UL Self-evaluation Report 2010

2010

UNIVERSITY OF

LIMPOPO

finding solutions for Africa

self-evaluation PORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQC INSTITUTIONALAUDIT

M ission The mission of the University of Limpopo is to be a world-class African university which responds to education, research and community development needs through partnerships and knowledge generation. The University is committed to finding solutions for Africa.

self-evaluation PORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQC INSTITUTIONALAUDIT

2010

UNIVERSITY OF

LIMPOPO

Self-Evaluation Portfolio for the HEQC Institutional Audit 2010 is published by the Marketing and Communications Department University of Limpopo Private Bag x 1106 Sovenga 0727 Limpopo South Africa www.ul.ac.za

Compiled by: Quality Assurance Office, University of Limpopo Design and layout: Wim Rheeder, JamStreet (Cape Town) Photographers: Robby Sandrock, Liam Lynch, Janice Hunt and David Robbins Printing: Mega Digital Parow Industria, Cape Town Production Management: DGR Writing & Research cc +27 (0) 11 7929951 and +27 (0)82 572 1682 ISBN: 978-0-???-?????-?

Material may be reprinted with acknowledgment

FOREWORD BY THE

VICE-CHANCELLOR AND PRINCIPAL

T

The University of Limpopo (UL) traverses the African highway on its way north. UL has its major Campuses at Mankweng Township in Limpopo Province (Turfloop Campus) and at Ga-Rankuwa Township in Gauteng Province (Medunsa Campus). This still symbolises the University’s emergence from a merger of the two former Universities (The Medical University of Southern Africa – MEDUNSA – and the University of the North – Turfloop) as well as the challenge of merging two historically disadvantaged institutions 300 kilometres apart. Each of the contributing institutions brought its opportunities and challenges to the merger. Neither was a strong institution per se, each having a history of conflict and unrest as well as a history embedded in the Apartheid policies of the past, which each institution in its own way has overcome and to become what was not intended for it by the apartheid masters.

It must be noted that the merger was never adequately capitalised and UL has for much of the period since merging, been operating on a deficit budget, despite cutting expenditure to unacceptable levels in terms of budget standards. The infrastructure funding from the then Department of Education has been of great assistance, but in no way meets the needs

if the University is to develop optimally and meet present requirements. The University is on the edge of a skills scarce Labour Market, at least for its Turfloop and other satellite Campuses in Limpopo and yet cannot compete with the urban and better capitalised universities in terms of attracting and retaining quality staff, while at the same time serving disadvantaged, underprepared and financially challenged students.

Despite these serious structural challenges UL has taken up these challenges and successfully harmonised almost all structures, systems, policies, procedures and academic programmes and strategised innovative and appropriate responses to most of the challenges it is facing.

The merger of the two institutions, especially in overcoming the anxiety, fears and suspicions of staff on both campuses has taken an inordinate amount of energy.

This merger has been carefully managed through the process of harmonising and consolidating all structures and policies and the gradual development of a joint vision in a unitary institution.

During 2005, shortly after the merger Management of UL met in a workshop to craft a strategic

plan for the new University.

This exercise was repeated a year later and culminated in the 20072010 Strategic Plan. It set out 7 strategic thrusts as follows: • Enhance UL as a centre for quality tertiary education and academic excellence; • Create new knowledge and technology, especially in niche areas; • Forge smart partnerships with public and privatesector organisations; • Be at the forefront of professional development and life-long learning; • Provide a high quality outreach service to the community; • Strengthen the University’s core capabilities and infrastructure.

During 2009 with the substantive appointment of the four Executive Deans, the University Registrar, Executive Director Human Resources and many other Senior Managers, the Institution reviewed its strategic direction producing, University of Limpopo 2010 – 2012 Strategic Plan.

During 2008 UL was assisted in developing an Institutional Operating Plan (IOP), by a Technical Task Team constituted by the Ministry of Education.

The implementation of this IOP greatly assisted the University

Prof NM Mokgalong in strengthening its core capabilities and infrastructure.

What remains in terms of the IOP is to review our Programme Qualification Mix (PQM) which has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

Logistical arrangements are now unfolding.

In spite of the complex merger challenges UL went through, the Institution has however, been able to achieve a 2007 throughput rate which challenged that of historically advantaged universities and put it in the second place nationally.

The point I am making is that UL has to be evaluated as a unique institution against the backdrop of where it has come from as well as the ruling budgetary and other constraints, which are not of its creation, yet it has to overcome them.

The preparations for the HEQC Institutional Audit and especially the collaboration of all sectors of the University in the exercise have encouraged staff to assess their operations as honestly and openly as possible. The development of the Self-Evaluation Report has assisted UL in that beside the process of self- assessment, it has helped to raise awareness throughout the Institution on the various issues covered by the report and the overall issue of

quality assurance, management and enhancement in general.

It has been an opportunity for the University community as a whole to re-evaluate the systems, policies, procedures, practices and offerings. Above all it has provided the University community with the opportunity to recommit ourselves to UL’s developmental trajectory.

The University welcomes this opportunity to have an expert panel assess our progress, identify our strengths and weaknesses and suggest appropriate intervention and improvement strategies. We are all trapped by our environments like a fish that can never discover water because it is all around it. The Self-Evaluation Report is the result of an honest collective attempt to evaluate UL’s operations, critically assessing our strengths and weaknesses and recommending remedial actions.

We welcome this opportunity to learn from what the panel may tell us. We have no doubt that this process will assist UL in consolidating the merger, as well as fulfilling its wish to find solutions for Africa by epitomising its ruralness.

We eagerly look forward to receiving the report of the panel.

Professor NM Mokgalong

TABLE OFTable CONTENTS of contents 1.1

A Brief History and Context of the University

1.2

Vision and Mission Statements

1.3

Planning, Resources Allocation and Quality at UL

1.4

Governance and Leadership

1.5

Academic Structure

1.6

Quality Assurance Arrangements at UL

1.7

Successes and Challenges

2.1

Policy and Strategic Framework

2.2

Planning, Management and Delivery of Programmes

2.3

Development of New Academic Programmes

2.4

Approval Process

2.5

Programme Management

2.6

Academic Review

2.7

Student Access and Success Rates

2.8

Academic Development and Support Services

2.9

Library, Information, Communications and Technology Services at UL

2.10 Student performance 2.11 Assessment 2.12 Integrity of Learner Records and Certification Processes 2.13 Human Resources System at UL 3.1

Research at UL

3.2

Postgraduate Training

4.1

Community Engagement at UL

5.1

Improvement Challenges

Conclusion The Development of UL Self-Evaluation Report (March 2009-June 2010) List of Appendixes for the HEQC Institutional Audit Report

1 9 11 18 22 23 26 29 31 34 37 39 42 45 55 79 86 88 91 93 99 110 114 121 126 126 131

LIST OF List TABLES of tables

1. Total number of modules offered by UL across all programmes during the period

2005 to 2009

41

2. Examples of UL programmes that were subjected to comprehensive

re/accreditation during the period 2005 to 2010

44

3. Overall number of students registered at UL from 2005 to 2009 across all Faculties and into all programmes on offer at all delivery sites 4. Grade 12 aggregate as percentages of first time enrolments at UL from 2005 to 2010

46 47

5. The total number of students registered in the different fields of study offered by UL

during the period 2005 to 2010

6. Total headcount enrolment per level of students at UL over the last five years

49 50

7. Student headcount enrolment by race and by percentage of total enrolment at UL

from 2005 to 2009

51

8. Student headcount enrolment by country of origin and by percentage of total

enrolment at UL from 2005 to 2009

51

9. Gender enrolment as headcount and as percentage of the total enrolment at UL

from 2005 to 2009

52

10. Number of students enrolled into the five Extended Degree Programmes (EDPs)

at UL from its inception in 2007 to 2009

11. Overall pass rate at UL between 2005 and 2009 in all programmes and modules

55 86

12. Overall graduation rate at UL between 2005 and 2009 in all programmes and

modules

13. The ratio of female to male academic staff at UL for 2009 14. The total number of at UL per race for 2009

87 108 108

15. The number of academic at UL with the highest qualification, indicated as B degree

or equivalent, Honours or equivalent, Master’ and Doctoral

16. The number of NRF rated researchers at UL from 2005 to 2008

109 110

17. Total number of senior postgraduate students registered at UL during the period

2005 to 2010

112

Chapter 1: INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE HEQC Criterion 1: The institution has a clearly stated mission and purpose with goals and priorities, which are responsive to its local, national and international context and which provide for transformational issues. There are effective strategies in place for the realisation and monitoring of these goals and priorities.

Human, financial and infrastructural resources are available to give effect to these goals and priorities.

HEQC Criterion 2: Objectives and mechanisms for quality management are integrated into institutional planning. Financial planning ensures adequate resource allocation for the development, improvement and monitoring of quality in the core activities of teaching and learning, research and community engagement.

1.1 A Brief History and Context of the University The University of Limpopo (UL) was established on 1 January 2005 as a result of the merger of the Medical University of Southern Africa and the University of the North.1 The merger resulted from the Government’s proposals for the restructuring of the higher education system in South Africa, as announced by the Minister of Education on 9 December 2002. In terms of the proposal to merge the Medical University of Southern Africa and the University of the North, the Minister indicated the following as amongst the main reasons:

1 Notice No. 1703 in the Government Gazette, No. 25737 of 14 November 2003 (Appendix B1)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _1

• To provide the critical mass necessary to build administrative, management, governance, academic and research capacity; • To overcome the apartheid-induced concentration of medical training in the urban areas of the old Transvaal Province and strength the provision of health sciences in Limpopo; • To ensure efficient and effective use of resources through reducing overlap and duplication in academic programmes; • To enhance sustainability through increased enrolments linked to broadening the range of programmes offered.

UL consists of two main Campuses, namely Medunsa Campus (the former Medical University of Southern Africa) and Turfloop Campus (the former University of the North). A brief history of the former universities that merged to constitute UL is outlined below.

1.1.1 University of the North The very first step towards the establishment of what was to be the University of the North was taken on 11 October 1956. Fourteen traditional leaders from what was known as the Northern and Western Regions met under a tree (ficus burkei or wild fig) to discuss and petition the Government for the erection of a ‘landbouskool’.

Their initial motivation for the school or possibly a college was for it to serve the sons of traditional leaders.

Although the traditional leaders were presumably petitioning Government in good faith with a view to encouraging the development of a creative land utilising plan for the impoverished rural inhabitants of their territories, the architects of the apartheid system were quick to capitalise mischievously on this honest petition to factor their “separate development” agenda into the equation.

Dr WMW Eiselen, the Secretary of Native Affairs, made the following remark on the petition: “Seeing that the new course that is followed is still relatively strange for the Bantu, who for years got used to remaining unconcerned and contributed no personal amounts towards the development of their community, there still exists in them a measure of hesitation and uncertainty. It is, however, on the other side, very clear that the dynamic approach is, slowly but surely, busy making an impact and where, at the initial stage, there is opposition, it will be gradually transformed in collaboration and in spite of attempts of certain groups which move against the current. It is obviously a case of education which will not bear the results overnight, but which will gradually lay the foundation for innate and firm development”.

2_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Politically, the new initiative of the traditional leaders and the new initiative alluded to by Eiselen would in time stigmatise the envisaged college. Although the envisaged College of Agriculture never materialised at Turfloop, the University College of the North that substituted it was politically tainted from its inception. As a result, terms such as “tribal college”, “Bush College” and “glorified high school” would be used to describe the University College of the North for some time, thus creating a love-hate relationship between the students and the Institution.

The former University College of the North, which ultimately gained the status of the University of the North, was established together with other higher education institutions meant exclusively for “nonwhites” with the passing of the Extension University Act (No. 45 of 1959).

In terms of this Act, five colleges for the various Black groups were established in 1960, namely: • University College of the North (for North Sotho, South Sotho, Tsonga, Tswana and Venda ethnic groups); • University College of Zululand (for Zulus); • University College of Durban-Westville (for Indians); • University College of Western Cape (for Coloureds); • University College of Fort Hare (for Xhosas).

It should be indicated here that the University College of Fort Hare had been in existence since 1916, affiliated to Rhodes University.

However prior to 1960, it was open to all Blacks despite their ethnic origin. These Colleges were placed under the academic tutelage of the University of South Africa. In the case of the University College of the North this formative relationship with the University of South Africa continued until the South African Parliament promulgated the University of the North Act (No. 47 of 1969), thus bringing to an end its College status on 1 January 1970.

The main aim of establishing these Colleges was to extend and entrench Apartheid ideology at tertiary education level. Blacks were then barred from enrolling at “White universities”. Only in exceptional circumstances could Blacks be admitted to “White universities” with Ministerial approval.

The University College of the North, like all other ethnic Colleges, was under firm white control to ensure that the Apartheid dogma was extended and fully entrenched. The administrators and academics

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _3

who were appointed at the Institution were Apartheid ideologues who sought to ensure that the University developed along the predetermined Apartheid course.

The governance structures of the University of the North consisted of Council and Senate. The University Council, the highest decision making body at the institution, consisted of two structures, namely, the Council Proper, which was comprised entirely of Whites appointed by the Minister of Bantu Education. The other structure of Council was known as the Advisory Council and was composed of eight “Non-Whites”. The Advisory Council was ostensibly meant to handle matters that would be referred to it by Council Proper and then advise accordingly. The Advisory Council was fully operational until in 1984 when staff and students activists visited each member of the Advisory Council and firmly “instructed” them to opt out of the structure.

The academics, especially Black ones, who took up posts at the University, were competent teachers and researchers. However, most of them interpreted their task as being more than the creation and dissemination of knowledge. They also interpreted and understood their primary task as the development of a cadre of black professionals to serve the homelands and ultimately beyond.

The establishment of the University of the North, like other ethnic Universities, contrary to its Apartheid architects drew a variety of progressive responses. The reaction of the black communities, both the parent and student components, was a rejection of the University’s Apartheid purpose. They regarded the Institution as a perpetuation, at a tertiary level of the Apartheid system. This socio-political system was completely unacceptable to them as it intended to relegate blacks to the status of second class citizens in terms of higher education in the country of their birth. However, both parents and students realised that this did provide an opportunity for black youth to access and achieve tertiary education and ultimately enrolled at the Institution under protest.

The students charted a two-pronged strategy to make the best of their sojourn at the University. The first part of the strategy was to transform this Apartheid institution into a credible and excellent centre of higher education. The second part of the strategy was to turn the University into a site of struggle against Apartheid system.

The successes gained and recorded in terms of these strategies went beyond anyone’s wildest expectation. They surpassed all expectations, including those of the actual participants in these strategies. The

4_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

immense contribution the University made towards liberating the country from the apartheid yoke has been universally acknowledged.

The ultimate endorsement of the institution’s role in this regard culminated in the acceptance of the position of the Chancellor of the University by the first post-apartheid President of the Republic of South Africa, Dr. Rolihlahla Nelson Mandela. Dr. Mandela occupied this position from 1993 up to 1997.

Great strides have been made in turning the University into a reputable institution of higher education in terms of its inputs, processes and outputs. The graduates of the University have made, and are continuing to make, a meaningful contribution to the various developmental challenges of the country. Graduates of the University occupy prominent positions in the social, economic and political leadership of the country and beyond. Quality scholarship at the then University of the North has been demonstrated by the calibre of academics and professionals it has produced. In addition there are niche areas and institutes that are acclaimed not only in the country, but throughout the world.

The transformation project at the then University of the North was so progressive that it culminated in the formation of the Broad Transformation Committee (BTC) that comprised of representatives of all the different structures of the University. The transformation project was running thorough that it was emulated by other tertiary institutions in the country and resulted in the current Institutional Forum (IF)2 as provided by the Higher Education Act (No. 101 of 1997).The transformation project brought about fundamental changes in the structures, systems, policies, procedures and practices of the University.

1.1.2 Medical University of Southern Africa The former Medical University of Southern Africa was established as a result of the recommendations of a Government Commission of inquiry to investigate the ever-increasing requirements of a rapidly growing black population in the Northern Transvaal. The Commission established that there was a need for the training of black health professionals to provide medical and associated health services to serve the region. Prior to this, the training of Medical, Dental and Allied professionals for Africans, Coloureds and Indians had for decades been taking place at the former Wentworth Campus of the University of Natal. The Universities of Witwatersrand and Cape Town admitted a miniscule number of black students for medical and other related studies, but only with special Ministerial approval.

2 Institutional Forum (Appendix A7c)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _5

In 1975 the Government Commission of enquiry recommended the establishment of a Pilot Committee with Professor H W Snyman, Dean of Medicine at the University of Pretoria, as chairman to advise the Minister of Bantu Education regarding the establishment of a university to train black health professionals. The committee accordingly advised the Minister on the procedures to be followed in establishing a higher education institution in a wider variety of health disciplines, including animal health. By means of Act (No. 78 of 1976), the Medical University of Southern Africa (popularly known by its abbreviation as MEDUNSA) was established to address the dire need for black health professionals in the country.

Once the administrative infrastructure had been created, the Pilot Committee proceeded to pay attention to the construction of the physical facilities. This resulted in the establishment and completion of the first tuition buildings and students’ residence to prepare for the first intake of students in 1978. Since this period MEDUNSA continued to grow extensively in terms of physical infrastructure, additional new areas of study, staff and students with health human resources development, research and partnership in community development as its focus areas. The inclusion of Veterinary Science made MEDUNSA one of the first truly comprehensive health centres in Africa. Ga-Rankuwa Hospital which has been renamed George Mukhari served and continues to serve as the main academic hospital for MEDUNSA. The hospital also serves as a referral centre for 43 community or regional hospitals in four provinces, as well as hospitals in the neighbouring countries such as Malawi, Swaziland and Botswana.

The establishment of MEDUNSA was initially met with suspicion by some in the Black community and it was met with unbridled scepticism by the liberal establishment. However, the University pulled itself up by its boot straps and successfully managed to overcome the odds that were strongly stacked against it. Consistent and tested dedicated work by the early stalwarts who left the University of Natal and other pioneers, to start and consolidate MEDUNSA kept on raising the institution to higher levels of academic excellence. As its name implies, MEDUNSA served and continues to serve, under the aegis of the merged University, the entire Southern African Region.

MEDUNSA has always attached a high premium to the attainment and maintenance of quality academic and ethical standards which are recognised nationally and internationally. As is the case with other universities offering similar programmes, MEDUNSA students

6_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

complied, and even now under the merged University of Limpopo, have to comply with the requirements laid down by statutory bodies such as the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).

MEDUNSA has received, and even now as a Campus of the merged University of Limpopo continues to receive, universal recognition from scholars and professionals of high repute for the excellent work that is being carried out at the Institution. It has produced more health professionals in the country especially in medical training than the total combined number of other universities in the country.

From the foregoing brief history of the two former Universities that merged to form UL, it is evident that the two merged Universities have made an immense contribution to the transformation and development of South Africa. Their contribution has been felt by the marginalised black communities in the rural and township areas which constitute the bulk of the population of South Africa than those in the urban areas.

1.1.3 UL context UL as a new institution, given its unique location that has been immensely shaped by its context as a rural based institution with a rural development agenda, faces specific challenges regarding access to higher education by financially constrained students predominantly from poor rural backgrounds with demonstrated potential. These students, who are mostly from impoverished rural communities, rely far more on institutional housing and general infrastructure, as do members of the surrounding communities where the economic infrastructure is not as developed as that in urban areas.

In addition, it is generally acknowledged that it costs more to run a University at the periphery of the labour market and far from the amenities of major cities. The situation is worsened by the fact that the majority of students who enrol at UL can hardly afford to pay their fees which are the lowest in terms of the higher education market. The undercapitalised nature of UL makes this extremely difficult and in this regard the University has written to the current Ministry of Higher Education and Training to explore the possibility of redressing the situation.

It is the contention of UL, based on its unique context, that transformation of the outcome of the process of institutional quality audits of institutions of higher learning is required in order to redirect the alignment of “Fitness for Purpose� concept in teaching and learning, research and community engagement towards the

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _7

social, political and economic realities which the South African society wishes to address. We further contend that this will only be possible, effective and meaningful for the University if the report and communication on the outcomes on the completion of the audit cycle are linked with the recommendations around an efficient and effective resources allocation strategy.

Institutions such as UL are faced with managing their higher education mandate within an environment pervaded by the social realities which make the history of the country. This directly impacts on the financial status and associated outcomes of the University, given the restricted access to: • Government and private resources which dictate that the institution impose stringent austerity measures in executing its mandate. This is in sharp contrast to the huge reserves that privileged institutions have access to, which allows them to strengthen and be innovative in their core business for which they are further incentivised through both government and private funding; • Funding from student fees which, as indicated, cannot, on ethical grounds, be pursued, given the financial status of the poor communities the majority of our students are drawn from, as opposed to the confidence which privileged institutions have in collecting and even increasing student fees; • Fee recouping for student residence which does not cover the cost of providing accommodation, let alone ensuring that the residence facilities are sufficient for the demand, and are conducive environments for optimal student performance; • Government funding which is sub-optimal, with UL having to work under conditions of severe resources constraints. This affects optimal quality of provision and graduation rates for a student population which enters higher education with extremely poor pre-admission preparation.

It is a sad irony that institutions such as UL, having a proven track record of excellence under difficult and imposed political circumstances, find themselves in this disempowering state, while they are indeed at the forefront of the key transformation agencies which should be implementing and giving meaning to the stated constitutional social priorities for the country in addressing and correcting anomalies of the past.

8_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

This brief context should help the HEQC to develop an understanding of the complex context which embeds UL. While the report represents an honest reflection on the state of UL, it must be read, interpreted and understood within the realities of the University embedded as it is in its history, geographical location, higher education restructuring through the mergers and incorporations and the developmental challenges faced by the historically disadvantaged institutions in South Africa. The context should also enable the HEQC to understand the realities under which UL continuously strives to maintain and enhance quality assurance and improvement as benchmarked through national and international standards.

1.2 Vision and Mission Statements Vision and Mission statements are inspiring principles of commitment chosen and approved by the institution to clearly and concisely convey the direction an institution is striving towards. The Mission statement defines the institution’s purpose and primary objectives.

The Vision statement also defines the institution’s purpose, but it does so in terms of the institution’s values rather than any bottom line measures. It communicates both the purpose and values of the institution. It provides stakeholders with a direction about how they are expected to behave and inspires them to give of their best. It shapes stakeholders’ understanding of why they should be part of, support, and work for the institution. The Vision and Mission statements help in clarifying the relationship between the institution and its environment, and ultimately make a direct contribution to its strategic planning.

In the context of universities in South Africa, Vision and Mission statements are developed in relation to the Education White Paper 3 (1997) and Higher Education Act (No. 101 1997). The development of Vision and Mission statements also take into account the requirements and contexts of other regulatory institutions of South African higher education such as the Department of Science and Technology which serves as a channel for most of the Government research funding to the National Research Foundation; and health education which is largely funded and managed through a partnership with the National Department of Health and its provincial equivalents.

Immediately after its establishment in 2005, UL focussed its attention on giving effect to the merger. Amongst other tasks this included the development through consultation concerning and ultimately approval of, a vision and mission. The Vision and Mission statements are outlined below:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _9

1.2.2 University of Limpopo’s Vision: “To be a leading African University, epitomising excellence and Global competitiveness, addressing the needs of rural Communities through innovative ideas.”

UL’s Vision is premised within the context of a globalising, knowledgebased society, in which higher education is characterised by the mobility of graduates and staff, as well as increasing collaboration and competition in all spheres of its core business amongst higher education institutions. Within this context, UL regards national and international benchmarks and standards as important reference points in addressing the challenges and needs of the down-trodden rural communities. UL is committed to achieve this through research, teaching and community engagement partnerships with the community and the rural one being in the main. Excellence at UL as part of its vision is not only understood in terms of competitive quality performance but also in terms of transformation, access, equity, responsiveness, cost-effectiveness and development. This means that while the challenges and accountability requirements of a rapidly changing globalising higher education are critical and important, UL’s commitment to a coherent process of continuous improvement of rural communities through tested and innovative ideas constitutes the driver of its vision.

1.2.2 University of Limpopo’s Mission: “A world-class African University, which responds to education, research and community development needs through partnerships and knowledge generation-continuing a long tradition of empowerment.”

UL’s Mission demonstrates its commitment to a process of ongoing engagement with a determination to explore and define its role in the creation, application and dissemination of knowledge in a responsive manner while at the same time remaining on a competitive edge. Through its Mission UL recognises that the quality of its academic activities is integrally related to their contribution to the multi-faceted challenges of human and social development in its global, national and international contexts. Through its Mission UL is committed to maintain international accreditation and recognition of its qualifications and other related academic activities, so that its students and staff are able to pursue educational and career opportunities on an international basis. Furthermore, international recognition facilitates UL’s quest to remain relevant to both SADC and the entire continent in terms of the focus and quality of its academic activities.

10_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Through its Vision and Mission, UL is committed to the maintenance of standards of performance in teaching and learning, research and community engagement programmes that are sensitive and appropriate to the needs of its students, the employers as well as the local, regional community and beyond. Overall UL’s Vision and Mission demonstrate its commitment to the maintenance and enhancement of academic standards that are appropriate to the unique challenges facing the marginalised rural communities in a changing national and global environment. The Vision and Mission are largely informed by the practical realities of poverty, disease and under-development to which the majority of the rural communities in South Africa are exposed and subjected on daily basis. UL as a University established on the basis of African philosophy finds itself in a situation where it has to take the lead in providing innovative ideas and solutions to the challenges facing the rural communities who constitute a large portion of the South African and African populations.

Given the challenges and complexity of the merger such as the relocation uncertainty of the Medunsa Campus which took time to clarify, financial unsustainability of the merged universities on the eve of the merger, leadership crisis, and the time spent in addressing such challenges, UL has not yet successfully managed to institutionalise its Vision and Mission statements as reality dictated during the Institutional Operating Plan (IOP)3 development process to de-link them from short term objectives, processes and operations.

The main weakness arising from this is that at the moment both the Vision and Mission statements are not yet shared by all UL stakeholders. This means that most of the various divisions of UL are not yet aligned to the Vision and Mission statements. The improvement plan arising from the audit will provide an opportunity to align and entrench the Vision and Mission statements in all Institutional activities and processes.

1.3 Planning, Resources Allocation and Quality at UL Planning determines the overall direction and goals of the institution.

