This study investigated a career education programme which was run with students enrolled in the Science Foundation Programme (SFP). The SFP is a one year bridging course at the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, for black students with insufficient matric points to enter directly into the science faculty. The class comprised of 135 students who were divided into 16 groups with about eight students in each. These career groups met monthly over a three month period. The approach to career education was based on group discussion and exploration. This made it possible for the students to deal with material that was relevant to their being in a vocationally orientated programme. The career groups were aimed at assisting the students with increasing their self knowledge in relation to their career decision making, expanding their knowledge of work and careers, exploring issues of career planning, and developing social and group skills. Research on the above process was undertaken by means of questionnaires, genograms and written paragraphs completed by the students over the duration of the programme. The students' evaluation of the programme was also investigated. The nature of the data meant that there were some responses which could be coded numerically, however much of the data was of a qualitative nature . Thematic analysis was thus undertaken. The programme dealt primarily with the issue of contextualism, focussing on the students macro-and micro-contexts and the role that these play in shaping the students' careers. The developmental contextual approach of Vondracek, Lemer, and Schulenberg (1986) was used to organise and make sense of the contextual data. Findings demonstrated that career information given in isolation is not sufficient. It needs to be located in the participants' context. Participation in the career education groups seemed to diminish the chances of students foreclosing on career decisions prematurely, and increased their self awareness and knowledge about the world of work. Research findings also highlighted the value of discussion as an important adjunct to other careers education techniques. The group discussion provided opportunities for gaining information and also encouraged individuals to take a more active role in their career development and career decision making. The career education groups provided a powerful tool for a collaborative learning experience with the students. This study also highlighted the limitations of a Western, individualistic approach, particularly when one is working cross culturally. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 1999.

Few South African students pass Grade 12 Physical Science with symbols required by university science, engineering and health science faculties. A large number of students who sit for Grade 12 Physical Science and Mathematics exams pass with symbols that are well below those required by the mainstream science courses at South African universities. Most South African universities have introduced Science Foundation Programmes with the aim of upgrading those students who failed to obtain university entrance symbols in the relevant subjects. Amongst the courses offered in Science Foundation Programmes is Foundation Physics. This study investigates the influence of Foundation Physics in order to find out if the programmes in different institutions are successful in empowering the students who failed to get the required entrance mark in Grade 12 Physical Science. Four South African Historically Black universities participated in this study. The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation test (FMCE) (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998) and mechanics marks were used to assess students' understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Data was analyzed from socio-cultural perspective. A total of 194 students participated in the study. Two groups of students were compared, i.e. those who did Foundation Physics (Foundation group) and those who did not do Foundation Physics (non-Foundation group). The students were tested after they had completed a mechanics module, which forms a great foundation of Physics I (Introductory Physics). Two focus group interviews were held with selected Foundation and non-Foundation students per institution. Students voiced their experiences in Physics I and Foundation Physics. Students were chosen to represent focus groups according to their performance in the FMCE test. Mechanics class performances were also used to evaluate students' performance. In order to establish how Foundation Physics is taught, Foundation Physics Lecturer interviews were conducted at all four institutions. Analysis of data showed that both Foundation and non-Foundation students performed equally in Physics I mechanics module. Foundation group performed better than the non-Foundation group in the FMCE, which is a conceptual test. Foundation Physics lecturers indicated that there were some differences in the way mechanics was taught in Physics I and Foundation Physics. These differences affected students' performance. The lecturers also indicated that there was minimal interaction between Physics I lecturers and Foundation Physics lecturers pertaining to the teaching of the two courses. What influence does Foundation Physics have on the performance of students in Physics I? This study found that students who did Foundation Physics performed better than those who did not do Foundation Physics in conceptual questions and both the groups perform equally in questions that require memorizing and calculations. This implies that Foundation Physics courses are empowering the students to perform well in Physics I. However, as it is evidenced by this research, the differences in assessment in Physics I and Foundation Physics courses in some institutions hampers Foundation Physics students' learning, because the questions asked require them to memorize without understanding, something they are not used to. The researcher recommends that Foundation Physics staff and Physics I staff should start communicating, not only about how Foundation Physics should be run as was the case in the past, but also on how best Physics I should be run. This might help in making sure that the two courses are assessed similarly at one institution. / Mathematics, Science and Technology Education / D. Phil. (Mathematics, Science and Technology Education)

