OPEN ACCESS, RETENTION AND THROUGHPUT AT THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, FREE STATE (CUT)

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION OPEN ACCESS, RETENTION AND THROUGHPUT AT THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, FREE STATE (CUT) Compiled by Dr KJ de Beer (CUT) ABSTRACT Indeed the most debatable question today in higher education is why first “Open Access” to promote massafication and now “Capping” to restrict learner intake? (Cf. SA Media Information, 2004) When it comes to managing this very difficult and extremely sensitive issue, the Central University of Technology, Free State (CUT) has already come a long way. Its position paper for learner throughput and retention (2003-2006) is testimony to this crucial problem. However, the aim of this paper is not to give a summary of the position paper on the CUT website, but rather to delve into contemporary literature and academic development support research outcomes for possible enlightenment. This is possible in the sense that there are no clear-cut answers to be found either in the literature or in the CUT’s own documentation as yet. Senate resolutions in this regard are still in the process of being implemented. It was therefore considered to be a wise approach to rather differentiate between open access, retention and throughput. All three concepts are so highly integrated that it is not very clear where the one begins and the other ends. A simple example to motivate this statement is that politicians of the day determine state subsidies for enrolments and outputs. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are proverbially regulated like the water flow from a tap when it comes to government funding, making it very difficult for such institutions to construct their three-year rolling plans according to learner intake and to balance this with financial planning. Learner support and academic development planning at the CUT therefore focus on the real academic concerns at this stage. Currently learner service and academic development at the CUT stand within the context of value adding with regard to learners, lecturers, and the process of education. In order to enable members of the academic staff to continue providing quality education, it is important to emphasise personal development that meets the demands of the changing higher education landscape. Learnership programmes based on self-development, together with an adjustment in modes of teaching, are prerequisites for success. In order to complete the quality circle, members of staff should be motivated to compile their own teaching portfolios, where existing and new skills are noted. Such a teaching portfolio can also be used for the evaluation of teaching staff. Another learner support strategy is to allow access for learners who do not meet the minimum requirements for entry into a specific programme, and to have a quality-assured, recognisable foundation certificate with full articulation between and within institutions. The actual structure of the course should be generic regardless of discipline or faculty of study, although the learner’s chosen field of study will determine the choice of core and elective offering. The foundation certificate will comprise 120 credits at NQF level 5. As part of learner support and development, learners and staff will also embrace the principles of diversity. Lecturing and supporting staff must assist in this by setting the example in interpersonal relations, especially to enhance learner satisfaction. ORIENTATION: It is acknowledged that the improvement of learner retention and throughput rates, thus ensuring equity in learner outcomes, will be one of the key drivers at the CUT for the next few years. How faculties and academic support services at the CUT will deal with this requires innovative ways of thinking and strategies. A number of strategies (e.g. supplemental instruction, tutorials, foundation programmes, academic advising and learner counselling) are already in place. Their effectiveness and impact will have to be assessed in a vigorous way soon. One should not forget that a substantial number of learners leave for reasons beyond institutional control, such as lack of finances, poor learner-institution fit, changing academic or career goals, or unrelated personal circumstances. Yet there exist a number of institutional factors contributing towards dropout and failure – such as failing to create an environment in or outside the classroom that is conducive for learners’ learning and educational needs. Some learners will not return to the CUT because they are unhappy with the education that they are receiving. Learners who lack the basic and fundamental skills, especially in mathematics and writing, are finding it difficult to cope with the normal course workload. Therefore, it is extremely important for the CUT to ensure that students fulfil the prerequisite requirements before they are admitted. It may also be that learners lack the motivation to achieve because they do not understand the importance of education and/or do not know how to apply themselves. The lack of appropriate role models or mentors in the academic environment should also not be negated, particularly within the South African context. Finally, some learners are overwhelmed with the transition from high school to university and become overly stressed by the dramatic changes (Van Rensburg, 2004). Referring to the title of this paper, the subject matter differentiates into three predominant pillars, namely Open Access, Retention and Throughput, which forms the common framework in the global and national higher education market. (Cf. Naidoo and Sing, 2005). Hypothetically, however, empirical