It provides coherence and strategic direction to the activities of the institution. Planning ultimately determines what resources are needed to reach the identified goals and consequently how much funding is needed to procure those resources to assure quality and improvement. This section will focus on planning at UL in terms of the IOP, Strategic Planning, and the relationship between planning, resources allocation, and quality.

3 Institutional Operating Plan (Appendix A1)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _11

1.3.1 Towards the IOP All Universities involved in a merger or incorporation were required to produce an IOP for the newly established higher education institution. According to the “Guidelines for Mergers and Incorporations”, the IOP was to contain details including the effect of academic and institutional restructuring on academic and financial projections and on the operating and capital budgets for the first three years. It was also to include assumptions or bases on which the line items of income and expenditure had been estimated.

The development of an acceptable IOP and its submission to and approval by the Department of Education (DoE) (now called the Department of Higher Education and Training) was a prerequisite for the provision of funds in respect of recapitalising institutions as well as reimbursement of expenditures incurred through merger activities.

This was supposed to ensure that the new higher education institution is “operationally financially viable”.

The IOP development process provided UL with serious lessons concerning the complexity, inherent structural and systemic tensions of its merger which was perceived in certain circles of society as being the most difficult and unique merger in the country. It also provided UL with a clear understanding of the impact the complex and unique merger had upon the overwhelming number of initiatives associated with planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and quality assurance, and improvement.

In addition to the Vision and Mission Statements as already outlined, UL developed long-term goals as part of the process of developing and submitting an IOP to the DoE. The long-term goals are as follows: • To ensure that the University, as a self-governing academic institution, maintains and enhances its position as an African university of world standing in teaching, research and community engagement; • To identify new areas of study and research for development, continually responsive to contemporary developments in both the intellectual and national environment, as well as in regional context; • To maintain a strong Faculty system, which allows the University to combine the economies of scale and special facilities of a large university with a collegial and responsive working environment for teaching and the exchange of ideas in a democratic community of academic scholars;

12_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• To provide excellent quality education and training at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels; • To build up and strengthen the research base of the University to match that of other universities and carefully balance workloads of academic staff in pursuit of teaching, research, community engagement and administrative activities; • To significantly increase the number of post-graduate students and to highlight the importance and profile of graduate studies within the University in the next five years; • To encourage applications from high quality students within South Africa and beyond, and to facilitate appropriate international experience for its own staff and students; • To be more widely accessible to society by broadening recruitment to degree courses and expanding opportunities for life-long learning among traditional and non-traditional students; • To maintain close collaboration with commerce, industry and the professions in producing career-oriented graduates and pursuing research in order to ensure that the results of research projects are made available to the broader society; • To continuously attempt to attract high quality students and staff as an essential strategy for the maintenance of the University’s academic standing; • To provide appropriate facilities and active support for research across all subject areas in which the University is active; • To develop appropriate policies and procedures to encourage the funding of research from a wide variety of outside sources and further income-generation by the exploitation of intellectual property.

Upon completion of the IOP, UL submitted it to the DoE early in 2007 for consideration and approval. The submitted IOP was unfortunately not approved. At the time when the IOP was rejected, the complexity and inherent structural and systemic tensions of the merger intensified and paralysed governance and the financial stability of the institution even further. This culminated in the appointment of an Independent Assessor by the Minister of Education.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the Independent Assessor, the Ministry of Education requested UL to re-submit a revised IOP. The revised IOP was expected to take into account the recommendations of the Independent Assessor such as a re-assessment of UL’s academic structure, programmes, systems, human resources and financial processes which UL had made a commitment to address.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _13

In order to expedite the process of IOP revision and re-submission, UL and the DoE jointly identified a Task Team with the necessary technical expertise to lead the process. In revising the IOP, UL, through the technical expertise provided by the Task Team came to the realisation that its existing realities associated with the complexity of its merger made the attainment of its vision, mission and long term goals extremely difficult. In order to overcome this, UL with the advice of the Task Team decided to de-link its vision, mission and long term goals from its short to medium term planning and resources allocation. UL then focussed specifically on identifying the appropriate steps and interventions critical to enable a turn-around of the University in terms of enhancing academic quality and financial sustainability based on the prevailing hard realities.

The revised IOP framework and associated intervention strategies focussed on the following inter-related areas: • • • • • •

Governance and Academic Structures; Academic Programmes; Enrolment Plans; Management Information Systems; Human Resources and Conditions of Service; Financial and Budget Projections.

As part of the conditions for the approval of the IOP by the DoE, UL committed itself to the implementation of the intervention strategies to the identified inter-related areas through a number of IOP projects.

The IOP projects, amongst other objectives, involved review, restructuring and reorganisation and consolidation of the various processes and structures. The overall purpose of the IOP projects was to advance and effect a turnaround strategy meant to build and sustain UL as a world class university embedded in its Mission statement. The implementation of the IOP projects was also meant to enable UL to integrate quality assurance mechanisms in its processes and operations. Most of the IOP projects have been successfully implemented with the remaining ones being given focussed attention.

1.3.2 The University Strategic Plan Immediately after the completion of the IOP, UL resumed with the strategic planning initiative which was put on hold due to the pressures associated with finalising and submitting the IOP to the DoE.4 In resuming the strategic planning exercise, UL had to ensure that there was proper alignment between the Strategic Plan and the IOP. 4 University Strategic Plan (Appendix A2)

14_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The Strategic Plan entailed a lengthy process of critical self-reflection and consultation guided by the principles of responsiveness, sustainability and quality. Through the Strategic Plan, UL identified the following core values to guide it: • Accountability: accountable for what is done and the way in which it is done resulting in responsible use of resources and the value of wise leadership, balanced budget, and entrepreneurship. This is coupled with the maintenance of high ethical standards; • Communication: committed to the open sharing of information, effectively expressing ideas and actively seeking to understand those of others; • Critical independence and academic freedom: the University encourages objective, analytical and critical study resulting in excellence in research, teaching and public service endeavours; • Innovation and entrepreneurship: the University encourages Faculty members and students to be innovative and develop entrepreneurial skills within a nurturing environment; • Integrity: reliable, trustworthy, fair and honesty in all areas and with all Faculty members, students, administrators and the community; • Lifelong learning: valuing learning for its own sake as well as for the socio-economic development, and individual benefits it can bring and continually seeking to provide opportunities for higher and continuing education at all stages of adult life; • Openness and transparency: commitment to the highest standards of corporate governance (as exemplified in the King Code of Corporate Governance) and in particular to conducting its affairs with integrity, honesty and transparency; • Opportunity: each person should accept personal responsibility for the UL’s overall performance, taking initiative and proactively addressing needs as they become apparent; • Receptivity: open to new ideas and encouraging innovative thinking to improve organisational effectiveness; • Respect: value each individual’s significance and treat others with courtesy and dignity resulting in a non-discriminatory and equitable working environment with gender and race equity.

The right to free speech and the freedom of association is upheld; • Responsiveness: the University is committed to being responsive to the needs of the communities it serves; • Teamwork: supporting one another, unselfishly helping each other and giving credit where it is due.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _15

As a result of being informed and in pursuance of these core values, UL identified its strategic thrusts. Strategic thrusts are major competitive moves made by the University which are directed at the strategic targets identified in terms of the critical success factors which are the University’s drivers. In identifying its strategic thrusts, UL ensured that quality in terms of provision, assurance and improvement becomes embedded in all the strategic thrusts.

The main strategic trusts identified by UL in its Strategic Plan are as follows: • Enhance UL as a centre for quality tertiary education and academic excellence; • Create new knowledge and technology, especially in niche areas; • Forge smart partnerships with public and private-sector organisations; • Be at the forefront of professional development and life-long learning; • Provide a high quality outreach service to the community; • Strengthen the UL’s core capabilities and infrastructure.

It became quite apparent to UL that the success of the first five strategic thrusts would largely depend on the sixth thrust which would require continuous attention through visionary leadership and governance. Out of these strategic thrusts UL developed strategic objectives, actions plans, performance indicators, responsibilities, and time-frames.

The implementation of the Strategic Plan was not an easy process for UL. The institution had to grapple with other realities which impacted on the successful implementation of the Strategic Plan. The realities, amongst other facts, included an urgent implementation of the IOP projects and the population of the University organisational structure especially at the executive management level as matters of priority.

Successful implementation of the IOP projects on the one hand would ensure that UL has proper systems in place which could serve as proper vehicles to drive its plans. Permanent Executive Management on the other was expected to provide critical and stable leadership for the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

After going through all the major issues that were impediments to the implementation of the Strategic Plan, it became evident that most of the strategic objectives had run out of their time frames without any achievement. This ultimately necessitated the review of the Strategic Plan of the University.

16_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

1.3.3 The Relationship between Planning, Resources Allocation and Quality A clear relationship between planning and resources allocation in the institution serves as a hallmark of its commitment to quality assurance and improvement in its processes and operations. UL’s commitment to link planning, resources allocation and quality is demonstrated by its Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework.5 This policy framework strives for a balance between clear policies, procedures and systems, and appropriate resource allocation to support and enhance the quality of teaching and learning, research and community engagement.

In the case of UL, although there is a strong commitment to the relationship between planning, resources allocation and quality, this has however been made possible by the realities that became apparent during the IOP process. During the IOP process it became clear that the attainment of a good relationship between planning, resources allocation and quality would first and foremost depend on successful intervention strategies in the form of the IOP projects as indicated. One major relevant shortcoming exposed by the IOP process in this regard was the fact that academic planning and resource allocation processes were not integrated and supported by the management information system. The disjuncture between planning and decision making processes within the University did not encourage an integration of these processes.

As a result of this shortcoming and other related ones UL through the IOP process, decided to de-link its short-to-medium term planning and resource allocation. UL then, as part of its immediate plan, focussed its attention on laying a stable and sustainable foundation on which to base its future strategic development.

While on the one hand the relationship between planning and resources allocation was a challenge, UL on the other used the IOP process to strengthen the associated part of this relationship, namely, the quality of its academic programmes. The University sought to enhance the quality of its academic programmes through the implementation of one of the IOP intervention strategies, that is, the review of its current Programme and Qualification Mix (PQM)6 profile to ensure that the programmes offered are viable and sustainable and that the institution has the necessary resources to offer the programmes on its PQM.

5 Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework (Appendix C7) 6 Programme Qualification Mix (Appendix A3)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _17

As UL is almost through with the implementation of the intervention strategies, in its review of the Strategic Plan, UL is again linking planning, resources allocation and quality. The link is informed by the existing realities such as the global and national economic climate as well as the ever shrinking higher education funding in South Africa coupled with the socio-economic circumstances from which it draws the majority of its students. UL’s situation is compounded by its inability to fund raise successfully through third stream income and exacerbated by the culture of non-payment of fees by some students due to their socio-economic background and the lack of an alumni and convocation funding base. Given the economic challenges and the ever shrinking funding from Government, UL will have to find some creative ways in linking planning, resource allocation and quality in the Strategic Plan review exercise.

1.4 Governance and Leadership UL is established as a unitary institution with a single governance and management structure. UL in accordance with the Higher Education Act (No. 101. 1997), UL established the following governance and leadership structures:7 • • • • • •

Council;8 Senate;9 Faculty Boards; Institutional Forum; Student Representative Council; Executive Management.

The various stakeholders in the University community are represented in the different governance structures as provided by the Standard Institutional Statute.10 An overview of the University’s governance system is presented next.

7 List of University Statutory Bodies and their Committees (Appendix A7) 8 Council (Appendix A7a) 9 Senate (Appendix A7b) 10 Standard Institutional Statute (Appendix B3)

18_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

University of Limpopo Governance Structure COUNCIL

Executive Committee of Council (EXCO)

Institutional Forum (IF)

Senate

Executive Management Committee (EMC)

Executive Committee of Senate (ECS) Student Representative Council (SRC)

Finance Committee

Human Resource Committee

Academic Planning Committee

Research & Publications Committee

Remuneration Committee

Research Ethics Committee

Audit Committee

Library Committee

Infrastructure & Tender Committee

Information, Comm. & Tech.

Committee

Standing Rules Committee

Persons with Disabilities Committee

Central Higher Degrees Committee

Faculty Boards

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _19

1.4.1 Council The first Council of UL referred to as The Interim Council was constituted in terms of Notice No 1703 in the Government Gazette, No 25737 of 14 November 2003. The permanent Council was constituted in accordance with the Standard Institutional Statute. In constituting Council attention was given to a diverse broad spectrum of representation from the various fields such as business, education and labour. These include the nominees of the Ministry of Higher Education and Training, representatives of Senate, representatives of the Student Representative Council as well as employees of the University who are not members of Senate. More than 60% of the members of Council are not employees or students of the University.

The main function of Council is to govern the institution through appropriate policies and rules. Council has an Executive Committee and a number of sub-committees based on its specialised functions such as the Human Resource Committee, Finance Committee and Audit Committee.

1.4.2 Senate UL Senate is constituted in terms of the Standard Institutional Statute. Senate is the highest decision making body of the University on academic matters. Other functions and responsibilities of Senate are detailed in the Standard Institutional Statute.

Senate has an Executive Committee and the following committees: • • • • • • •

Academic Planning Committee; Research and Publications Committee; Research Ethics Committee; Standing Rules Committee; Library Committee; Information Communication and Technology Committee; Persons with Disabilities Committee.

The composition and terms of reference of these committees are as determined by Senate.

1.4.3 Faculty Boards The constitution of Faculty Boards is as provided by the Standard Institutional Statute. In terms of the Statute, Faculty Boards are appointed by Senate to regulate the affairs of the different Faculties.

The composition of Faculty Boards is as determined by Senate.

20_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

1.4.4 Institutional Forum The Institutional Forum is constituted in terms of the Standard Institutional Statute. The main responsibility of the Institutional Forum is to advise Council on issues affecting the University as stipulated in the Standard Institutional Statute.

1.4.5 Student Representative Council (SRC) The SRC is constituted in terms of the University of Limpopo Student Representative Council Constitution. The interim constitution makes provision for the Campus Students Representative Councils at both Medunsa and Turfloop Campuses. It also makes provision for the Central SRC constituted by members from the two Campuses’ SRCs. Only registered students are eligible to serve on the SRC. The main responsibility of the SRC is to represent all the students in matters that may affect them as stipulated in the University of Limpopo Students Representative Council Interim Constitution, Standard Institutional Statute and the Higher Education Act (No. 101.

1997).

1.4.6 Executive Management Committee The Executive Management Committee (EMC) is constituted on the basis of the Higher Education Act (No. 101. 1997) and Standard Institutional Statute.

The Executive Management Committee consists of the following: • • • • • • •

Vice-Chancellor and Principal; Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic and Research; Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Medunsa Campus; The Registrar; Executive Deans; Executive Director: Human Resource; Chief Financial Officer.

The main function of the Executive Management Committee is to spearhead the University strategy and to assist the Vice-Chancellor and Principal in his responsibility for the day-to-day management and administration of the University.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _21

1.5 Academic Structure The Academic Structure that was approved in 2006 and introduced in 2007 has been reviewed as part of the intervention strategies in the form of the IOP projects in 2009. The new Academic Structure was introduced on 1 January 2010. The new Academic Structure consists of the following four Faculties, sixteen Schools and seventy Departments: Faculty of Health Sciences • School of Medicine (10 Departments) • School of Health Care Sciences (4 Departments) • School of Oral Health Sciences (3 Departments) • School of Pathology and Pre-Clinical Sciences (7 Departments) • School of Health Sciences (4 Departments) All the Schools in the Faculty of Health Sciences with the exception of the School of Health Sciences are based at Medunsa Campus. The School of Health Sciences is based at Turfloop Campus to accommodate all the Health Sciences disciplines at the Campus and to serve as a base for the establishment of a Medical Training Platform in Polokwane.

Faculty of Humanities • School of Education (3 Departments) • School of Languages and Communication Studies (3 Departments) • School of Social Sciences (5 Departments) Faculty of Management and Law • School of Law (4 Departments) • School of Economics and Management (4 Departments) • School of Accounting and Auditing (2 Departments) • Turfloop Graduate School of Leadership (Consists only of programmes with no Departments) Faculty of Science and Agriculture • School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (5 Departments) • School of Molecular and Life Sciences (3 Departments) • School of Mathematical and Computer Science (3 Departments) • School of Physical and Mineral Sciences (2 Departments)

22_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

1.6 Quality Assurance Arrangements at UL Quality assurance at UL is informed and determined by a number of trends both nationally and internationally. It is within this perspective that understanding of quality assurance at UL is outlined.

1.6.1 Understanding Quality Assurance at UL Quality assurance at UL is guided by the Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework. The Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework is based on a strategic commitment towards continuous quality enhancement and the fostering of a culture of ongoing improvement.

The Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework provides a clear definition of policies, procedures and structures for the quality assurance and management of academic activities at UL. It also provides a generic set of policies and procedures, which the academic units should adapt and align to their specific contexts and demands.

Quality Assurance at UL is co-ordinated by the Quality Assurance Office which works closely with Faculties, schools, departments, academic service, development and support units which are charged with the responsibility of the day-to-day management of quality in their respective divisions.

Quality Assurance at UL is determined and guided by both the external and internal contexts. This is because of UL’s recognition that the quality of its academic activities and other services should be linked to its continuous dialogue with the expectations, needs and concerns of the different stakeholders who constitute both its internal and external contexts as follows.

1.6.1.1 Internal context While the importance of the regulatory challenges and accountability requirements of an evolving higher education is appreciated, UL’s internal context for quality is informed by institutional commitment to a culture of continuous and best practice that constitutes the basis for its quality assurance and management systems. In order to achieve this, UL’s policies, procedures and structural arrangements for quality assurance and management have been designed in such a way that they are commensurate with the organisational culture and core strategic objectives of the institution. This should be understood within the context of UL’s management philosophy which describes the institution as a democratic, responsive and innovative, efficient and effective organisation committed to a transformation vision that strives for participation, distributed ownership and leadership amongst all key institutional stakeholders.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _23

Based on this philosophy, UL consistently strives to achieve a meaningful balance between the centralisation and devolution of responsibility for quality assurance and enhancements within its internal context.

1.6.1.2 External context UL’s external context for quality is premised on the understanding that the institution is part of a globalising, knowledge-based society in which higher education is characterised by mobility and portability, and the increasing collaboration and competition amongst higher education institutions. It is within this context that UL values both national and international benchmarks as critical reference points for its teaching and learning, research and community engagement activities. This will contribute to ensuring and maintaining the international recognition and accreditation. Based on this, UL is committed to an ongoing consultation with various stakeholders such as employers, alumni and its own students as well as civil society in order to imbue its academic activities with relevance to the practical demands professional life and the working world.

The external context of UL’s quality assurance is informed by the evolving policy development environment within the South African higher education landscape. The policy environment entails the external regulatory requirements for the National Quality Assurance System within a context of complex challenges concerning transformation, restructuring, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education system.

In order to address all these challenges posed by both the internal and external contexts, UL’s Quality Assurance Framework is premised on clear policies, procedures, systems and appropriate resource allocation to support and enhance the quality of academic activities.

1.6.2 Approach to Quality Assurance at UL In accordance with the Founding Document of the Higher Education Quality Committee and the international debate on quality assurance, UL approaches quality assurance from the perspectives of “fitness for purpose”, “fitness of purpose”, “value for money” and “transformation”.

These perspectives are briefly outlined below: • “Fitness for purpose”: This means that quality is assessed with specific reference to UL’s mission, vision, goals and objectives.

The attainment of quality in this instance entails the alignment of academic programmes and activities with specified strategic plans at the University level;

24_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• “Fitness of purpose”: This refers to the extent to which UL relates to national higher education policy framework; • “Value for money”: This implies efficient use of resources and ongoing commitment of providing UL students with learning experiences that are in line with their investment in their academic careers; • “Transformation”: This entails the ability of students and staff to develop and refine the critical capacity out of the academic activities that allow them to relate knowledge and skills to different theoretical and practical contexts.

1.6.3 Institutional Oversight and Management of Quality at UL In accordance with the stipulations of the Higher Education Act (No. 101. 1997) and the Standard Institutional Statute, the overall responsibility for all matters relating to the quality of teaching and learning, research and community engagement at UL rests with Senate which is accountable to Council on such matters.

Senate on a continuous basis provides Council with advice on all academic and associated matters. There are various committees of Senate which on regular basis discusses and recommends academic matters to Senate and Council for approval. Senate quality-related committees at UL are as follows: • Senate Academic Planning Committee: The overall responsi- bility of the committee is with regard to the development and implementation as well as oversight of UL policies and procedures for academic activities such as programme planning, development, approval, management and review; • Senate Research and Publications Committee: This main responsibility of the committee entails the development and implementation of research policies and procedures including an oversight on the fostering of research culture, registration of research projects and allocation of research grants; • Senate Research Ethics Committee: This committee assumes the responsibility for maintaining the ethical integrity and compliance of research projects at UL; • Senate Standing Rules Committee: This committee has an overall responsibility concerning rules governing academic activities such as students’ admission, registration, assessment and moderation; • Senate Higher Degrees Committee: The main responsibility of this committee is with regard to the development and implementation of UL policies and procedures for postgraduate studies at Master’s and Doctoral degrees.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _25

Faculties under the leadership of Executive Deans have similar committees whose policies and procedures are aligned to those of Senate Committees for consistency and institutionalisation integrity in terms of quality assurance. In addition to these committees, Faculties have other committees such as Examination Commissions whose main responsibility is an oversight over the integrity and validation of examination results before they are released.

1.7 Successes and Challenges The IOP has in a systematic manner helped to identify achievements, potential and challenges for UL. In addition to this, it assisted the new institution to develop a set of interrelated intervention strategies to overcome some major challenges which, if not properly addressed, may serve as serious impediments for UL in repositioning itself in relation to regional, national and international developmental initiatives and efforts.

The University has implemented most of the intervention strategies in the form of the IOP projects largely meant to integrate quality enhancement into the institutional systems and processes. The most outstanding critical aspect relates to consolidation of the intervention strategies and their integration into normal University strategic planning processes. In order to achieve this, UL requires a number of systems in place of which the following are essential.

1.7.1 Leadership The University’s intervention strategies and plans through the IOP are demanding and challenging, and require a high degree of sustainability. They need strong visionary and stable leadership which is strategic in nature and approach at all the different levels of the institution. While there have been achievements since the merger in terms of leadership, UL’s main challenge towards the realisation of its strategic plans remains in its management which is mostly new and relatively thin at senior management level. This fact is compounded by the multi-campus model of the UL with a long distance between campuses and unique complex cultures at each campus which require more attention in terms of leadership. In this instance strong visionary leadership is critical to monitor and evaluate the implementation of UL strategic plans that integrate quality assurance and improvement on an ongoing basis. This also requires the integration of quality assurance standards within an integrated performance management system.

Part of the problem in designing an appropriate leadership model that will suit UL in terms of its unique and complex challenges is

26_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

financial. Based on the ever shrinking higher education funding in South Africa which by its design does not fully accommodate historically disadvantaged institutions such as UL, the institution has no alternative but to do more with less. However, this is exacerbated by the extreme skill shortage presently faced by South Africa.

1.7.2 Institutionalisation of the Vision and Mission Statements UL, based on its unique challenges and circumstances, took an informed decision during the development of the IOP to de-link its Vision and Mission statements from its long-term plans. This was done in order to devote institutional energy on the implementation to the intervention strategies and other associated plans.

As a result of this, the vision and mission statements were not fully used to direct planning and quality assurance activities at UL. The institution rather relied heavily on broad planning activities as determined by national policy and legislative imperatives in designing and executing its planning and quality assurance activities. As the institution has implemented most of its intervention activities, it will be proper if it can link its vision and mission statements with its plans in the review of its Strategic Plan. This will contribute greatly in giving effect to the meaning of both Vision and Mission statements.

1.7.3 Alignment of Planning, Resource Allocation and Quality Linked to the Vision and Mission statements, is the issue of the alignment of planning, resource allocation and quality. During the development of the IOP the Institution again based on its peculiar complex circumstances and challenges, took an unusual but strategic decision at the time to de-link planning, resource allocation and quality. This decision was taken as a temporary measure to focus on the implementation of the interrelated intervention strategies and associated plans. With the stability that has been achieved through the implementation of the IOP projects and associated plans, it would be in the best interest of UL to investigate the feasibility and related scenarios of linking the three steering mechanisms of the higher education in South Africa, namely, planning, resource allocation and quality. This will contribute by bringing synergy and quality enhancement in the activities of the Institution, especially the academic ones.

While there are a number of challenges facing UL, the institution has, however, experienced some major achievements during the same period especially in the area of teaching and learning in terms of student success and throughput rates as highlighted in the subsequent chapter.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _27

1.7.4 Conclusion The merger process, especially through the development of the IOP, contributed enormously to exposing weaknesses and challenges that were inherently structural and systemic in our systems and processes. The implementation, particularly the consolidation of the IOP, is of great significance in putting UL on a firm foundation to enable it to be an effective and efficient role-player in fulfilling the transformation and development agenda of higher education in South Africa and beyond.

28_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Chapter 2: TEACHING, LEARNING AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES HEQC Criterion 3: The arrangements for the quality assurance of, and support for, teaching and learning enhance quality and allows for its continuous monitoring.

2.1 Policy and strategic framework Teaching and learning activities at UL are guided by, and regulated through, the Teaching and Learning Policy, Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework and other related policy frameworks and rules. Senate assumes the overall oversight responsibility for all activities around teaching and learning.

UL has a long standing commitment to access provision and to be a leading university within the South African higher education landscape, in terms of societal transformation and equity, hence our reference in the mission statement to the continuation of a long tradition of empowerment.

Our commitment in this regard, is also captured in our primary University objectives: • To be more widely accessible to society by broadening recruitment to degree courses and expanding opportunities for lifelong learning among traditional and non-traditional students; • To maintain close collaboration with commerce, industry and the professions in producing career orientated graduates.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _29

The commitment to this requires total dedication to quality management from staff and students alike, in all teaching and learning activities. These are all guided by policies, procedures and structures that manage and coordinate them so that they can be measured and improved continually. Quality imperatives in teaching and learning are, by their very nature, dynamic and seek a commitment to continual self reflection and a strong striving towards excellence.

This is primarily driven and guided through the Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework and the Teaching and Learning Policy and are in direct alignment with the IOP, the Vision and Mission statements and the five academic thrusts that guide resource allocation to Faculties.

