National Plan recognizes that it will be difficult to increase the annual intake of new students in the short-to medium-term (National Plan, 2001: 22), because of the chronic mismatch in output from the schooling system and the entry requirements of higher education. This fact is also recognized by SAQA in its FETC Discussion document, which notes that:   

In 1999 only 12% of all Grade 12 candidates who offered the Senior Certificate qualified for entry to universities, i.e. achieved the Senior Certificate with a matriculation endorsement. This percentage does not take into account the high drop-out rates lower down in the system. When these are considered, it is closer to 6% of learners who should be in the school-leaving cohort who gained a Senior Certificate with exemption. A closer consideration of that cohort indicates that less than 2% of learners had Mathematics (either at functional, standard or higher grade) within their qualifying subject package (SAQA FETC Policy Document, April, 2001: 11-12). 

Likewise, the DoE notes that in 2000, less than 20 000 school-leavers obtained a Higher Grade Senior Certificate pass in Mathematics (National Plan, 2001: 20). Given these realities, the National Plan sets a very modest target for the higher education system with respect to increasing participation rates, suggesting that the increase to 20% occur over the next 10–15 years. In terms of head-counts, first-time intakes per annum will need to increase from 120 000 to 188 000 (National Plan, 2001: 22).   

The National Plan also wants the social base from which students are drawn to be broadened. It suggests that this can be achieved if higher education institutions: 

Finally, the National Plan also states that the low enrolments in postgraduate programmes needs to be urgently addressed.[1] It also encourages increased recruitment of graduate students from the SADC countries, endorsing the SADC Protocol which commits member states to targeting a maximum of 10% of student places for SADC students from other countries. 

The proposed New Academic Policy presented in this report will contribute to the widening of access in the following ways: firstly, the qualifications framework for higher education is based on the assumption that the future common minimum statutory requirement for admission to higher education will be the FETC, whilst the right of higher education institutions to determine their own programme-specific additional entry requirements will be upheld. The reasons for this position are that it has been clear for two decades now, that the current Senior Certificate and matriculation policy cannot deliver a sufficiently large pool of potential higher education applicants that the country requires. However, as the FETC is likely to drop the concept of the Matriculation Board’s additional statutory requirements for entry to universities, and thus ‘lower entry standards’ it is all the more important to allow higher education institutions to impose their own additional requirements for particular programmes, to ensure that admission, selection and placement is carried out in a responsible manner. The challenge is to widen access, and at the same time to improve graduation rates and contain the cost of the higher education system.   

However, improving and simplifying the school-leaving exam will not necessarily solve the underlying problem that a largely dysfunctional public schooling system is unable in the short-term to deliver school-leavers who are prepared for higher education study. It is a matter of debate the extent to which the burden of this disarticulation in the public education system should be borne by the higher education sector. Some argue that this problem should be addressed by the schooling and Further Education and Training sectors, and that higher education institutions should not be expected to ‘lower their standards’ indefinitely to accommodate under-prepared school leavers. The position taken here is that the problem can best be addressed through partnerships between the Further Education and Training and Higher Education sectors. The NAP aims to facilitate this process on the part of the higher education sector through the following mechanisms:   

The development of a valid and reliable FETC that will serve as admission to higher education 

As stated above, the qualifications framework is premised on a single, common minimum entry requirement for higher education. The development of the FETC is being undertaken jointly by the stakeholders involved, namely the DoE, SAQA, SAUVCA and the CTP. To this end, SAUVCA has suggested that the FETC exam should be graded to enable the responsible placement of learners in a differentiated access system. Secondly, higher education representatives through SAUVCA and the CTP will need to determine exactly what are the key competencies or learning outcomes required for minimum admission to higher education study. According to SAUVCA, research to date suggests that competence in academic literacy in the required medium of instruction (usually English) and in Mathematical literacy are the key factors in determining academic success. If it is to serve its purpose, these competencies will need to be defined and built into the FETC (or if necessary, into an FETC especially designed for higher education entrance). Furthermore, the grading of the proposed FETC will facilitate the responsible placement of students in specific higher education programmes. 

The recognition of prior learning 

This provides a second mechanism for widening access. But the recognition of prior experiential learning is particularly difficult to implement. The development of various certificates in the Articulation Column of the qualifications framework will facilitate the implementation of recognition of prior learning (RPL) because the learning outcomes for these qualifications will provide the benchmarks against which applicants’ prior learning can be assessed for admission to a programme in the Articulation Column. Such additional, but short and intensive programmes, followed by assessment, will facilitate non-traditional entry into target mainstream programmes. (For further discussion see 7.2 below.)   

