Learning support materials (LSMs) and Curriculum 2005 (C2005): a research paper on the role of learning support materials in Curriculum 2005.

The report examines the role of LSMs in bringing about the change envisaged in Curriculum 2005. It highlights three aspects of the new curriculum that are especially pertinent: resource-based learning, information literacy and lifelong learning. It argues that lifelong learning depends on information literacy, and this literacy can only be acquired through interaction with resources. The new curriculum thus requires resources. The report then examines the way in which LSMs are conceptualised in policy documents. It reveals a lack of clarity both with regard to the nature of LSMs and who is responsible for producing them. It proposes a framework for the description of LSMs, which distinguishes between resources (the ‘raw materials’) and LSMs (resources shaped to a pedagogical purpose). The question of access to resources is then considered. The report argues that access requires a minimum level of expenditure, and points to the fact that spending on LSMs has fallen dramatically over the past four years. To enable access, LSMs must be well-structured, well-prepared and appropriate. They must also reach schools on time and be well-managed when they get there. The report also considers access to libraries and computer technology, both of which are vital in resource-based learning. It reveals severe cutbacks in school and provincial library services, and disparities with regard to access to libraries and computer technology, in particular and to LSMs in general. In multilingual societies, language is a factor that determines access to LSMs. The report reveals that although policy advocates a multilingual approach, increasing numbers of School Governing Bodies are opting for education in English. This will influence publishing in all African languages. The report then turns to the situation in classrooms and finds wide disparities between teaching practices in well-resourced and under-resourced schools with the former being closer to the practices advocated by C2005 than the latter. The report suggests that change will not occur overnight. Resources construct practice and are necessary in order for real change to occur. Low levels of literacy, especially in rural schools are exacerbated by the fact that children are expected to read in an inadequately mastered second language. Consequently, teachers interpret textbooks that are often inaccessible to learners thus setting patterns of rote learning and dependency that persist throughout children’s schooling. Poor basic literacy is also a concern as it is fundamental to the development of more sophisticated literacies required by C2005. The report considers the teacher-textbook debate and challenges its polarity, arguing instead for a hand-in-hand approach: textbooks and other LSMs cannot on their own improve teaching; they must be accompanied by teacher development. It is this view which frames discussion of three important components of teacher competence: use of LSMs; design / production of LSMs; and evaluation of LSMs Research suggests that teachers mediate LSMs and adapt them to existing practice and that teachers do not always share the vision of materials writers nor understand their conceptual goals. They may not even use LSMs when they are available. Nevertheless, international research has shown that carefully designed LSMs can support curriculum change. While policy now requires that teachers produce some of their own LSMs, research reveals wide disparities in their ability to do so. For many the desire to produce their own LSMs does not translate into a practical competence. Some commentators believe that it is unrealistic to expect teachers to produce their own LSMs: they should rather make use of good quality textbooks (which provide the learning programme), and develop their own supplementary materials. However this highlights the importance of consistent, fair and competent book evaluation systems/ practices, an area which research has shown to be currently extremely problematic. In conclusion, the report re-emphasises the importance of resources and stresses their role in capacity building. Concern is expressed that policy documents do not always pay sufficient attention to this. The report also points to the need to increase efficiencies in the system and spend what funding there is wisely. Finally, it highlights the need for more systematic research on what happens in classrooms to inform curriculum planning and implementation

Correction to: Between a rock and a hard place: dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in South Africa

Correction to: Between a rock and a hard place: dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in South Africa (Higher Education, (2019), 77, 4, (567-583), 10.1007/s10734-018-0291-9)

Negotiating the "new normal" : university leaders and marketisation

This article explores how leaders, key decision-makers in research-intensive public universities perceive marketisation in the sector in relation to public-private arrangements in teaching and learning provision. The focus is on the nature of relationships between public universities and those private companies engaged in the co-creation, delivery and support of educational provision. It draws on 16 interviews with decision makers – senior leaders and managers in higher education at six research-intensive universities in South Africa and England. Questions raised in this article are: How do senior decision makers perceive the entry of private players into public higher education? What are their experiences of working in partnership with private companies? What effect do they think the relationship is having on the status of the public university? How do they talk about the market actors? We observe that university leaders in both study countries, despite their different positions in the global field of higher education, and the hybrid moral economy around processes of marketisation all use language borrowed from the business sector to justify or reject marketisation. This indicates an unprecedented level of normalisation of this rhetoric in a public sector otherwise sensitive to language use posing serious questions about the nature of public universities in this marketised era

Understanding digital inequality: a theoretical kaleidoscope

The pandemic affected more than 1.5 billion students and youth, and the most vulnerable learners were hit hardest, making digital inequality in educational settings impossible to overlook. Given this reality, we, all educators, came together to find ways to understand and address some of these inequalities. As a product of this collaboration, we propose a methodological toolkit: a theoretical kaleidoscope to examine and critique the constitutive elements and dimensions of digital inequalities. We argue that such a tool is helpful when a critical attitude to examine ‘the ideology of digitalism’, its concomitant inequalities, and the huge losses it entails for human flourishing seems urgent. In the paper, we describe different theoretical approaches that can be used for the kaleidoscope. We give relevant examples of each theory. We argue that the postdigital does not mean that the digital is over, rather that it has mutated into new power structures that are less evident but no less insidious as they continue to govern socio-technical infrastructures, geopolitics, and markets. In this sense, it is vital to find tools that allow us to shed light on such invisible and pervasive power structures and the consequences in the daily lives of so many

