Student Support
through Extended
Programmes at South
African Universities
Prof AJM(Maritz) Snyders
Director: Centre for Extended
Studies
23rd First-year experience conference
Hawaii
Presentation outline
South Africa
South African Higher Education System
Port Elizabeth
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Alternative Access programmes at NMMU
• Foundation Programmes
• Extended Programmes
Evaluation of programmes
Conclusion
Port Elizabeth, South Africa
South Africa
Population of SA about 50 million in 2009
80% African, divided in 8 major indigenous groups with
Xhosa and Zulu the largest
10% White
9 Provinces
11 Official languages – only 17% English home
language
Capital Pretoria
Parliament in Cape Town
First Democratic election in 1994; ANC; President
Nelson Mandela; Jacob Zuma
South African Higher Education
 39 Universities and Technikons before 1994
 Historically divided on racial grounds
 Access to all opened after 1994
 Reduced though mergers in 2004/5 to 23, divided in 3
categories (political rather than educational reasons):
• Traditional universities offering general formative and
professional degrees up to Doctoral level
• Universities of Technologies offering diplomas and
certificates with a strong vocational focus
• Comprehensive universities offering both degrees and
diplomas
South African Higher Education
 Typical Diploma structure: 3-year qualification including:
- 2 years academic and practical work on campus
- 1 year experiential learning in a workplace situation
 Typical degree structure:
• 3-year undergraduate formative Bachelors
• 1-year specialized Honours
• Or 4-year professional Bachelors eg Pharmacy,
Engineering
• Masters and Doctors
 Current debates around extending the formal undergraduate
time by 1 year by including foundational support to improve
retention and graduation rates
Problems in SA HE
Unequal schooling system with learners from
township and rural schools unprepared for Higher
Education studies
Low participation rate of certain population groups
– pressure on universities to increase access
High drop-out rates
Low retention and graduation rates
Skewed level of performance between different
population groups
NATIONAL PARTICIPATION RATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Gross participation rate: All HE participants as % of 20-24 age-group
National HE participation rate was 17% in 2008
Graduation in regulation time
If we omit distance education students, only a
minority of the intake (about a third or fewer)
graduate in 4 years, even though most
programmes are formally 3 years or less.
All Programmes
(incl dist)
22%
Universities (excl dist)
36%
Technikons (excl dist)
26%
Graduation within 5 years (excl distance)
General academic first B-degrees (3-year
programmes)
Field of study
Overall
White
Black
Business/
Management
50%
72%
33%
Life & Physical Sciences
47%
63%
31%
Mathematical Sciences
51%
63%
35%
Social Sciences
53%
68%
34%
Languages
47%
68%
32%
Attempted solutions
 Variety of support programmes outside the
curriculum since mid 1990’s, but no special financial
support from government
Alternative access programmes
Earmarked foundational provision funding since
2004 in 3 year cycles for:
• One-year Foundation Programmes (only until
2006), and
• Extended Curriculum programmes
Debates about increasing minimum time of first
qualifications
Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Port Elizabeth
Port Elizabeth the largest city in Eastern Cape
About R1.2m people
Major automotive industry
Part of larger Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan
area
Host city for FIFA 2010 Soccer World Cup
Known as “Die Baai – The Bay”, “The Windy City”
or “The Friendly City”
Only one university in the Metropolitan area, the
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU),
also known as the No More Money University
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
 Comprehensive university formed in 2005 through the
merger of:
• University of Port Elizabeth
• Port Elizabeth Technikon (University of Technology)
• Port Elizabeth campus of Vista University
 22 000 students – 56% Black, 27% White, 52% Female
 5 campuses in Port Elizabeth and 1 in George
 English used as Language of Teaching & Learning
 About 26% with English as home language – 40% Xhosa;
15% Afrikaans – more than 30 diff home languages