Differentiated access 

The qualifications framework is premised on a notion of differentiated access, i.e. it is designed to facilitate the judicious placement of learners in a variety of curriculum options, depending on the ‘goodness of fit’ between learners' past learning experiences and achievements and the entry requirements of their target programmes. This should contribute greatly to the overall efficiency of the system. For example, the system now offers learners the following variety of post-FETC options:   

The possibility of a 240-credit diploma in both tracks 

This possibility means that higher education institutions may be encouraged to take greater risks in terms of widening access. The possibility of an early exit from the system, (with a recognized and marketable exit qualification) could serve as a second sieve further up the system, enabling those students who are deemed unlikely to succeed at degree level study to exit the system at the end of Level 6. 

Widening access to postgraduate study 

The NAP’s proposal for the offering of Graduate, Postgraduate and Master’s Certificates in the Articulation Column, some of which will be specifically designed to prepare graduates for Master’s level research, will contribute to addressing this concern. Such programmes will serve as a form of ‘academic development’ for postgraduate study and should be designed to articulate with the entry requirements of particular Master’s programmes and to provide the foundations for ensuring success at postgraduate level studies. The range of curriculum possibilities presented in the framework at postgraduate entry level should enable South African higher education institutions to admit and place foreign students, particularly those from SADC countries, whilst ensuring a ‘good fit’ between their past and future learning experiences. 7.2 The Recognition of Prior Learning 

The practice of the recognition of prior learning (RPL) is recommended in the White Paper as one means of meeting the equity and redress agenda. One of the more comprehensive South African definitions of RPL is quoted below: 

RPL is a way of recognising what individuals already know and can do. RPL is based on the premise that people learn both inside and outside formal learning structures (including learning from work and life experience) and this learning can be worthy of recognition and credit … RPL is used extensively by those seeking: admission to a course; advanced standing for a course; or credits towards a qualification. It can also be used by those seeking entry to a particular field of employment; promotion or self-development (Harris et al, July 1994: 2). Thus in higher education, RPL is used for two purposes, usually directed at two different target groups: 

It is important to distinguish between two types of RPL: 

The first type is relatively simple to implement, provided there is a common means of assigning value to both the learner’s previous qualification and the target qualification. As discussed above, the South African qualifications framework provides a standardised currency, via the mechanisms of level and credit, for determining the value of learning. However, the recognition of prior experiential learning is far more difficult to implement, as it involves designing instruments which will capture, measure and evaluate learning which has been acquired experientially, and often informally, in a range of differing contexts. This is usually done by trying to match previous learning with the learning outcomes of a target qualification, and by this means translating the prior learning into the ‘levels and credits’ currency of the qualifications framework, thus enabling it to be recognised in the formal system. This is where the short, more skills-based Certificate programmes in the Articulation Column may prove particularly useful, for the learning outcomes for these programmes are more likely to lend themselves to this process than those in the General and Career-focused Tracks which require more content depth and take longer to obtain.   
The recognition of both types of prior learning, accredited and experiential, usually involves the following process. Typically a candidate is advised to reflect on his/her prior learning and experience in the light of identified learning outcomes. The candidate then gathers evidence and presents it (usually in the form of a portfolio) to demonstrate the extent to which s/he has attained the outcomes via previous learning. The evidence is then assessed and, if a successful match is demonstrated, credit or a qualification is awarded. Many RPL procedures emphasise that it is learning (however it may have been achieved) and not experience which is to be assessed, and that this assessment should be done by qualified staff using a range of assessment methods which are quality assured. Some higher education institutions have developed policies and procedures for the implementation of RPL, and this is to be encouraged. The development of ad hoc, idiosyncratic applications of RPL should be discouraged. 
  
The definitions and procedures for RPL described above are based on two assumptions: 

Perhaps because there is not agreement on these assumptions, RPL remains a highly contested area in higher education. A key issue in the RPL debate is the nature of different kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing, and whether or not RPL can serve as a catalyst for the transformation of the higher education curriculum. It is widely recognised that different communities of knowledge and practice are based on different epistemic and ontological assumptions about what counts as knowledge, about the ‘rules’ that have to be observed in the production and evaluation of that knowledge, and by the discrete discourses used to think and talk about knowledge. The challenge for implementing RPL in higher education lies in the constraints on recognising ‘other’ forms of knowledge from within highly specialised, abstracted and formalised knowledge forms. If higher education institutions are to take up the RPL challenge, they will need to develop appropriate, consistent and quality assured RPL policies, practices and assessment instruments based on the specification of entry requirements and learning outcomes. 

7.3 Academic Development Programmes 

Academic development programmes (AD) have developed in South African public higher education institutions in various forms since the early 1980s, when, as historically white institutions began admitting small numbers of black students from Department of Education and Training schools, it became clear that the majority of such under-prepared or disadvantaged students required additional learning opportunities to prepare them to succeed in higher education. Originally, AD programmes were designed as ‘add-on’, supplementary programmes which were neither credit-rated nor subsidised. Whilst AD programmes have remained dependent on donor funding, many have now become integrated into mainstream programmes in the form of extended curricula. As discussed in 7.1, most AD programmes in universities are linked to ‘alternative access’ practices at entry level, based on Senate Discretionary Conditional Exemption.   

