1. Quality Enhancement for PHEIs – Enhancing Student Support and Development (Focus area 2) Birgit Schreiber (PhD) University of the Western Cape

2. There are many forces that shape student dropout that are beyond our control. The conditions under which they study are under university control and can be changed if the university so wishes (Tinto, 2002). “Student success does not arise by chance. It is the result of intentional, structured and proactive actions and policies directed towards the success of all students.” (Tinto, 2012)

3. “Apartheid Education generated and perpetuated cycles of epistemological deprivation, that is, it deprived many learners in our country of a fair opportunity to gain access to the kind of knowledge that is supposed to be distributed in formal schooling”. (Morrow, 2007)

4. It is obvious that mere formal access to the institutions is different from, and not a sufficient condition for, epistemological access. To register as a student at a university is not yet to have gained access to the knowledge that the university distributes. (Morrow, 1994)

5. Success and Development We can make a differences Intentional, structured and proactive actions and policies Epistemological access Institution Student

6. Social Justice as framework Social Justice is justice in terms of equal chance of wealth, opportunities and privileges within a society (Bozalek, 2012). Ethics of Care is about recognition of unique situations and contexts and measured responses to these (Tronto, 2005).

7. Social Justice within SDS Social Justice is the guiding principles of South Africa’s HE framework: equity, responsiveness, and participation. SDS has evolved from a complicit agent of the state to a “self-conscious, confident and widely influential” role player in HE (Cloete & Muller, 1998; Nuss, 2003, p. 87).

8. Social Justice: 3 models in SDS Participatory Parity (Fraser, 2009) Universal Design for Learning Student Engagement (Kuh, 2001)

9. 1. Participatory Parity (Fraser, 2009) “Create opportunities for people to participate on an equal footing” (Bozalek & Carolissen, 2014, p.16) Applies to contextual, systemic, and structural issues as much as pragmatic and interventionist Do we inadvertently deepen exclusionary practices or actively mobilize to ensure equality of participation?

10. 2. Universal Design for Learning Affirms diversity and promotes flexible engagements as a normative framework (Burgstahler, 2007). Multiple means of representation: 1.Presentation in different ways, modes and media, via real and virtual, individual and social, and in short-term project and medium-term, process-focused models 2.Multiple means of expression of what has been acquired 3.Enticing students to engage in support and development via multiple routes, means and paths

11. 3. Engagement “The time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities” (Kuh, 2009, p. 683) Conceptualized in behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions Learning is synergistic and that “cognitive and affective dimensions of development are related parts of one process” (King & Baxter-Magolda, 1996, p. 163)

12. Q & A Intentional – structured – proactive Institutional AND student Epistemological access Participation Flexible provisions Engagement

13. Let’s discuss In my institution: Epistemological access and success is promoted through what kinds of principles, systems, interventions, assumptions and cultures?

14. Student Success through the lens of a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework “No discrete conditions or isolated interventions shift our system, but a recognition that a wide variety of influences shape student persistence.” (Reason, 2009, p. 668)

15. Comprehensive Model of Influences on Student Persistence (Reason, 2009)

16. A: Student characteristic 1.Socio-demographic traits often not actionable implications within group variance makes findings difficult to interpret 2. Academic preparation and performance obvious and yet limiting potentially recreating entrenched systems 3. Dispositions locus of control motivation self-efficacy need for affiliation

17. B: Organisational factors 1. Structural-demographic features (public, size, shape, curricular focus, admission criteria) 2. Organisational behavioural dimensions (culture and climate) 5 types:  bureaucratic  political  collegial  symbolic  systemic

18. C: Peer environment Sense of place within institution - integration (Tinto, 1993) 1.Campus racial and gender climates – Alienates students’ experiences – AA colleges and Women Colleges do well 2. Campus academic climate – Messages of importance on academic achievements – Academic engagement practices

19. D: Individual experiences Curricular experiences Relevance and articulation, STEM >Soc Sc, choice, FYE and FYS 2. Classroom experiences T&L and pedagogic, active collaborative, cooperative, quality of feedback, teacher quality 3.Co-curricular experiences Social engagement, integration, support and development, intersection between institution and student beyond the academic pathways

20. Implications There is no one HE system and no one HE student No one intervention is effective for all students in the same kind of way Multi-dimensional and complex factors interplay Conceptually coherent and coordinated Indicators and research

21. “Higher education is increasingly recognizing the importance of the intersection of the academic with the personal-social” (CHE, 2014; Lange, 2010; Lewin & Mawoyo, 2014, p.45; Strydom, 2014).

22. Integration of SDS (1) Student Affairs is predicated on integration. (Baxter Magolda, 1992, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Kuh et al, 1995, 2001, 2003) 1.Integration in terms of Academic Affairs 2.Integration in terms of Management 3.Integration in terms of Structure

23. Integration of SDS (2) Learning is synergistic and not segmented “Cognitive and affective dimensions of development are related parts of one process” (King & Baxter-Magolda, 1996, p. 163) Parity in psycho-social and cognitive development is key for progress in learning (Erikson, 1968; Vygotsky, 1978) Meaning making is related to self-authorship (Astin, 1977). The self as cohesive continuous construct develops while cognitive structures develop.

24. Integration of SDS (3) Integration needs to be at the site and moment of learning (Kuh, et al, 1998, 2001; Schuh, 2012; Tinto, 1997) Learning should be viewed as a “comprehensive, holistic, transformative activity that integrates academic learning and student development” (Keeling, 2004, p. 2) Separation of academic from personal-social is reductionist and artificial

25. Integration of SDS (4) Articulate at  pragmatic level  conceptual level  discursive level  organizational level  The interplay and integration of the formal, discursive, and epistemic communities play a critical role in creating synergies which can shift the institutional system (Bernstein, 2000)

26. The risks of fragmentation  History of remediation and medical-deficit model  Fringes of institutional culture  Erroneous assumption that students can be ‘upskilled’ (Scott, 2011)  Neglect of epistemological challenges (Boughey, 2010)  Poor generalisation

27. Let’s discuss  Where can my institution improve impact of SDS  What is my role within this improvement

28. Conclusion  QEP  Continuous improvement  Prevention and proactive  Focus on process and systems  All take responsibility SDS, as embedded into the life of the institution, is part of QE to impact overall success. Thank you!