The key implication for ECSA, it is suggested, is that the Council should give serious consideration to formally endorsing the call for a flexible mainstream curriculum, and to establishing a formal process of engagement with government which is aimed at creating the necessary enabling conditions, in particular with respect to the higher education funding and qualifications frameworks. This should not entail prescribing to the universities; but it could usefully include facilitating a dialogue and process of engagement between the universities and with employers and other stakeholders, as well as supporting the move towards a flexible curriculum through monitoring, research, and wider debate; and by treating key curriculum innovations, for example at the Universities of Pretoria, Cape Town and KwaZulu Natal, as national which should be monitored and evaluated ‘experiments’ at a policy and strategic level. It is worth noting, with regard to the above, that the majority of informants indicated that they would welcome an ECSA-facilitated about the ‘conversation’ undergraduate curriculum, with some going so far as to suggest that this should be an ongoing focus of attention. It would also be important in this regard for ECSA to ensure that it engages proactively with the Council on Higher Education and the review of the undergraduate bachelors degree that it is about to undertake. ECSA might also wish to take these processes a step further, by initiating a research project on the undergraduate curriculum, in partnership with the universities and, for example, the HSRC and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Appropriately constituted, this could provide a credible and influential platform from which to review and where necessary to modernise and reform engineering education in South Africa, and a catalyst for action at a systemic level. Along with the debate about curriculum, however, there is also a need for ECSA to engage more critically with the response of individual institutions to the specific throughput and related challenges pertaining to their contexts and their student intakes. This is provided for in the existing provisions for accreditation and programme review, but it is not clear that these aspects of institutional performance are receiving the focused and constructive attention they deserve.
The key implication for ECSA, it is suggested, is that the Council should give serious consideration to formally endorsing the call for a flexible mainstream curriculum, and to establishing a formal process of engagement with government which is aimed at creating the necessary enabling conditions, in particular with respect to the higher education funding and qualifications frameworks. This should not entail prescribing to the universities; but it could usefully include facilitating a dialogue and process of engagement between the universities and with employers and other stakeholders, as well as supporting the move towards a flexible curriculum through monitoring, research, and wider debate; and by treating key curriculum innovations, for example at the Universities of Pretoria, Cape Town and KwaZulu Natal, as national ‘experiments’ which should be monitored and evaluated at a policy and strategic level. It is worth noting, with regard to the above, that the majority of informants indicated that they would welcome an ECSA-facilitated ‘conversation’ about the undergraduate curriculum, with some going so far as to suggest that this should be an ongoing focus of attention. It would also be important in this regard for ECSA to ensure that it engages proactively with the Council on Higher Education and the review of the undergraduate bachelors degree that it is about to undertake. ECSA might also wish to take these processes a step further, by initiating a research project on the undergraduate curriculum, in partnership with the universities and, for example, the HSRC and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Appropriately constituted, this could provide a credible and influential platform from which to review and where necessary to modernise and reform engineering education in South Africa, and a catalyst for action at a systemic level. Along with the debate about curriculum, however, there is also a need for ECSA to engage more critically with the response of individual institutions to the specific throughput and related challenges pertaining to their contexts and their student intakes. This is provided for in the existing provisions for accreditation and programme review, but it is not clear that these aspects of institutional performance are receiving the focused and constructive attention they deserve.
ECSA%20Throughput%20Report.docx