In highlighting the principles of equity and redress, the White Paper expressed the concern that increased access should lead to improved success or graduation rates, especially for black and female students. The White Paper supported the offering of academic development programmes and extended curricula as a means of achieving this. More recently, in its National Plan, the DoE has expressed its concern that the retention rate in some higher education sectors is down by 10%, and that current drop-out rates (an average of 20% for all students and an average of 25% for first-time entering students) is ‘unacceptable’. (National Plan, 2001: 21). Although the reasons for these depressing statistics must be multiple, academic exclusion is undoubtedly one. Unsurprisingly, the DoE wants increased participation rates to be complemented by increased graduation rates and, in the National Plan, it exhorts all higher education institutions ‘to prioritise and focus their efforts in the next 5 years on improving the efficiency of the outputs of the system’. (National Plan, 2001: 23). The National Plan does not spell out exactly how this is to be achieved, but it does link improved efficiency to high quality teaching, the offering of AD programmes and responsible selection and exclusion:   
Higher education institutions have a moral and educational responsibility to ensure that they have effective programmes in place to meet the teaching and learning needs of the students they admit. ... Higher education institutions should integrate academic development programmes into their overall academic and financial planning … Higher education institutions need to ensure that they do not recruit students who do not have the potential to pursue further study and that they do not retain students who have no chance of success. … Add-on academic development programmes are not best practice, because they focus only on preparedness for access. The focus should rather be on academic success via the enrichment of learning in an extended curriculum… The fact that students meet normal admissions criteria does not necessarily imply that they are not at risk. ... The role of academic development programmes in improving the efficiency of the higher education system in terms of graduate outputs is crucial (National Plan, 2001: 25). Here the DoE expands the concept of an AD programme to include extended curricula or enrichment learning activities, not only at access level but also throughout a programme. 

There is very little large-scale empirical research to support the DoE’s assumption about the ability of AD programmes to improve the efficiency of the higher education system. A longitudinal study at the University of Natal (see Miller et al, 2001) designed to evaluate retrospectively the long term learning effects of a large integrated AD Programme in Psychology shows the following results.[3] Firstly, the study establishes what is already well known, that Matric points scores are only a reliable indicator of university performance for L1 students with high Matric point scores. The study also shows that the effects of the AD programme were not uniform; those students who initially fell into the under-prepared group with low performance on entry, subsequently split into two groups. The first group of ‘low performers on entry’ who showed improvement on tutorial assessments during the first year, eventually passed third year, obtaining the highest average mark for all groups identified in the study. These results show that for a small percentage of students initially labelled ‘under-prepared’, appropriate intervention at the beginning of their academic studies enabled them to realize their latent academic potential, which was already evident by the end of the first year. The second, larger group of ‘low performers on entry’, who showed a decline in performance on the tutorial assessments during the Foundation year, sustained their low performance through to the third year, which they failed. Miller et al conclude that this group of students may have benefited from a more extensive and extended period of academic preparation at the beginning of their academic studies (rather than repeating third year), or they should have been excluded as ‘unprepared’ for academic studies earlier on.   

Clearly, the educational challenge is to design curricula which enable students from poor learning backgrounds to realize their academic potential, and which also identify, relatively early on, those students who will not succeed in higher education. In order to avoid wastage, the undergraduate curriculum thus needs to provide meaningful exit points for the latter. As discussed under 7.1 above, the qualifications framework provides for two types of traditional ‘add-on’ AD programme at access level, a Bridging programme, leading to a Bridging Certificate at Level 4 and a Foundation programme, leading to a Foundation Certificate at Level 5. It also allows the possibility that these be integrated with a 240 credit Diploma, a 360 credit Bachelor’s or a 480 credit Advanced Bachelor’s Degree to provide an extended curriculum. The Bridging and Foundation certificates could also serve as exit points, although their marketability is untested. The 240 credit Diploma provides an important and probably more marketable exit point for those who after 2 or 3 years in the system, have demonstrated that they are unlikely to succeed at degree level studies. In short:   

As discussed under 7.1, the DoE is also concerned to improve postgraduate enrolment and output rates. The suite of certificates in the Articulation Column at Levels 7, 8: PG1 and 8: PG2 offer opportunities to design programmes that could facilitate access to, and preparation for, postgraduate studies, and thus contribute to the improvement of postgraduate enrolment rates and the research outputs of the system. Those certificates at Levels 7, 8: PG1 and 8: PG2 which offer curricula especially designed to develop research competence could be recognized as ‘graduate AD programmes’. These qualifications could also provide an exit point for those students not willing or able to proceed to research degrees.   

