Abstract:

Four years ago, Stellenbosch University (SU) embarked on an institution-wide curriculum renewal project, taking cautionary note of Oliver and Hyun (2011) that comprehensive curriculum change could be highly complex, and that “institutions often hesitate to embark on a comprehensive … reform process” (Cobb, 1990). This paper reflects on how SU, as one of South Africa’s leading research-intensive universities, tackled this challenge in a strategic and collaborative manner – and outlines the barriers, enablers and lessons learnt along the way.

Funding for this project was made available through a university capacity development grant by the national Department of Higher Education and Training. The funding was distributed to faculties for training and planning activities; workshops; buying-in of additional academic and support staff, and for conducting research.

The paper starts with the rationale for the project and outlines the approaches, themes and dimensions that were considered, listing a number of activities and innovations that have taken place, as well as tools that have been developed since 2016. Seventeen themes and dimensions were initially identified, including calls to decolonise the curriculum; adapt to changing socio-economic needs; develop academic and digital literacies; identify threshold concepts; embed graduate attributes; enhance employability, and promote responsible citizenship.

Activities planned and executed by faculties, started-off with the formation of programme-specific review and renewal teams that worked in tandem with support staff. The scope of the ten faculties’ distinct plans varied greatly, e.g. ranging from a narrow focus on a single high-impact course (module), to a broad focus on what the nature of a qualification type should be. On an institutional level, a forum of vice-deans was established; the guidelines for academic leaders were revised, and a new Quality Assurance and Enhancement Policy was drafted and approved.

Taking a meta-reflective stance, this paper reports on issues such as distributed leadership; setting time aside to engage in meaningful discussions; building a shared knowledge base, and managing resistance to change. Since most undergraduate programmes are offered across disciplinary boundaries, it is a social practice that evolves and is “nested in cultures”, requiring practice-based perspectives, as articulated by Saunders, Trowler and Bamber (2011). As such, this paper employs Marshall (2016)’s notion of “collective sense-making and reflection” as a way to understand the complex, iterative and reflexive processes that seem to underpin curriculum renewal. The cultural and epistemological differences, where “academic tribes and territories” (Becher, 1989) are formed and protected, are recognised – as well as the influence of individual academics’ conceptions and orientations to teaching and learning (Light, Cox & Calkins, 2009).

The contribution of this paper is the insights, approach and tools that we share. Although this reflection is based on a single case-study, the strategies employed could be replicated at and adapted for other higher education institutions. This process of ongoing curriculum review and renewal is a learning opportunity for all academic staff, to collectively understand and reflect on their teaching practice and its consequences for learning.

Keywords:

Curriculum renewal, programme renewal, sense-making, transformation.