evidence to help us to think us through this framework is not easy to find at this early stage at South African Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). For example the whole debate of “Open Access” for massafication in the aftermath of political liberalization in South Africa, 1994-1999, in the name of human rights versus the “Capping” to restrict learner intake since 2005. The logic question is now what happened to human rights to study at HEIs? “Open Access in political literacy terms” all of a sudden has not the similar meaning in higher educational terms. Yet, universities are accountable to accept all applicants and select, advice, place or refer them according to each individual need. In this sense universities become clearing houses within HEIs- consortiums to retain all learners as far as possible. Subsequently there is no conflict of justice because retention forms part of a range of possibilities for learners to finish their academic careers. These possibilities include mobility, horizontal and vertical articulation, Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) bridging courses and foundation programmes. Also as far as space is concerned, e- learning (Web CT), generations of distance education and various forms of part time or evening classes actually widen Open Access and Retention within the vision of the Higher Education Act 101 (1997) of South Africa to enhance a single Higher Education dispensation. If HEIs comply to the Act, it is a human right of all citizens to study at a university. Also in financial terms access to bursary and loan schemes construct the rest of the framework. Throughput statistics, however, reflect a negative trend when comparing intake and output. HEIs have also to focus more on academic development of learners through student counselling, supplemental instruction, tutorials and of course more financial support possibilities. Academic research development in South Africa reflect multiple examples of academic models to construct new methodologies that can be compared to international scientific experiences. Still there is much to be done in South Africa. Especially with the rapid development of educational technology, transnational permutation within Southern Africa, the Commonwealth of Learning, UNESCO and the African Virtual University which is financially supported by the World Bank. (Cf. Naidoo and Singh, 2005). Subsequently contemporary statistics, up to date information, etc., are not yet readily processed due to the fact the “Capping” policies are only phased in since 2005 while the full impact will only be known in 2007 when the system nears completion. ACCESS: Current situations at South African HEIs are still in flux due to the implementation of the “Capping” policy. Thus, when analysing access at the CUT for example, the following dynamics determine the main perceptions for research: • Poverty problems Without putting the cart in front of the horse, the financial factor is the most articulated aspect in post-apartheid South Africa, which makes it impossible for the majority of dropout learners to complete their studies, whether because of current financial problems or the legacy of their past financial scenarios. Subsequently financial aid has become a critical aspect at the CUT. One must not only manage the funds responsibly and direct them most expediently, but one must address the challenge of financial aid data and information most aggressively while examining financial aid policy, its administration and the disbursement of funds – to whom and how, follow-up, profiles of needy learners, and loans vs. bursaries. Furthermore, one is sometimes constrained by national policy, as well as the need to balance aid amongst needy and academically meritorious learners, to provide access yet ensure equity and quality and, very importantly, to ensure that financial aid does not just draw the learner into the institution but sustains him/her through his/her studies. The CUT has a very comprehensive financial aid programme in place. In the budget planning, the already ample provision made for financial support to learners has been extended annually for the past few years and most of the money is provided by the CUT itself. The money is made available for both study and accommodation purposes, and is allocated on the basis of merit as well as financial need, in the form of bursaries or loans. The bursary and loan system is administered by the financial aid office, working in close conjunction with the academic sector as well as learner services. Improvements in efficiency of delivery and optimal rates are continually being explored and implemented, and efforts are made to make learners aware of the financial aid they can obtain, provided they invest their efforts in their studies. • The open access problem Democratic and human rights are at stake when a citizen of a country is denied any form of true academic education. It is one’s birthright to claim one’s free access to schools, vocational colleges, further training institutions and universities. On the other side of the coin it is also the obligation of civilised democratic governments to provide sound and thorough education infrastructures for their citizens. The Higher Education Act (1997) of South Africa proposes (inter alia) of “… equity of access and fair chances of success to all who are seeking to realise their potential through higher education, while eradicating all forms of unfair discrimination and advancing redress for past inequalities.” Redress and equity, in turn, require systems that guarantee”… fair opportunities both to enter higher education programmes and to succeed in them.” This means that higher education institutions need to examine