With respect to the funding of AD programmes, although the Funding Framework suggests that only discrete ‘AD programmes’ will be funded (thus implying an add-on model), it is clear from the statements in the National Plan quoted above, that both the add-on and the integrated models are recognized, but for funding purposes, the integrated model will have to be accounted for as a 1 + x year qualification. Higher education institutions may also apply for ear-marked funding to develop and run AD programmes, particularly in those disciplines/fields where black, female and disabled students are under-represented, and possibly also for the graduate AD programmes proposed above. 7.4 Building ‘Generic Skills’ into the Higher Education Curriculum   

In recent decades, with the shift from elite to mass higher education systems, there has been a crisis about the purpose of higher education. As the old liberal educational aims have given way to a more instrumentalist paradigm, higher education the world over now has to operate under accountability, responsiveness, efficiency and quality assurance pressures and checks by governments and employers. Higher education is required, at least in part, to contribute to economic development and to prepare students for employment. One response by education systems to these pressures is to claim to develop in students sets of ‘generic skills’, ‘general transferable skills’, ‘key skills’, ‘enterprise skills’ ‘competence’, ‘capability’, or in the South African context, SAQA’s ‘critical cross-field outcomes’. The SAQA Regulations require that all qualifications develop these critical cross-field outcomes in learners, and applications for the registration of qualifications on the NQF are supposed to demonstrate how these have been incorporated into the outcomes of the qualification concerned. In its 1998/99 Annual Report, the CHE distinguishes between skills for economic productivity and skills for citizenship in a participatory democracy, and suggests that the development of both is important for the South African context. In its National Plan, the DoE supports this position and exhorts higher education institutions to produce graduates with ‘enhanced cognitive skills’:   

It is crucial to equip all graduates with the skills and qualities required for participation as citizens in a democratic society and as workers and professionals in the economy. This should not be seen in a simplistic vocational sense, as there is increasing evidence to suggest that narrowly technical skills are becoming less important than knowledge management and organization skills (National Plan, 2001: 31). 

The higher education system as a whole needs to be ‘geared towards addressing the skills and competencies required of all graduates in the modern world’ (National Plan, 2001: 31). Further, in their 3 year rolling plans, higher education institutions are to include the strategies that they are using ‘to restructure the curricula content and framework of all programmes to ensure that they develop the cognitive skills necessary for all graduates’ (National Plan, 2001:34).   

However, even a brief survey of the literature suggests that there is enormous conceptual confusion as to what these ‘generic skills’ are. The terms are used very loosely in a variety of contexts and the same words are used to mean different things. There is a plethora of lists of generic skills with a common core.[4] Research on what employers really want from graduates shows contradictory results. Research by Harvey et al (1997: 5) suggests that employers in the UK referred more to attributes such as flexibility, adaptability and the ability to transform organizations in response to change, rather than to explicitly defined skills. Along similar lines, Bridges (1992) has suggested that more important than the development of ‘transferable skills’ is that of ‘transferring skills’ such as meta-cognition, reflexivity, flexibility and adaptability which enable people to adjust and cope with novel situations.   

A second problem with the concept of ‘generic skills’ is that it is based on the myth of transferability. It is assumed that skills learnt in educational environments can be automatically transferred to various employment contexts. However, this assumption is highly questionable. Research on learning and cognitive development suggests that the development and practice of skills is ‘domain-dependent’, i.e. inseparable from the context in which they are learnt, and that the higher the level of the skill, the more domain-dependent it is likely to be. Situated learning theory suggests that all learning is context-embedded and that situational and contextual factors largely determine the nature of learning.   

A third problem related to the ‘generic skills’ enterprise is the limitations of the outcomes-based method of curriculum design. If higher education institutions are aiming to prepare graduates for a future which is more or less unknown, then the requirement to specify very explicitly what must be learnt can become a limiting factor. Furthermore, there is a danger that behaviourist notions of competence lead people to imagine that students possess a tool-kit of skills, which can be consistently observed through performance. Learning theory suggests that this is not the case, and that performance is far more context-dependent and complex than a behaviourist interpretation of outcomes-based education allows. Bowden and Marton (1998) argue that competence is more than the ability to put knowledge and skills into action; that effective action is dependent on effective ways of seeing a situation. They suggest that learners should therefore learn how to conceptualise the application of knowledge and skills in ways that are appropriate to the aims and practices of a particular career or profession. They argue further that because the future is unpredictable, learners should be exposed to powerful learning environments which force them to experience variations of application and to integrate disciplinary content with critical dimensions of professional or employment frameworks and contexts. Holmes (1999) takes a more extreme position and insists that an activity can only be recognized as a performance if it is an instantiation of a social practice appropriate to a particular occupation, profession or social context and that, likewise, the actor needs to occupy a particular social identity or position. He argues that becoming a graduate and an employee is an on-going identity project; that graduates will only really discover what is required of them when they occupy a position or identity within an employment organization. Holmes (1999: 90) suggests that the development of generic skills may therefore be useful for the academic context, but that they are of dubious utility in employment contexts because they are ‘ecologically invalid’.   