Fundamental to the above and informing UL’s strategic framework, is the vision of the University, through which all quality activities align. “…leading African university, epitomising excellence…”

At UL there is a clear golden thread that runs from the vision, through our policies and procedures, to actual implementation in academic departments and that closes the loop through review and planning.

This epitomises our commitment towards excellence which is fostered at all levels and which characterises the Institution, its products and its partnerships.

Faculty arrangements must be commensurate with institutional policy; they should also be appropriate to the specific context and requirements of each Faculty. Faculties are, therefore, responsible to determine the appropriate policies, procedures and structures for the quality management of their educational programmes, research and knowledge-based community activities aligned to the institutional ones. They are required to develop quality plans which specify their approach to quality management, to provide Senate with a description of their structural arrangements for quality management, and to update such information as necessary. At the moment the Faculties are still busy developing and customising their specific appropriate systems, policies and procedures in line with the institutional ones.

30_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

2.2 Planning, management and delivery of programmes HEQC Criterion 5: The institution has effective systems in place for the quality management of short courses, exported and partnership programmes, and programmes offered at tuition centres and satellite campuses.

HEQC Criterion 7: The administration of academic programmes is conducted within the framework of an effective programme management system.

Responsibility and lines of accountability are clearly allocated. Management information systems are used to record and disseminate information about the programme, as well as to facilitate review and improvement.

HEQC Criterion 8: Clear and efficient systems and procedures are in place for the design and approval of new programmes, courses and modules. The requirements are consistently applied and regularly monitored.

HEQC Criterion 10: Clear and effective systems are in place (including internal and external peer review) to evaluate programmes on a regular basis.

Review findings are disseminated appropriately and utilised for staff development, curriculum improvement and increasing student access and success rates.

HEQC Criterion 19: The institution engages in benchmarking, where appropriate, and draws on user surveys and impact studies in the process of planning and setting of priorities for quality development and enhancement.

Overall responsibility for UL’s academic programmes rests with the Senate. Senate has to satisfy itself that the programmes on offer meet the academic and strategic aims of the University. These responsibilities of Senate are discharged to the Faculties with the guidance of the Senate Academic Planning Committee (APC), which amongst others is responsible for the evaluation of all new programmes and those under review.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _31

The APC makes recommendations to Senate based on the submissions from the Faculties. The Offices of Quality Assurance and Institutional Planning provide ongoing advice on curriculum design, the format of applications and related aspects. In addition to that, the APC may make use of sub-committees which it tasks with the specific responsibility of screening applications for completeness and accuracy of the information that is necessary for programme approval. The meeting of such a sub-committee should be attended as appropriate by persons who are responsible for the development of the programmes or modules that have been submitted for approval.

The APC is responsible for a number of specific functions with respect to the quality management of academic activities at UL: • It considers and evaluates proposals for new modules and academic programmes that are received from Faculty Boards, taking into account requirements for the registration, funding and accreditation of academic programmes as these are specified by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET), South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and other professional bodies; • It considers and evaluates proposals for changes to modules and programmes that are received from Faculty Boards. Such changes include substantive changes to modules and programmes, changes in the delivery mode of programmes and changes in delivery site; • It reviews and proposes modifications to the regulations that govern the provision of UL’s academic programmes, with particular reference to policies that relate to the design, content and delivery of educational programmes; • It monitors and reviews the effectiveness of Faculties’ procedures and structures for assuring the quality of their academic activities; • It reviews student achievement as this is reflected in annual monitoring data with respect to learner performance in academic programmes and their constituent modules.

• It oversees the academic review process by: – Reviewing the requirements for academic review. In fulfilling this function, the APC liaises with ETQAs such as the HEQC, SETAs and professional bodies, as well as other external bodies that are responsible for monitoring the quality of academic programmes at UL, – Ensuring that where professional bodies or SETAs undertake review activities for accreditation or other purposes, such

32_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

activities meet UL’s internal requirements for academic review. Where review activities by professional bodies or SETAs do not cover all the academic programmes in a specific academic unit, or only address specific aspects of the academic programmes that are offered by that unit, the APC determines additional review activities and negotiates their conduct with the relevant unit and professional body or SETA, – Determining the cycle for academic review in the case of programmes that are not subject to a regular review process by professional bodies or SETAs, with the proviso that all academic programmes at UL must be reviewed at least every five years; • It receives consolidated reports on academic review from Faculty Boards and makes recommendations to Senate on their approval. Where academic programmes do not fall under the jurisdiction of professional bodies, the APC makes recommendations to Senate on their re-accreditation as a result of the academic review process; • It monitors and contributes to the effective interrelation between planning, quality assurance and budgeting planning activities. In order to facilitate the linkage between these processes, the APC: – Reviews institutional strategic plans and the three year rolling plan, to ensure that such plans adequately reflect the results of quality assurance activities. The APC makes recommendations on academic planning as this is reflected in the three year rolling plan before it is submitted to the DoHET, – Makes formal recommendations to the Executive Manage- ment on the results of quality assurance activities that have budgetary implications, records the responses that are received and monitors adaptations to the budget in the light of such recommendations.

In addition to the above, the Senate Standing Rules Committee evaluates and recommends all academic rules pertaining to teaching and learning from Institutional to Programme and Modular level. The planning and review of new and existing programmes, the quality management of the academic offerings and activities relating to the delivery of these are primarily guided by the Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework of the Institution. It provides a comprehensive overview of all aspects relating to academic programmes and procedures and structures through which these are managed and monitored. The framework is therefore clearly defined and sets the foundation for operational activities in these key areas.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _33

2.3 Development of new academic programmes The introduction of new programmes will result from strategic planning processes at the Institutional, Faculty or School/Department level. Faculties, as statutory bodies, are responsible to ensure that any new proposed programme, including undergraduate programmes, extended degree programmes, postgraduate programmes, short courses and collaborative programmes, comply with internal and external policies and guidelines. These include UL’s Vision and Mission, the Institutional thrusts supported by the specific Faculty, Institutional and Faculty policies and strategic plans, regional and national imperatives, and the overall PQM of the University.

In addition, Faculties should take account of national policy guidelines for the development and registration of academic programmes and qualifications, such as qualification and unit standards that are developed by SAQA and should also meet all the requirements for their accreditation as specified by UL’s internal policies, as well as the policies of the HEQC, professional bodies and SETAs. The specific procedures used to plan and develop new programmes, are determined by the Faculty concerned and may depend on the specific programme and the level at which it is generated. A specific academic unit assumes the primary responsibility for the planning of each programme and module. Such a unit should pay specific attention to two general areas, namely the conduct of a feasibility study and the design and organisation of the programme. Information on both these areas forms the basis for UL’s programme approval process. These two areas can be grouped into a number of specific aspects: 2.3.1 The design and organisation of the programme where specific attention should be given to: • The specification of admission requirements, including arrangements and criteria for the recognition of prior learning; • The specification of learning outcomes in terms of the desired knowledge, skills and attitudes of programme graduates; • The selection and organisation of the programme content, including the sequencing of the learning components (modules) and the determination of fundamental, core and elective modules as well as other possible programme elements; • The design of the learning experience. This activity entails the selection of teaching and learning approaches, educational technologies and strategies for learner support, in accordance with the programme’s specified learning outcomes;

34_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• The planned arrangements for experiential learning, including work-placed learning, field-trips and internships; • The selection of assessment methods and the stipulation of the assessment criteria as a means of establishing the extent to which learners achieve the specified learning outcomes; • The specification of performance indicators for the programme, including module pass rates, throughput rates and graduation rates.

2.3.2 A programme feasibility study that allows staff to assess the educational needs of potential students and to plan for the provision of an optimal learning environment. The educational needs should consider the relevance of the programme in terms of: • Inputs from current students, graduates, employers and the profession concerning the educational and training opportunities that should be offered by the programme; • The requirements of the local, regional, national and international environment in terms of human resource develop- ment needs; • The Institution’s educational priorities; • The requirements of the field of knowledge; • Recruitment and enrolment planning, indicating the anticipated student numbers and the profile of the students who will enrol for the programme; • An appraisal of UL’s expertise and experience in the broad field of study. Particular reference should be paid to the qualifications and experience of academic staff who will offer the programme; • Planning of the staffing requirements for the programme in the light of existing capacity; • Planning of the infrastructural requirements for the programme taking into consideration the existing physical and information resources (i.e. venues, equipment, the library and IT facilities); • A provisional financial plan for the programme; • Information on similar programmes that are offered by other higher education institutions within the region.

If a new programme application is approved at the level of Senate and Council, it is forwarded to the Department of Higher Education and Training for approval and inclusion in the university’s PQM. It also goes to the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) and where necessary to the relevant professional body, and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) for accreditation and registration.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _35

In the IOP and Turnaround Strategy the Institution made it clear that it will go through a phase of programme consolidation and will only diversify and broaden its programme base under exceptional circumstances. Presently, the University has a diverse range of programmes in different fields ranging from the Humanities to Health Sciences and from undergraduate diplomas through to doctoral degree programmes. The University PQM and Programme Structure are updated annually for operational purposes.

In the interim, the UL will review its PQM with the emphasis focus on optimum resources allocation against the merger rationale. Indeed, no new programmes were approved by Senate since 2007 and the University is presently reviewing the PQM as described under the IOP. The same does not apply to short courses where a number of programmes were approved during the past five years. These were not included in the programme consolidation described above as they are linked to third stream income and service directed programmes. They also represent an important response from the Institution to the local economic training and development demands of the region. Although they do not have an impact on the University PQM, they follow the same processes of internal approval as new programmes that require external approval and registration.

Special attention, therefore, still has to be given to the feasibility, design and organisation of the programmes. Applications are deliberated and recommended by Faculties before submission to APC. Since these programmes are not funded by DoHET, they often have financial implications and these are recommended to EMC for consideration before final approval.

The design and development of the short courses, although required to go through the normal alignment and approval processes of the University is intended to improve the responsiveness of UL to local training demands and as such the intended impact of the training is normally predetermined by the envisaged employer. In certain instances, the diversification of certificate courses is as a result of users identifying certain inadequacies in skills profiles of employees at certain levels or where refreshment courses are required. In the business sector in Limpopo, programme review and user demand are formalised through a Steering Committee that consists of representatives from business, Provincial structures and the University. It evaluates programme feasibility and makes recommendations to APC through the relevant Faculty.

36_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

In other areas, such as Health Sciences, user demand is predominantly influenced by the provincial and national policy guidelines. Alumni play an important role in this regard, because their experiences in their work environment are invaluable to improve the skills profile of the UL graduates. They are considered to be in a pivotal position to best evaluate the level of preparation of graduates fresh from UL programmes, because they themselves are originally from the specific student pool that the institution attracts into its programmes. This aspect is not well developed at UL, and will only come to its full potential when the UL Alumni base has grown significantly. It is, therefore, a resource that is untapped to a certain extent and involvement is rather done on an ad hoc basis or where former students are participating in postgraduate research projects and therefore directly involved in our training programmes.

2.4 Approval Process Programme and module approval procedures at UL can be classified into a number of categories: 2.4.1 New and significantly changed programmes The HEQC’s programme accreditation framework indicates that “a new programme is one which has not existed before or is a programme that has been significantly changed, i.e. when its purpose, outcomes, field of study and mode of delivery have been changed to such an extent that they result in a change of 50% or more to the credits of the programme”.

New and significantly changed programmes that conform to this definition are subject to: • Approval by both Senate and Council of UL following deliberation and recommendation by the relevant Faculty; • External accreditation and approval by the HEQC’s Accreditation Committee and/or other professional bodies linked to funding approval from the DoHET and confirmation of the registration of the qualification to which the programme leads by SAQA. 2.4.2 Minor changes to programmes and modules Minor changes to programmes and modules are dealt with at the Faculty level, and submitted to the APC for noting. Minor changes to programmes consist of various types of changes that do not amount to a change of 50% or more to the credits of the programme. Such changes include:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _37

• Changes to the regulations pertaining to progression to a subsequent level of study; • Changes in the composition of the programme – i.e. the addition or dropping of modules or other learning components; • Changes to the learning outcomes and purpose of the programme; • Changes to the assessment methods and criteria that are used in one or more of the programme’s constituent modules.

The relevant academic unit that is primarily responsible for the programme or module submits applications for minor changes to the Faculty Board for approval. Details of minor changes to programmes and modules should be sent to the APC before the academic year preceding the commencement of the modified programme or module.

The effect of a number of minor changes to a programme may amount to a significant change. It is the responsibility of the relevant Faculty to manage the particular programme and to bring such cumulative cases to the attention of the APC for consideration towards treating these as major changes with the accompanying procedural alterations. The APC also reserves the right to negotiate with the relevant Faculty concerning the nature and effects of its approved minor changes to a programme.

Where minor changes are made to a module, it is incumbent on the relevant academic unit to consult with all other academic programmes and units that make use of the module concerning the proposed changes. Confirmation that such consultation has taken place must be submitted to the Faculty Board as part of the documentation relating to the approval of the module changes.

Presently all applications for minor changes to programmes and modules are treated similarly to the internal processes relevant to major changes and new programmes. The realities of the harmonisation of processes and procedures in the new UL necessitated the approval of all changes to programmes to be dealt with at the level of APC. The status quo will remain until all quality related processes and structures are effectively implemented and integrated into all Faculty-related teaching and learning activities and until all teaching and learning objectives of the UL IOP have been implanted.

38_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

2.5 Programme Management Programme management is the responsibility of Faculties and includes all aspects that relate to the planning, design, composition, approval, implementation, review, renewal of programmes, and all planned academic activities. Every programme and module at UL falls under the primary responsibility of a particular Faculty. Within a Faculty the responsibility is assigned to specific academic units.

These are usually academic departments, but can also be other recognised academic structures.

These responsibilities include, but are not limited to: • The development and maintenance of all relevant policies, processes and structures with respect to the operational management of the academic programmes that fall under their aegis; • The actual recruitment and enrolment profile, which flows from enrolment planning and the policies and requirements for admission to the programme; • The application of Policies and Procedures relating to Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)11 in the selection of students for admission to the programme; • The content and organisation of the programme or module; • Regular consultation with internal and external stakeholders in order to assess the relevance of the programme or module; • The teaching and learning strategies that are employed in the programme or module; • The provision of experiential learning opportunities, including work-placed learning, internships and fieldwork; • The application of the assessment methods and criteria; • The provision of learner support and guidance; • The development and deployment of staff in order to meet the requirements of the programme or module; • The provision of adequate institutional resources and facilities to meet the needs of the programme or module.

Within Faculties, responsibility may be assigned to a specific staff member, who is referred to as a Head of Department or Programme Co-ordinator. Heads of Departments or Programme Co-ordinators, in liaison with the staff who are responsible for the programme’s constituent modules, should ensure its effective management.

11 Policy on the Recognition of Prior Learning (Appendix C6)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _39

The process is done every year where active programmes and modules are confirmed to be on offer for the next year. It takes place annually in the second semester and is tied to the process driven by the University Registrar’s Office during which the School Calendars12 are produced in preparation for the registration process in the following year.

Before the end of July every year, the proposed active programmes and modules are copied on the ITS, for registration purposes, to the following year. Directly after that, the composition of all programmes, under-and postgraduate, is produced and distributed to Faculties for confirmation.

Students are provided with a UL General Calendar,13 which sets out the General Rules and Regulations with respect to study and educational programmes at UL. In addition, students are provided with a School Calendar that contains programme guides for their specific programmes.

In addition to regular consultations between staff and students on an individual basis, academic units should provide students with adequate formal opportunities for collective consultation on all matters pertaining to the programme in which they are enrolled. The formal arrangements for such consultation will depend on the particular programme, including factors such as its level and delivery mode. Thus, the Faculty responsible may decide to establish a consultative platform that makes use of existing structures for student representation on Faculty Boards, or to arrange a special meeting to which student representatives are invited in order to discuss matters pertaining to their learning experience and environment. Whatever the specific arrangements that are made with respect to collective consultation between staff and students on the programme, it is required that such consultation should take place at least once per semester.

At this stage, the formal consultative process takes place through the Faculty Boards as minimum requirements with consultation predominantly on an ad hoc basis at academic unit level. These procedures will have to be formalised by the Faculties as part of the harmonisation of merging processes.

12 School Calendars from 2009-2010 (Appendix C3) 13 University General Calendar 2010 (Appendix C1)

40_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

2.5.1 Module Management Modules can be unique to specific programmes, or may form part of a variety of academic programmes, which may be located in different Faculties. Nevertheless, each module at UL falls under the primary responsibility of a specific academic unit, which will usually be an academic department. In this case, modules, by nature of their content and focus, will be managed by a particular unit of a similar orientation.

Table 2.1: Total number of modules offered by UL across all programmes during the period 2005 to 2009

Total number of modules offered

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

5 188

3 636

3 636

3 960

3 804

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

It is required that a specific staff member, whom policy framework refers to as a Module Co-ordinator, should be responsible for each module at UL. The Module Co-ordinator makes appropriate arrangements for the management of the module, in liaison with the staff who presents the module and the responsible academic unit.

UL’s Teaching and Learning Policy delineates the responsibilities of lecturing staff with respect to module presentation.

In addition the Module Co-ordinator is responsible for: • Ensuring that the necessary documentation is prepared for the approval of new modules and changes to existing modules, as specified in UL’s policies and procedures for programme and module approval; • Ensuring that the review of the module is undertaken in conformity with institutional and Faculty policies and procedures. At UL, heads of academic units assume responsibility for all modules linked to that unit, irrespective of the programme/s that they are linked to.

The Faculty can appoint a module coordinator for every module under its aegis from amongst the academic staff. In the absence of a module coordinator, those responsibilities will revert to the head of the academic unit.

The module coordinators are responsible for ensuring that students receive a module guide or outline at the onset of the module, which meets the requirements for module guides that are delineated in UL’s Teaching and Learning Policy. The module guide contains important information on teaching, learning and assessment. It includes information such as credits, notional hours, modular outcomes,

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _41

assessment, examiners and module specific rules. It represents a crucial mechanism in the quality system whereby students become a component of UL Quality Assurance while also sharing the responsibility towards the development of their skills profile.

2.6 Academic Review Academic reviews comprise a threefold process: • Faculty annual reports • Departmental academic reviews; and • Programme reviews.

UL’s Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework provides overarching guidelines on teaching and learning activities nested within Faculties. It comprehensively outlines structures and even processes that should be involved in the three legs of academic reviews.

2.6.1 Faculty Annual Reports These reports probably represent the most deep-rooted quality mechanism in the Faculties. They follow a standard format and a reflective base for all teaching and learning activities of the previous year. Information leading to the establishment of the report is attained through the schools directly from the academic units or departments. These are then all assembled into a single Faculty Annual Report that is representative of the Faculty as a statutory committee of Senate. The report is tabled before the Faculty Board for consideration and recommendation to Senate.

The reports provide information on, and critical appraisal of, all teaching and learning activities. It includes assessment and its evaluation, staff development initiatives, postgraduate and research development in terms of focus, growth patterns and capacity building and community engagement based activities that are linked to third stream income initiatives. It forms the basis for departmental and programme reviews and allows for the identification of strengths and weaknesses and actions required to improve or strengthen those. Faculties also evaluate their performance in terms of the achievement of their strategic objectives cascading down to departmental level.

It allows Senate to critically evaluate teaching and learning performance in the Faculties and their contribution towards the Institutional vision and mission.

42_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The Institutional Planning and Research Division provide annual statistical information on student performance in modules to all Faculties. This includes: • Profile of total student enrolments (headcounts) in the programme according to year of study, race and gender; • Enrolment profile of first-year students in the programme, according to race, gender and admission route (normal or alternative admission); • Pass and graduation rates per programme; • Student performance in all modules that forms part of every programme.

2.6.2 Departmental Academic Reviews The activities in preparation for and during departmental academic reviews are comprehensively described in the UL Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework. In brief, it touches on the purpose, scope, schedule, self evaluation, and external evaluation. The reviews touch on those aspects of a department’s activities that are considered to be important to the delivery of quality teaching and learning, including resource management, leadership, staffing, and the achievements of the department.

To date no department has undergone an academic review in the merged institution. Policy to this effect has been developed and approved, but the actual implementation is on hold until the IOP has reached a conclusion. This was a deliberate decision, because reviews would have had reduced the significance of the IOP if started in the old structure.

Therefore, it was considered prudent to allow the new Academic Structure and PQM review to conclude so that the departmental reviews would have improved relevance within the new Academic Structure of UL. In this sense, it is fortunate to have the HEQC Institutional Audit in 2010, because with the new Academic Structure approved by Council, it is only the PQM review that has to be completed, which means that the departmental review implementation should coincide with the HEQC Institutional Audit.

2.6.3 Programme Reviews Programme reviews are an established and integral part of the quality assurance system of the University. Comprehensive programme reviews that are cyclical in nature have been standard occurrences in the Health Sciences programmes. They are primarily

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _43

guided by external regulating bodies such as the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), but still follow the internal approval processes as outlined in Programme Review under Section 2.4.

Table 2.2: Examples of UL programmes that were subjected to comprehensive re/accreditation during the period 2005 to 2010 Programmes re/accredited during 2005 to 2009

Year

ACE (Mathematics)

2007

Audiology, Speech & Language

2007

B. Ed.

2007

BDS

2010

B. Optom.

2008

B. Pharm.

2007

Dental Therapy & Oral Hygiene

2010

MBChB

2008 with follow-up inspection in 2009

M.Ed. in Educational Management

2005

Nutrition

2007

Occupational Therapy

2009

PGCE

2007

Physiotherapy

2008

Postgraduate Programmes in Medicine

2006

Postgraduate Specialisation Programme in Dentistry

2004 & 2010

Radiography

2000

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

External bodies also assist in the review of non-health sciences related programmes from time to time, such as our Education programmes. In addition, most of our programmes underwent reviews after the merging of the two former Universities in 2005. The intention was to harmonise duplicated programmes and to rationalise offerings, especially with respect to fundamental modules. Through a rationalisation process, it led to a substantial reduction in the total number of modules that are taught (Table 2.2). After that it remained largely constant and in line with the University policy to complete the IOP projects and to consolidate programmes before diversification into new focus areas.

UL has planned to embark on a structured programme review cycle as provided by the Academic Quality Assurance Policy Framework. In that sense it has not yet been fully implemented in terms of its regularity, but improvement of quality assurance imperatives are ongoing in nature and applications for programme changes are already required to follow the format of newly developed forms.

What is clear from the foregoing exposition is that UL has in recent years as a merged institution managed to ensure the harmonisation,

44_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

development and approval of structures, policies and procedures for the development, management and review of academic programmes.

It is however, quite evident that most of these systems have not yet been fully institutionalised through implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This weakness will be addressed through the improvement plan which will also be used to consolidate the merger.

2.7 Student Access and Success Rates HEQC Criterion 4: Academic support services (e.g. library and learning materials, computer support services, etc.) adequately support teaching and learning needs and help give effect to teaching and learning objectives.

HEQC Criterion 6: Clear and efficient arrangements ensure the integrity of learner records and certification processes. Monitoring responsibility is clearly allocated and acted upon.

HEQC Criterion 11: The institution has an assessment policy and clear and effective procedures for its implementation. The policy and its procedures ensure academic and professional standards in the design, approval, implementation and review of assessment strategies for programmes and modules and for the qualifications awarded by the institution.

HEQC Criterion 12: The institution has effective procedures that facilitate the quality of the internal and external moderation of its assessment procedures and results, in order to ensure their reliability as well as the integrity of the qualifications it awards.

HEQC Criterion 13: The principles, procedures and practices of assessment are explicit, fair and consistently applied throughout the institution. Security arrangements for recording and documenting assessment data are in place to ensure the credibility of outcomes.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _45

HEQC Criterion 14: The institution has an RPL policy, and effective procedures for recognising prior learning and assessing current competence.

2.7.1 Student Enrolment and Access UL has a total student number of approximately 16500 (Table 2.3), registered across all programmes offered on the PQM. It stretches from undergraduate diplomas all the way to doctoral degrees. It comprises about 2.25% of the total national annual enrolment at tertiary institutions.

Table 2.3: Overall number of students registered at UL from 2005 to 2009 across all Faculties and into all programmes on offer at all delivery sites

Number of students

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

18 774

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

Approximately 20% of our students are registered into postgraduate programmes from honours degrees and postgraduate diplomas to doctoral degrees.

2.7.2 Selection and Admission Admission to UL is guided by the General Admissions Requirements Policy 14 on the minimum admission requirements into the programmes on offer. It is made available on the UL webpage, but also in the annual School Calendars and the undergraduate and postgraduate prospectus. Furthermore, the University General Rules that incorporate specific aspects, for instance, admission, enrolment and progression, guide quality parameters for study across all programmes.

Apart from the general NQF admission requirements to study at UL, the National Benchmark Tests (NBT) may be used to guide placement of students into the EDPs. In its attempt to improve access while simultaneously improving graduation rates, UL has introduced a number of initiatives to achieve these goals. These include: • The NQF level Grade 12 results; • The NBT results; • EDPs in selected key areas to improve student preparation and throughput; • Best student academic achievement awards on an equity basis; 14 General Admission Requirements (Appendix C4)

46_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• The establishment and directed activities of the Centre for Academic Excellence (CAE) towards academic development and support for staff and students; and • The student mentorship programme.

Although Grade 12 results have been used historically as a basis to select students into programmes, these have limitations, especially considering the specific preparatory profile of the average student attracted to UL programmes. Grade 12 aggregates have shown a clear shift over the past few years (Table 2.4), with the number of students entering UL programmes with grades between E and G showing a clear and general decline. This appears very promising, but it is known that good Grade 12 aggregates do not necessarily translate into good graduation rates.

Surveys indicated that a large proportion of our first time entries find the transfer to the tertiary environment very demanding, irrespective of Grade 12 results obtained on the NQF levels. That is probably why the Student Mentorship Programme has received such wide support from students and has shown to be such a successful programme. It will be discussed late under 2.8.1. The transfer to the tertiary landscape and accompanying adaptation challenges are especially true on the Turfloop campus, where the geographical location of the campus results in a very high proportion of live-in students. UL is the university with the highest proportion of students accommodated in student residences, primarily brought about by the level of infrastructure available in the direct vicinity of the campus. It is for this reason that UL continues to grapple with questions of access and graduation rate improvement pitched against student preparation, background and supporting structures.

