Co-curriculum: integrated practices or at the fringes of university experience? Birgit Schreiber (PhD) Centre for Student Support Services University of.

Co-curriculum: integrated practices or at the

fringes of university experience?

Birgit Schreiber (PhD)Centre for Student Support Services

University of the Western Cape

Prof Teboho Moja Steinhardt Higher Education Management

New York University

Context

• Colloquium at UWC: Prof Ronelle Carolissen and Teboho Moja

• Student Affairs making significant contributions to academic, institutional and student success (CHE, 2014; Lewin & Mawoyo, 2014)

• quest for data-based and evidence-driven policy development and institutional decision-making across the higher education sector (Leibbrandt & Ranchhod, 2014; CHE, 2014; Lewin & Mawoyo, 2014)

• Engagement data used to shape co-curricular environment (Kuh, 2001; Kresge, 2014; Strydom, 2014)

• maximising influences on learning and require professional, disciplined and informed interventions, not intuitive and ad hoc

• “want to use existing data to maximise the co-curr spaces and create advantages for our students”

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Social Inclusion – White Paper (1997)

Recognises: race, gender, rural, ability, language, age, etc

Social Justice framework for HE policy since 1996 mandates HEIs to address equity, access and success, in the service of the re-construction of the South African economic and social fabric.

Social inclusion in higher education typically refers to enabling better access, participation and success of groups of under-included students who have been socially, historically and politically excluded (Tomlinson & Basit, 2012).

Caution around inclusion as assimilationist: it can maintain the status quo when marginalized groups are merely incorporated into prevalent practices without the hegemonic dominance of those institutions being challenged (Young, 2000; Yuval-Davis, 2011).

Social Justice Framework of the White Paper 3

1. Participatory Parity ÞParticipatory Parity emphasises that we need to “create opportunities for people to participate on an equal footing” (Bozalek & Carolissen, 2014, p. 16; Fraser, 2009)

2. Universal Design for Learning

=> Multiple ways of learning

=> Multiple ways of demonstration

=> Multiple ways of enticement

WHO ARE OUR STUDENTS ?

HOW CAN WE CONSTRUCT A CO-CURRICULUM THAT IS INCLUSIVE AND TRANSFORMATIVE ?

What is the Co-curriculum?

→ Intentional and organized activities that allow for the intersection of the personal-social-academic lives of students to contribute to their holistic development (Moja, 2014).

→ Outside the classroom curriculum for well-rounded education through designed programs (Pitts, 2012).

→ Deliberate collection of programs which facilitate peer connection and university integration with the aim to gain competitive edge in job market (Purdue, 2012).

→ Quality out of class experiences which facilitate engagement with and connection to social, academic and institutional life (Hughes & Barrie, 2010).

→ catch all term for all kinds of activities outside the classroom

Epistemology of Empirical and Authentic Learning, In-service, Practical and Experiential Learning(Eraut, 2006, 2007; Raelin, 2007)

● academic-personal-social or cognitive-affective-social are integrated parts of one complex process (Baxter-Magolda, 2002; Bernstein, 2004)● tacit and explicit knowledge find better articulation● critical-evaluative reflection● mastery and application● assessment of situation (what is required – what is the challenge)● deciding on plan and action (agency)● pursuing with skill ● meta-cognition of monitoring self ● generate clarity on what is not known

Current range and types

Engagement based programs ● using SASSE dimensions to design, implement and measure programs (Integration – Tinto and Astin)

Skills development ● discreet skills and/or development (Society, Volunteering, Entrepreneurship, etc)

Development and support ● integration and support for students (Mentoring, Leadership, Orientation, etc)

Service Learning: ● partnership btw academic dept and student affairs (Kolbe’s Learning Cycle, Authentic L)

● embedded into a discipline ● aligned with curricular outcome

Living and Learning communities in Residences:● academic and social integration in physical and program expression

Critique of Co-Curriculum

Umbrella and catch-all term makes it difficult to assess impact and agree on outcome (Kuh, 2009).

Embedding graduate attributes into the curriculum has been “ad hoc, sporadic, patchy and lumpy” (Hughes & Barrie, pg 325).

There has been little research and exploration of the links between the intended curriculum (as evidenced by institutional statements about the co-curriculum),the enacted curriculum (as it is taught and facilitated), and the experienced curriculum (what the student actually encounters)

(Hughes & Barrie, 2010; Marsh & Willis, 2007)

Key Challenges for an

inclusive and transformative Co-curriculum

1. Content alignment (with Graduate Attributes, institutional mission, etc)

2. Content outcome (what is the purpose and aim, what are the learning outcomes)

3. Assessment (how do we assess?)

4. QA (discipline based tools?)

5. Alignment with heterogeneous student population (school-leavers, returning, resilient,

vulnerable, working, mature, remote-virtual, commuter, differently-abled, etc)

6. Alignment with macro and micro demands (policy, global, local, etc)

7. Embedded and integrated (what are the markers of that)

8. Deliberate, structured, comprehensive signature statement

QA

Vision and Mission

Purpose

Model and theory

Design of Co-

curriculum

Localise and immerse

into context

Apply

Review

national goals

strategic priorities

clarify outcome

assessment of outcome

evidence

data

collaborations

engagement data

collective contribution

monitor

Various Models

1. Structured2. Life-wide3. Developmental

Pittsburgh OCC: 4. structured curriculum 5. coordinated components6. coherent and scaffolded7. clearly defined content and requirements8. alignment with mission and goals9. learning outcomes10. assessment 11. collaborations across campus