We can draw the following conclusions from the research literature for higher education practice. Firstly, the teaching of ‘generic skills’ as add-on modules in isolation from a disciplinary or professional context should be avoided, because transfer is unlikely to happen. Secondly, the teaching and learning of ‘generic skills’ needs to be contextualised and integrated into the knowledge and skills of a discipline or field. Thus ‘generic skills’ will come to have very different meanings in different contexts. The curriculum will need to provide students with varied opportunities for the application of their knowledge and skills in target employment contexts linked to particular social practices and identities. The development of ‘generic skills’ will be enhanced in a curriculum that offers a range of rich learning environments that allow students to be part of a ‘community of practice’, serving cognitive and social apprenticeship in authentic domain activities. This suggests that initiatives such as community-based and workplace learning should be encouraged (see 7.5 below). Finally, if learners are to develop the capacity to transfer their skills to new situations, they will need to develop high order critical, reflexive and meta-cognitive skills. These conclusions suggest the need for caution in assuming that, for example, the generic skills listed in the level descriptors can be read off directly from the learning outcomes of particular programmes, or that a particular generic skill can be learnt through a discrete unit standard and then applied to a wide range of contexts thereafter. SAQA’s injunction that the critical outcomes be integrated into all qualifications needs, at the higher education level, to be interpreted and contextualised by professional experts or academics in the field concerned. 7.5 Credit-rating Experiential Learning 
  
As higher education institutions respond to the White Paper’s social responsibility and citizenship development agenda, experiential learning is likely to become a more common feature of the higher education curriculum in the future. Increasingly, higher education institutions will be obliged to form co-operative partnerships with the public and private sectors, and with local professions and communities, in order to deliver graduates and research outputs that meet the needs of society and the economy. The White Paper goes so far as to suggest that in the South African context, community service could become an overarching strategy for the transformation of the higher education system.   
Co-operative education and experiential learning are terms used by the technikon sector to describe the integration of ‘productive work’ into the career-focused curriculum. Traditionally, university professional programmes have required students to complete practical components, variously termed ‘clinicals’, ‘practicums’, ‘pracs’, etc. Community-based learning or service learning are terms recently introduced to the university sector’s vocabulary to describe learning in a local community context, often with a community service ethos.   
Co-operative education aims to prepare a technikon graduate for a particular vocation or profession. It is based on a co-operative partnership between a technikon, an employer and a student, which allows the student to experience a work placement, usually in industry, commerce or the public sector, under the supervision of a mentor. The concept of co-operative education is based on the application of the theory and knowledge learnt in the technikon classroom, and the development of practical skills using recent technology and techniques in a real workplace context. The technikon movement also emphasizes the importance of the experiential learning that occurs in these contexts for the development of attitudes such as responsible citizenship and professional ethics. Student progress in experiential learning is usually assessed via the use of logbooks, project reports, student interviews and a report from the mentor. The technikon movement insists that the academic and experiential components of its curriculum are inter-dependent, and that together they provide a learning experience adequate to meeting the demands specified in the learning outcomes of technikon programmes and qualifications (CTP & SASCE June 2000: 6).

Traditional practical components in a university professional programme usually involve the student being placed in a professional work context, being mentored by a professional and being given structured opportunities to practice the profession. 

Community-based learning has been defined as a ‘dynamic process linking real community problems with student learning, research and development (Nuttall & Lazarus, 2000: 1). It usually involves student placements of various forms that are dependent on community partnerships and are linked to the curriculum and learning outcomes of social science programmes at universities. These placements often include community service, citizenship and leadership development aspects; all of which aim to contribute to social development in general. Community-based learning also relies on mentors, but these are usually based in communities rather than in a profession, industry or commerce. The roles of the mentors are similar to those described above, namely to support and direct learners on site, to liaise with academic staff, to provide role models for the students, to impart local and practical knowledge and skills and to assist in the assessment of the learners. The community-based learning movement insists that the assessment of students’ experiential learning should include evidence of the benefit to the community hosts of the students’ learning. They also recommend that a variety of innovative assessment methods be used (see 7.6 below).   

Experiential learning, practicums or community-based learning should be all credit-rated and assessed in ways comparable to any other form of learning undertaken in traditional learning environments such as the classroom or laboratory. However, the labour- and time-intensive nature of experiential learning means that the credit rating of this type of learning (based on notional study hours) is likely to become inflated. Nuttall and Lazarus suggest that this problem should be overcome using the following principle: that notional study time be recognized as occurring only in situations of active learning during the placements. Time spent on procedural and logistical tasks such as travelling to sites, organizing meals, etc. should not be recognized as notional study time. However, this remains a very rough guideline and a definition of ‘active learning’ in experiential contexts is not always clear-cut. It may be helpful to refer to the well-used experiential learning cycle designed by Kolb (1984). Kolb identifies four learning moments in the cycle: accommodating (acting/doing, concrete experience), diverging (reflective observation), assimilating (theorizing, abstract conceptualisation) and converging (planning/deciding, active experimentation). All four moments should be recognized as active learning and should therefore be credit-worthy. Nuttall and Lazarus suggest that students registering for experiential learning modules need to accept the additional time demands of these modules over traditional classroom-based ones.   
Experiential learning not only takes more time than traditional classroom-based learning, it also costs more. These additional costs will need to be covered by donor-funding, partnerships or through the securing of earmarked funding from the DoE. 