Table 2.4: Grade 12 aggregates as percentages of first time enrolments at UL from 2005 to 2009 AGGREGATE SYMBOL

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Aggregate symbol A

2.2%

2.5%

2.5%

2.6%

2.5%

Aggregate symbol B

10.0%

10.9%

11.4%

12.4%

11.6%

Aggregate symbol C

27.2%

29.3%

31.2%

32.7%

31.6%

Aggregate symbol D

33.9%

35.2%

38.0%

40.0%

41.4%

Aggregate symbol E

16.6%

14.0%

11.8%

9.6%

10.2%

Aggregate symbol F

10.1%

8.2%

5.1%

2.7%

2.7%

Aggregate symbol G

0.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _47

2.7.3 Field of study When UL was established in 2005, it had an overall student number of approximately 16500. In the IOP, the University requested a 0% growth rate until the PQM review is completed, after which it will allow diversification of its offerings and growth in selected key developmental priority areas. In the interim it will only allow limited proportional re-alignment to migrate towards the ministerially approved imperatives for 2010 as outlined in the Enrolment Plan for 2007-2010.

These were: • at least 50% of enrolments in Science, Engineering and Technology; • at least 15% enrolments in Management Sciences; and • a maximum of 35% enrolments in Humanities and Law. As indicated in Table 2.5 the University re-orientated its field of enrolment during the period 2005 to 2009. The percentage of enrolments into SET was effectively stabilised at 48% of the total headcount. It is strategically positioned at 2% under the ministerially approved target for 2010, which provides for a rapid growth phase of about 350 students in new Health Sciences programmes during the development of the planned medical training platform in Polokwane.

The relative percentage of students registered into the Humanities and Law, including Education, is steadily decreasing over the period to the target of a maximum of 35%. A slow accreditation process of specific programmes in Education and inconsistent numbers of students registered into the National Diploma in Education (NPDE) reduced the proportion of students in Education below the planned numbers. These are expected to stabilise after the PQM review which will be completed in 2010.

The proportion of students registered into programmes in Management Sciences has been above the target of 15% throughout the period 2005 to 2009. It is expected to continue, especially after the restructuring of the Faculty of Management and Law, where a new School of Auditing and Accounting was established. The School is expected to focus support and development for students that register for programmes such as the B.Compt, while also prioritising the development of a strong postgraduate component.

The 0% growth rate in itself reduced the adaptive ability of UL until at least 2010 when the PQM review is envisaged to be completed.

48_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

In Table 2.5 the total number of students registered in the main areas supports the internal changes as described. In this sense, UL achieved very good focus and development in alignment with growth areas, considering the 0% growth rate between 2007 and 2010.

Table 2.5: The total number of students registered in the different fields of study offered by UL during the period 2005 to 2009 FIELD OF STUDY Education Health Sciences Humanities and Law Management Sciences Science, Engineering and Technology Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

3 939

3 273

2 584

1 780

1 748

21%

18%

15%

11%

11%

4 597

4 447

4 410

4 453

4 421

24%

25%

25%

27%

26%

3 416

3 495

3 688

3 800

4 288

18%

19%

21%

23%

25%

3 253

3 252

3 459

3 121

2 866

17%

18%

20%

19%

17%

3 569

3 528

3 551

3 415

3 709

20%

20%

20%

21%

22%

18 774

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

2.7.4 Level of study The University is committed to a drastic improvement in the proportion of postgraduate students, especially in key growth areas.

The IOP identified the postgraduate student headcount and throughput rate as factors that affect growth, research output and capacity, subsidy to the University and successful recruitment of UL graduates into the academic sector. Targets set by the Minister in 2007, were for a 20% postgraduate headcount by 2010. At that stage it was positioned at 17%, (Table 2.6.)

The proportion is slow to respond to interventions, but the change is still upwards, reaching a high of 19% in 2009. This is partly as a result of short- term initiatives to improve the throughput rate, which reduced the number of students registered into postgraduate programmes. The completion of the PQM review is expected to refocus postgraduate training, especially at the level of postgraduate diplomas. It is envisaged to improve the proportion of postgraduate registrations towards and beyond 20% during the period 2011 to 2013. In the IOP, UL also envisaged a rapid growth in undergraduate diploma programmes. The University is unlikely to reach those targets, however, because it decided on the consolidation of its academic offerings until 2010, after which it will consider diversification and the possible growth in undergraduate diplomas.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _49

These will only be introduced when identified as programmes that will have direct development in key areas and which are aligned with the UL vision and mission. It could offset the proportional balance between undergraduate and postgraduate enrolments and will be carefully monitored in enrolment planning and implementation between 2011 and 2013.

Table 2.6: Total headcount enrolment per level of students at UL over the last five years QUALIFICATION LEVEL Undergraduate Diploma Undergraduate B Degree Honours & Postgraduate Diploma Masters Doctoral Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

3 100

2 568

1 492

877

675

16%

14%

8%

5%

4%

12 311

12 488

13 158

12 848

13 149

66%

69%

75%

78%

77%

1 273

1 040

1 210

1 072

1 403

7%

6%

7%

6%

8%

1 918

1 744

1 675

1 628

1 666

10%

10%

9%

10%

10%

172

155

157

144

139

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

18 774

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

2.7.5 Access UL is committed to the transformation of tertiary education at all levels. It has been one of the focal areas of the institution for many years and it prides itself on achievements in the field, as indicated by the successes of the UNIFY programme, the student mentorship programme and the Disabled Students Unit. (Check Section 2.8 for the details).

The University continues to provide tertiary education opportunities to a primarily African student pool (Table 2.7), many of whom are from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds that often leave them ill prepared for successful study in the tertiary landscape. The profile is expected to continue into the immediate future, considering the imperatives in skills development of the Limpopo Province and the particular geographical feeder areas of the University.

50_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Table 2.7: Student headcount enrolment by race and by percentage of total enrolment at UL from 2005 to 2009 RACE GROUP

2005

African Coloured Indian White Total

2006

2007

2008

2009

18 219

17 486

17 231

16 137

16 663

97.0%

97.2%

97.4%

97.5%

97.7%

43

35

34

25

28

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.2%

217

199

203

173

138

1.2%

1.1%

1.1%

1.0%

0.8%

295

275

224

234

203

1.6%

1.5%

1.3%

1.4%

1.3%

18 774

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

UL serves predominantly South African citizens (Table 2.8) and is envisaged to continue to do so, when considering the immediate skills needs in the country. However, the University also plays an important role in supporting SADC development and capacity improvement. In that regard Zimbabwe benefits by far the most from the training of students at UL, comprising approximately 75% of SADC students. This is expected, because Zimbabwe is also the SADC country situated closest to UL and the Limpopo Province.

Table 2.8: Student headcount enrolment by country of origin and by percentage of total enrolment at UL from 2005 to 2009 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN South Africa SADC Rest of Africa Rest of World Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

18 070

17 339

17 082

16 009

16 541

97%

97%

97%

97%

97%

447

402

367

318

300

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

222

220

188

182

165

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

35

34

55

60

26

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

18 774

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

Table 2.9 shows the overall profile over the last five years of student gender headcount enrolments at UL. It forms an important part of the UL transformation initiative and provides improved access to female students. During the period, the percentage of female students enrolled into all programmes increased by over one percentage point from 52.3% to 53.5%. The University is committed

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _51

to gender equity, with an overall improvement of female enrolment in programmes, especially in the Sciences and Education. Indeed, the Humanities and Health Sciences showed the highest proportional enrolment of female students, being 59% and 55% respectively. The figures compare favourably with national contact proportions and will be developed further.

Table 2.9: Gender enrolment as headcount and as percentage of the total enrolment at UL from 2005 to 2009 GENDER ENROLMENT

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Female

9 826

9 395

9 189

8 724

9 111

52.3%

52.2%

51.9%

52.7%

53.5%

8 948

8 600

8 503

7 845

7 921

47.7%

47.8%

48.1%

47.3%

46.5%

18 773

17 995

17 692

16 569

17 032

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Male Total Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

RPL is considered an important tool by the Institution to facilitate lifelong learning. It is not exclusive for access into undergraduate programmes, but primarily focuses on recognition towards postgraduate study. In that sense it is considered to be an important mechanism to facilitate partnership towards the improvement of access, not only with the students involved, but also with the local economy and skills requirements in the country. It, therefore, directly supports the mission statement of UL by “...continuing a long tradition of empowerment...” by being actively involved in “.... community development needs through partnerships and knowledge generation....” It is presently a focus area for development at UL and to this end an Institutional Policy on the Recognition of Prior Learning has been developed and approved. It provides guidelines for Faculties to develop Faculty based RPL guidelines that direct access to programme level, if applicable, other than through normal NQF progression.

The policy requires that a student profile be established in terms of formal training and the experiential component before consideration.

Faculties presented RPL policies and strategies that focussed on their specific programmes to APC and Senate for recommendation and approval. Presently all Faculties have RPL policies guiding access into postgraduate programmes. A total number of 328 students have gained access to UL programmes especially in the School of Education, through RPL processes from 2005 to 2009. Some programmes are more active in this regard than others, due to the nature of the programmes and the specific target market.

52_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

RPL is not always the preferred method to facilitate lifelong learning.

Not all students are eligible to enter formal subsidised programmes, but they still have the personal need, or are required by employers, to be part of the process of continual knowledge and skills improvement. Universities provide alternatives for such people through the presentation of short courses. Short courses have become a common phenomenon in universities worldwide and the demand for short courses is continuously increasing. Quality assurance and management processes of short courses are a delegated function by the HEQC to higher education institutions and every institution should therefore ensure that the teaching and learning done at that level is in accordance with acceptable quality standards.

At UL, quality in short courses is ensured through all the established policies and processes that govern other programmes. Applications for short courses can be initiated by the Head of Department; the Director of School and the Executive Dean. The initiator will depend on the coverage of the course depending on whether it is confined to the Department, the School or the Faculty. It is eventually approved by Senate after consideration by the Academic Planning Committee.

Certificates are issued in the name of the University of Limpopo and signed by the relevant Director of School and Executive Dean of the Faculty.

UL short courses have a five-fold purpose: • They form an essential component of UL’s array of offerings to support the universal notion of lifelong learning in terms of training and development; • They contribute to the University’s branding in terms of the Vision, Mission and strategic thrusts, thereby enhancing the University profile; • They are used as interventions to training and skills development challenges facing the public and private sector on a continual basis; • They are used as a strategy to boost the University of Limpopo third stream income; • Short courses are very responsive in their nature and are used as a quick response tool to market pressure in terms of training and development, especially in the Limpopo Province.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _53

At UL, short courses can be a single module or a number of modules that lead to a certificate. The courses are presented across the whole spectrum of learning areas of the University, but are particularly prevalent in Health and Management Sciences.

The Turfloop Graduate School of Leadership presents a number of short certificate courses to business in the Province. They are strategically focussed at predetermined target markets and are reviewed frequently for being relevant and serving their purpose.

The Faculty of Health Sciences presents short courses in a number of areas. They usually come in the form of refresher courses that are presented annually, or to widen knowledge in specific fields. The School of Medicine, for instance, presents a refresher course for medical doctors every year that is well received and attended. The Departments of Public Health and Nursing present courses that improve knowledge and skills base in areas that are developing quickly and where practicing health professionals need to be updated on new developments in the fields.

There is always room for more short courses to be introduced, but it is carefully managed to maintain a healthy balance with subsidised programmes and minimise possible negative effects on aspects such capacity and infrastructure.

Improvement of fundamental skills of under-prepared students towards undergraduate qualifications is primarily directed through EDPs. UL considers itself a leader in the field of preparation of underprepared students from disadvantaged backgrounds towards successful completion of undergraduate programmes, especially in the Sciences. UL approved five EDPs in 2006 and registered the first cohorts in 2007. These were linked to the BA, BSC, BA (Media Studies), LLB, and BCOM. For the 2010 to 2013 planning cycle, the initiative was expanded with the MBCHB EDP. The University is still investigating the introduction of additional EDPs, especially in the Health Sciences related training programmes. Since its inception in 2007, a total of 1457 students were admitted to the EDPs (Table 2.10). It still remains a longstanding and active flagship initiative of UL and is anticipated to grow in strength and standing.

54_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Table 2.10 Number of students enrolled into the five Extended Degree Programmes (EDPs) at UL from its inception in 2007 to 2009

Total number EDP Enrolments

2007

2008

2009

449

415

593

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

2.8 Academic Development and Support Services UL is committed to ensure that student access is accompanied by success and throughput rates which are in line with the national average. This includes proper infrastructure for student residence and life. The commitment was necessitated by the fact that UL caters mainly for African students and the majority of them come from a rural poor background. In most cases these students come to the University being academically under-prepared and thus need some form of academic intervention. Some of them have disabilities while others do develop some emotional challenges while at the University.

Others come to UL being academically sound but financially needy.

In order to address these challenges the institution has established academic development and support services.

UL has the following academic development and support services: • • • • •

The Centre for Academic Excellence; Disabled Students Unit; Centre for Student Counselling and Development; Student Affairs; Student Financial Aid Office.

2.8.1 The Centre for Academic Excellence The Centre for Academic Excellence (CAE) is in the process of being fully developed as a cross Faculty structure to promote quality teaching and learning, and to improve the graduate throughput rate of UL. Although established in 2005, two founding Units, namely, the Centre for Academic Development Services (CADS) at Medunsa Campus and the Academic Development Unit (ADU) at the Turfloop Campus had different functions. It was necessary to continue these functions not to disrupt services offered. Once the structure is finalised, it will be important for the CAE to consolidate systems and policies; driving, monitoring and evaluating implementation of the Teaching and Learning Policy; and providing support, training and development towards the achievement of teaching and learning improvement plans at all levels.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _55

The Executive Management is in discussion finalising the structure, functions, roles, and responsibilities. This will provide CAE with a clear direction for its operations. Both the proposed and current functions of CAE are discussed.

The aim is to offer academic development and support services to staff and students, conduct research and play a central coordinating role for the extended degree programmes and the National Benchmark Test (NBT). Its primary role should be to improve the graduate throughput of the University through engagement at a strategic level with the Executive Committee of Senate (ECS) and on an operational level with Faculties, Schools, Programmes and Departments, as well as with Directorates such as Quality Assurance and Institutional Planning.

A pilot project on the NBT conducted in 2010 confirmed that the majority of students at both campuses of the University require substantial academic support. It has been recommended that this support be aligned to the academic needs of the students, and where possible, integrated into the curricula. In line with this, the following vision and mission for CAE is proposed: 2.8.1.1 Vision of CAE “A Centre that efficiently and effectively promotes excellence in the quality of learning and teaching, and systematic improvement in the throughput rates through relevant training, development and support for academic staff and students, monitoring of academic success and research that influences institutional policies and practice.”

2.8.1.2 Mission of CAE “To implement interventions that respond to identified needs to improve the University throughput rates. This includes the introduction of policies, systems and interventions to ensure a high quality learning experience for students in all programmes on both campuses.”

The following are proposed functions of CAE: • To offer a comprehensive training and development programme for academic staff that includes a compulsory induction programme for new academic staff; refresher courses for existing staff and workshops on learning and teaching methodologies. The ultimate aim is to combine staff development training units into formal qualifications, such as

56_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) or a Masters degree in Clinical or Health Education; To promote academic discourse on learning and teaching through an annual staff development programme consisting of workshops, seminars and lunch hour talks, and through the establishment of learning and teaching forums in Faculties, Schools and programmes; To manage a system for the evaluation by students of the quality of teaching and of courses; To organise a system that identifies students requiring additional academic development and support, and early identification of students at academic risk at all years of study. This would include analysis of results of the National Benchmark Tests, class tests and tests across courses/modules in each year of study in all programmes. Academic Development Practitioners (ADPs) at Faculty level and the establishment of a Comprehensive Campus Student Support Centre (CCSSC) will address the integration of the current fragmented student support initiatives and tracking students’ academic progress in all years of study; To offer a first year course in academic skills (academic writing, computer literacy, study skills, library and information management skills) in all programmes. Currently this course is offered only on the Medunsa Campus for all programmes in the Faculty of Health Sciences; To offer individual and group support to students in academic skills training and to refer students to specialised structures for specific needs; To promote and support extended degree programmes (EDPs) through teaching, innovative and creative praxis, research, improved marketing and staff development; To provide a comprehensive and integrated student support system that includes an orientation programme for first-year students, mentoring, tutoring, and supplementary instruction; To promote technology assisted teaching and learning, particularly in the development and use of Blackboard (Bb) as a learning management system for academic development and support of students; To broaden the scope of academic development and support to postgraduate students, part-time lecturers and assistant teaching staff; To support course and programme providers improve the quality of learning and teaching through reviews and research, and planning of intervention strategies; To monitor and evaluate the impact of planned interventions on course and programme throughput rates;

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _57

• To formulate funding proposals, to monitor and evaluate progress on donor funded projects relating to academic development, and to report on projects to external donors, such as the Department of Higher Education and Training.

Currently, CAE caters mainly for undergraduate students, particularly first entering students, and to some extent, senior and postgraduate students. Academic staff development has been firmly established at the Medunsa Campus although the level of activity has declined due to staff shortages which will be addressed once the structure has been finalised. At the Turfloop Campus, staff development has not been established as it was not its responsibility although this is changing. For the first time in 2010, all new academic staff attended the same five-day induction programme on each campus.

2.8.1.3 Academic staff development It is recommended that this function be managed by an Academic Development Practitioner (ADP). It is proposed that this should consist of a comprehensive programme of activities informed by an annual needs analysis and training seminars will then be planned.

The workshops will vary in time and will be facilitated by CAE staff, University staff or external experts. The aim is to offer professional workshops with excellent practical content that lecturers can use to improve the quality of the teaching and students’ learning. Sessions are highly interactive to ensure active participation and an enjoyable experience. Certificates of attendance will be provided to participants who complete a programme and evaluations will be conducted at the end of each workshop. Workshops will also be organised and customised to meet specific Faculty, School or department needs.

The goal is to have this training as part of a postgraduate qualification such as a Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education that is compulsory for all lecturers, ideally before they attain permanent employment status although this may be part of a long- term plan.

The reality is that the majority of lecturers have had no formal training in teaching, and student evaluations clearly highlight the need for improvement in teaching skills linked to curriculum development and assessment.

The main challenge for the CAE in this area of academic staff development is to get senior academic staff members to attend training and development programmes. The majority of senior academic staff members have a perception that they have sufficient knowledge of teaching based on their years of service. Participants

58_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

tend to be younger and junior academic staff. Those who have previously attended a staff induction programme or a CAE workshop are always eager to attend further staff development training workshops.

A bi-annual three day induction programme is conducted for new academic staff. It is practical and focuses on the understanding and skills required by the lecturer to ensure quality teaching and learning.

Attention is given to aspects such as planning and presentation, innovative teaching methods, assessment, facilitating small groups and large classes, and e-teaching and learning.

• Evaluation of teaching The CAE has introduced a system for students to evaluate the quality of teaching and courses/modules. The system consists of a web-based database of items that are split into two sections, one pertaining to lecturer evaluation and the other to course/module evaluation. The items in each section are further organised into different categories. Lecturers are trained in the use of the system and in the value of and response to student evaluations. Once completed evaluation questionnaires are submitted to CAE and printed by an academic developer who thereafter scans, analyses, writes a report, and engages with the individual lecturer in providing training for quality improvement of identified areas of need. The results are used solely for development purpose.

The same system, known as the Evaluation Assistant (EA), is used by Heads of Departments to evaluate the quality of courses and modules

2.8.1.4 Student development and support UL has a number of student development and support activities some of which are co-ordinated by the Centre and are discussed below: • Student mentorship programme: – The student mentorship programme is a voluntary programme that gives every first year student an opportunity to have a thoroughly trained and equipped mentor who will ensure that the mentee is supported socially and academically, – UL mentors are trained volunteer students who are senior students selected each year according to their academic excellence; communicative abilities; understanding of both

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _59

–

–

–

–

university life and the challenges faced by first entering students; community involvement; initiative and leadership skills, CAE offers rigorous training to these student mentors with the express purpose that they assist first-entering students to adjust to the tertiary academic environment and succeed in their academic studies, Student mentors hold group sessions with their mentees in which they deal with academic and social matters according to the mentee’s needs and academic programme requirements, Student mentors work closely with the CAE staff, the academic development practitioners in the schools, and lecturing staff linked to specific schools who volunteer to develop and maintain programmes that will meet the academic development needs of students in their respective schools, Throughout the years, mentors have proved themselves indispensable for the institution in supporting and sustaining the social and welfare of first entering students by providing them with social orientation to the university life, as well as by helping first-entering students to cope with academic activities;

• Supplemental instruction: – Supplemental instruction is an academic support intervention in which peer-facilitated group sessions in identified high failure rate courses and modules are conducted, – An adapted form of supplemental instruction is offered at first year level through the student mentorship programme, – Supplemental instruction is a vital component of CAE’s attempt to improve throughput and graduation rates at UL on sustainable basis, – I n addition to the student mentorship programme and supplemental instruction, CAE provides training and facilitates workshops to student organisations and groupings in areas such as life skills, personal development, leadership skills and team building; • National benchmark test (NBT): – The NBT was piloted at UL at the beginning of 2010, – The test replaces the Standardised Assessment Test for Access and Placement (SATAP) which was used to place students into the extended degree programmes,

60_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

– D uring the course of 2010, CAE will provide training to academic staff to enable them to identify students requiring academic support, based on the NBT results, and assist in organising the necessary academic support, – The decision on how UL will use the NBT results beyond 2010 will be made after the completion of the pilot phase.

2.8.1.5 Extended degree programmes (EDPs) UL, as part of its commitment to improve and increase throughput and graduation rates, has in line with the National Plan for Higher Education introduced six extended degree programmes. The EDPs, as ministerially approved degree programmes, are managed by the relevant Faculties and co-ordinated by the CAE for ensuring alignment and synergy in terms of reporting to the Ministry of Higher Education and Training. The extended degree programmes have been introduced based on research conducted in the existing Bachelor of Science Extended Degree Programme (B.Sc. EDP), which proved that the throughput from the EDP is higher than from the mainstream programmes.

The B.Sc. EDP started in 1992 as the University of the North Foundation Year Programme (commonly known as UNIFY) being a pilot project by the European Union with the main aim of boosting Science and Mathematics graduates in South Africa. As the European Union did not want to have any dealing with the then apartheid government, the funding was channelled to the then University of the North through the Kagiso Trust.

The goals of the UNIFY Project, listed below, were realistic, measurable and achievable and according to the evaluation report of 2004 (released in January 2005) the Project was a huge success. During its life span, UNIFY was evaluated at the end of Phase I (1992-1994) in 1995, at the end of Phase II (1996-2000) in 2000, and at the end of Phase III (2001-2004). Phase I was run with the assistance of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA) but during 1998 the FTP International (of Brussels) and the London–based Institute of Education took over from the VUA. The following were the goals of UNIFY: • To increase the quantity and quality of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering the sciences at the University of the North; • To ensure that the foundation year (UNIFY) is institutionalised;

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _61

• To foster linkages between UNIFY and the in-service activities for high school Science and Mathematics educators through a programme called UNIST (University of the North In-service Training Programme); • To ensure that University of the North staff engage one another on teaching and learning matters related to curriculum development; • To assist students not admitted or placed at the University of the North to find other tertiary opportunities; • To ensure that information is spread about UNIFY as an innovation centre in the higher education sector; • To produce a relevant and effective selection instrument and other instruments in the programme; • To build effective, relevant and responsive teaching, learning and curriculum structures and strategies geared towards UNIFY students; • To develop South African academic and technical staff involved in the UNIFY programme through the funded development programme.

The changeover from the VUA leadership to the Brussels-led group created problems for the South African academics within the UNIFY programme because they were at different stages of their development in terms of studies and there was also a feeling that they were ready to lead the programme without outside assistance.

At the time the European Union had taken a decision to replace the Dutch VUA, and their decision prevailed. Despite these challenges, the UNIFY model made a tremendous breakthrough and contribution to what became known as the “bridging programme” in the higher education sector in South African to the extent that it was emulated and adopted by other higher education institutions in the country.

The number of students entering the sciences increased as envisaged (and their confidence level was also boosted) and the number of Science graduates increased and some of these graduates are now respected academics and researchers.

UL’s success in the introduction of an integrated approach to academic development and support, which is in place in a limited number of programmes, has motivated the institution to extend it to other programmes. As a result of this the University has introduced a new EDP in the MBChB. 2.8.1.6 National Benchmarking Tests (NBT) In 2010, all registered students were required to write the NBT tests.

The data will be used to review selection criteria and align the

62_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

academic support and academic development to specific identified needs and to integrate academic development into the curricula.

Students were required to write two tests, namely Academic Literacy and Quantitative Literacy (that are combined into one test) and Mathematics. The results for the Academic Literacy and Quantitative Literacy is reported separately (i.e. institutions receive three scores for students who write both tests). All students wrote the Academic Literacy and Quantitative Literacy test but only those who registered for a course in which Mathematics is a requirement write the Mathematics test.

Three levels of performance were determined and validated into the following categories: • Proficient: Students scoring this level are deemed recommendable for placement into mainstream curriculum provision, i.e. writers’ performance in higher education is unlikely to be affected by “gaps” in Academic or Quantitative Literacy or Mathematics • Intermediate: Students scoring this level are deemed to be recommendable for some form of foundational or extended curriculum provision, unless there is compelling alternative evidence that they are ready for mainstream study; • Basic: Students scoring this level are deemed to be underprepared for direct entry into higher education study, and should be considered for other forms of provision, such as that offered by FET Colleges 2.8.1.7 The writing centre A Writing Centre is in the process of being established on both Campuses. The Centre will offer writing support services across all the disciplines and at all academic levels through the Cornish enough writing activities, organisation of writing and research skills workshops. The centre will also assist in the design of materials development.

Traditional ways of teaching writing, such as teacher–fronted composition classes, are not very effective, as they do not address specific writing difficulties of particular students. In progressive universities, writing centres are established to address this need. The Centre is expected to cater for the writing needs of students through one-on-one tutoring (both by staff and senior students) in a nonthreatening, facilitative environment. The Centre will also assist with language skills development and enrichment; encourage multi-

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _63

lingualism; and offer help in assisting in assignments writing, dissertation and theses writing, as well as general academic and business writing skills. The Centre will also draw on technologyrelated approaches to writing.

2.8.1.8 Student orientation Student orientation is offered to the first-entering students prior to the commencement of the official academic programme.

