No description available.

Institute for Rural Development / PhDRDV

Thesis (PhD. (Education)) --University of Limpopo, 2016 / This study reports on an exploration of a conceptual framework for service-learning in order to provide a shared and common understanding necessary for guiding best practice of service-learning at the heart of two-rural-based universities in South Africa. The key research question answered in this study was: How is service-learning conceptualised by dir ectors of community engagement, project coordinators, academic staff members, and students at two rural-based universities in South Africa? The following sub-questions were developed on the basis of the key research question: • What are the current community engagement projects that can be modified for future practice of service-learning at two rural-based universities in South Africa? • What are the views of directors of community engagement, project coordinators, academic staff members, and students regarding conceptualisation of service-learning at two rural-based universities in South Africa? • What are the possible strategies for conceptualising and managing the quality of service-learning at two rural-based universities in South Africa? • What framework will be relevant and appropriate for conceptualising and implementing service-learning at two rural-based universities in South Africa? A qualitative research approach using grounded theory design was employed in this study. Convenience sampling was used to select the two rural-based universities in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Four similar schools from each university (Education, Law, Agriculture, and Health Sciences) were sampled purposively. Participants were also sampled purposively. These included the director of community engagement, one project coordinator, two academic staff members, and two final year undergraduate students who were taking part in community engagement or servicelearning- related activity at each sampled school at both universities. Data were captured through document analysis, semi-structured interviews with sampled participants, and silent observations. Content analysis was used to analyse data from documents. Data from semi-structured interviews and silent observations were analysed thematically. Findings from documents, semi-structured interviews and iv silent observations were used to make recommendations for developing a framework for conceptualising and managing the quality of service-learning at the two universities. The study revealed that service-learning is an unfamiliar concept at these two ruralbased universities. Advocacy of service-learning has never been done and no initiatives are made on the part of these universities to familiarise this concept. The study's findings also reflect that there is confusion among various role-players regarding the meaning of the concept service-learning. Participants showed that some prefer to use the concept community engagement rather than service-learning, while others view service-learning as synonymous to community engagement. The SMART conceptual framework was developed on the basis of the findings and recommendations of this study. This conceptual framework is SMART because it is S - socially relevant, M - manageable, A - adaptable, R - rural-based, and T - transformative. The proposed SMART conceptual framework is intended to guide institutional leaders, directors of community engagement, deans of faculties, directors of schools, heads of departments, project coordinators, academic staff members, students, traditional leaders, and community partners in conceptualising, implementing and managing the quality of service-learning endeavours at the two rural-based South African universities.

INTRODUCTION Les partenariats université communauté (PUC) sont bien étudiés en médecine, mais peu d’études existent en médecine dentaire. C’est ainsi que notre étude explore l’expérience des partenaires d’un PUC entre une faculté de médecine dentaire et une école primaire. MÉTHODES Une étude qualitative descriptive a été effectuée avec entrevues semi-structurées et une analyse thématique. Tous les partenaires clés du partenariat ont été interviewés ainsi que deux étudiants de médecine dentaire et quatre parents d’élèves pour un total de 12 participants. RESULTATS Bien que les partenaires aient vécu des expériences positives, ils ont éprouvé plusieurs difficultés. D’un côté, la communauté a senti que ses besoins n’étaient pas bien compris par la faculté et a vécu des difficultés organisationnelles. De l’autre côté, la faculté a eu de la difficulté à coordonner les horaires cliniques et a trouvé que l’école était mal équipée. De plus, les parents n’étaient pas bien informés des détails des traitements avant qu’ils ne soient effectués. CONCLUSION La faculté a pris le contrôle du leadership du partenariat. Elle a placé ses besoins avant ceux de la communauté. Les dentistes cliniciens ont valorisé l’enseignement d’interventions techniques plutôt que l’enseignement de la dentisterie communautaire et sociale, alors que cela aurait pu être une bonne opportunité de le faire. Nous recommandons que les universités effectuent une analyse des besoins de la communauté avant de commencer un projet en PUC et de les impliquer dans les décisions. Nous proposons aussi d’encadrer les PUC avec un projet de recherche action participatif. / INTRODUCTION Community University Partnerships have been widely studied in medicine; however, much is unknown in dentistry. This research explores the experience of the different partners of a partnership between a faculty of dentistry and an elementary school. METHODS A qualitative descriptive research was undertaken using semi structured interviews and a thematic analysis. All of the partners were interviewed along with two dentistry students and four parents, for a total of 12 participants. RESULTS Although the partners had some good experiences, the partnership experienced many challenges. The Community felt its needs were not well understood by the Faculty and experienced organizational difficulties. On the other hand, the Faculty had scheduling difficulties with the School and found the local premises ill-equipped. Moreover, the parents were not well informed of the work that was being done on their children. CONCLUSION The Faculty took over the leadership of the partnership. As such, it placed its needs ahead of the Community’s needs which it did not make enough attempts to understand. Also, being clinicians, the Faculty members valued teaching the technical details of interventions, and an opportunity was missed in teaching the students about community and social dentistry. For future partnerships we recommend either assessing the communities’ needs before starting a project and involving the community in its funding and steering process, or adding to the partnership a participatory research-action project.