7.6 Outcomes-based Assessment 

Assessment serves social as well as educational purposes and hence needs to serve a variety of purposes. Different stakeholders want different things out of assessment. For example, students want to know what is expected of them, how they are progressing, how they will be judged, and they want recognition of their achievements. Lecturers want to know whether their students are mastering key concepts and skills, whether their teaching is effective and whether their assessments are comparable to that of their peers. Educational institutions want to know what standards of learning their graduates are achieving and how efficient their system is in terms of throughput rates. Employers want to know what they can expect of graduates, and governments want to know whether public institutions are providing value for the funding they receive. 
  
Assessment has been variously described as the heart of the student experience, the cash nexus of learning, the barometer of an educational system and the quality of teaching it provides, the point of high leverage for curriculum reform and the moment at which lecturers most intensely exert power over their students. Given the critical relationship between assessment and student learning and the need for greater accountability by the higher education sector, academic staff are obliged to take their assessment practice seriously and responsibly. 
  
In 7.4 we established that new trends in higher education demand that generic and applied competences as well as traditional knowledge bases are assessed in higher education. Clearly, conventional ways of assessing students, such as the unseen three-hour exam, are no longer adequate to meet these demands. The testing again and again of the same restricted range of skills and abilities can no longer be justified; instead of simply writing about performance, students should be required to perform in authentic or simulated real-world contexts. This demands innovative assessment approaches and methods, which ensure that all learning outcomes are in fact assessed, and that assessments add value to student learning. 

The New Academic Policy is based on the assumption that, for the time being at least, SAQA’s model of outcomes-based education is the dominant paradigm of curriculum development in South Africa. If one adopts an outcomes-based approach to assessment (as required by SAQA’s format for the registration of qualifications), then one is obliged to state quite explicitly to all stakeholders concerned what knowledge and skills (learning outcomes) one is assessing. This method of assessment design requires that the learning outcomes for a particular unit of learning be translated into pre-specified assessment criteria which students are given before they undertake the assessment task. Students’ performances are then transparently benchmarked or judged against these criteria.   

This leads us to an important distinction in assessment theory, namely that between criterion-referenced assessment, where student performance is judged against pre-specified criteria or standards, and norm-referenced assessment, where a student's performance is compared with that of his or her peers in the same class or cohort. Traditional assessment practices have tended to be implicitly both criterion- and norm-referenced, whilst the criteria against which student performance is judged have remained implicit. Objectivity in the testing process has been a prime consideration and a highly sought after, yet illusive, ideal. Criterion-referencing tends to be more transparent because of its explicit statement of criteria. In order to implement criterion-referenced or outcomes-based assessment, the following should be clear to all concerned: 

However, it is erroneous to suggest that criterion-referenced assessment and norm-referenced assessment are mutually exclusive. In practice, one tends to use a bit of each; for example, when norm-referencing, one tends to use an (often implicit) set of criteria to establish a norm in the first place, for example, 'I know a first when I see one'. Conversely, when criterion-referencing, one tends to compare students against a norm as well as against the set criteria (even if this is done unconsciously as one works through a set of scripts). Because both approaches have their limitations, a useful compromise which combines criterion- and norm-referencing is 'criteria-graded assessment'. 

Currently the trend in assessment is to move towards criterion-referencing. We advocate this type of assessment, provided one adopts a holistic approach. For example, one should pre-specify the required performance in fairly general terms and place the onus on the students to demonstrate how they have met the criteria. This means that one needs to be open to a range of possible ways of doing so and that one should allow post hoc recognition of the achievement of the criteria. The specification of assessment or performance criteria for each assessment task makes it possible to give detailed and accurate feedback to students. Criteria can also help establish agreement amongst different assessors, which improves the reliability (consistency) of the assessment. The possibility of improving the consistency of assessment across different times, places, institutions and assessors is particularly important for the project of establishing a national qualifications framework on which all qualifications in the higher education system are to be weighted and recognised.[5] But perhaps the greatest gain in adopting a criterion-referenced approach is that it enables one to achieve greater validity (accuracy) in assessment, while still paying some attention to reliability. 