The orientation programme is offered by the following offices: • Centre for Academic Excellence; • Student Affairs; • Library; • Academic Administration; • Information and Communication Technology; • Marketing and Communications; • Centre for Student Counselling and Development; • Disabled Students Unit; • Safety and Security; and • Financial Aid Office.

It is a week long programme comprising of the following activities: • Official Addresses: All first-entering students are addressed as a group by the heads of the above mentioned sections as well as by the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Executive Deans; • School Fairs: Students attend the orientation programme of the School in which they are registered and are provided with an opportunity to interact with staff regarding the programmes offered by the School; • HIV/AIDS: An HIV/AIDS awareness march takes place whereby a candlelight service is held, a motivational speech is offered, and an HIV/AIDS baseline study is conducted by means of a questionnaire; • Academic Orientation: Students are divided into groups according to their Schools and attend training on: – Library orientation, – HIV/AIDS, – Life-skills, – Interpersonal relationships and sexuality, – Anxiety and stress, – Drug and alcohol abuse, – Study skills, – Career choice and development;

64_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• Sports: Various sporting events and opportunities at the institution; • Psychometric testing; • Community and faith based organisations: Students are introduced to the various community and faith organisations available and affiliated to the SRC. Given the geographical location of the institution and the fact that the majority of the students who enter the University are mainly from disadvantaged backgrounds, CAE is aware that it has to expand and enhance the quality of its activities in order to address some of the academic and student development and support challenges unique to UL in terms of its location.

2.8.2 Disabled Students Unit The Disabled Students Unit (DSU) was established in 1997 and officially launched in 2002 as part of UL’s response to the needs of students with disabilities in terms of access and success to education and training.

The main purpose of the DSU is to provide students with disabilities access to appropriate and efficient services through the provision a variety of services for different disabilities. It also tries to ensure equality of opportunities by identifying inequalities that may lead to academic, physical, social and spiritual deprivation at the institution.

In line with the vision, mission and long term strategic goals of UL, the DSU has the following Vision, Mission and goals: 2.8.2.1 DSU’s Vision: “The Disabled Students Unit strives to destroy limitations of body and mind, and to open the doors of opportunities of teaching and learning for persons with disabilities by providing accessible facilities with up-to-date technology.”

2.8.2.2 DSU’s Mission: “The Disabled Students Unit provides an appropriate support service to empower persons with disabilities through education, training and development-encouraging independence and active participation in the socio-economic world so that they can plough back into the community skills and knowledge they have acquired.”

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _65

2.8.2.3 DSU’s Goals: • To provide equity and opportunity for full participation for the students with disabilities in both academic and social life; • To put in place mechanisms that will help students with disabilities to feel being part of the UL community; • To re-educate the UL community to develop a positive attitude towards persons with disabilities.

2.8.2.4 Establishment of DSU In order to achieve its Vision, Mission and goals, the DSU needed support both inside and outside UL for the establishment of the appropriate infrastructure and equipment.

The DSU ultimately managed to source funding from the following different sources: • In 1995, the Department of Public Enterprises through Alexkor, Aventura, Denel, Eskom and Transnet donated R1 500 000 for the sole purpose of purchasing adaptive technology for the visually impaired students. The money was used to purchase a set of Braille printing equipment including the software. This made the academic workload of disabled students lighter as they could start to access information with ease; • In 1997 Lebowa Minerals Trust donated R250 000.00. The money was used to buy additional equipment including assistive devices such as tape-recorders, type-writers and Perkins Braillers; • In 1997 the Department of Public Enterprises donated an amount of R55 320.00 for the purpose of running two strategic planning workshops. The workshops were conducted at Magoebaskloof Hotel; • In 1998 Eskom donated four wheelchairs for physically disabled students; • In 1998 the Department of Public Enterprises donated R32 000.00 to meet the immediate needs of the disabled students, namely, the development of an audio-collection and the provision of assistive devices. The Unit bought audio books and cassette containers from Tape Aids for the blind students; • The Department of Public Enterprises, based on the demands of students with disabilities, pledged to finance the erection of an appropriate structure that would meet the demands of students with disabilities and also serve the community in the surrounding areas; • Henk Mantzel Architects and Associates provided a model of a plan specifically to accommodate persons with disabilities;

66_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• The cost of the building amounted to R3 643 563.41; • The amount of R4 058 817.00 raised was entrusted to the University for the payment of contractors and also for the equipment; • Transnet and Eskom provided funding for the furniture and equipment for the special new building; • Billiton provided funding for the lift in the new special building.

The lift has a voice and Braille writing for guidance; • The building was successfully completed and officially launched on 13 May 2002 by then Minister of Public Enterprises, the Honourable Mr Jeff Radebe, MP; • In 2007 the Department of Public Enterprises expressed a concern about the academic performance of students with disabilities and subsequently provided additional funding to a total of R749 590.00 to purchase additional computers and R150 000.00 to pay for tutors who would offer extra tuition to students with disabilities. Some of the students with disabilities rejected the offer maintaining that they are being targeted because they are disabled; • In 2008 Vodacom donated R1 412 291.00 funding for additional assistive devices; • In 2009 the Carl Family Foundation donated R30 000.00 for assistive devices for senior students. The funding was used to buy a Topaz View Plus Reader to be used by students who are partially sighted.

2.8.2.5 Disabilities catered for: When first established, DSU concentrated on the visually impaired students. Currently the following different kinds of disabilities are catered for by the Unit: • • • • • • • •

Blind students; Partially sighted students; Mobility impaired; Cerebral palsy; Tourette syndrome; Speech impaired; Hard of hearing; Any other physical disability.

Due to limited resources, the Unit is not yet ready to accommodate students who are deaf or have severe disabilities.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _67

2.8.2.6 Services provided Staff in the DSU, through workshops and other staff development opportunities, had to be multi-skilled to be able to assist disabled students with the following services at different levels of the organogram: • The Director: – For the Unit to be relevant, the Director of the Unit has to liaise with organisations of/for the disabled, the Department of Education and Inclusive Education and Special Programmes in the Premier’s Office for information that would bring the Unit up to date with disability issues, – Liaises and offers information to the Committee for Persons with Disabilities on services provided and problems encountered by the Unit and the students with disabilities, – Intervene where students and academic staff encounter problems, – Co-ordinates, manages and administers the Unit and embarks on fundraising to ensure that the Unit has appropriate adaptive technology.

• Administration Officer: – The Administration Officer assists the students in registering with the DSU so that they can receive appropriate services.

During registration, proof of disability from a medical practitioner is required, – Proof of registration assists in providing the different Faculties and schools as well as the examination section with a list of disabled students, their disabilities and the format of the reading material that suits their disability.

• Orientation and Mobility Practitioner: – The Orientation and Mobility Practitioner, together with Facilities staff, conducts an audit to assess of the physical accessibility of the University particularly with regard to buildings for modifications to be effected, – All first entering students are interviewed and assessed by the Practitioner to determine the kind of assistance required and for referral to other support services if required, – Disclosure of the disability is voluntary and information provided confidential, – Blind students are trained in Orientation and Mobility to familiarise them with the new University environment and to be independent, – In addition to general orientation to first entering students,

68_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

orientation is also carried out in the residences to familiarise students with the available facilities, – Training in skills of daily living is offered, depending on the needs of students.

• Computer Instructor/Technician: – The Computer Instructor trains the students in the use of the computer to be able to access information, – First entering students are trained in the use of different software programmes for persons with disabilities.

• Assistant Braillist: – The Braillist receives notes through e-mail and converts them into Braille, – The Assistant Braillist trains student assistants on how to use the adaptive technology and the relevant programmes, – Copies of ordinary print are scanned, edited and converted into Braille and brailed for students.

• The Assistant Librarian, who assists disabled students with the following library services: – Low vision reading room: Reading machines are made available for partially sighted students, – Audio/Braille Library Facilities are provided in the following manner: -- First entering students with disabilities are introduced to the library and services offered in the DSU, -- Special orientation for the main University Library is arranged annually for the sighted disabled students, -- S tudents are assisted in information search and retrieval.

2.8.2.7 Disability Awareness • The DSU introduces new staff members to the Unit and the type of services offered to students; • The Unit organises workshops for the academic staff to provide them with detailed information on how to relate and assist persons with disabilities.

Having started from a humble beginning with funding from the external donors, the DSU developed into a sustainable Unit with the necessary resources to cater for the needs of disabled students.

UL also has demonstrated its commitment to the education and training of persons with disabilities beyond reasonable doubt when

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _69

a Senate Committee for Persons with Disabilities was established solely to focus on all academic matters relating to students with disabilities in terms of access, teaching, learning, research, success, and graduation.

Through the establishment of the DSU, UL has managed to be responsive to government policy on inclusive education as it admits and integrates students with disabilities into mainstream education at the institution.

The DSU has developed into a centre of excellence, which is the first of its kind in the country dedicated specifically to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. The Unit has become a showpiece for UL and a benchmark for other higher education institutions nationally and internationally with people from SADC countries visiting the Unit on a regular basis for demonstrations and lessons.

2.8.3 The Centre for Student Counselling and Development Counselling service was introduced in the early seventies at the then University of the North. The brief of the Unit was to provide a psychological service to students with an emphasis on guidance and counselling.

Psychotherapeutic and other professional services were outside the purview of the Unit. The scope of activities of this Unit was thus narrowly defined; hence the appellation “Guidance Bureau” that was given to the Unit during its inception under the Department of Psychology.

A few years after its inception, the Guidance Bureau was taken out of the Department of Psychology. Subsequent to this development, the Bureau experienced exponential growth and development. More psychologists were appointed to the Unit. While the main brief of the Unit has remained the provision of a psychological service to the students, such a psychological service has been broadened and deepened considerably. Several activities have been added to the services provided by the Unit. These include, inter alia, the training of professional psychometrists and psychologists as well as extensive outreach work. The current programme profile of the counselling service at UL certainly exceeds that which is characteristic of a Bureau. The appellation “Centre” is definitely appropriate to reflect the nature and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Unit.

70_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

2.8.3.1 Policy framework The policy framework within which the work of the Centre for Student Counselling and Development occurs has been clearly enunciated. This policy framework includes the name, vision, mission and values that guide the work of the Centre. The fundamental principles according to which the work of the Centre should be carried out are also stated. The clientele of the Centre and the cost of the service are also indicated.

2.8.3.2 Staffing The requirements in terms of qualifications and experience and other requirements that a person needs to have to be appointed to the Centre are provided as part of the policy framework. All the staff members that are currently employed at the Centre exceed these requirements by a large margin.

The Centre, like other sections of UL, as a result of financial constraints has experienced staff attrition. The Centre had to develop very innovative and creative strategies to enable the current staff to deliver quality service to our clientele; thus staff shortage is a big challenge and does have an adverse effect on the work at hand. A serious challenge to the director of the Centre has been to keep the staff motivated as well as shield them from the scourge of burn-out.

2.8.3.3 Programmes and services offered by the Centre The work at the Centre is demarcated into programmes in terms of the goals that need to be achieved. A great deal of planning along strategic lines had to be carried out to carry out these programmes.

These programmes relate to the essential HELPING WORK that is done at the Centre.

This work is in terms of information dissemination, advisement, guidance and psychotherapy. Skills development programmes form a key component of these professional programmes. Academic as well as Life Skills development activities are also key to the work of the Centre.

The Centre offers the following professional programmes and services: (i) Orientation programme for first entering students The Centre carries out three major functions as part of the Orientation Programme as follows:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _71

• Academic Advisement and Placement: – Three tests are conducted on all the first entering students; namely, the Self-Directed Search Test (to determine the “appropriate” academic and career direction for each student); the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (to determine the strengths and weaknesses of students relating to study and related activities); and the Life Skills Questionnaire to see which life skills the students already have and particularly those that they still need to develop, – O ther tests are administered to individual students depending on their needs; • Skills Development: – An overview and summary of the workshops that the Centre conducts throughout the year as part of our preventative strategies as opposed to our curative efforts are presented to the first entering students; • Guidance and Counselling: – The great majority of first entering students feel lost in this big institution, – Intensive guidance and counselling services are provided to such students. (ii) Counselling and Psychotherapy The main activity of the Centre, actually, its raison d’être, is to provide effective guidance, counselling, and psychotherapeutic service to the students at UL. The constant strengthening of the professional capacity of the staff of the Centre is meant to bring about a continual enhancement of this service.

While we cannot assume a complacent attitude regarding the therapeutic service that the Centre provides to its clientele, it must be indicated that this service is of a high standard. Staff members at the Centre are adequately qualified, with the requisite level of experience to do their work accordingly. Students present with a variety of concerns, difficulties and psychological conditions that need counselling and/or psychotherapy. The presenting concerns or problems are adequately addressed by the staff at the Centre. (iii) Psychometrics The psychometric programme serves as the life-blood of any psychological service. Consequently, an extensive collection of psychological test has been acquired by the Centre. These psychometric instruments are used at the Centre for purposes of diagnosis, theragnosis and research. The Centre also uses these tests in the training of intern psychologists, psychometrists and registered

72_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

counsellors. Members of the Professional Board for Psychology who have come to inspect the test library have rated it as one of the best collections at South African universities. (iv) Peer Counsellor programme About a hundred senior students are carefully selected to serve as peer counsellors in the Centre. A few sophomores are also included in the group to ensure continuity as the senior students complete their studies and leave the University. The selected students are put through a rigorous training programme to prepare them for their work as student helpers.

The peer counsellors seem to be making a valuable impact on the general student population as well as on outside instances such as private companies and government departments. Some of the private companies have been so impressed with the work of the peer counsellors that they give annual financial sponsorship to the group. (v) Academic and life skills development programme The Centre has, for several years, been presenting an Academic and Life-Skills Programme to the general student populace. The response to this programmatic intervention is not as we would desire. However, strategies that will get the majority of students to participate in this programme are being devised. (vi) Information acquisition, storage, retrieval and dissemination One of the key functions of the Centre is to collect information, especially about careers and the world of work in general as well as study opportunities in foreign countries. Brochures about psychological and other health conditions are also compiled and distributed. Our immediate aim is to use the electronic media to acquire, store and disseminate this information for the benefit of UL students. (vii) Career development, graduate placement and entrepreneurship programmes Career development programmes constitute one of the most important services that the Centre renders to the students of UL. Right from the beginning of the year, the Centre presents career development workshops to the students of the University.

Psychometric evaluation of individual students plays a huge part in the promotion of career development of students. Outside agencies are also invited to come and present workshops to students on career development issues and on entrepreneurship.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _73

The entire career development programme reaches its finality in any given year with the presentation of the annual graduate placement programme when employers from both the private and public sectors come to inform students about job opportunities in their organisations or to recruit students for employment in their institutions. (viii) Internship training programme The Centre has for well over a decade, been offering internship training to psychologists, psychometrists and registered Counsellors.

All those persons that have received their internship training at the Centre have gone on to register with the Health Professions Council of South Africa and are in employment in government departments or with the private sector. Our well-stocked test library makes it possible for us to carry out this training (ix) Residence counselling programme The residence counselling programme was initiated in 1995 and has been developed considerably. A committee comprising members of the residence staff and those of the Centre has been instituted and is functional.

A great deal of collaboration exists between the staff of student residences and those of the Centre. The flow of clients referred to the Centre by the residence staff has increased considerably. (x) Training of psychologists, psychometrists and registered counsellors The Centre serves as an important training site for persons seeking to qualify as psychologists, psychometrists and registered counsellors and then register in these categories with the Health Professions Council of South Africa. These internships are offered not only to students who graduate in our Psychology Departments, but also to those who graduate at other universities in the country. (xi) Programme for international students A group of peer counsellors, comprising peer counsellors from other countries and those from South Africa, is deployed to provide various forms of assistance to the cohort of international students on campus. (xii) Counselling and development for students with disabilities It has been scientifically established that there is a great deal of co-morbidity between various forms of disability and psychological dysfunction, especially anxiety and depression. As a consequence of

74_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

this one staff member, together with a group of peer counsellors, spends a great deal of time working with the students with disability. (xiii) Consultation and advocacy programme Students’ advocacy refers to a situation in which the student counsellor tries to get “into the shoes of the student” and comprehend the student’s existential situation through empathic understanding and to transmit this understanding to the student’s teachers and administrators. Sometimes this would entail explaining and championing the student’s position in terms of this understanding.

The staff at the Centre maintain strong communication links amongst themselves and administrative, academic, support and residential sections of UL. Letters, emails and telephonic calls are directed to staff members in these sections and departments, advocating for students regarding academic, financial and personal issues confronting the students. These intercessions on behalf of the students on the whole yield very rewarding results for the students. (xiv) Marketing the work of the Centre through distant counselling The brochures, as well as the in-house publication which the Centre distributes among the students, and the radio chats in which the Centre staff and peer counsellors get involved, serve to market the work of the Centre to our potential clients. (xv) General wellness Staff of the Centre are anticipating the time when an institution-wide wellness programme will be instituted. The Centre has been planning for this for some time along the lines of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University’s wellness programme. At UL the few steps that have been taken in this regard relate to the HIV/Aids Programme.

This will have to be expanded to include all aspects of health and wellness, especially the psychological aspects. (xvi) Programme for the promotion of professionalism and ethical– practice - continuing professional development for the staff of the Centre The Centre’s staff are not only adequately qualified but also wellgrounded professionally. Of particular significance is that they continually enhance their professional capacity. As with all key posts in the field of health, psychologists must constantly augment upon their professional knowledge and skill. This educational activity is known as the CED programme and is provided for in an act of parliament.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _75

Every psychologist, therefore, earns a minimum number of points per annum known as CED points to retain registration and thus be allowed to continue to carry out professional work. These points are earned thorough attendance and participation in courses, workshops, conferences, and congresses.

All staff members of the Centre have, through the participation in the activities mentioned above, attained high levels in major specialisation areas in psychology, namely, neuropsychology and hypnotherapy. The staff have done elementary, intermediate and advanced levels in these specialisations. (There is, therefore, no issue that the students will come up with that will baffle the staff ). (xvii) Research The heavy case load carried by each counsellor renders the conducting of research usually impossible. However, staff members at the Centre do make some time to conduct research. Some counsellors are engaged in further studies and have already completed their field work. Other staff members conduct various types of research on which they base the papers which they present at conferences. (xviii) Programme for the acquisition of resources for the Centre The accreditation of the Centre by the Professional Board for Psychology is contingent on the presence of certain basic resources.

These resources, such as psychological tests and sound proof rooms. are very expensive and cannot be acquired overnight. A programmatic approach is, therefore, applied to acquire these. (xvix) The HIV AIDS programme Besides the basic counselling that students get in the VCT programme, those that test positive voluntarily report at the Centre for in-depth counselling and psychotherapy. The student numbers in this regard keep on increasing daily.

2.8.3.4 General (i) Strategic Planning The staff of the Centre realised that, without clearly tangible goals that had to be striven for, the work of the Centre would be haphazard and desultory. The answer to this challenge was to embark on an extensive planning exercise. This strategic planning effort took the better part of the last few years and was led by a number of persons.

Key documents have been generated by this planning exercise.

These include our policies, programmes and processes documents, the document containing Action Plans, and key forms that underpin the processes that take place at the Centre.

76_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Certain traditions have also emanated from the planning efforts.

These include attitudes of consultation, transparencies and mutual support. For instance, the staff at the Centre spend an hour or two every Monday planning the work process for the whole week. These meetings are religiously honoured by the staff of the Centre and full minutes of these meetings are kept. (ii) Transformation Concerning the concept of transformation, the staff of the Centre made a correct diagnosis relating to students’ problems at UL. This diagnosis posited that while the students do experience a variety of problems, the institution itself also manifests serious problems in terms of its policies, practices and programme offerings; and these problems over time have an exacerbating effect on problems experienced by the students. The transformation of UL had, thus, become a healing armamentarium for dealing with students’ problems at the institution. Transformation had, for the staff of the Centre, become a key professional imperative. The Activist Counselling Model that is partly used at the Centre emanates from this imperative.

The staff of the Centre for Student Counselling and Development have forged ahead with their work in spite of the many challenges with which they are confronted. The staff are prepared to remain resilient in their work and continue to perform beyond their key performance areas.

2.8.4 Student Affairs UL’s Student Affairs strives to be an outstanding student support service which provides optimal services aimed at enhancing the quality of student residence and life in a healthy safe and supportive environment. The overall aim of Student Affairs is to provide a safe and conducive environment that supports student activities, growth and their quality of life at UL. The following services are co-ordinated and managed by Student Affairs: • • • •

Student residence administration; Student Life; Student Health and Wellness; Student Extramural Programmes (Sports, Arts, Recreation, and Culture); • Student Catering/Food services/Meals; • Student business initiative; • International student services;

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _77

• • • • •

Transport for student activities; Student Governance (SRC and student organisations); SRC elections and orientation; Multi-faith services; First-entering student orientation.

2.8.5 Student Financial Aid Office Through the Student Financial Aid Office, UL encourages academic excellence amongst students and recognises the importance of adequate funding towards the achievement of this overall aim. It further recognises that financing higher education may be unattainable for some of the students particularly those who are academically sound but financially needy. The institution, through the establishment of the Unit, commits itself to provide a service that endeavours to create equitable funding opportunities for the students who are eligible for funding. Opportunities, amongst other, aid include merit bursaries, scholarships and loans.

In order to achieve its overall aim, the Office has set for itself the following goals, objectives and associated services: • Goals: – To render a quality financial assistance service which seeks to address the needs of the students in relation to academic activities and other related costs; – To empower students through information and referral that will enable them to access either internal or external funding; – To maintain a good working relationship with both local, regional, national, and international funding agencies that offer bursaries; scholarship and loan opportunities to students.

• Objectives: – To make financial aid services accessible to first entering and former students of the University; – To provide the necessary financial assistance in line with the University’s policy and guidelines to students who have been identified for financial aid; – To strive for competency in the administration of funds from donors and sponsors; – To mediate between students and sponsors in the event of challenges or problems; – To seek constant feedback from stakeholders concerning the acquisition, allocation and recovery/recycling of funds in order to assist the subsequent generations of students.

78_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• Services: – Administers student bursaries from both the Provincial and National Government Departments, – Administers a limited number of University bursaries awarded on the basis of merit, – Administers and distributes funds from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) to students according to the criteria provided by the scheme, – Provides students with bursary, scholarship and loan addresses from private companies and non-governmental organisations.

All these various forms of financial assistance services performed by the Financial Aid Office are part of UL’s commitment to widen access, success, throughput, and graduation rates of students of which the majority are from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The various academic development and support services at UL are a clear indication of the institution’s commitment to increase and sustain student access, success, throughput, and graduation rates.

An important observation from reflection on these different student development and support services at UL is that, at their current status, they are not coordinated and have some duplications and overlaps in terms of their functions rendering them expensive to operate. Another related weakness is since their establishment, these units have not been formally evaluated in terms of their impact in the institution. These weaknesses can only be overcome through proper evaluation, realignment and co-ordination of these services through restructuring. Such restructuring will bring about more synergy and cost-effectiveness in the functioning of these essential development and support services for students at UL. These identified structural and operational weaknesses shall be addressed through the improvement plan.

2.9 LIBRARY, INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AT UL 2.9.1 Library UL has a strong commitment to its library being the basic academic support service of its core function. To this end the institution has invested heavily in its library in terms of infrastructure, financial, and human resources. The institution as a multi-campus University has library branches at each campus. The library is managed and functions as follows:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _79

2.9.1.1 Library Strategic Plan The library has engaged in a strategic planning exercise which resulted in its Strategic Plan15 with vision and mission statements informed by the overall University Strategic Plan.

2.9.1.2 Library Mission and Vision Statements Aligned to the vision and mission of the institution, the library has the following vision and mission statements: 2.9.1.2.1 UL Library’s Vision: “To be a leading African University library providing a world class information service.”

2.9.1.2.1 UL Library’s Mission: “To provide efficient and effective customer-driven, innovative information services in support of teaching and learning, research and community engagement.”

The Library aims to achieve its vision and mission statements through the development and implementation of appropriate policies, procedures and rules coupled with adequate resources and services.

2.9.1.3 Library and Information Services Management The library is managed by an Executive Director who is assisted by a Director at each campus library. There is a joint Library and Information Services Management Team comprising of the Directors and Heads of Sections under the chairpersonship of the Executive Director. The main function of this Management Team is to consider and discuss all matters that are related to the libraries. In addition to this, there is a Senate Library Committee that provides an oversight function in the development and implementation of Library Policies and Procedures16 and Library Rules.17 Library and Information services are integrated within the University structures and, as a result, library staff members are members of the relevant University Committees.

2.9.1.4 Financial and Human Resources Annually the UL Library receives a budget to purchase and access information resources that are relevant and able to support the various academic activities. The budget also makes provision for the necessary infrastructure and for the training and development of staff. The academic departments can recommend the ordering of information resources by the Library from the Library budget.

15 Library Strategic Plan (Appendix E1a) 16 Library Policies and Procedures (Appendix E1b) 17 Library Rules (Appendix E1c)

80_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The library is comprised of professional, support and contract staff.

The library staff are suitably qualified and capable to offer appropriate library and information services in the various campus libraries. The Library and Information Services staff are offered training and development opportunities on a continuous basis in order to ensure that they are acquainted with and abreast of the latest developments in their area of operation.

2.9.1.5 Infrastructural Resources The Library and Information Services has a physical structure with adequate space for strong physical collections, equipment and seating space for students and staff. The space for the physical collections is, however, gradually diminishing but with the increased usage of e-resources the print collection growth rate will slow down.

The Library and Information Services has a sufficient number of computers for use by both Library and Information Services staff and users. With the use of these computers, users are able to access the internet with adequate bandwidth. Students are able to create their own passwords and there is no additional charge for internet access.

Computers, Job Access with Speech (JAWS), and head phones for the blind students and staff were acquired to ensure that they also have access to the Library and Information Services on an equal basis to other students and staff. For example, they are offered training simultaneously with other students and staff.

There is a total seating space of approximately 3 829 square metres, with 2 143 square metres seating space in the Turfloop Campus Library and 800 square metres, and 480 square metres seating space in the Medunsa Campus Library for Library and Information Services users. The physical facility is equipped with air conditioners, CCTVs and detection system to create a conduce environment for work and study, and also to ensure the safety and security of Library and Information Services materials.