their entrance procedures, as in many instances existing criteria are contradicting the policy goals, says Fourie (2005). Since the historical enlightenment of the university phenomenon from the dark ages when it was only accessible for certain religions cults, sects and churches, access to knowledge has grown into a hunger and thirst that will never be quenched or satisfied. Without labouring the current political debate of HEIs in South Africa, we deviate instead to international experiences and scientific views on the topic – especially in respect of the African-American learner situation in the USA. Right from the start, open access begins with the educational history of each individual potential applicant to an HEI. Predictors of success, as well as similarities and differences among learners across the racial spectrum, emerged for nearly all predictor and outcome measures to establish whether open access was the only factor with a detrimental effect on retention and throughput. Many examples in the literature can be compared with the South African situation, especially with regard to white and non-white applicants (Cf. Strage, 2000) (Cf. also Student Development Update, 2001). Race, however, remains an important policy issue in the open access debate. The understanding of racial issues, for example in the USA, is to be viewed in a historical context of African-Americans who arrived with a social status of slaves. Subsequently open access could be evaluated as a form of “affirmative action” to enhance university admission policies. To suspend open access now is to say that segregation has ended and that redress in higher education is complete. However, this is very far from the reality in the USA, as well as in many other countries (Cf. News Batch, 2003). Affirmative action or open admissions – what is the way forward? asks the International Workers’ Bulletin (1997). Unfortunately it will force the marginalised people back to the struggle, because they see it not as a lack of resources, but evidence of the fact that the wealth of the capitalist countries is still monopolised by an elite that rule in their own selfish interests (International Workers’ Bulletin, 1997). Meanwhile, since open access has been granted in South Africa and at many institutions abroad, academic developers have really done their utmost to make a scientific contribution by counteracting the legacies of the past. Diversity on campus, admission decisions, academic and scholastic apprehension tests, as well as language policies were researched in all earnestness. Campuses became culturally sensitive (Cf. Student Development Update, 2001), yet this does not mean that the process is complete. The mother-tongue issue still remains one of the most sensitive challenges for immediate academic development support and research staff, especially in South Africa (Cf. Evans, 2001). Subsequently there is a critical shortage of bilingual (or multilingual) academe. Much is still to be done by HEIs via community involvement to overcome this problem (Cf. Bernal & Aragon, 2004). Due to dynamic migrant community movements and changes, unique approaches are demanded in an attempt to understand the migrant community and the curricular, instructional and support system needs of migrancy (Branz-Spall & Wright, 2001). In other words, HEIs are exactly developing communities and preparing them for open access. Denying these people access to HEIs is a contradiction in terms. It also means that HEIs are wasting their resources preparing and recruiting such new learner clientele with recognition of prior learning (RPL). Community involvement is one of the mission statements of any HEI. Counsellors are directly involved in advising potential learners, who are still in school, about which career paths they should follow (Townsend, 2004). Multiple sources are also related to the development of children’s racial-ethnic attitudes and their academic achievement (University Park, 2004). Open access should thus be regarded as part of the academic success story and not as a narrow-minded issue for political ends. Neither should it only be evaluated in financial terms. It is a matter of finance and academics that should benefit all learners – particularly non-traditional learners with complex life circumstances in developing countries such as South Africa (Cf. Hart, 2003). Capping learner intake must be planned in conjunction with the academe. CUT interprets capping as the measurements of the Department of Education to regulate the new learner intake at this institution. The CUT decides how to allocate learners to programmes to balance the economy scales. Senior learners who do not academically perform and who are blocking the throughput rate are excluded according to the CUT policy. Yet these students are advised to improve their academic skills at a Further Education Training Institution (FETI) or college and are allow to re enrol at the CUT to finish their academic careers. State subsidies for distance learners up to 250 per regional learning centre of the CUT will not influence new intakes at its Main Campus. RETENTION: Losing a learner is not losing state subsidy and tuition fees or stats-at-a-glance, but rather the career path of a human being – not a nobody in the system, but a male or female learner irrespective of race, creed, mother tongue or age, with a specific career path, hopes, dreams and ambitions. A living soul – not just a learner number. Retention is therefore regarded as synonymous with academic development at the CUT. When we consider retention in this way, the picture is highlighted with the following human factors: • Adjustment problems; • The failure syndrome; • Learning disabilities; • Unsatisfied expectations; • Need