Validity and reliability are terms adopted from psychometric testing. If we are to take assessment seriously, it is important to grasp how they apply to higher education practice and to understand that there tends to be a trade-off between these two important qualities in assessment. Generally speaking, validity is concerned with the accuracy and appropriateness of the methods of 'truth-seeking' in assessment. It refers to the appropriateness, usefulness and meaningfulness of the inferences made from the assessment results. In other words, one asks oneself 'Am I really assessing what I intended to assess, and are my intentions justifiable in the first place?’ This question links to both the question of 'fitness of purpose' (Are we assessing the right things?) and the question of 'fitness for purpose' (Are we assessing things right?).   
In this discussion, we have deliberately not used the terms 'measure' and 'measurement', to avoid the misconception that we can specify learning achievements precisely and that we can accurately measure whether students have attained them or not. Although we have emphasised the importance of accuracy or validity in assessment, it is crucial that we move away from 'scientific', ‘empirical’ or 'experimental' models of assessment, to 'interpretive' or 'judicial' models instead. Test designers should not attempt to specify assessment criteria so closely that the assessor's judgement is ruled out. In fact, a holistic approach to criterion-referenced assessment centres on the exercise of professional educational judgement, both for establishing the criteria in the first place and for matching the evidence against the criteria.   
The following strategies are likely to improve the validity of assessment:

If one prioritises validity concerns over reliability concerns in assessment, as this line of argument suggests, one is likely to find that this is best achieved by setting students authentic or applied tasks in contexts which closely simulate targeted real world contexts. However, the higher the validity of the assessment, the more difficult it becomes to achieve high levels of reliability. 

Reliability is concerned with issues of consistency in assessment such as, 'Can we assume that the results of performance can be generalised to other performances? Can we assume that the same results would be achieved on another occasion? Has the marker influenced the result in any way?' Research into assessment in higher education has shown that there can be great inconsistencies between the marking of different assessors and within the marking of a single assessor. This is less likely to be the case when one is assessing low level skills, but when assessing complex, integrated competences, the need for assessor judgment increases, and the likelihood of making accurate predictions about future performance decreases. 

The following strategies are suggested for reducing inconsistency in marking: 

Most higher education systems still require the numerical reporting of assessment results, yet we have stressed the qualitative nature of assessment judgments. How then is it possible to marry the two approaches in a way that is pedagogically justifiable and that meets the need to make reliable and valid educational decisions? One method that holds together the tensions between criterion- and norm-referencing is criteria-graded assessment. This involves taking the assessment criteria for a particular assessment task and re-describing these for each band/grade of achievement. These thus describe different levels of performance for the same set of learning outcomes and serve as hierarchical assessment criteria against which student performance can be judged. These graded criteria can be written at varying degrees of specificity or abstraction. When used as a marking instrument, a range of marks (usually 10%) can be prescribed for each level. This is done in a way that avoids the often-redundant distinctions made between awarding say 62% or 64%. A further advantage of the use of graded criteria based on a set of learning outcomes as a marking instrument is the meaningfulness of the criteria as feedback for students. Instead of receiving a percentage and possibly a vague, general comment, a student receives a more detailed, criterion-referenced explanation of how his/her performance was evaluated. 

Innovative approaches and methods of assessment need to be supported by institutional assessment policy frameworks. In many cases, the approaches and methods suggested above will require changes to traditional, exam-based assessment policies. Issues to (re) consider include: 

In conclusion, assessment should be understood as an interpretative, human exercise based on professional dialogue and judgment rather than on objective measurement. This suggests that the context of learning should be built into the picture and taken into account when judgments are made. A consequence of this position is the conviction that the closer assessment is to the teaching and learning process, the more valid, accurate and fair it is likely to be. This means that the design and marking of assessment in higher education must remain the responsibility of those who teach. It also means that teaching staff should share the power and responsibility to interpret what learning has taken place with students who, after all, are doing the learning! Assessment in higher education should therefore be site-based, locally controlled, context-sensitive and accessible to all stakeholders. If this is the case, then, due to high levels of validity, assessment results should be dependable and comparable, although not necessarily statistically reliable. The parameters and guidelines provided in this report and the adoption of the outcomes-based method of assessment, should contribute to the comparability, dependability and transparency of local assessment of student performance. 

7.7 Quality Assurance 

The White Paper proposes three steering mechanisms that the state will use to steer the higher education system towards its transformation agenda; planning, funding and quality assurance. These are wise choices, for any viable system must have structures to carry out the following functions: policy-setting and planning, monitoring and evaluation, control and resource allocation and development and improvement. In the post-1994 policy and legislative framework for higher education, these functions have been allocated to the following structures. The DoE, advised by the CHE, is responsible for setting policy and for planning (e.g. the White Paper, the National Plan and the three-year rolling planning process with higher education institutions). SAQA shares the planning function by laying down regulations for standard-setting and thus for the planning and design of qualifications.[6] The monitoring and evaluation function is given in the Higher Education Act to the CHE and its HEQC. Again, SAQA to some extent shares this function, through the establishment of its ETQAs. But, as explained below, the HEQC is the central, co-ordinating ETQA for higher education. The DoE controls funding for the public higher education sector and this is conditional upon providers meeting certain planning and evaluation requirements (the registration of qualifications with SAQA and the accreditation and evaluation of programmes by the HEQC). The development and improvement function is carried out by a range of role-players: individual higher education institutions, sectoral organizations such as SAUVCA and the CTP, and also by the HEQC. For a system to be viable, there need to be clear, unambiguous links between these four functions. For example, the academic planning frameworks and specifications laid down in this document should be reinforced by the HEQC in its programme accreditation and evaluation function. Likewise, the result of the HEQC’s accreditation and evaluation should have transparent implications for the decisions the DoE makes about the funding of programmes. Capacity development work should be geared towards ensuring that higher education institutions meet the planning and quality assurance requirements of the system.   
As mentioned above, the Higher Education Act assigned to the CHE statutory responsibility for quality assurance and quality promotion. A HEQC has now been established and is beginning to manage the three functions assigned to it by the act: 