Photocopying facilities are available in the libraries for copying for study and research purposes within the Copyright Act. 2.9.1.6 Training The Library and Information Services users are trained to ensure that they are able to use the Library and Information Services appropriately and optimally. Training the users is conducted as follows:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _81

• Orientation is offered to first entering students and new staff members by Information Librarians on an ongoing basis, especially at the beginning of the year; • In addition to orientation, first entering students are offered a credit bearing Library Literacy Course covering library and information skills; • Bibliographic instruction is offered to post-graduate students by subject librarians and specialists from other libraries.

Students are instructed on the different packaging of the various information resources including books, videos, CD ROMs, journals and e-resources. They are also taught how to use the internet for research, the Online Public Access Catalogue and the online databases; • Service suppliers also offer training in the effective search of their products. For example, in 2009 Ebsco, Elsevier and VLIRIUC trained a sizeable number of Library and Information Services users in searching EbscoHost, Science Direct and DOAJ respectively.

2.9.1.7 Access Access to the Library and Information Services is as follows: • At the Medunsa Campus the Library and Information Services are open for 72 hours during the week whereas at Turfloop Campus are open for 79 hours during the week. During the week both Libraries and Information Services are open during the day and in the evening. The Library and Information Services at both campuses are open on weekends during the day as well; • Users are able to borrow materials and/or use them in the Library. Circulation of Library materials has, however, been declining since 2006. This is ascribed to the use of online resources which has been increasing; • Users have access to the most recent information. This is made possible by the Library and Information Services staff in engaging on a continuous basis to ensure that the book collection is updated with more recent and relevant materials; • Library and Information Services, where possible are made available to users for seven days of the week for 24 hours offcampus; • his includes access to the Library OPAC and E-resources; • Access is enhanced by ensuring that all Library and Information Services users have access to materials held by any of the UL Libraries;

82_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• Where the Libraries at different campuses do not own material, the Inter Library Loans service is used. The turnaround time for this service is being reduced because of the improvement of the Aerial system; • Linkages in the OPAC enhance access as Library and Information Services users are able to access global information at remote places not owned by the institution.

The Library and Information Services are currently engaged in the process of establishing ETD which will eventually ensure that UL has an Institutional Repository. This will eventually make it possible for the users to have access to research products by UL staff whilst outsiders will also have access.

2.9.1.8 User Satisfaction Surveys The Library and Information Services periodically conduct user satisfaction surveys with the main aim of enhancing the quality of its services to the users.

Information from users is obtained in the following ways: • Ongoing feedback to the Library and Information Services at service points; • Intranet messages about Library and Information Services events, information resources and displays.

• OPAC Feedback Facility; • User Survey Instrument; • Library Committees; • ibrary Annual Report; • Library and Information Services Assessment through VLIR; • Occasionally for Programme Accreditation and Reviews.

2.9.1.9 Future Plans The Library and Information Services have some future plans meant to update, modernise and enhance the quality of its services on a continuous basis.

The future plans include the following activities: • The introduction and usage of modern technology for the users such as Web 2.0 tools, information blogging, face book and cellular phones.

• Continuous training of staff through workshops and other forms of training and development to adapt to change

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _83

particularly with regard to the latest developments in modern technology; • To recruit a systems librarian to attend to technological issues of the Library at the different campuses including the Library website.

2.9.2 Information Communications and Technology UL, as a historically disadvantaged institution, puts the highest premium on Information Communications and Technology (ICT) as one of the major tools to use to transform itself in being more responsive to the socio-economic developmental challenges of the 21st century in terms of enhancing the quality of its core business and associated services. ICT services are completely harmonised at both campuses and are adequately available for usage by both staff and students with a view of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality of services and activities at UL. ICT at UL covers the following activities and functions: 2.9.2.1 The Network Infrastructure The success of service delivery for ICT, to a large extent, is dependent on its network infrastructure. During 2007 and 2008, UL’s ICT infrastructure was upgraded to HP ProCurve. This entailed a complete change of every switch on all campuses at a total cost of R13.6m.

Once completed, UL was equipped with a backbone network speed of 10G which was the first amongst universities in South Africa at the time. In areas where cabling did not allow for the required 10G speed, the cable had to be replaced In addition, some of the latest technologies such as SAN, virtualisation, clustering, blade and rack mounted server technology are used on both campuses.

2.9.2.2 E-mail and Internet Systems UL uses GroupWise as its email system on both campuses for usage by staff and students. During registration of students at the beginning of the year, every student gets an e-mail and e-directory account automatically and free of charge. This happens through an interface with the student’s system.

In addition, there is a spam filtering system that allows users to manage their e-mail. The associated servers use a clustering technology that ensures high availability of the services so that in the event a server malfunctions, other servers automatically take over the specific function.

84_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

All students also receive an e-Directory account that enables them to have access to internet. UL has a limit of 100M per day for ordinary use of the internet by staff and students alike.

At present there is a 100M line from each of the campuses to the internet and a 15M line between the two main campuses. The institution has applied for Seacom international bandwidth that will sustainably expand its access capabilities once installed.

2.9.2.3 Video Conferencing UL has three separate video conferencing facilities at each of the Campuses. They are used to facilitate meetings between the two Campuses. They contribute in bridging the distance between the Medunsa and Turfloop Campuses. The video conferencing project has two phases.

Phase one included facilitation of video conferencing for meetings with fewer than 20 people at each campus. This was completed in the early years of the merger and proved to be an effective and useful means for having smaller size meetings between the two campuses. The second phase aimed to host larger meetings such as Senate meetings.

Each of the designated venues is now equipped with state of the art video conferencing facilities which include the following: • • • •

Rear projection screen 2.4x1.8 metre; 4 Plasma displays of 50”; Document camera/ceiling; Mounted microphones for the audience.

2.9.2.4 ICT Services Dedicated to Teaching and Learning In total there are 20 computer laboratory venues at both Campuses that have a total of over 1000 PCs. Eleven of these computer laboratories are based at Turfloop Campus with a total of 780 computers and the remaining nine computer laboratories are located at Medunsa Campus with a total of 500 computers. These computer laboratories make provision for computer access and internet, and are available to all students and staff. In addition, many of the student residences are equipped with wireless connection enabling students to have access to internet and the University’s e-mail system.

Computer literacy training is offered to interested students at both campuses for the whole year on a six weeks’ term basis. There are 2 331

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _85

students at Turfloop Campus and 1 034 students at Medunsa Campus who have successfully completed their computer literacy training programme in 2009.

There are two online learning systems for staff and students. They are as follows: • WebCT/Blackboard: About 75 instructors on both campuses are being supported in using WebCT/Blackboard. There are about 3 000 students that take the various online courses on both Campuses; • UmFundi Examinations and Training: This is the system specifically used for online computer literacy and the associated examinations. The examinations and all the latest modules of the application can be found on this system.

Through the use of an adequate and relevant ICT infrastructure and services, UL continuously strives to update, modernise and enhance the quality of its academic activities and associated services. The main purpose for this is for the institution to have a competitive edge on other higher education institutions in the use of modern technologies in its core business.

2.10 Student performance 2.10.1 Pass rate In 2007, UL showed an overall pass rate that was below the average for the sector (Table 2.11). From the IOP it was expected to improve to an average for the Institution of 78% by 2010. That was an expected annual increase of 1%, which at the time presented a significant challenge to UL. As indicated in Table 2.12, the University achieved the average target pass rate in 2007. It was achieved through a number of quality assurance interventions that rendered quick results. Amongst these were the establishment of the Faculty Examination Commissions, the implementation of course outline documents across all programmes and modules, the review of admission requirements of all programmes and the expansion of extended degree programmes.

Table 2.11:

Overall pass rate at UL between 2005 and 2009 in all programmes and modules

Overall Pass Rate

2005

2006

2007

2008

75%

76%

78%

78%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

86_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The trend is set to continue into the 2011 to 2013 planning phase with medium to long term initiatives expected to take effect. These primarily revolve around infrastructure and skills improvement of staff and student profiles. They are entrenched in programmes which are funded under the graduate throughput improvement initiatives, teaching development, research development, and infrastructure improvement funding.

It includes programmes such as the expansion of the student mentoring system, expansion and refurbishment of facilities, improvement of teaching equipment, dedicated staff development and improvement of academic staff qualification and teaching profiles and software to support early detection of at-risk students.

2.10.2 Graduation rate In 2005, UL displayed a graduation rate that was below the national average for tertiary institutions (Table 2.12). It was a great concern to the Institution and was addressed in the IOP as an aspect that needed immediate intervention. The Department of Education also expected the graduation rate to improve to a level of 20% by 2010.

That is a 1% increase per year from 2007 to 2010 and presented an enormous challenge to UL. As clearly indicated in Table 2.12, the concern was addressed immediately and showed a significant increase which reached a maximum of 22.3% in 2008. The graduation rate achieved by UL was of such significance that the Ministry of Education made a special comment on it. The Ministry of Education commended UL for the fact that it was one of only four universities that achieved graduation rate goals in 2009. The University considers it to be a major achievement.

It is able to produce well trained products with the specific skills that are required by the job market at a cost-effective rate and irrespective of the background and level of preparedness. It is further emphasised by the fact that just two years before, the University was underachieving in this respect.

Table 2.12:

Overall graduation rate at UL between 2005 and 2009 in all programmes and modules

Overall Graduation Rate

2005

2006

2007

2008

13.9%

16.3%

18.8%

22.3%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _87

Admittedly, the high graduation rate was partly achieved through the consolidation phase embarked upon in 2007, whereby the University restricted its total student enrolment to 16 500 until 2010.

In that sense there is an element of artificial inflation of the graduation rate. Nevertheless, a number of actions that were intended to realise immediate improvements in the graduation rate, were launched.

These included: • Actions to reduce the number of students who displayed insufficient progress in their programmes.

• Special arrangements reserved for students who require one or two modules only, to complete their degrees.

Other interventions that are anticipated to significantly improve the overall graduation rate in the medium to long-term include: • Improved postgraduate student research support mechanisms.

• he review of the PQM with the vision to focus programmes on required but achievable skills profiles of products.

The vision is to establish UL as a leading African University that transforms the tertiary landscape. It exhibits the approach that can be used to improve performance and throughput of a unique student profile such as ours, where a significant percentage is recruited from rural areas and from disadvantaged backgrounds. It happened with the UNIFY programme in the 1990s and can be achieved again. It will signify a successful approach to adjustment to the new and changing tertiary teaching environment in terms of the responsiveness to changing requirements in the skills profiles of university products and the input required to achieve that consistently.

It is an important objective in the sense that it fundamentally supports the UL vision statement and, therefore, the core teaching business of the University.

2.11 Assessment Quality assurance in assessment carries a high priority at UL. In this regard an Institutional Assessment Policy18 was developed and approved. It provides guidelines on quality in assessment and sets a number of assessment parameters that are universal across all programmes. It is supported by Faculty assessment policies and strategies which are underpinned by the general University and Faculty assessment rules.

18 Assessment Policy: Students Learning(Appendix C8)

88_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The Institutional Assessment Policy guides all assessment activities.

It is supported by assessment policies and procedures established for every Faculty that are aligned to the Institutional policy. The Faculty policies and procedures also specify Faculty strategies on assessment and provide detail to staff and students on the approach to assessment in the specific Faculty.

UL General Assessment Rules are part of the institution’s General Rules. They reinforce the assessment policies at all academic levels by transforming policy principles and guidelines into assessment rules that are generic to all programmes, from undergraduate diplomas to doctoral programmes. These range from basic general assessment regulations to assessment fraud and special assessment.

Specific postgraduate assessment rules apply to postgraduate programmes at every postgraduate level and apply to such programmes in addition to the general assessment rules. The postgraduate quality assessment directives also regulate processes involved in assessment of research components of coursework Master’s and all research dissertations.

A universal rule that applies to all modules, except those that are clinical in nature, speaks to the relative contribution of the formative and the summative mark towards the final mark that a student obtains for a module. In all such modules, the formative mark carries a weight of 0.4 and the summative mark a weight of 0.6 towards the final mark. A final mark of 50% is required to successfully complete a module and provision is made for one reassessment for students who have a final mark of 45% to 49% or who have final mark of 50% or above, but obtained a mark below 40% in the summative assessment. The reassessment event signifies the end of the assessment cycle of a module and no assessment is considered thereafter. To pass a module by distinction, a student has to obtain a final mark of 75% or more.

The assessment strategy that will be employed in a module is clearly explained to students at the beginning of a module and forms part of the module guideline that is distributed to them. It explains the assessment events, the scope of each and the relative contribution that each will make towards the formative mark that the student will assemble during the course of the module. It also confirms the weighting of the formative to the summative mark. Moderators are appointed to all modules. External moderators are appointed to perform a critical quality check in the case of:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _89

• Final year modules; • Modules presented as service modules from one programme and/or Faculty to another; and • All postgraduate modules.

The moderators are proposed by Heads of Departments to Faculty for deliberation and recommendation to Senate for final approval.

The External moderators are formally appointed. The criteria for appointment are: • they cannot be on the payroll of the University; • they should preferably be employed at another tertiary institution; • they should be involved in the field in which the paper is set; and • there is provision for a cooling-off period after a staff member left the employment of the University before he/she can be recommended as external examiner.

The role of moderators is to confirm quality on a number of guidelines contained in the Assessment Policy of the Institution, including transparency, consistency and, fairness. They are required to moderate the proposed question papers in the summative and the re-assessment events. They should confirm aspects such as the type, quality, coverage of modular scope, and cognitive level of the questions.

They are also expected to consider the correctness and fairness of mark allocation according to the memorandum and check the general layout, typesetting, spelling, grammar, etc. They report on a universal template and make recommendations to the above, if applicable. These are incorporated into the papers, unless there is a point of contention which is resolved by the Course Co-ordinator, Programme Co-ordinator or, by default, the Head of Department.

After the paper is written, the marks are expected to be available within seven days. This timeframe includes the marking of the papers by the external moderator who will mark every script and confirm mark allocations for every answer in the answer-book and the correct calculation of the final mark for the paper and the module. A report is completed on a universal template which is considered by the Faculty during the planning of the module in the next cycle.

All final marks for assessment, except the assessment of dissertations which is handled through dedicated structures, are validated through the Faculty Examination Commissions. It comprises of the Executive Dean, as Chair, and members of the Faculty academic management.

90_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The body validates the outcome of all assessment activities after every UL summative assessment. It ensures that all assessment follows UL and Faculty rules, sanctioned within UL assessment guidelines and supported by UL quality standards. It reports its findings to Senate through the Executive Committee of Senate (ECS).

The UL assessment rules are supported by the Student Code of Conduct on assessment. It clearly defines regulations on assessment, fraud in the assessment venue and explains the disciplinary processes involved when assessment fraud is suspected.

2.12 Integrity of Learner Records and Certification Processes 2.12.1 Historical Perspective Since the merger, academic administration at the Medunsa Campus is still centralised while the Turfloop Campus follows a decentralised approach. The harmonisation process of the two services is still underway.

2.12.2 Processing and Issuing of Certificates The processing and issuing of certificates are governed by the approved University Certification Policy.19 Certificates are issued to graduates upon completion of their degrees or diplomas during the graduation ceremonies. The issuing of such certificates and diplomas is preceded by a thorough process of verification of student records in terms of registration and success.

The certificates of graduates, who graduate in absentia, are collected from the Certification and Student Records Section office upon payment of a prescribed fee and production of proof of identification, or posted by registered mail upon request.

2.12.3 Security measures: Fraud or Illegal Issuing of Certificates In order to avoid fraud or illegal issuing of certificates, the security measures discussed hereunder are applicable.

2.12.3.1 Ordering • Security measures for the issuing of certificates start with the ordering of certificates. The following security measures apply to the ordering of certificates: – There is only one approved official supplier of certificates; – Ordering of Certificates is done only after Student Records has received a list of possible qualifiers from Faculties, endorsed and ratified by Executive Deans of Faculties; – A further audit is carried out by Student Records; – Certificates received are recorded in a register; 19 Certification Policy (Appendix C13)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _91

– A ll certificates are kept in a locked safe which is only accessible by a designated officer; – The information printed on the certificate is from the IT database in line with lists provided by the Faculties.

2.12.3.2 Printing of Certificates • The printing of certificates is done under the following security measures: – The printing of certificates is done by the designated officer in the Records Office under the supervision of the Assistant Registrar; – All spoilt/damaged and uncollected certificates are kept in a safe and a register is maintained; – An internal audit of the registers is carried out by the office of the Registrar.

2.12.3.3 Fraud and Illegal Issuing of Certificates • The following measures are in place to detect certificates that have been illegally and fraudulently issued: – The size and the quality of the paper used for the certificate is unique; – Security features include: -- There are two watermarks on the certificate (goat-skin), -- University seal, -- Each certificate has a unique serial number and a register is maintained thereof.

2.12.4 Certification process The following process is followed in preparing the issuing of certificates: • A list of qualifiers is drawn from the ITS database by the Faculties; • The list of qualifiers from Schools/Faculties is checked by the Executive Deans, Directors of Schools and Assistant Faculty Registrars; • Central Student Records office verifies the list of possible qualifiers as presented by Faculties; • Student Records office compiles a provisional graduation programme; • The provisional graduation programme is forwarded to the Faculties for verification (i.e. checking of the potential qualifiers); • The final draft of the graduation programme is forwarded to the Faculties for the signing off by the Executive Deans;

92_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• Invitation letters are drawn from the database and sent to the prospective qualifiers’ postal addresses; • Graduation programmes and seat cards are printed; • Certificates are printed based on the information from the ITS database; • Certificates are sent to official signatories of the University.

2.12.5 Student Files Student Records Office in the Academic Administration Division is the custodian of all student files, and all the student records for both past and present students are kept in the strong-rooms. Only one officer is in charge and the keys are kept in the office of the Assistant Registrar.

2.13 Human Resources System at UL HEQC Criterion 9: Recruitment, selection, development and support policies and procedures facilitate the availability of suitably qualified and experienced academic and support staff to deliver programmes. Staff capacity in terms of programme needs is regularly reviewed.

The self-evaluation report on the Human Resources (HR) Department operations at UL starts with the challenges it has been facing since the merger as they have a direct bearing on its effectiveness to deliver quality services. This includes the impact of the protracted merger integration, financial situation at the institution, harmonisation, and HR interventions through the IOP. This section also provides an assessment on the overview of the various systems of the HR Department regarding policies, procedures and functions.

2.13.1 The Impact of the Merger on the HR Department The two HR Departments of the former Universities were merged immediately at the beginning of the merger under the leadership of an Executive Director. The newly merged HR Department was not only expected to concentrate on harmonising and managing its operations, but it also had to deal with urgent matters such as development and popularisation of an interim, and ultimately final, management structure, harmonisation of conditions of services, and other related services.

As the merged institution operates in a highly unionised environment, the new HR Department had to start substantive negotiations with organised labour on substantive issues such as salary adjust-

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _93

ments and the establishment of a joint bargaining forum. This was not an easy task as the organised labour from the two merged Universities had different orientations and cultures complicated by mistrust, and these were fundamental in nature and approach. The new HR department had to handle a number of litigations owing to dissatisfaction and contestation by some staff members with regard to their newly defined positions and roles in a merged institution.

As a result of the protracted consultations with organised labour and ongoing litigations against the University, negotiations to constitute the Joint Bargaining Forum were concluded late in 2007. The major consequence of the protracted consultations and negotiations was uncertainty, dissatisfaction and low morale amongst staff.

2.13.2 Human Resources and financial situation at UL For all intents and purposes, the merger brought together two previously disadvantaged institutions which, for historical and other reasons, were not financially viable. This led to the inability of the institution to attract and retain quality skills in the required numbers.

As a result of the unenviable financial situation of UL, the recently approved and new organisational structure of the institution was kept at the bare minimum in terms of the number and the level of appointments and promotions.

2.13.3 Human Resources and IOP UL, through the IOP, recognised that its past and current HR policies, procedures and practices have contributed greatly towards its financial situation. In order to turn the situation around, the institution had to implement some intervention measures in the three broad human resource areas that needed urgent attention. The three areas were management control, staff costs and the harmonisation of the conditions of service. UL had to prioritise these interventions in order to ensure that the identified weaknesses in the human resource policies, procedures and practices did not plunge it into further financial problems.

In prioritising these interventions UL started with staff restructuring interventions which by and large involved the approval of a proposal

by Council to initiate voluntary severance and early retirement packages for each staff member subject to approval by the institution taking into account operational requirements. In prioritising staff restructuring interventions through voluntary severance packages and early retirement over the harmonisation of the conditions of

94_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

service, UL took into account that the harmonising of the conditions of service carries with it considerable emotion and resultant conflict between management on the one hand, and staff and unions on the other hand.

The institution felt that for the staff restructuring exercise to be a success, it would be critical to ensure that unions were not embroiled in a simultaneous conflict with management over harmonisation issues which have a much lower impact on the University’s finances.

For this reason, UL decided that restructuring interventions should be completed before negotiations with unions and representatives of non-unionised staff members could start on the harmonisation of conditions of service which were financially less beneficial but highly emotional. In terms of the IOP, staff restructuring through voluntary severance and early retirement packages were scheduled to be completed by the end of 2007 and the harmonisation of conditions of service to start by the middle of 2008.

As the staff restructuring process entailed an assessment of the operational requirements of individual staff members who applied either for voluntary severance or early retirement packages including protracted consultation with the unions, it took more time than anticipated. Actual consultations on the harmonisation of conditions of service started in 2009 and is still a work in progress.

2.13.4 Harmonisation of Conditions of Service While busy with the process of harmonising conditions of service, UL commensurate with the Guidelines for Mergers and Incorporations20 took a decision that each Campus would continue to use the human resource policies, procedures and practices of its former University.

This means that Medunsa Campus will use policies, procedures and practices of the former Medical University of Southern Africa21 while Turfloop Campus will use those of the former University of the North.22 UL’s strategic goal to attract quality staff to its core business, administration and support services is being used as the main determining factor behind the crafting of the new conditions of service. For UL it is this kind of staff who will have the requisite capacity to achieve the link between its strategic objectives and outcomes. The need to create a sustainable conducive working environment for staff is also being used as one of the major guidelines in developing and finalising the new conditions of service.

20 Guidelines for Mergers and Incorporations (Appendix B2) 21 Medical University of Southern Africa Conditions of Service (Appendix E3a) 22 University of the North Personnel Policies and Procedures (Appendix E3b)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _95

The new conditions of service23 are being harmonised through consultation with representatives of unionised labour and nonunionised labour in the Joint Bargaining Forum (JBF). The consultation process has been protracted as it entails robust engagement and clarity on the details of every proposed human resource policy and procedure.

To date the following policies have been finalised through consultation at JBF and approved by Council: • • • •

Remuneration Policy, Procedure and Migration Plan; Grievance Policy and Procedure; Labour Relations Policy; Whistle-Blowing Policy.

The following policies and procedures were finalised through consultation at JBF and are being processed by Executive Management for submission to Council for approval: • • • • •

Disciplinary Policy and Procedure; Appointment Categories Policy; Subsistence Allowance Policy; Cellular Phone/3G Technology Policy and Procedure; Travelling/Car Allowance and Re-imbursement Policy and Procedure.

The outstanding policies and procedures such as employment equity and an integrated performance management system are going through consultation at JBF. It is hoped that they will be finalised and approved by Council before the end of the year.

The major challenge in this regard was, and still is, persuading labour to understand and accept the rationale of doing away with some of the more excessive and unsustainable benefits emanating from the previous set of policies and conditions of service. In this regard a balance had and has to be maintained in ensuring that UL remains competitive and is also able to attract and retain staff.

2.13.5 Governance: Code of Conduct and Ethics As indicated, one of the major challenges faced by the leadership of the newly merged institution was to bring about a new unitary organisational culture for two institutions with different organisational cultures. As part of an overall contribution in this direction as well as assisting in building and improving on good governance of UL, the HR Department developed a Code of Conduct and Ethics.

23 Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual (Appendix E3c)

96_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The code is aimed at moulding, channelling and guiding the conduct of Council members, staff and students with regard to principles of good governance. The code is in the process of being disseminated and publicised to the University community.

2.13.6 Organisational Structure of HR The new structure of the HR Department has been developed and approved. The improvements in the new organisational structure as opposed to the old structures of the previous two universities are the following: • Introduction of the Organisational Development component; • Centralisation and creation of shared services model on recruitment and human resources administration; • Elevation of certain HR functions such as Labour Relations; • Integrated unitary structure which provides for decentralisation at operational level; • Centralisation of specialised functions.

However, the structure carries certain weaknesses such as inadequate capacity in terms of the number of positions.

2.13.7 Attraction and Retention Strategy Given the historical factors and the geographical location of the two main Campuses, an obvious need arose for the institution to immediately develop and begin implementing measures that would assist in attracting and retaining skills. To this effect UL has developed a strategy for staff attraction and retention as shown in Appendix E3c.

The strategy rests on the following five pillars: • Attractive and differentiated terms and conditions of service; • Investment in health, social, educational, and recreational amenities; • Career pathing; • Good leadership and management practices at all levels; • Piggybacking on the perception and reality of the positive growth and development of the Limpopo Province.

A phase in approach has been adopted in implementing the strategy.

This is due to resource, and particularly financial, constraints. To this end, differentiated annual salary adjustments in favour of academic staff as well as scarce and critical skills have been agreed to with unions, as a principle, to guide salary reviews and adjustments since 2008.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _97

2.13.8 Employment and Equity Given the location of the two campuses of UL, employment equity in terms of reflecting the national population demographic profile with regard to race, does not pose a serious challenge to the institution.

By its origin and nature UL is predominantly an African university.

However, there are gaps at senior and middle management levels where UL faces challenges of ensuring gender equity. Inadequate female representation at this level is receiving on-going attention.

As the new organisational structure for UL is in place and the process of populating it has commenced, employment equity is being factored throughout different levels of the structure.

98_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Chapter 3: RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION HEQC Criterion 15: Effective arrangements are in place for the quality assurance, development and monitoring of research functions and postgraduate education.

HEQC Criterion 17: Efficient arrangements are in place for the quality assurance, development and monitoring of postgraduate education.

3.1 Research at the UL Research at UL must be viewed against the broader context of Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs) in South Africa.

Historically, the University of Limpopo’s focus, like most HDIs, was more on teaching and learning and significantly less on research.

Compared to Historically Advantaged Institutions (HAIs), research capacity, especially in the areas of science, engineering and technology, still remains underdeveloped. It is emphasised by a 1997 report which states: “South Africa: a science and technology profile” – “Most research capacity within these institutions (Institutions of Higher Learning in South Africa) is confined to the previously white institutions. The Historically Black Universities and Universities of Technology have only recently been able to start developing research capacity.” While the report indicates some progress towards capacity development, the reality is that much is still required to build research capacity at HDIs, such as the University of Limpopo.