Life-Wide Co-curriculum Carolissen (2014); Dunne, 2011; Jackson (2010)

● “Integrating learning from the combination of formal and informal

learning

experiences that a learner participates in during their HE

experience” (J, 2010, p. 493)

● Life-wide concept of learning

● Organised by institution and self

● Facilitated by professional and peers/others

● Moves learning beyond the classroom and beyond the institution

● Values life experiences

● Values invisible and hidden experiences

● Learner driven

● Development within multiple contexts and experiences

● Life-long development stance

Life-wide Curriculum

Advantages ● inclusive and transformative ● recognises broader aspect of students’ lives ● changes conception of what we consider is teaching-learning ● increases participation (students and staff) ● increases scope ● experience rich ● improves application of knowledge ● improves transfer of skills ● improves agency and responsibility ● prepares and augments learning for complex world where learning and living transverses ● ‘learning through being, doing, sensing, feeling, knowing and changing’ (Beard& Wilson 2005, p. 5). ● The epistemology of practice pays particular attention tothe idea of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991)

Examples

working students – provide template for their description, reflection and learning, skills acquired are demonstrated template for reflection (Kolbe’s) capstone to demonstrate knowledge formulas for various contexts (care, family work, informal business, etc)and on-campus participation/completion multiple pathways of demonstration (Universal Design for Learning) use principles from Authentic Learning, In-service , Experiential Learning for documentation

1st year – Adjustment and Integration: mentoring, orientation, participation,

2nd year – Identity and Self-Development: Citizenship and community, communication, diversity, self-management and EQ

3rd year – Transition: exit and entry, leadership, career choices, post-graduate, community

Developmental CC: (King & Anderson, 2004)

- Development is in stages that are sequential, cumulative, increasingly complex, and qualitatively different- Each stage benefits from different programs Emphasis on scaffolding

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

First Year

Second Year

Third Year

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

prgrm

Campus prgrm

Conclusion: Hybrid model

NB: identify the purpose and align model and programs with it

NB: identify signature prgrms/courses of your university

NB: use your data!

NB: extend the co-curriculum to life-wide and respond to developmental needs

NB: recognise diversity of students and the context of our institutions

NB: shifts the co-curr from copying USA models into an African context

NB: deliberate – coordinated – integrated – inclusive

Is our co-curriculum intentionally integrated or coincidental prgrms at fringes of HEI?

Thank you!

THANK YOUReferences:

DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training). (2012). Green Paper on Post School Education and Training. Pretoria. South Africa.Burgstahler, S. (2007). Equal access: Universal design of student services. Seattle: University of Washington. Accessed on 2/7/2014 from www.uw.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/equal_access_ss.htmlFraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice. Reimagining justice in a globalising world. New York: Columbia University Press. Bozalek, V.,& Carolissen, R. (2012).The potential of critical feminist citizenship frameworks for citizenship and social justice in higher education. Perspectives in Education, 30(4), 9-18.Department of Higher Education and Training (2014). White Paper for Post-School Education and Training. Pretoria: Government Printer.Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory Oxford: Polity Press.Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging: Intersectional contestations. London: Sage.Schreiber, B. (2014). Student Affairs in South Africa – the need for a Social Justice approach as basis for a normative framework. Journal of College & Character, 15(4), in press. Schreiber, B. (2013). Constructions of Students as client or partner in knowledge creation? Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(4), 85-89. Schreiber, B. (2013). Chapter 1: Key challenges facing South African Student Affairs: an international perspective. In M. Speckman, M. Mandew, C. Bodibe (Eds). Student Affairs in South Africa. RSA, African Minds Publisher, Cape Town.Luescher-Mamashela, T., Moja, T. & Schreiber, B. (2013). Editorial Introduction: Towards a Professionalization of Student Affairs in Africa. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 1(1&2), 1-6. http://www.jsaa.ac.za/index.php/JSAA/issue/view/1/showTocSchreiber, B. (2012). Investigation into the role, scope and function of Student Development and Support in South Africa, PhD thesis, Education Faculty, University of the Western Cape, South Africa.Schreiber, B., Aartun, K. (2011). Online Support Services via Mobile Technology – A Pilot Study at a Higher Education Institution in South Africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(4), 635-642. Schreiber, B., Davidowitz, B. (2009). Infusing Adjustment Issues into the Curriculum in a Science Foundation Programme. In B. Leibowitz, A. van der Merwe, S. Van Schalkwyk (Eds). Focus on First Year Success, Perspectives emerging from South Africa and beyond. South Africa, Stellenbosch: Sun Press.Spandler, H. (2007). From exclusion to inclusion? A critique of the inclusion imperative in mental health. Medical Sociology, 2(2), 3-16.Tomlinson A and Basit T (2012) Introduction, in T Basit and S Tomlinson Social inclusion and higher education. London and New York: Routledge.Tronto, J.(1993).Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York and London:Routledge.Tronto, J . (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality and justice. New York: New York University Press.Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.Young, I. M. (2002).Inclusion and democracy. London: Oxford University Press.Firferey, N., & Carolissen, R. (2010). ‘I keep myself clean … at least when you see me, you don’t know I’m poor’: Student experiences of poverty in South African higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(6), 987-1002.King, Anderson (2004). Developmentally Speaking, 24(1) College of Student Affairs Journal. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ956996.pdf