 Eastern Cape worst school performance of all provinces
GEOGRAPHIC SPREAD OF ALL 2009 NMMU ENROLLED
STUDENTS
NMMU
 7 Faculties (Colleges or Schools):
• Sciences, Health Sciences, Arts, Business & Economic
Sciences, Law and Engineering, the Built Environment and
Information Technology
 Higher Education Access and Development Services
(HEADS)
• Centre for Extended Studies (CES)
• Centre for Teaching, Learning and Media
• Student Counselling
• Centre for Admission Assessment and Research
Alternative Access Programmes
 Pre-merger:
• One year foundation programmes at UPE (since 1999) &
PET (since 1997)
• 4-yr Science degree at UV (since 2001)
 Post merger
• One-year Foundation Programmes until end of 2006
• Replaced from 2007 by series of extended degree,
diploma and certificate programmes
 Decision to changed due to financial reasons and not
educational reasons
 Current debates about ownership and management
NMMU Foundation and extended ‘04 to ‘10
 Merger in 2005, but started to cooperate in this area in 2004
 2004 to 2006:
• Foundation for degrees in Science, Commerce, Pharmacy,
Nursing, Liberal Arts and Law
• Foundation for diplomas in Science, Engineering,
Commerce, Art and Health
 2007 onwards:
• 4-yr degrees in Science, Commerce, Liberal Arts
• 5-yr degrees in Pharmacy, Law, Nursing
• 4-yr diplomas in Chemistry, Accountancy, Art, Engineering,
Management
Foundation vs Extended
FOUNDATION
EXTENDED
Additional year between
school and university – also
called bridging year
Extending standard period of
study by 1 year by spreading
first year over 2 years
Non-credit bearing and not
funded by government
Credit-bearing and funded by
government (earmarked)
Foundational and preparatory First year content with
content
additional foundational
provision
Outcome to prepare for entry
into first year courses
Outcome similar to that of first
year courses
Intensive support over 1 year Less intensive support
spread over 2 years
Foundation vs Extended
FOUNDATION
EXTENDED
Lower admission
requirements – focus on
access
Stricter admission
requirements – focus on
throughput & retention
Strict rules for continuation to
mainstream
Less strict promotion criteria
Offered by AD specialists and Offered by AD specialists and
teachers
faculty
Managed from a centralized
unit
Matrix management between
central unit and faculties
Better integration between
different components
Better integration with
mainstream
Special support given in Found & Ext progs
 Holistic approach
• Academic and Life management programme
• Language development
• Career guidance
• Mentoring – individual and group
 Integration
• Skills and content
• Vertical between Foundational and mainstream
• Horizontal between different components
 Dedicated staff – teachers rather than lecturers
 Small groups (25 to 30) & out of classroom consultations
Success of foundation and extended
 Ultimate measure of success is the number of students
obtaining a qualification
 Formative impact on the lives of student, even if they do not
qualify can unfortunately not be measured
 Can only trace the performance of students staying at own
university – often looses best students to other places, and
are reflected as drop-outs
 Too early to determine graduation rates of extended
programme students as first intake of students in 2007 –
first graduants end of 2010
Programme Evaluations
 Quantitative evaluations:
• Course pass rates
- Annual reports to government
- Comparison with mainstream students
• Comparison of retention rates of Found & Ext
• Graduation rates of Found
 Qualitative evaluations:
• Annual survey of student experiences while in programmes
• Focus groups with students 2/3 years after leaving
programmes
• Survey of perceptions about extended programmes
Access and retention rates degrees
Start in yr n
UFP ‘04 to ‘06
1207
Ext deg ‘07 to ‘09
916 (3 cohorts)
yr n+1
889
819 (3 cohorts)
% of start in yr n+1
74%
89% (3 cohorts)
yr n+2
770
516 (2 cohorts)
% of start in yr n+2
64%
78% (2 cohorts)
% of yr n+1 in yr n+2
87%
88% (2 cohorts)
yr n+3
692
207 (1 cohort)
% of start in yr n+3
57%
67% (1 cohort)
% yr of yr n+1 in yr n+3
78%
77% (1 cohort)
Access and retention rates diplomas
FP ‘04 to ‘06
Ext Dip ‘07 to ‘09
First reg (yr n)
854
634 (3 cohorts)
yr n+1
564
495 (3 cohorts)
% of start in yr n+1
66%
78% (3 cohorts)
yr n+2
484
313 (2 cohorts)