Nonetheless, the commitment towards the development of a strong research focus has always been central to UL since its establishment through the merger. The emphasis on research is even captured in our vision statement, “…addressing the needs of rural communities

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _99

through innovative ideas “, which implies the continual generation and synthesis of knowledge. The mission statement of the Institution devolves the link between knowledge generation and research even further to the point of empowerment.

At UL, research is developed in a context that links the conceptual and the operational, recognising the social environment in which the Institution operates. Quality imperatives in research, therefore involve research endeavours in response to the local, provincial, SADC and global environment in which we function. It pays particular attention to the communities that our students come from, where the Institution strives to strengthen the strategic link between the developments of formal teaching programmes and directed research activities. The continual development and adjustment of the link between research and our teaching programmes, is complex and exciting because it has to be responsive to the needs of the local economy and communities, while at the same time delivering products that are competitive globally. For that reason UL is continually striving towards a perfect balance between the two. The alignment has always been part of our postgraduate teaching and learning profile, but has even penetrated into the undergraduate programmes during the past few years.

As comprehensively described earlier, UL is committed to the successful societal transformation within the communities that it serves and within the realm of the economic and social niche that it fills in the Limpopo and Gauteng Provinces and beyond. It is, therefore, strategically positioned to bring together the teaching of largely under-prepared students from our traditional feeder areas as a community focused responsive institution with dedicated and focused research activities. It is this sensitivity of the institution to the unique background of our student pool that allows them to develop their competitive intellectual capacity within a global setting while maintaining ties and a thorough understanding of the complexities of the communities from which they originate. This is the culmination of the preparation of our students to become leaders in societal transformation and the intellectual role that they play as products from the South African tertiary landscape.

Realising such a goal requires postgraduate programmes of high quality that can create opportunities for students in which they can excel. It also requires the development of research capacity in our thrust areas that can attract established and recognised researchers from across the world to whom we can expose our students through knowledge and interest creation and who can introduce them to such an international community of intellectuals.

100_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

An invariable risk in this regard, is the vulnerability of all universities to the constant state of flux in which research and research programmes find themselves. The cost, uncertainties about long term viability of programmes and, most importantly, the flux within the human resource makes effective planning and development of niche research areas very difficult. Challenges, especially in research capacity, have constrained HDIs for a long period of time and to bring research capacity on par with the excellence in teaching and learning is something that cannot happen overnight.

One has to realise that self fertilisation is crucial in the development of unique institutional cultures at all tertiary institutions. Students thus migrating into the academic world will bring with them that which they have been exposed to during their years of study at the self-same institution. If the emphasis was on teaching and learning and less on research, then that is what they themselves will also excel in. Added to that, is the high turnover of our promising young researchers which is still a major hurdle. In fact, attracting, remunerating and retaining top researchers are equally important in the development of our research institutional culture and ethos.

The inherited inequalities of the past are amplified when one considers the improvement of research capacity at tertiary institutions where state funding, especially of postgraduate programmes, remains limited. The development of an excellent research culture and ethos in an institution such as ours is, therefore, something that requires not only resources, commitment and dedication but most of all, patience and innovative ideas on the side of the University. For instance, the completion of the IOP intervention strategies or projects and the realignment of the staffing are anticipated to release much needed funding for the development of this crucial component of UL’s array of deliverables.

The Institution has come a long way in its commitment towards the development of a strong research capacity and culture, regardless of the constraints mentioned above, and today proudly boasts a number of centres of excellence. Central to this is the quality thread that runs throughout out structures and processes as are described in the sections to follow.

Structural and functional arrangements for research There are five managerial levels responsible for research:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _101

• • • • •

The Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC): Academic and Research The Executive Deans Director: Research Development and Administration The Directors of Schools The Heads of Departments

The DVC: Academic and Research sets the overall research direction and ensures that it aligns with the Institutional vision and mission.

The Executive Deans direct research programmes in the Faculties and ensure that research capacity is developed and aligned with Faculty strategic imperatives. The Directorate of Research and Development plays a critical supporting function to the Faculties, reporting to the DVC: Academic and Research.

The Research Division is headed by the Director: Research Development and Administration and provides the following support functions: • Provide strategic management and leadership in terms of cutting edge research and associated activities for UL; • Contribute particularly to UL’s ongoing restructuring, transformation and merger consolidation processes; • Develop and implement a strategic research framework for the University on a continual basis with the necessary reviews ; • Facilitate and enhance the quality of research which, dovetailed with the other two core functions of teaching and community engagement, directly influences the reputation and standing of UL and contributes to DoHET and third stream derived University incomes; • Assist and advise institutional management and Senate on research strategy and implementation.

3.1.1 Research Systems and Performance 3.1.1.1 Institutional Policies (i) University Strategic Plan This Strategic Plan sets out the vision, mission, motto and the University’s core values, which are the broad theoretical foundation and guiding principles for planning and implementation of all activities of the University.

The Strategic Plan then moves from its broad ideas and guiding principles to more concrete implementable areas, namely: the “University’s Business Objectives” which are:

102_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• • • •

Teaching and learning to produce quality graduates; Research and publications; Service; and Community engagement.

The core objectives are translated into six strategic thrusts and an overarching, stand-alone once-off seventh strategic thrust. Each of these thrusts is then unbundled into specific objectives/goals and a detailed action plan with measurement indicators, responsible staff/ offices and target dates. The University Strategic Plan forms the basis for the University Research Policy24 and the Research Strategic Plan. (ii) University of Limpopo Research Policy The University’s Research Policy essentially sets out the University’s research related long-term aims and the functions of the Division for Research Development and Administration. (iii) Research Strategic Plan The Research Strategic Plan25 essentially provides an action plan for research and innovation in terms of capacity building, development and support.

3.1.2 Capacity building and staff development The two Research Offices on the two Campuses still operate on two internal research support and development policies and guidelines.

The Medunsa Campus is guided by “A guide to Internal Research Support”26 which forms the operational backbone of research support at the Medunsa Campus. On the Turfloop Campus, internal research support is guided by “Research and Other Research Administrative Services – A Practical Booklet on Research Grants, Scholarships, and other Research Services”.27 A “Guideline for Research Support and Incentives” harmonises the research support and development policies, procedures and programmes on the two Campuses and is in the process of approval.

In addition to the above policies and procedures to support staff in research, a women’s organisation, University of Limpopo Women’s Academic Solidarity Association (ULWASA), supports staff and postgraduate women researchers. ULWASA is a self-formed and funded organisation which initially received support from the ViceChancellor’s Office.

24 University of Limpopo Research Policy (Appendix C11a) 25 Research Strategic Plan (Appendix C11b) 26 Guideline for Research Support and Incentives (Appendix C11e) 27 Research Funding and other Research Administration Services: A Practical Booklet on Research Grants, Scholarships and other Research (Appendix C11f)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _103

3.1.2.1 Staff research training programme The Research Developer that is attached to the DRDA runs a research induction and training programme for post-graduate students. The programme is being institutionalised.

3.1.2.2 Statistical services support The DRDA has a statistician who assists post-graduate students and staff with statistical matters in their proposals, theses, and dissertations and in preparing manuscripts for publication. In addition, departments approach her to offer short training courses/workshops in statistics.

The Medunsa Campus also offers a workshop on SPSS. 3.1.2.3 Research software purchases The DRDA has been assisting departments to acquire a referencing manager software package, EndNote that helps staff and students to manage their references for their dissertations, theses and publications.

3.1.3 Postgraduate education, development and support The section entails infrastructure and support mechanisms that apply to research staff and to postgraduate students. The following funding research support, administered from the Research Office, is available to postgraduate students: • Matching funds for grant holders. Funders such as the NRF provide specific research grants to the Institution and the Institution has to match the contribution. Included in such grants are grants for postgraduate bursaries and scholarships.

The DRDA manages the allocation of such grants as bursaries and scholarships to postgraduate students according to the criteria of the funders; • Postgraduate students may be employed as research assistants; • All post-graduate students are entitled to a R10 000 tuition waiver managed by the Financial Aid Office.

3.1.4 Undergraduate research development support In addition to post-graduate support, undergraduates are also supported to develop into researchers (see Guidelines for Research Support and Incentives). Limitations in UL’s research development and support were pointed out and the “Draft Guiding Framework for Improvement of the Research Office and Research at the University of Limpopo”28 seeks to address in a systematic, comprehensive manner various aspects related to research development and support.

28 Draft Guiding Framework for the Improvement of the Research Office and Research at the University of Limpopo (Appendix C11m)

104_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

3.1.5 Procedures and support structures 3.1.5.1 Development of policies, procedures, plans, strategies for research • Research related policies and procedures that may emanate from the Faculties are approved at that level and recommended to Senate for approval through the Senate Research and Publication Committee.

• Research policies, procedures and, plans emanating from the DRDA follow the same route, except that they are submitted directly to the Senate Research and Publication Committee for consideration.

• Medunsa Campus Research Ethics Committee 29 /Turfloop Campus Research Ethics Committee30 research ethics policies and procedures are tabled before the Senate Research Ethics Committee before being submitted to Senate for approval.

• Approved high level research plans and strategic plans of the Faculties and the DRDA form the foundation of School and Department plans which must be approved by the Faculty Board and Senate.

3.1.5.2 Monitoring and implementation of policies, plans and strategies The five managerial levels cited above and the various committees are responsible for overall research oversight in terms of capacity building, support, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, effectiveness, and efficiency. The type of matters which the various committees deal with can be obtained from the terms of reference and the various committees’ official agendas.

From the above it is evident that there are sufficient and appropriate structures that implement coordinate and monitor research policy implementation at UL. The structures are also positioned at the correct level to execute their functions effectively. The Standing Committees of Senate carry the mandate from Senate and, therefore, the authority that comes from the senior body on academic and research matters.

The Faculty Board and Senate Standing Committees feed submissions into Senate that sits every quarter. Therefore, the above committees also convene on a quarterly basis but will meet more frequently if required. Operational procedures that relate to research are deliberated and amended from time to time. Such proposals follow the same route like other documents on aspects of research.

29 Medunsa Campus Research Ethics Committee (MREC) (Appendix C11c) 30 Turfloop Campus Research Ethics Committee (TREC) (Appendix C11d)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _105

3.1.6 Research Information Management System (RIMS) UL is part of the national consortium of institutions involved in the National InfoED RIMS31 project sponsored by DoHET/DST. DST has additionally provided an amount of R150 000 to assist the Institution to successfully implement RIMS. The University is now fully on board in the implementation of RIMS, but a fully fledged RIMS will only be possible in the next three to five years.

3.1.7 Resources for Research Below are the potential sources of the University of Limpopo’s income for research.

3.1.7.1 DoHET subsidy • Input block-grant for weighted FTE for post-graduate enrolment; • Weighted output block grant for Honours students (part of teaching grant); • Research output grants: • Research Master’s graduates, • Research Doctoral graduates, • Publications, • Infrastructure and Efficiency Funding.

3.1.7.2 University Fund-raising • University Contract Research Work funds • xternal Funds • Funds from National funding Agencies ( such as NRF, THRIP, MRC), • Funds from other government ministries and departments, • Funds from national business, • Funds from international sources, • Foreign donations.

The University’s investment in research has remained almost constant over the past number of years. The CeSTII Surveys provide an indication of the expenditure for research. A report, National Survey of Research & Experimental Development (R&D) 2006/2007, provides a comparative picture of Institutions of Higher Learning’s expenditure on research and development. An evaluation of all the available information indicates that UL is not investing sufficient financial resources in research.

The picture is expected to change significantly through the latest infrastructure and efficiency funding. Not only was equipment, that includes research and postgraduate equipment, approved but an 31 Research Information Management Systems (RIMS) (Appendix C11j)

106_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

amount of R9.2 million was also allocated for the refurbishment of the postgraduate infrastructure in the Life and Physical Sciences.

In addition, from the latest research development fund, a number of projects were approved that will improve our research output profile in the medium to long-term. The research output at UL still remains a concern and will continue to be a priority.

3.1.8 Financial arrangements to support research Research allocations to Faculties are made every year as part of the annual budget. The allocations are to be used to support both staff research activities and postgraduate students. Additional funding, especially in the form of seed funding, is also available to support and develop research programmes as outlined in “Research and Other Research Administrative Services – A practical Booklet on Research Grants, Scholarships, and other Research Services at the University of the North” and “Guideline for Research Support and Incentives”.

External and internal funds which research staff raise through external competitive research proposals are recorded and administered from DRDA. They are managed according to guidelines from donors and, in the absence of such guidelines; they are managed through the Institutional policy on contract research.

While DRDA is responsible for the administration of research funds, contracts and funds generated from contract research do not involve the DRDA. All purchases and claims from research funds follow the University procurement, financial and other related policies. The Research Office is annually audited for NRF Funds. Other funds may or may not be audited specifically for other funding agencies. Guidelines on clear unambiguous, harmonised, financial recording, allocation and monitoring of research funds will be developed and aligned to Faculty strategic imperatives as part of research improvement plan.

This will be addressed in the improvement plan.

3.1.9 Human resources for research In 2008, there were 649 full time employed academic staff at UL. In addition, there were technical staff who support research activities and who might also be involved in research. These are not included here. Secondly, UL has support staff that are not designated as academic staff but are also involved in research, such as some staff in the Centre for Academic Excellence. According to CeSTII, research staff are:

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _107

“All personnel employed directly in R&D or providing direct R&D services/support for at least 5% of their time...include permanent, temporary, and full-time and contract staff, as well as joint appointments for provincial hospital staff.”

From the Institutional Planning Division the number of research staff meeting the above criteria were 330 (2006) and 468 (2008). The academic staff involved in research were 283 (2006) and 413 (2008).

Therefore, the percentage of full time academic staff involved in research for 2008 was (413/649 x 100%) = approximately 64%.

Table 3.1 indicates the overall ratio of male to female academic staff.

The ratio of 1:1.5 has a large variation within the Faculties of Management and Law, and Science and Agriculture showing the lowest access for female staff. The gender equity profile will be addressed in the improvement plan, but considering the difficulty in attracting suitable academic staff, especially to the Turfloop Campus that is situated in a rural area, it will be a long-term endeavour.

Table 3.1: The ratio of female to male academic staff at UL for 2009

Number of Staff

Female

Male

F:M

273

412

1:1:5

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

The distribution of staff by ethnicity indicates a predominantly black academic pool (67.2%), backed up by 23.8% white staff, then Indian and coloured (Table 3.2). The distribution reflects the Limpopo’s demographics and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Table 3.2: The total number of academic staff at UL per race for 2009 African

Coloured

Indian

White

Total number of academic staff

460

4

58

163

%

67.2%

0.6%

8.5%

23.8%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

Over 50% of academic staff have a Master’s degree as their highest qualification. Approximately 25% have Doctoral degrees, but not necessarily in key areas. The situation affects research capacity and supervision across all programmes. It is a situation that UL has been grappling with for a number of years. The high staff turnover and the loss of academic staff to the private sector and other tertiary institutions have made it extremely difficult to build sustainable

108_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

research and postgraduate programmes that are anchored by experienced senior qualified staff. The situation is addressed through dedicated restructuring of academic programmes and the PQM. This initiative will continue for the next few years to turn the profile around.

Table 3.3: The number of academic staff at UL in 2009 with highest qualification, indicated as Undergraduate B-degree or equivalent, Honours or equivalent, Master’s and Doctoral Undergraduate

Honours

Master’s

Doctoral

Total number of academic staff

74

107

347

152

%

10.9%

15.7%

51.0%

22.4%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

3.1.10 Status of Research and Institution’s Performance in Research 3.1.10.1 Major Research Areas An overview of research of the Institution must be seen as a “tale of two cities” – different and yet overlapping research areas, organisation and systems reflecting the two separate histories of the former University of the North and the former MEDUNSA which are still working towards reorganising, harmonising and unifying their research under the new vision and mission of UL. The entire list of research areas/projects/programmes is not provided here (detailed lists can be found in the various Faculty Boards’ Annual Reports and Research Annual Reports) but a selective list of research programmes which is generally accepted to be major research programmes is provided32. Some of these are internally recognised as reflecting areas of research excellence or centres of research excellence and consolidate the University thrusts. They include the Materials Modelling Centre, the Aquaculture Research Unit and the Nguni project. Most research programmes are consistent with the vision and mission of the University as far as addressing real problems and needs of development in South Africa. In addition, most major research is in the sciences, consistent with the shift of government policy towards science and technology. The IOP acknowledges that UL has pockets of research excellence but emphasises the fact that the University should streamline and consolidate research into specific limited areas to improve resource allocation and cost effectiveness.

32 Major Research Areas (Appendix C11k)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _109

3.1.10.2 Research outputs (i) DoHET accredited subsidised publication outputs From the official records from DoHET the University’s accredited publication outputs have been declining since 2005. The national average rate per full time employed researcher is 1.25 per annum. If we use a full time academic staff of 671 and an accredited publication of 84.02 units then the average output rate for 2008 was 0.13 per full time researcher. (ii) NRF rating The number of NRF rated scientists has effectively doubled since the establishment of the University of Limpopo. It came from 4 in 2005 to 9 in 2008 as demonstrated by the table below. Even though the figures show a dramatic increase, the numbers are still a concern to the University, partly because the upswing is not reflected in the subsidised publication output. The University expects the NRF rated category to be a nucleus from which research development initiatives can be driven in the Faculties and considers the disparity a challenge that will require some resilience to turn around. It will also be addressed in the improvement plan.

Nevertheless, the recent financial injection into the institution and the dedicated allocation of research development funding, will enable UL to build the momentum, in the medium to long term, to develop the quality of the research profile and output towards the national norm.

Table 3.4: The number of NRF rated researchers at UL from 2005 to 2008 per Faculty

Number of NRF Rated Researchers

2005

2006

2007

2008

Total

4

6

9

9

28

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

3.2 Postgraduate training Postgraduate research projects form the research component of postgraduate degree programmes and the nucleus of teaching and learning at that level. They equip the postgraduate student with the skills to perform independent research and to plan, develop and execute a research project and to analyse, interpret and make recommendations from data recorded.

The University has a long-standing and proud tradition of quality research across postgraduate programmes. It is mandated from Senate through a well established quality management infrastructure.

110_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

The Policy on Postgraduate Supervision and Research33 provides the guidelines and principles that govern postgraduate study at UL. It includes aspects of admission, selection and appointment of supervisors, monitoring and review of research and assessment. It also provides guidelines on funding opportunities, research skills development of students and the management of the relationship between the student and supervisor.

The statutory bodies that manage the processes of approval of research proposals are described in the protocol for Masters’ and Doctoral research proposals and assessment reports. Each Faculty has a Higher Degrees Committee that considers and recommends applications for registration, project proposals, supervisors, and external examiners to two Campus-based Central Higher Degrees and Ethics Committees. The Committees approve Master’s and Doctoral research proposals and recommend projects with ethical aspects to the Senate Ethics Committee for consideration and approval.

Progress with postgraduate research projects is monitored and managed in the Faculties. The Directorate of Research and Development provides a supportive function to the Faculties and students alike. This ranges from bursary support, especially with NRF and MRC bursaries, research skills development of students, supervisory development of staff to student/supervisor relations.

The golden thread of quality in assessment of research dissertations at the University runs throughout the process. A number of structures and procedures are dedicated to the process. Assessment is managed centrally through the postgraduate office in academic administration.

The office handles the assessment of all dissertations with all examiners, internal and external. Results are consolidated in the Faculties and then recommended by the Faculty higher degrees committees to two campus based Academic Management Committees that consider and recommend final marks to Senate.

Supporting all the above committees and structures, are the General Rules of the University and the Student Code of Conduct. The General Rules regulate postgraduate assessment in all Faculties and across all programmes. It is divided into sections that deal with all aspects of postgraduate student academic activities, from admission, registration, and progression to assessment and graduation. It comprehensively describes quality aspects of the assessment processes and the rules that govern them, including fraud and plagiarism.

33 Policy on Postgraduate Supervision and Research (Appendix C11g)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _111

3.2.1 Student enrolment and accessibility The University has approximately 1 800 senior postgraduate students (Table 3.1). There are 1 665 at Master’s level and 139 at Doctoral level.

The number has been predominantly stable over the past five years.

Table 3.5: Total number of senior postgraduate students registered at UL during the UL period 2005 to 2009 QUALIFICATION LEVEL Master’s Doctoral Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1 918

1 744

1 675

1 628

1 665

10%

10%

9%

10%

10%

172

155

157

144

139

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2 090

1 899

1 832

1 772

1 804

11%

11%

10%

11%

11%

Source: University of Limpopo ITS Database – May 2010

The senior postgraduate component is presently 11% of the total headcount. The target set by the Minister and captured in the IOP, is one percentage point higher at 12%. It is essential that the target be reached as a matter of priority, not only from a vision and mission point of view, but also for funding purposes. All projects currently funded under the 2010/2011 research development grant have that as a basis and show a spread in deliverables, from short term to medium and long term. They include projects aimed at the improvement of throughput, improvement of staff research skills profiles and, improved access. The University is dedicated to the achievement of a senior postgraduate component of at least 12% that will continue to exhibit the quality that has characterised postgraduate research projects to date.

Increasing the postgraduate proportions relative to a growing undergraduate student pool, will require not only an accelerated enrolment, but will also have an impact on staff capacity and infrastructure. It has to be borne in mind that quality in admission and in progress will have to be closely monitored to maintain and improve graduation rates as spelled out in the IOP. Indeed, senior postgraduate graduation rates were mentioned in the IOP as requiring improvement. The average over the past five years for Master’s degree studies were 11.8%, while that for the sector was 18%.

Postgraduate access, enrolment and throughput at UL is a still a challenge and is being addressed at the different levels of the Institution. It poses the following realities:

112_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• The University cannot afford to rely predominantly on transfer students to enlarge its senior postgraduate school. A sound base at honours level that feeds senior postgraduate programmes is essential to grow a successful senior postgraduate school, both in terms of headcount enrolment and in success. In this regard the University is proud to have a very strong Honours group, especially in the Faculties of Science and Agriculture and Humanities, where the percentage of students registered at honours level is as high as 14%. The graduation rate supports the level enrolment and reinforces its value as base for senior postgraduate admissions at the University.

Indeed, the graduation rate supports the good enrolment with the percentage of honours degrees offered in the Faculty of Science and Agriculture forming 23.7% of the total; • A substantially increased senior postgraduate school cannot be supported successfully by our present academic staffing structure. As with other Universities across the country, UL is grappling with the acquisition and retention of adequately skilled and suitably qualified academic staff to support a growing senior postgraduate student pool. The challenge is even more evident with academic posts advertised on the Turfloop campus that is situated in a rural area. Attracting senior qualified and experienced academic staff to campuses in rural settings is very difficult as it is. Retaining them for a long enough period to make a lasting impact on postgraduate research programmes, is another matter altogether. Under the IOP projects the University restructured all academic divisions and support services. The project will conclude in 2010 and will release much needed capacity to approach the attraction and retention of suitable academic staff into key growth areas; • The provision of the physical infrastructure to deal with a rapidly growing senior postgraduate student pool is a demanding challenge. The University recently dedicated over nine million rand to the refurbishment of infrastructure to provide state of the art facilities and equipment to postgraduate students in the Science Faculty. It is supported by a number of projects approved under the Research Development grant that include equipment and are dedicated to postgraduate student development and support. These will provide an enabling environment for postgraduate students, and staff, to reach full capacity.

• All these research challenges will be addressed by the Institution as part of the improvement plan.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _113

Chapter 4: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1 Community Engagement at UL HEQC Criterion 18: Quality-related arrangements for community engagement are formalised and integrated with those for teaching and learning, where appropriate, and are adequately resourced and monitored.

4.1.1 Policy Framework and Strategic Focus The Community Engagement Policy34 of UL is premised on the mission, strategic focus and context of the Institution. The Policy recognises the continuous challenge faced by UL in addressing the needs of African rural communities through innovative ideas. This challenge necessitates UL become a robust and responsive institution that uses its teaching, research, service, and advocacy capacities to make a meaningful contribution to development and advancement of the communities within its reach. The Policy thus envisions community engagement through an approach that is increasingly and continuously integrated with teaching, learning, research, and service. The policy also provides an opportunity for both staff and students to expand their “real-life experiences”.

Based on the Policy framework, UL understands community engagement as a dynamic transformational process that constitutes the strategic focus and ethos of the Institution. As a result it influences the development and implementation of the core academic activities including the shape of the University. UL’s community engagement activities are a consequence of a constructive interface and engagement between the Institution and communities meant to address the challenges, needs and enhancement of the general well-being of such communities. The activities are driven more by a philanthropic motive than an economic one. Most of the activities have a mutual benefit for the University and the communities.

34 Community Engagement Policy (Appendix C12)

114_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

At the moment UL is involved in a number of community engagement activities and projects. The following are some of the main community engagement activities and projects that the institution is actively involved in.

4.1.2 Service Learning and Community-based Education Service learning and community-based education play an important role of exposing both staff and students to the challenges and needs of the various communities. They provide both students and staff with an opportunity to connect theory and practice in terms of teaching and learning Service learning inculcates the scholarship of engagement within the academy. It encourages empowerment of communities about their needs. Service learning provides the students with an opportunity to engage with and address the challenges and needs of communities. It engages students in active, relevant and collaborative learning, and it develops a commitment to future community involvement. It enhances the learning experiences of students in exposing them to real work situations whereby they are expected to apply the knowledge and skills they have acquired. It also facilitates learning in different contexts. The significance of learning experience is that it provides students with an opportunity to refine and enhance what they have learned informed by practical experiences before they actually start with their careers.

Service learning is an integral component of UL’s professional programmes such as health sciences, education and social work. The Schools offering these programmes have serving learning modules that are credit bearing as an integral part of their programmes.

At the moment UL is guided by four necessary criteria for its academic service learning activities, namely: • • • •

Relevant and meaningful service with the community; Enhanced academic learning; tructured opportunities for reflection; and Purposeful civic learning (social responsibility).