(The HEQC is to carry out these functions within the policies already laid down by SAQA and to contribute to building the NQF and to the furthering of the goals of the White Paper, and now presumably the National Plan as well). It is the latter function, the accreditation of programmes in particular, to which this policy document relates. As the umbrella, co-ordinating ETQA for higher education, it is the HEQC’s responsibility to:   

accredit providers of higher education to offer programmes leading to particular NQF-registered qualifications by certifying that they have the systems, processes and capacity to do so. In relevant cases, this will be done co-operatively with professional councils and SETAs (HEQC Founding Document, 2001: 10). 

Under the SAQA system, professional councils and SETAs can also claim ETQA functions in the higher education sector, and the HEQC is currently working out memoranda of understanding with these bodies to ensure that any quality assurance functions which they may carry out are conducted within the ground-rules and parameters laid down by the HEQC. The HEQC will use the frameworks and parameters laid down in this document as the starting point for its accreditation and programme evaluation function and will expect other ETQAs to do the same. 

In the short-term, the HEQC is likely to continue to accredit all new programmes through a scrutiny of providers’ application forms but the HEQC will also begin to conduct site visits to confirm its accreditation judgments. It is the HEQC’s responsibility to ensure that the quality, integrity and appropriateness of all higher education qualifications are maintained. As a starting point, the HEQC will use the specifications in this document (e.g. the level descriptors and the qualification descriptors) as criteria by which to judge whether particular qualifications meet minimum quality thresholds. But, as suggested by the quotation from the Founding Document, the HEQC’s accreditation responsibility goes beyond this. In carrying out its accreditation function, the HEQC will also take into account further criteria relating to an institution’s mission and mandate, its capacity for high quality provision, the viability of a programme, matters of regional competition and collaboration and other criteria such as equity and innovation relating to the promotion of the transformation agenda of the White Paper and the National Plan. If the HEQC does not grant accreditation or decides to withdraw it, a programme may not be offered and, in the public sector, it will not be funded by the DoE.   

The HEQC has begun to expand its accreditation function to include a more detailed process of programme evaluation, which, as institutional and the HEQC’s capacity grow, will become the normal procedure for programme accreditation. This will build on higher education institutions’ self-evaluation procedures, and it is likely that the HEQC will work in co-operation with the professional councils and SETAs in this regard. Accreditation will eventually become conditional on the HEQC’s validation of a programme’s internal self-evaluation. Programme evaluations will, at least, involve judgments on the integrity and coherence of a programme’s design; on whether learners are in fact attaining the specified learning outcomes; scrutiny of providers’ assessment and moderation arrangements and judgments about the responsiveness, relevance and cost-effectiveness of programmes in relation to their provider’s mission and mandate.   

As the coordinating ETQA for higher education, the HEQC is also responsible for the certification of qualifying learners. The HEQC will delegate this responsibility to providers who meet the HEQC’s quality assurance criteria, determined through institutional audit.   

[1] The DoE estimates that only 6% of all university and technikon graduates progressed to postgraduate study in 1998 (National Plan, 2001: 73) 
[2] The fact that the DoE has undertaken to fund ‘academic development programmes’ in order to widen access and improve graduation rates means that Foundation programmes can now be taken to scale in a way that has not been possible in the past, when such programmes were dependent on dwindling sources of donor funding.   
[3] The study is based on the assumption that curriculum intervention (or an integrated AD programme) is the best solution to the problem of the articulation gap between schooling and university. 
[4] In the level descriptors described in Chapter 5, we selected only the most commonly used, namely, d. problem-solving, e. information management, f. communication, g. learning to learn; (items a. – c. in the South African level descriptors describe disciplinary/ field specific knowledge and skills).
[5] If one adopts a regional perspective, namely the need to recognise and weight qualifications across national boundaries (particularly in the SADC countries), then the shift to criterion-referenced assessment could be equally advantageous. It would allow educators to make sound judgements about the comparability of qualifications on the basis of scrutinising assessment criteria and the evidence required for their attainment. This would mean that students applying for admission to institutions and programmes across national boundaries could be judged on the basis of the criteria against which they were assessed, rather than on the basis of the reputation of the institution from which their previous qualification was obtained. 
[6] The proposed New Academic Policy is one further planning instrument which aims to make sense of the SAQA dispensation for HE and so takes the planning of programmes and qualifications one step further.