for academic support; • Need for sustainable financial support. It is also not a matter of intelligence or of the haves and the have-nots. Adjustment problems affect even the most gifted. For example, research done by Chan (2003) at Chinese schools regarding adjustment problems and multiple intelligences among gifted learners in Hong Kong showed that they are as vulnerable as their non-gifted peers to social and emotional problems in their childhood and adolescence. Subsequently counsellors at HEIs play a pivotal role in assisting gifted learners not to drop out. This fact counteracts the focus of marketing and recruitment staff of HEIs, which is to reap only the cream of the crop. Problems of retention remain the same. Most HEIs also depend on bridging and foundation programmes, as well as supplemental instruction (SI) methodologies to recruit or to retain learners. Open foundation courses such as those in the Faculty of Education at the University of Newcastle in Australia provide pathways to degree level with mixed part-time study (Chantwell & Grayson, 2002). Enabling programmes thus include distance or part-time andragogical methods for adult learners to improve their academic capabilities. The CUT’s managers and deans of faculties visited various Australian HEIs and merged similar methods with that of the local University Free State. In turn Brophy (1998), who conducts research into teaching problem learners in the US Department of Education, highlights failure syndrome learners – those learners who are commonly described as persons with a low self-concept, or who feel defeated or frustrated. Cognitive retraining strategies like efficacy, strategy and attribution training are modelled in special techniques for resisting the failure syndrome. Counsellors, of course, regularly have to check learner programme records and computerise formative and summative evaluations. In this way counsellors form a safety net for failing learners at the CUT (Cf. Wilson, 2003). It is also a fallacy that serious learners do not seek help for their learning disabilities. However, it is the sensitive and caring lecturer who is responsible, in the first instance, for generating positive reactions in order to boost self-perception and self-esteem and to enable them to report learning disabilities (Cf. Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002). Learner satisfaction forms the crux of that towards which academic departments should strive. The academic environment should always be realistic, investigative, social, enterprising and artistic, while simultaneously displaying a sense of conventional orderliness (Umbach & Porter, 2002). Quality of teaching adds value to course material. Once all has been said and done to create the perfect environment, lecturers should never underestimate their learners, especially their prior learning skills, since this could also frustrate rather than enhance learner satisfaction (Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker & Grogaard, 2002). Alternative approaches to assessing the very important concept of learner satisfaction imply that universities should reengineer their academic and administrative support systems to adapt to learner needs and continuously adjust alternative approaches. Learners are customers, and client satisfaction must be part and parcel of strategic objectives – just as in the business world. Several aspects – from confusing registration processes to slack efforts when it comes to retaining the loyalty of the alumni – are all in all detrimental to any HEI. Overall learner satisfaction is the key concept (Elliot & Shin, 2002). However, the core business is practical academic lecturing to retain learners at the CUT. Recognition of learner commitment and a sense of belonging in the lecture hall, library or laboratory lay the cornerstone of learner retention. The sentiments “It is mine”; “I belong here”; “I am happy”; “I do not want to quit” build moments of fun and excitement (Cf. Quay & Quaghia, 2004). Professional types of indicators to evaluate academic achievement also form part of institutional research and self-evaluation. The Myers-Briggs type of indicator, for instance, investigates patterns of psychological types among engineering learners. Cognitive, affective and physiological traits are relatively constant indicators of how learners perceive, interact with or respond to the academic environment (O’Brien, Bernold & Akroyd, 1998). Demographic information is of course also very important for conducting the Myers- Briggs type indicator, thus ruling out sensitive racial and gender issues and focusing only on the inner self of the individual learner. This analysis could help HEIs to adapt or adjust. Little research in this important field has been done at the CUT at this stage due to the new incorporation of the former Vista University as a satellite campus as well as transnational agreements with SADEC countries, Chinese and Belgium universities. Academic development units in the USA used to wait for the academic faculties and programme heads to come to them for guidance; however, this scenario has since changed to also reach out to the academe. Subsequently academic development units have stimulated integrated and interactive processes, which means that faculty developers should also play a more active role in institutional transformation (Fletcher & Patrick, 1994). Academic developers became change agents that take the lead in: • Learning assistance models; • Supplemental instruction; • Adjunct course offerings; • Expanding academic support; • Staff adjunct courses; • Marketing programmes and • Comprehensive learning programmes. (Commander & Stratton, 1996) The above-mentioned points