Community-based education assumes a different form from service learning. It entails students doing work in neighbouring communities where such work in a community environment constitutes part of the requirements of the programme. For example, student rotations in Health Sciences programmes such as Medicine and Dentistry include working in institutions such as hospitals. The following are some of the important examples of community-based activities.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _115

• Rotational work by medical and dentistry students in hospitals around Gauteng and Limpopo Provinces; • A comprehensive school-based oral health programme with Mercy Clinic in Winterveldt and Salvokop Clinic; • Involvement of staff and students from the Dentistry and Optometry programmes in the Phelophepa train initiative national project that offers health care services to rural communities; • UL’s Health Promotion Unit collaborates and works with various communities on Health Promotion initiatives.

4.1.3 Research-focussed initiatives UL, in line with its mission and strategic focus, is involved in a number of collaborative researches with various communities locally, nationally and continentally meant to transform and enhance the general well-being of these communities. The research collaborations are part of UL’s efforts of “finding solutions for Africa”. Some of the research collaborations between UL and communities are made possible through donor funding.

The following are some of the examples of the collaborative research community engagement projects UL is involved in: 4.1.3.1 The Limpopo IDC-Nguni Cattle project The Limpopo IDC-Nguni Cattle Development Trust was established in 2006 by the Limpopo Department of Agriculture (LDA), the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) the University of Limpopo (UL), and livestock farmers to serve as an agent for the distribution of Nguni cattle blood stock.

To date the Trust has distributed 324 registered cows and heifers and 13 bulls to 13 projects. The herd has since grown to a total of 844 herd of cattle.

Seven of the 13 established projects have started to reimburse the loan (30 heifers and a bull). 120 herd of cattle have been reimbursed and will be redistributed to new projects.

4.1.3.2 The Centre for Rural Community Empowerment The Centre for Rural Community Empowerment (CRCE) was established as a community engagement arm of the School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The objectives of the Centre include capacity building of small holder farmers, extension officers and other stakeholders, documentation of relevant experiences and using them as training tools, the establishment of

116_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

farmers’ networks and encouraging student participation in community engagement through internships. The Centre is also home to a number of international students who are on exchange visits.

4.1.3.3 Applied Research Projects The NRF-funded grain legume enhancement in the small holder farming sector. The project is located in Mopani and Capricorn districts. It includes legumes such as cowpea, bean and Bambara groundnuts.

The ACIAR-funded legume project focuses on the development of (1) cowpea (introduced lines from USA which are early maturing upright types) and (2) lablab varieties from Australia. These are early maturing cultivars which can produce seeds in our short season. The lablab is aimed at adding nitrogen to the soil and improving cattle feed in the dry season.

4.1.3.4 Improving Indigenous and Broiler Chickens This project is sponsored by the NRF. It aims at improving the productivity and carcass characteristics of indigenous and broiler chickens through efficient breeding and feed manipulation. Thus, it involves breeding and selection of chickens for meat and egg production. The selected lines are then tested at the village farms in the Province. Some of the most promising lines are distributed to farmers who agree to be involved in the research. This has been going on for a long time. At the same time nutrient requirements for optimal productivity and carcass characteristics of the chickens are determined. This study continues up to 2012. However, we have managed to get VLIR funds for the continuation of the study. These funds will be available for the coming five years, with a possibility for extension.

A number of papers have been published on this project. Similarly, a number of MSc and PhD students have completed their studies on this project.

4.1.3.5 Improving Indigenous Goat Production This project aims at improving indigenous goat productivity through breeding and formulation of feeds to meet their optimal nutrient requirements. The studies are done at both the experimental and farm levels. However, the main emphasis is on developmental studies. This means more and more farmers are participating in this project. A number of research papers have been published from this study

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _117

4.1.3.6 Disabled Students Unit Outreach Programmes In spite of its focussed and limited resources, the Disabled Students Unit is involved in the following outreach programmes: • The Orientation and Mobility Practitioner offers training to persons in the community; • The DSU participates actively in the programmes of Tape Aids for the Blind; • The Orientation and Mobility Practitioner is an assessor for students undergoing Orientation and Mobility training at Guide Dogs South Africa; • The DSU provided Braille services to some government departments and organisations of/for the disabled.

4.1.3.7 Centre for Student Counselling and Development Community and School Outreach Programme The tradition of outreach work has long roots at the Centre for Student Counselling and Development. It started from the time when the Centre’s staff were the sole providers of psychological service at the main psychiatric hospital in the Limpopo Province to the time when schools and health establishments in Polokwane were visited. The director of the Centre has done sessional work at Groothoek Hospital. He spent a day a week working at this hospital.

This sessional work lasted for a period of fifteen years. The relationship with this and other hospitals in the Province enables our intern psychologists and psychometrists to do their practical work at these institutions. Some of the places at which the staff of the Centre render their services include the Polokwane Place of Safety, Beulah’s Home, Bana Ba Thari School for the Mentally Handicapped, and Grace and Hope School. The staff of the Centre take a group of Peer Counsellors to give guidance and counselling in the surrounding secondary schools.

In addition to these activities, UL is also involved in the following community engagement activities which are also donor funded: • An Integrated Sustainable Initiative funded by UNESCO; • An Investigation into a Drop-in Centre in Limpopo funded by the Department of International Development; • Feasibility Study on Agri-Tourism for Limpopo funded by FTITSA; • Department of Maths, Science and Technology voluntary work on D(Masterdep) Maths, Science and Technology Educators’ School Development Project; • Radiological Diagnostic Services to Communities by Oral Health - Division of Radiology.

118_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

4.1.4 Public Education and Policy Advocacy UL staff and students, based on the Institution’s rich history as a site for the liberation struggle against apartheid, took a keen interest in determining and shaping the new emerging democratic dispensation in terms of policy and legislative initiative and development. This resulted in a number of UL staff and students being requested to serve on a number of national policy structures and ministerial appointed commissions.

A number of them participated in structures and commissions whose work culminated in the following policy and legislative frameworks: • National Commission on Higher Education; • White Paper on Science and Technology, 14 September 1996; • White Paper 3: Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, 15 August 1997; • Higher Education Act, No. 101 of 1997; • National Research Foundation Act, No. 23 of 1998; • Natural Scientific Professions Act, No. 106 of 2003.

In addition to these activities UL established an institute known as the Development Facilitation Institute at its Turfloop Graduate School. The main purpose of the Institute contributes towards community development and improvement of public service through appropriate training and development programmes in the form of workshops and short courses. In addition to this, UL’s Legal Aid Clinic in the School of Law provides people from the surrounding communities with legal services free of charge.

UL also has a local Community Radio Station not only meant to provide and empower its stakeholders with information and entertainment, but also all the communities around the radius of the Institution.

4.1.5 Quality Assurance for Community Engagement Assuring the quality of these mentioned Community Engagement activities in a co-ordinated manner is still a major challenge at UL. This is because most of these Community Engagement activities are initiated and driven by individual academics. Activities that are donor funded in most cases depend on the donor’s guidelines and the memoranda of agreement between the donors and UL for the quality assurance of such activities. This observation has in a way created the need for the Institution to take a relook at Community Engagement and associated activities in a way that they will be quality assured and managed in a co-ordinated manner. This will

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _119

contribute to institutionalising Community Engagement across the institution rather than be left as individual initiatives or the sole responsibility of only those Schools that are involved in such activities, particularly through service learning or community-based education.

The observation on quality assurance of Community Engagement activities which is still a challenge to UL as a result of a lack of a co-ordinated management will be addressed through an improvement plan.

120_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Chapter 5: IMPROVEMENT CHALLENGES 5.1 Improvement Challenges The process of self-evaluation has afforded UL an opportunity to identify both its potential, strengths, challenges and weaknesses in an objective and honest manner. UL’s challenges and weaknesses revealed through the self-evaluation process should be understood and assessed within challenges facing historically disadvantaged institutions in particularly and higher education in general.

In advancing this position UL is mindful of the fact that while, on the one hand, quality assurance and enhancement depend largely on the context and circumstances under which an institution exists and operates, on the other hand quality outcomes are measured in terms of national and international benchmarks and standards, hence its determination to continuously strive for excellence and quality even under adverse conditions.

In this section we restate challenges in the form of areas of weakness which were highlighted in the various sections of this report which need to be attended to through an improvement plan. The following areas need focussed attention in terms of continuous improvement.

5.1.1 Leadership and Management Stable and visionary leadership and management are crucial in providing direction and rallying the various stakeholders in the Institution behind its vision, mission and strategic goals. UL, in line with the Guidelines for Mergers and Incorporations, had to start with an interim management structure and ultimately a new organisational structure. This means that leadership and management positions were initially filled on temporary basis.

As a result of the complexity of the merger, UL continued for a long time with people in acting leadership and management positions.

This has had some negative consequences such as uncertainty, inability to engage in long term planning, discontinuity and

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _121

demoralisation. UL is at the moment busy filling leadership and management positions in accordance with the approved permanent organisational structure. It is hoped that once all appointments are made and finalised in terms of the organisational structure there will be focus, synergy and stability in terms of leadership and management which were important in driving the vision, mission and strategic objectives of UL. The Institution, as part of its improvement plan, is committed to building in the principle of succession planning in finalising the filling of leadership and management positions. The main reason for this is to ensure continuity and stability in the institution which are critical for continuous quality management, assurance and enhancement at UL. 5.1.2 Consolidation of the Merger Consolidation of the merger for UL is essential not only in terms of systems, policies, procedures and practices, but more importantly also in terms of a common institutional culture and value system. At the moment the Institution at its two main Campuses is still characterised by different cultures and value systems which were inherited and are not characteristic of the two merged Universities.

Major consequences of these different institutional cultures and value system are suspicion and mistrust with the associated tendencies of unnecessary conflicts and a lack of co-operation and support at the two Campuses. UL is of the firm view that consolidation of the merger will enable it to create a common institutional culture and value system around which to rally all its various constituencies across the Campuses for the common good of the new University.

5.1.3 Institutionalisation of the Vision and Mission Statements As indicated, during the development of the IOP, UL realised that its current challenges were hindrances to the achievement of its Vision, Mission and long-term goals. UL realised that successful development and implementation of intervention strategies to address its weaknesses at the time was a precondition to building a stable and sustainable foundation for future planning and development. Based on this reality the institution decided to de-link its short-to-medium term planning and resources allocation processes from its vision, mission and long-term goals. This means that the Vision and Mission statements were never institutionalised. UL decided to revisit the latter once stability and sustainability have been achieved. As a result of this arrangement, the vision and mission statements were never institutionalised as they were not used to determine planning and resources allocation.

122_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

UL intends to address this challenge through the reviewed strategic planning. This is made possible by the fact that the Institution has successfully managed to implement the intervention strategies in the form of the IOP projects. Institutionalisation of the vision and mission statements will determine planning and the manner in which resources are allocated. It will also consolidate the link between planning, resource allocation and quality assurance at UL. 5.1.4 Teaching, Learning and Co-ordination of Student Development and Support Services Quality assurance in this area has received more attention at an institutional level through the development and implementation of appropriate systems, policies and procedures, and what is remaining and on-going is institutionalisation of quality assurance processes at Faculty level through the development of appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures that are aligned to the institutional ones as part of consolidating the merger. Once these quality assurance systems are institutionalised, they will have to be promoted to enhance the quality of UL’s core business. Their promotion on a sustainable basis may be a challenge due to the resource constrained position from which the institution is operating.

At the moment UL has a number of academic development and support services meant to support teaching and learning. The main challenge for the Institution at the moment is that these services are not properly aligned and this makes it difficult for the Institution to sustain its performance in teaching and learning in accordance with the national norm of continuous basis. The obvious consequence of this is fragmentation and duplication of some of the activities. This results in these services not being as efficient and effective in responding to the teaching and learning challenges as expected.

This then makes it difficult for UL to sustain its performance in the area of teaching and learning in accordance with the national norm on a continuous basis.

As part of responding to the teaching and learning challenges complicated by the fact that the majority of students who are admitted into the Institution are under-prepared due to their disadvantaged school background, UL is committed to aligning the various academic development and support services through efficient co-ordinated management. Efficient co-ordinated management of these services will bring the necessary focus and synergy required to support both academic staff and students in their teaching and learning enterprises. This will contribute in improving student success, throughput and graduation rates on a sustainable basis.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _123

5.1.5 Research and Postgraduate Education UL continues to face a challenge in the area of research and postgraduate education in terms of output as measured against the national norm. This is despite the quality assurance systems, policies and procedures being developed and implemented to support and promote research and postgraduate education. The main contributory factor in this regard is capacity.

UL is determined to implement a number of interventions such as the appointment of research associates, encouraging and supporting academic staff to apply for research chairs including funding from NRF, consolidating existing centres of excellence, and efficient use of the research development grant received from the Department of Higher Education and Training etc. to build capacity meant to raise the research profile of the Institution to be in line with the national norm.

5.1.6 Co-ordination of Community Engagement Activities Although at the moment UL has some pockets of excellence in the area of community engagement, community engagement activities are not yet co-ordinated in terms of management and quality assurance. Co-ordinated management and quality assurance of community engagement activities will strategically position the institution better in responding to the needs and challenges of the marginalised rural communities it serves.

UL is addressing this challenge through the establishment of a community engagement office within the rural development hub.

This is being made possible through the support the Institution is receiving from the NRF in building institutional capacity around community engagement and ultimately establishing an office to provide co-ordinated management and quality assurance on all the activities relating to this core function.

5.1.7 Human Resources Development and Staffing Situated on the fringe of the labour market, UL is continuously facing a challenge of recruiting, appointing and retaining quality staff. This fact is complicated by the financial situation of the HDIs as UL continues to operate under.

Coupled with this fact is a protracted process of finalising the harmonisation of the HR policies and procedures due to the difficulty of the merger the Institution went through. It is hoped that finalisation of the harmonisation of the HR policies and procedures before the end of the year will go a long way in giving effect to a number of HR

124_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

development processes in terms of staff recruitment, retention, benefits, motivation, and general wellness. This will also enable UL to build and nurture diversity within its staff ranks in compliance with national legislation on equity. The finalisation and implementation of HR policies and procedures will go a long way in assisting UL developing and achieving the much needed unifying, trusting and performance delivery-orientated institutional culture across its campuses.

5.1.8 Benchmarking, User Surveys and Impact Studies User surveys, benchmarking and impact studies need to become an integral part of the cyclical reviews of our programmes. Regular undertaking of benchmarking, user surveys and impact studies will help to determine the responsiveness of our programmes and form the basis of academic and programme reviews on a cyclical basis.

In spite of the significance of user surveys, benchmarking and impact studies in higher education, UL has not yet conducted these activities.

The reason for UL not conducting them since the merger is because the Institution felt it necessary to prioritise the harmonisation of common academic programmes across campuses and to review the separate Programme Qualification Mixes inherited from the merged institutions with a view to have a single PQM. UL expects all these prioritised activities to be completed before the end of the year.

Subsequent to this, the Institution will start planning benchmarking, user surveys and impact studies exercises as outlined in its Quality Assurance Policy Framework.

5.1.9 Communication and Marketing While communication and marketing activities are well under way at UL, there is a need to find some way to communicate and market strategic issues at UL such as the Vision, Mission, Strategic Plan, IOP, policies and procedures. This will enhance buy-in into these strategic issues by the stakeholders and intensify institutionalisation of these matters.

Intensified communication and marketing will enhance institutional confidence which is a critical success factor in changing the image of any institution. This will go a long way in portraying a better image about UL as it sometimes has to struggle with the entrenched public image of it as a historically disadvantaged institution which tends to be equated with being ‘second class’ in spite of the enormous academic strides achieved.

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _125

Conclusion UL, as a merged institution, is at an advanced stage of consolidating its merger and it has managed to overcome complex challenges associated with its pre-merger and merger phases. Through successful implementation of the IOP intervention strategies popularly known as IOP projects, UL has managed to achieve stability and sustainable development. Successful implementation of the IOP projects at UL has laid down the sustainable foundation for efficiency and effectiveness in general at the Institution and particularly in its core business. Efficiency and effectiveness in the University will go a long in enhancing the quality of the inputs, processes and outputs of the core business of teaching, learning and research and community engagement.

The merger has opened up some new growth and development trajectories for UL in terms of its size and shape particularly in the field of Health Sciences. UL is leveraging the opportunity brought about by the merger to expand its medical training and other associated Health Sciences programmes to the Polokwane Local Municipality in the Limpopo Province. This is being made possible by the joint venture between UL and the Limpopo Provincial Department of Health and Social Development in collaboration with the national Departments of Health and Higher Education and Training. In order to achieve this, the government, through the Departments of Health and Treasury, has already made a budgetary commitment to build a new tertiary health hospital in Polokwane. The same commitment has been made with regard to George Mukhari Tertiary Hospital in Ga-Rankuwa in order to ensure that the gains made at the Medunsa Campus do not disappear. Completion of these projects will increase UL student enrolment in the Health Sciences programmes, thereby contributing greatly in addressing the acute shortage of health professionals in the country.

These new development and growth trajectories together with the consolidation of the merger and the improvement plan emanating from the institutional audit, will undoubtedly enhance UL’s role as one of the key players in South African higher education and beyond through the quality of its inputs and outputs.

THE DEVELOPMENT of UL self-evaluation report (march 2009-june 2010) 1. Planning The Self-Evaluation Report (SER) of the University of Limpopo is the outcome of a wide-range consultative process of self-reflection, assessment and evidence gathering in the form of documentary

126_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

material and information embarked upon by the University in preparation for the HEQC Institutional Audit scheduled for 27 September to 1 October 2010.

The actual preparations for this report started when a number of structures were put up in place and individuals appointed to manage and ensure the completion of the various tasks associated with the audit preparations. The structures including individuals and their responsibilities are as follows: • The Steering Committee: Responsible for overseeing the entire preparation process.

• The Audit Co-ordinator: Responsible for the day-to-day co-ordination and management of the entire audit preparation process.

• Co-ordinators of Working Groups: Responsible for the coordination and management of the various Working Groups who are assigned relevant criterion/criteria to work on in terms of self assessment and evidence gathering.

• Working Groups: Responsible conducting self-evaluation and gathering information as well as developing resource documents on all the audit criteria for synthesis into the SER. • The Project Team: Responsible for the gathering and synthesis of reports from the Co-ordinators of the various Working Groups and the actual development of the SER. • The Audit secretariat: Responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Audit Room and process.

In order to execute all the audit preparation activities accordingly and timeously, the Project Plan was developed and approved by the Executive Committee of Senate.

2. The Project Plan and Time-Frames Concerning the Preparations for the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) Institutional Audit The Project Plan includes the following activities and time-frames: • Appointment of a Steering Committee. The following office bearers are members of the Steering Committee: – Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academic and Research (Chairperson) – Deputy Vice Chancellor: Medunsa Campus – University Registrar – Executive Deans – Executive Director: Centre for Academic Excellence

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _127

•

•

• •

•

– Executive Director: Marketing and Communications – Director: Quality Assurance (Audit Co-ordinator) – Director: Institutional Planning – Director: Research Appointment of the Co-ordinators of the various Working Groups and the Working Groups based on the relevance of the criterion/criteria.

Communication Plan (in the form of activities and methods such Information sessions, Official University structures and, Website).

Documentation Plan (Evidence gathering and arrangement).

Site Visit Plan (Audit room arrangement, Venues for the interviews, Arrangement for the interviewees, resources including the budget for the project.

Evaluation and feedback on the Self-Evaluation Report by an Independent External Expert on HEQC Institutional Audits.

The Time-frames for the Project in terms of phases are as indicated below.

PHASE ONE: JULY-SEPTEMBER 2009 • Roll-out of Communication Plan.

• Appoint Co-ordinators of Working Groups and Working Groups in accordance with the relevance of the audit criterion/criteria to conduct self-evaluation and to collect the relevant evidence.

• Start to assemble documentation and data.

PHASE TWO: OCTOBER-DECEMBER • Continuation of certain activities from Phase One. • Submission of self-evaluation reports with the relevant evidence by the Co-ordinators of the Working Groups to the Office of the Co-ordinator of the Project.

• The Co-ordinating Group starts to work on the composite SelfEvaluation Report.

PHASE THREE: JANUARY-APRIL 2010 • Continuation of certain activities from the previous phase.

• Deadline for the submission of Self-Evaluation Reports by the Co-ordinators of the Working Groups: 26 February 2010.

• Table the Self-Evaluation Report to the Extended Meeting of the Steering Committee for inputs on 17 May 2010.

• Distribute a composite draft Self-Evaluation Report to the University community for inputs by 19 May 2010.

128_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

• Send a composite draft Self-Evaluation Report to an Indepen- dent External Expert by 21 May 2010.

• Incorporate all the inputs by 28 May 2010.

PHASE FOUR: MAY-JUNE • Submit the Self-Evaluation Report to the ordinary meeting of Senate scheduled for 4 June 2010 for discussion and recommendation to Council.

• Immediately after Senate meeting submit the Self-Evaluation Report to Council for approval.

• Incorporate inputs from Senate and Council.

• Submit the Portfolio to the HEQC before or on 1 July 2010 as per the HEQC schedule.

PHASE FIVE: JULY-SEPTEMBER • Planning and Preparations for the Site visit.

• Arrangements and briefing sessions for the interviewees.

PHASE SIX: 27 SEPTEMBER - 1 OCTOBER 2010 • Site Visit and Institutional Audit of the University by the HEQC appointed Independent Panel of Experts.

3. Development of a Draft Self-Evaluation Report The process of developing the SER began in January 2010, when the Co-ordinators of the various Working Groups processed and send the first reports to the Project Team. Supported by the Audit Co-ordinator each Co-ordinator developed a resource document bases on information gathered from Faculties, Administration and Support Divisions based on strategic and policy documents, agendas and minutes of previous meetings, official reports, etc. The Project Team then synthesised these reports into a single document known as a Draft Self-Evaluation Report (DSER). The DSER then circulated for consideration by the Steering Committee including the Co-ordinators of the various Working Groups. Their inputs were incorporated into the DSER. 4. University Community Engagement The Draft Self-Evaluation Report was placed on the University intranet with an e-mail and notice board circulars encouraging the entire community to go through the document and where necessary to send their inputs to the Audit Co-ordinators through contact details that were made available.

In order to facilitate constructive discussion around the DSER, information meetings were arranged by the Faculties, Administration

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _129

and Support Divisions. The meetings were facilitated by the Audit Co-ordinator. Generally, the University community responded positively to the DSER, especially to the overall conceptual thrust of the document.

In addition to this, it was decided that the University would benefit much from the insights of an external independent expert on HEQC Institutional Audits from another higher education institution. To this end a detailed critique of the DSER was received from Vincent Morta who is responsible for Quality assurance at the University of the Western Cape. The inputs from this external expert enriched the quality of the DSER.

5. Finalisation and Approval of the Report Following the feedback received from the University community and an external independent expert, a revised DSER was presented to Senate on 4 June 2010. Senate approved the report and encouraged members to send written inputs to the Audit Co-ordinator before the report is submitted to Council. This was done in preparing the report to Council on 25 June2010 for consideration and final approval.

130_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

LIST OF APPENDIXES FOR THE HEQC INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT REPORT STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS: APPENDIX A Appendix A1: Institutional Operating Plan Appendix A2: University Strategic Plan Appendix A3: Programme Qualification Mix (PQM) Appendix A4: Academic Structure Appendix A5: Enrolment Plan for 2006-2010 Appendix A6: Statistical Information on Undergraduate and Postgraduate Information on Students from 2005-2007 in terms of the following:

• Access

• Enrolments

• Retention

• Success, throughput and graduation rates Appendix A7: List of University Statutory Bodies and their Committees: Appendix A7.1: Council Appendix A7.2: Senate Appendix A7.3: Institutional Forum Appendix A7.4: Detailed University Budgets from 2007-2008 GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS: APPENDIX B Appendix B1: Notice No. 1703 in the Government Gazette, No.25737 of 14 November 2003 Appendix B2: Guidelines for Mergers and Incorporations Appendix B3: Standard Institutional Statute CORE BUSINESS DOCUMENTS: APPENDIX C Appendix C1: General Calendar 2010 Appendix C2: Language Policy for the University of Limpopo Appendix C3: School Calendars from 2009-2010 Appendix C4: General Admissions Requirements Appendix C5: Students Access and Admissions Policy Appendix C6: Policy on the Recognition of Prior Learning Appendix C7: Academic Quality Assurance Policy Appendix C8: Teaching and Learning Policy Appendix C8: Assessment Policy: Students Learning Appendix C10: Short Courses Policy Appendix C11a: University of Limpopo Research Policy Appendix C11b: Research Strategic Plan Appendix C11c: Medunsa Campus Research Ethics Committee (MREC) Appendix C11d: Turfloop Campus Research Ethics Committee (TREC)

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _131

Appendix C11e: Guideline for Research Support and Incentives Appendix C11f: Research Funding and other Research Administration Services: A Practical Booklet on Research Grants, Scholarships, and Other Research Appendix C11g: Policy and Procedures on Postgraduate Research and Supervision Appendix C11h: Code of Conduct for Research Appendix C11i: University of Limpopo Intellectual Property Policy Appendix C11j: Research Information Management System (RIMS) Appendix C11k: Major Research Areas Appendix C11l: A Guide to Internal Research Support Appendix C11m: Draft Guiding Framework for the Improvement of Research Office and Research at the University of Limpopo Appendix C11n: Contract Research Policy Appendix C12: Community Engagement Policy Appendix C13: Certification Policy Appendix C14: Policy Guidelines for the Conferment of the Status of Emeritus Professor Appendix C15: Policy and Procedure for the Appointment and Promotion of Academic Staff FACULTY DOCUMENTS: APPENDIX D Appendix D1: Terms of Reference and Composition of Faculty Boards Appendix D2: Examples of Previous Question Papers both at an Undergraduate and Postgraduate level Appendix D3: Examples of Marked Question Papers both at an Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels Appendix D4: Examples of Internal and External Moderators’ Reports at Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels Appendix D5: Copies of Mini-Dissertations, Full Dissertations and Theses SUPPORT SERVICES AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS: APPENDIX E Appendix E1a: Library Strategic Plan Appendix E1b: Library Policies and Procedures Appendix E1c: Library Rules Appendix E2: Information Communication and Technology Policy

132_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010

Appendix E3a: Medical University of Southern Africa Conditions of Service Appendix E3b: University of the North Personnel Policies and Procedures Appendix E3c: Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual Appendix E4 Turfloop: Where an Idea was Expressed, Hijacked and Redeemed 1956-2003

SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010 _133

134_SELF-EVALUATIONPORTFOLIOFORTHEHEQCINSTITUTIONALAUDIT2010