Reading lies at the centre of Science Foundation Programme (SFP) students' struggle for access to the very support that such programmes offer in preparation for undergraduate study. It is a skill that is generally not sufficiently improved over an initial year of university study because, apart from being underdeveloped in previous educational and life experiences, it is not explicitly developed at tertiary level where students are generally expected to process extended texts independently in a limited time period. This study not only probes the background literacy experiences of UKZN (PMB) SFP students, but also measures the reading ability, in terms of reading comprehension, rate, and receptive non-technical academic vocabulary, with which the majority begin their studies. To better understand why many SFP students struggle with their academic reading and find prescribed science texts inaccessible, student feedback on reading difficulties and reasons for not attempting homework reading is also considered. In response to such data from the 2005 cohort of about 180 students, a means of supporting or "scaffolding" student reading was investigated. This involved preparing an experimental group of students for independent reading by initially "talking them through" an overview of the text in commonsense terms so that even the weakest readers could begin the reading process with some understanding of the extended text that had been assigned. The other half of the student cohort made up a control group who were merely instructed to read the text for homework. Overall comprehension of experimental and control groups was tested, and questionnaires about reading difficulty administered. The effect, on reading rate, of using a paraphrased version of a text was also investigated by dividing students into an experimental group to read such a version and a control group to read the original. Reading rate was measured again at the end of the year, in comparison with a mainstream sample, for potential progress. Findings suggest that SFP students are largely under-prepared academic readers who are more likely to read a prescribed text, and this with comprehension, when initially talked through a commonsense paraphrase. It is hoped that provision of such scaffolding over the course of the foundation year will develop students' confidence to attempt reading the texts assigned to them so as to become more practiced academic readers, and thus better prepared for mainstream study. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2007.

Few South African students pass Grade 12 Physical Science with symbols required by university science, engineering and health science faculties. A large number of students who sit for Grade 12 Physical Science and Mathematics exams pass with symbols that are well below those required by the mainstream science courses at South African universities. Most South African universities have introduced Science Foundation Programmes with the aim of upgrading those students who failed to obtain university entrance symbols in the relevant subjects. Amongst the courses offered in Science Foundation Programmes is Foundation Physics. This study investigates the influence of Foundation Physics in order to find out if the programmes in different institutions are successful in empowering the students who failed to get the required entrance mark in Grade 12 Physical Science. Four South African Historically Black universities participated in this study. The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation test (FMCE) (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998) and mechanics marks were used to assess students' understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Data was analyzed from socio-cultural perspective. A total of 194 students participated in the study. Two groups of students were compared, i.e. those who did Foundation Physics (Foundation group) and those who did not do Foundation Physics (non-Foundation group). The students were tested after they had completed a mechanics module, which forms a great foundation of Physics I (Introductory Physics). Two focus group interviews were held with selected Foundation and non-Foundation students per institution. Students voiced their experiences in Physics I and Foundation Physics. Students were chosen to represent focus groups according to their performance in the FMCE test. Mechanics class performances were also used to evaluate students' performance. In order to establish how Foundation Physics is taught, Foundation Physics Lecturer interviews were conducted at all four institutions. Analysis of data showed that both Foundation and non-Foundation students performed equally in Physics I mechanics module. Foundation group performed better than the non-Foundation group in the FMCE, which is a conceptual test. Foundation Physics lecturers indicated that there were some differences in the way mechanics was taught in Physics I and Foundation Physics. These differences affected students' performance. The lecturers also indicated that there was minimal interaction between Physics I lecturers and Foundation Physics lecturers pertaining to the teaching of the two courses. What influence does Foundation Physics have on the performance of students in Physics I? This study found that students who did Foundation Physics performed better than those who did not do Foundation Physics in conceptual questions and both the groups perform equally in questions that require memorizing and calculations. This implies that Foundation Physics courses are empowering the students to perform well in Physics I. However, as it is evidenced by this research, the differences in assessment in Physics I and Foundation Physics courses in some institutions hampers Foundation Physics students' learning, because the questions asked require them to memorize without understanding, something they are not used to. The researcher recommends that Foundation Physics staff and Physics I staff should start communicating, not only about how Foundation Physics should be run as was the case in the past, but also on how best Physics I should be run. This might help in making sure that the two courses are assessed similarly at one institution. / Mathematics, Science and Technology Education / D. Phil. (Mathematics, Science and Technology Education)