are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to retaining learners at the CUT. Notwithstanding all the professional efforts to retain learners, the proof of the pudding is still in getting them to the finish line! THROUGHPUT: A typical example how quasi-academics and politicians prefer to refer to HEI success rates is the term “throughput”. This is similar to the conveyer belt syndrome of a factory: Input and output production terminology that often creates the “revolving door” for learners to move through as fast as they can. This often contributes to the unnecessary failure rate of learners still in the articulation phase. Whether it is vertical or horizontal articulation or mobility from one institution to another, it still clashes with the term “throughput”. It just becomes another direction for the “revolving door” phenomenon. As such it does not lie easy on the tongue at the CUT. Academic pass rates, achievement and lifelong learning at the CUT are rather more appropriate to investigate in order to establish the real causes of failure and the factors that affect learner success. In other terms it would also show how to enhance learner success by redesigning institutional management styles. Again CUT learners are not regarded as products but as human beings. In this respect it is a first priority to investigate how learners cope with academic failure – especially previously disadvantaged learners in developing countries. And finally, it is not fair to discriminate against learners at risk, and they should instead be referred for counselling in risk courses such as mathematics, science and technology. Either at the CUT or service learning at the joint RPL Centre with the University Free State, bridging or foundation programmes. It is so often debated in conferences all over the world that HEIs cannot willy-nilly adapt industrial approaches to monitor course delivery in their quality assurance evaluations. In short, universities are not factories. A single good example in support of this is staff-learner ratios. How does one analyse the so called throughput of a science lecturer and vis-á-vis a ceramic arts teacher for example at the CUT? (Cf. Chadwick, 2002) The philosophical debate around the world to extend the theory and practice of academic development has proved that it is far too complex only to compare numerical output and statistical figures (Cf. Baume, 2003). Causes of failure at HEIs also differ from institution to institution. To a great extent the following are more or less universal problems also at the CUT (Causes of Failure in College, 2004): • Lack of ability and poor school preparation; • Selection of the wrong HEI; • Failure to assume responsibility; • Interference from psychological problems; • Lack of personal standards of quality; • Poor language skills; • Inappropriate choice of a major; • Vagueness surrounding long-range goals; • Misunderstanding of the amount of work required; • Other social activities and • Poor distance education delivery. A variety of academic developers have created models for predicting learner completion. One of the best known models is Billing’s model, which classifies four categories of variables: • Background; • Organisation; • Attitude and • Environment. Although these variables are highly integrated with one another, specific variables can be accentuated according to individual case studies (Chen, 1998). The CUT’s psychometrists offer professional assistance to those learners at risk, however, in many instances such learners do not report their academic or personal problems to the respective student support services. The CUT also continuously rethinking its policy, process and planning in order to redefine quality to enhance learner success. Linking open access with academic achievement requires a delicate articulated grid of academic and support research to be put into practice and which can pinpoint learner needs and identify appropriate resources to achieve desired pass rates, learner retention and academic success for graduation (Passaro, Lapovsky, Feroe & Metzger, 2003). The most important factor for learner satisfaction, as previously discussed, is course or programme structure. Under this section of “throughput”, a critical issue at the CUT that still remains is whether an individual learner understands his or her course. The onus in the final analysis is still on the learner to know what he or she is supposed to do at an HEI to succeed (Distance Education Report, 2004). Coping with academic failure within a competitive world is virtually inevitable, contend Grewal and Lafreniere (2003). This fact also affects academic unsuccessful learners at the CUT. How learners deal with failure differs. Some learners are constantly exposed to fear of failure since their first school year. When experiencing failure, some learners become discouraged and depressed and decide to suspend their academic studies, while other learners may see this as a challenge to try again and use it as a motivation to complete their studies. In such a case it would be unfair to expect them to speed up their throughput tracking record. In short, coping styles also differ (Grewal & Lafreniere, 2003). In one particular case study, African American learners who had previously developed negative attitudes toward their schools were guided to offer their own methods on how to become positive about their studies through self-motivation and self-talk, i.e. by telling themselves “I think I can, I know I can” (Tucker, Herman, Pederson, Vogel & Reinke, 2000). Again it is a matter of self-motivation, but certainly with much sincere encouragement from the lecturer and counsellor. Pursuing an HEI qualification becomes an academic journey for all parties concerned. Parental support and motivation is also important for earning an academic degree, certificate or diploma (Martinez, 2003) – not only for the sake of success rate statistics, but also for personal human development. After all, education and skills training is not something that can be taken away by educational policies that are forever in a state of transition and transformation to keep abreast with global political development. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Academic development, support and research provide most of the solutions to constant transformation and improvement (Cf. Greater Expectations, 2003). Combining open access with retention and academic success rates demands constant academic and support strategies and practices that pinpoint learner needs and integrate resources effectively (Passaro, Lapovsky, Feroe & Metzger, 2003). These ideals are also pursued by Academic Planners and Developers at the CUT. Access to education from grade one to postgraduate studies is and remains a democratic right. Rapid technological development forces people to be continuously educated in a lifelong learning process, whether through full-time, part-time, distance or any other form of service learning offered for example at the CUT . Dealing with retention and throughput, therefore, remains an institutional matter for the CUT and requires an institutional commitment and effort. The principles for institutional action directed at minimising failure are aimed at, amongst other things, ensuring the following: • An institution-wide policy commitment to learner development; • Structures and processes in place consistent with institutional policy; • Ensuring that new learners enter with, or have the opportunity to acquire, the skills needed for academic success; • Programmes in which the emphasis is on maximising learner development; • Programmes for academic staff that ensure effective learning; • Acknowledgement through practice that support for learners’ academic development needs to be augmented by support for their personal development; and • That retention is an integral part of educational policy and practice, and not a freestanding issue. Of particular relevance here is the contribution of the Unit for Academic Development (UAD) at the CUT. Obviously learner support services also have a major task to fulfil in this regard, while the institution should ensure that sufficient funding is available for students to keep them in the system. The latter will become increasingly difficult as tuition fees are escalating and government’s contributions are diminishing. The UAD of the CUT inter alia strives to provide the following: • A professional development programme for lecturers that will acquaint them with the necessary skills and knowledge regarding, amongst other things, proper curriculum design, writing of learning outcomes, facilitation (teaching) skills and assessment. The “Grow our own timber” project for new and junior academic staff members is an extension of the professional development programme. A concern, however, is the lack of a leverage to ensure that “older” permanent academic staff members, who are not acquainted with the latest trends in teaching and learning, become involved. • Informal training of staff by means of a variety of strategic topics such as collaborative and cooperative learning strategies, learner centeredness, peer tutoring, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and problem-based learning. • Assistance for academics with the integration of WebCT / e-learning into modules to enrich and complement classroom teaching and learning. • Introduction of multimedia tools that can convey course materials to learners in a visual and graphic form, which could help to clarify abstract concepts. • Development and maintenance of a website for the UAD with the most relevant and practical information on teaching and learning issues for academic staff. • Feedback to deans, directors of schools and programme heads based on the learner evaluation of academics, with subsequent feedback into the system. • Initiation and conducting of in-depth research in faculties on dropout and retention (Van Rensburg, 2004). Subsequently to the above framework for Open Access, Retention and Throughput, the Senate of the CUT has already approved the following action steps: • the investigation by the Dean: Academic Development of the effectiveness of current learner support programmes / initiatives, including the learner academic orientation programme; • the integration/formalisation of key academic skills into all first-year programmes and inclusion thereof in the Corporate Academic Plan 2005-2020 (limited credits to be available in each qualification for this purpose) and • making the following two modules compulsory for all new academic staff to complete within the first two years after employment and within four years for existing academic staff members: Firstly learning facilitation and secondly the assessment of learners in higher education. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Baume, D. (2003). Moving in the intended direction? International Journal for Academic Development. United Kingdom. Bernal, C. & Aragon, L. (2004). Critical factors affecting the success of paraprofessionals in the first two years of career ladder projects in Colorado. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4). July/August. USA. Branz-Spall, A. & Wright, A. (2001). Branz-Spall, A., & Wright, A. (2004). A history of advocacy for migrant children and their families: Over thirty years in the field. In Salinas, C., & Franquiz, M. (Eds) Scholars from the field: The challenges of migrant education (in press). Charleston, West Virginia: AEL. Brophy, J. (1998). Failure syndrome students. USA: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education. Causes of failure in college. (2004). Center for Teaching and Learning. USA: University of Alabama. Chadwick, R.G. (2002). Quality assurance by service quality: An industrial approach to monitoring course delivery. British Dental Journal, 192(5). March. Dundee, UK. Chan, D.W. (2003). Adjustment problems and multiple intelligences among gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the revised student adjustment problems inventory. High Ability Studies, 14(1). June. Hong Kong. Chantwell, R.H. & Grayson, R. (2002). Individual differences among enabling students: A comparison across three enabling programmes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4). Australia: University of Newcastle. Chen, H. (1998). Factors affecting student success and failure. USA: Arizona State University. Commander, N.E. & Stratton, C.B. (1996). A learning assistance model for expanding academic support. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(2). Atlanta: National Center for Developmental Education, Georgia State University. Distance Education Report. (2004). Course structure: Most important factor in student satisfaction. Workforce Education and Lifelong Learning. USA: Ohio State University College of Education. Elliot, K.M. & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal for Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2). Minnesota State University: Association for Tertiary Education Management. Evans, M.S. (2001). Academic achievement, underachievement and bilingual/ multilingual education: What the university can contribute. Aambeeld. June. South Africa. Fletcher, J.J. & Patrick, S.K. (1994), Not just workshop any more: The role of faculty development in reframing academic priorities. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University. Fourie, N. (2005). The FETC: Future Admission of Students to Higher Education Institutions. SAARDHE Poster 2005. Durban 26-29 June. Greater Expectations. (2003). Designing institutional change. Washington: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Grewal, P.K. & Lafreniere, K.D. (2003). Coping with academic failure: The effects of telic and paratelic atates. Guidance and Counseling, 18(3). USA Hart, N.K. (2003). Best practices in providing nontraditional students with both academic and financial support. New Directions for Higher Education, (121). Ohio: Wiley Periodicals Inc. Hartman-Hall, H.M. & Haaga D.A.F. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help for their learning disabilities. Washington: American University. International Workers’ Bulletin. (1997). Affirmative action or open admissions: What way forward in the defence of higher education? US News. USA. Martinez, M.D. (2003). Missing in action: Reconstructing hope and possibility among Latino students placed at risk. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2(1). USA: University of Connecticut. Naidoo, P. and Singh, M. (2005). In the aftermath of liberalization Designing a Common Framework for public and private providers to serve national development goals: South Africa. International Institute For Educational Planning. Paris. News Batch. (2003). Race and ethnic policy issues. July. USA. O’Brien, T.P.; Bernold, L.E. & Akroyd, D. (1998). Myers-Briggs type indicator and academic achievement in engineering education. USA: Tempus Publications, North Carolina State University. Passaro, J.; Lapovsky, L.; Feroe, L.H. & Metzger, J.R. (2003). Rethinking policy process, and planning to redefine quality and enhance student success. New Directions for Higher Education, (121). USA: Wiley Periodicals Inc. Position Paper for Student Throughput and Retention 2003-2006. (2004). Bloemfontein: Central University of Technology, Free State. Quay, S. & Quaghia, R.J. (2004). Creating a classroom culture that inspires student learning. The Teaching Professor, 18(2). February. USA: Endicott College. SA Media Information. (2004). University of the Free State. Rapport, 15 Aug. South Africa. Salinas, C. & Reyes, R. (2004). Creating successful academic programmes for Chicana/o high school migrant students: The role of advocate educators. High School Journal, 87(4). April/May. Texas, USA. Strage, A. (2000). Predictors of college adjustment and success: Similarities and differences among southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic and White students. USA: Child Development Department, San Jose State University. Student Development Update. (2001). A quarterly summary of challenges to student learning, iv(2), March. USA: South East Missouri State University. Study links academic achievement to racial-ethnic pride. (2004). South Carolina: Gale Group. Townsend. P. (2004). ACTE profiles exemplary educators. USA: North Idaho College. Tucker, C.M.; Herman, K.C.; Pedersen, T; Vogel, D.R. & Reinke, W.M. (2000). Student-generated solutions to enhance the academic success of American youth. Child Study Journal, 30(3). USA: State University of New York College. Umbach, P.D. & Porter, R. (2002). How do academic departments impact student satisfaction? Research in Higher Education, 43(2). April. USA: University of Maryland. University Park. (2003). Study Links Academic Achievement to Racial-Ethnic Pride. Looksmart. http://www.looksmart.com Van Rensburg, C.A.J. (2004). Dropout, throughput and retention. Senate Report DVC 2004/2005. Bloemfontein: Central University of Technology, Free State. Wiers-Jenssen, J.; Stensaker, B. & Grogaard, J.B. (2002). Student satisfaction towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education. Wilson. J. (2003). Counselors catch failing students. Academic Support. USA: Baltimore City College.