% of start in yr n+2
57%
70% (2 cohorts)
% of yr n+1 in yr n+2
86%
89% (2 cohorts)
yr n+3
404
132 (1 cohort)
% of start in yr n+3
47%
55% (1 cohort)
% yr of yr n+1 in yr n+3
72%
67% (1 cohort)
Conclusion about access and retention
Include students continuing in same programme and
change to other qualifications
Greater levels of access provided through
Foundation (2061) than through Extended (1550)
Drop out much higher at end of first year in
Foundation than in Extended
Retention as a percentage of those who “survived”
first year similar in two types, although slightly higher
for Foundation
Slightly larger numbers expected to graduate from
Foundation than from Extended
Retention & graduation rates Foundation
3-yr degrees
Foundation ’04 to ’06 Mainstream ’02, ‘03
% return for 2nd yr
87%
82%
% return for 3rd yr
80%
51%
Graduate
30%
48%
Still studying
35%
Diplomas
% return for 2nd yr
86%
72%
% return for 3rd yr
72%
63%
Graduate
25%
44%
Still studying
30%
Deductions from tables
 Comparing apples with pears: group of high risk and
underprepared learners is compared with a group including
top performers
 Retention rates in foundation programmes higher
 A total of 1191 entered degrees and diplomas after doing
foundation in 2004, 2005 and 2006:
• 373 obtained degrees or diplomas
• 495 still busy with 1st qualification
• 20 also obtained post-graduate qualifications
• 85 currently registered for post-graduate qualifications
 Many individual success stories/anecdotes of top
performance in academics and leadership
Perceptions and practices in Ext progs
Survey done in 2009 to:
• To determine practices followed by SA
Universities and to compare these with
what NMMU is doing
• To determine the perceptions of various
stakeholders about extended
programmes
Research methodology
 Survey questionnaire to lecturers teaching foundational
modules at NMMU – 27/48 responses received
 Survey questionnaire to managers of academic units at
NMMU – 15/30 responses received
 Survey questionnaire to selected extended programme
administrators at universities – 7/9 responses received
 Informal discussions with programme administrators at 7
other universities regarding management of programmes
 Directed interviews with senior managers at NMMU: Deputy
Vice-Chancellor (Academic); SD: HEADS (now Dean of
Teaching and learning) and Executive Deans of Faculties
Why offer Extended Programmes
100% agree that there is a need for extended
programmes
 Lecturers and managers: Social responsibility to
address inequalities and need to improve
throughput rates chosen as most important
Senior managers: Provision of access and
increased throughput rates
Universities: Social responsibility towards learners
and increased pass rates
Structure of programmes
Is there still a place for one year foundation programmes and
should it be funded:
 40% of lecturers and 47% of managers have no opinion
 Most of remaining lecturers and managers believe there
should be FP’s in addition to ext programmes
 4 of 7 universities believe FP’s should be funded and 3 not
 All senior manager believe FP’s has a place along ext progs
and should be funded
 Reasons given:
• For FP’s: One year foundation programmes are seen to
target a different group of students
• Against FP’s: Should be on FET level, not HE
Management of extended programmes
Models:
• Fully Centralized (0)
• Matrix with central unit as primary driver (7)
• Matrix with faculty or department as primary
driver (2)
• Fully Decentralized (4)
Conclusion
Extended Programmes can both make a
contribution towards address issues of access,
retention and graduation rates.
More inter-institutional cooperation is needed
A lot more research is needed
Current practices is probably too diverse to draw
clear conclusions about best practices
All eyes on the national debate regarding the
minimum period of undergraduate studies, to see if
the extended format may become the norm
References
Scott, I et al. “A Case for Improving Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education”, in the Higher
Education Monitor of the CHE, 2007.
Sheppard, Charles. Presentation to NMMU
management on cohort throughput, retention and
graduation rates, May 2008
Snyders, Maritz. Research report: Extended
programmes: Practices and Perceptions, August
2009
THANK YOU!!!!
[email protected]
www.nmmu.ac.za/ces