Whose fault is failure? Contested perspectives of academic support in tertiary educational institutions in South Africa. (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jeffery, David; Johnson, David
• Is Part Of: Research in comparative and international education. Volume 14:Number 3(2019)
• Page Start: 376
• Page End: 393
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Student support -- student perspectives -- academic support -- help-seeking -- TVET -- vocational education -- ethnography -- widening participation -- South Africa; Comparative education -- Periodicals; International education -- Periodicals; 370.905
• DOI: 10.1177/1745499919864731
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1745-4999

Abstract

This paper explores the argument that to widen participation in higher education, educational institutions should bear a greater responsibility for students' learning. Central to this debate is the notion of 'academic support'. There are many perspectives on what works to scaffold student participation and learning but rarely are the perspectives of those receiving support taken into account. This paper reports the findings of an exploratory ethnographic study in which students in a vocational college in South Africa reflected on the nature of academic support and access to it. Student narratives that underpin their understandings of how the support system 'worked', and what responsibilities they and the college respectively bore for their studies, are compared to the official prescript on student support services in South Africa – the so-called 'Student Support Services Manual' which was developed by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). The data indicate sharp incongruences in thinking. While the student support services manual maintains that students are a product of their disadvantaged contexts and therefore require an institutional form of academic support, students themselves placed much less responsibility for the provision of academic support on the colleges. Instead, they attributed their success or failure to 'character' and their own dispositions towards learning. This is an unexpected finding in the context of an often highly charged debate on the factors that constrain learning and learning outcomes. This paper argues that it is this 'locus of control' that undermines the idea that student success is dependent on prescription alone.