Conflicting logics of online higher education

The advent of massive open online courses and online degrees offered via digital platforms has occurred in a climate of austerity. Public universities worldwide face challenges to expand their educational reach, while competing in international rankings, raising fees and generating third-stream income. Online forms of unbundled provision offering smaller flexible low-cost curricular units have promised to disrupt this system. Yet do these forms challenge existing hierarchies in higher education and the market logic that puts pressure on universities and public institutions at large in the neoliberal era? Based on fieldwork in South Africa, this article explores the perceptions of senior managers of public universities and of online programme management companies. Analysing their considerations around unbundled provision, we discuss two conflicting logics of higher education that actors in structurally different positions and in historically divergent institutions use to justify their involvement in public–private partnerships: the logic of capital and the logic of social relevance

Openness in Education as a Praxis: From Individual Testimonials to Collective Voices

Why is Openness in Education important, and why is it critically needed at this moment? As manifested in our guiding question, the significance of Openness in Education and its immediate necessity form the heart of this collaborative editorial piece. This rather straightforward, yet nuanced query has sparked this collective endeavour by using individual testimonies, which may also be taken as living narratives, to reveal the value of Openness in Education as a praxis. Such testimonies serve as rich, personal narratives, critical introspections, and experience-based accounts that function as sources of data. The data gleaned from these narratives points to the understanding of Openness in Education as a complex, multilayered concept intricately woven into an array of values. These range from aspects such as sharing, access, flexibility, affordability, enlightenment, barrier-removal, empowerment, care, individual agency, trust, innovation, sustainability, collaboration, co-creation, social justice, equity, transparency, inclusivity, decolonization, democratisation, participation, liberty, and respect for diversity. This editorial, as a product of collective endeavour, invites its readers to independently engage with individual narratives, fostering the creation of unique interpretations. This call stems from the distinctive character of each narrative as they voice individual researchers’ perspectives from around the globe, articulating their insights within their unique situational contexts

The effects of cow genetic group on the density of raw whole milk

peer reviewedThe density of milk is dependent upon various factors including temperature, processing conditions, and animal breed. This study evaluated the effect of different cow genetic groups, Jersey, elite Holstein Friesians (EHF), and national average Holstein Friesians (NAHF) on the compositional and physicochemical properties of milk. Approximately 1,040 representative (morning and evening) milk samples (~115 per month during 9 mo) were collected once every 2 wk. Milk composition was determined with a Bentley Dairyspec instrument. Data were analysed with a mixed linear model that included the fixed effects of sampling month, genetic group, interaction between month and genetic group and the random effects of cow to account for repeated measures on the same animal. Milk density was determined using three different analytical approaches – a portable and a standard desktop density meter and 100 cm3 calibrated glass pycnometers. Milk density was analysed with the same mixed model as for milk composition but including the analytical method as a fixed effect. Jersey cows had the greatest mean for fat content (5.69 ± 0.13%), followed by EHF (4.81 ± 0.16%) and NAHF (4.30 ± 0.15%). Milk density was significantly higher (1.0313 g/cm³ ± 0.00026, P < 0.05) for the milk of Jersey breed when compared to the EHF (1.0304 ± 0.00026 g/cm³) and NAHF (1.0303 ± 0.00024 g/cm³) genetic groups. The results from this study can be used by farmers and dairy processors alike to enhance accuracy when calculating the quantity and value of milk solids depending upon the genetic merit of the animal/herd, and may also improve milk payment systems through relating milk solids content and density

Openness in Education as a Praxis: From Individual Testimonials to Collective Voices

Why is Openness in Education important, and why is it critically needed at this moment? As manifested in our guiding question, the significance of Openness in Education and its immediate necessity form the heart of this collaborative editorial piece. This rather straightforward, yet nuanced query has sparked this collective endeavour by using individual testimonies, which may also be taken as living narratives, to reveal the value of Openness in Education as a praxis. Such testimonies serve as rich, personal narratives, critical introspections, and experience-based accounts that function as sources of data. The data gleaned from these narratives points to the understanding of Openness in Education as a complex, multilayered concept intricately woven into an array of values. These range from aspects such as sharing, access, flexibility, affordability, enlightenment, barrier-removal, empowerment, care, individual agency, trust, innovation, sustainability, collaboration, co-creation, social justice, equity, transparency, inclusivity, decolonization, democratisation, participation, liberty, and respect for diversity. This editorial, as a product of collective endeavour, invites its readers to independently engage with individual narratives, fostering the creation of unique interpretations. This call stems from the distinctive character of each narrative as they voice individual researchers’ perspectives from around the globe, articulating their insights within their unique situational contexts

Openness in Education as a Praxis: From Individual Testimonials to Collective Voices

Why is Openness in Education important, and why is it critically needed at this moment? As manifested in our guiding question, the significance of Openness in Education and its immediate necessity form the heart of this collaborative editorial piece. This rather straightforward, yet nuanced query has sparked this collective endeavour by using individual testimonies, which may also be taken as living narratives, to reveal the value of Openness in Education as a praxis. Such testimonies serve as rich, personal narratives, critical introspections, and experience-based accounts that function as sources of data. The data gleaned from these narratives points to the understanding of Openness in Education as a complex, multilayered concept intricately woven into an array of values. These range from aspects such as sharing, access, flexibility, affordability, enlightenment, barrier-removal, empowerment, care, individual agency, trust, innovation, sustainability, collaboration, co-creation, social justice, equity, transparency, inclusivity, decolonization, democratisation, participation, liberty, and respect for diversity. This editorial, as a product of collective endeavour, invites its readers to independently engage with individual narratives, fostering the creation of unique interpretations. This call stems from the distinctive character of each narrative as they voice individual researchers’ perspectives from around the globe, articulating their insights within their unique situational contexts