Globalization has had an impact on higher education in South Africa. There is a growing emphasis on public accountability. Consequently there is a rise in quality assurance interventions like the national review of the M.Ed programme. Sometimes these quality assurance interventions are perceived as infringing on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. In this research report, I examine how academics at the University of X (UX), experience the relationship which is emerging by current policy in higher education between ―academic freedom‖, ―institutional autonomy‖ and ―public accountability‖.
This research report followed a case study design that used a qualitative approach. I used a phenomenological research methodology with specifically semi-structured interviews to understand the phenomenon of the review and to ascertain academics‘ and managers‘ perceptions thereof. I used non-probability purposive sampling to interview seven academics and five management staff. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.
The findings were analysed and separated into three themes, viz. the value of the national review process; management versus teaching and learning as areas of focus with the review; and the programme review methodology. The staff found the review to be useful because of the programme focus of the review. It was most useful for management of the programme and for developing collegiality in the sector. Whilst the review criteria tended to focus on management instead of teaching and learning, some participants were comfortable with the review exploring their teaching and learning via direct classroom observations. There was a wide spectrum of views on what makes a good programme, with some participants believing that both teaching and learning and management are important for a successful programme. There are pros and cons to the national M.Ed review methodology. The commendations can be summed up as being fair, using standard programme review methodologies. The criticisms of the methodology includes criticism of the process as being archival, concern over the panel selection, dissatisfaction at the panel‘s report and criticism that the criteria are checklist and that institutions need to go beyond them in order to achieve excellence.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:wits/oai:wiredspace.wits.ac.za:10539/12269 |
| Date | 11 January 2013 |
| Creators | Jogibhai, Kamal Bhagwandas |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds