Study reveals an urgent need for coherence in the curriculum reform efforts of SA’s universities
How is curriculum transformation conceptualised and implemented across South Africa’s public universities? Is there a common understanding of what curriculum transformation is and why it’s important?
These were some of the questions explored at the recent launch of the Universities South Africa (USAf) and Council on Higher Education (CHE) research report on curriculum transformation on 10 June, outside Johannesburg. The launch brought together vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors, academics and quality assurance leaders from across the country in both the public and private higher education, to engage with the findings of a national study on curriculum transformation.
The Conceptions of Curriculum Transformation in South African Universities baseline study was commissioned by USAf’s Teaching and Learning Strategy Group in collaboration with the CHE, and the research was conducted by the University of Johannesburg (UJ).
During her welcome address to the delegates at the launch, USAf CEO, Dr Phethiwe Matutu (right), said the study was timely because there are growing expectations, nationally and globally, for curriculum reform within the higher education sector. “The work is timely for us as a country, as part of the African continent, as part of the globe, because of the demands which are put on higher education institutions concerning curriculum change. We see a lot of demands… externally and also internally – our students expect a whole lot more from us than previously.”
These changing dynamics aren’t limited to higher education. Dr Matutu noted that shifts are also underway in the basic education sector, where the Department of Basic Education is conceptualising a three-stream curriculum model. The model, set to introduce academic, occupational and vocational streams, is designed to broaden learning pathways for school learners.
“Should this curriculum be adopted, it cannot be implemented without teachers and universities being equipped appropriately to change the teacher education curriculum in such a way that the teachers who are being trained are in a position to deliver on it,” Dr Matutu pointed out. With teacher education falling under the Department of Higher Education and Training, the responsibility lies with universities to ensure that graduates are prepared to teach within the evolving school curriculum. This, in turn, demands better coordination between basic and higher education to ensure systemic alignment.
“So, the issue of the transformation of the curriculum – what gets taught, who gets to teach this or facilitate it, and the languages that are used and how it gets taught – is very, very much in the heart of USAf. And this study, for us, is an important baseline to understand exactly how universities are approaching this work,” Dr Matutu said.
The key findings from the research team
In providing the study background and methodology, Professor Shireen Motala (left), SARChI Chair for Teaching and Learning at UJ, explained that the researchers analysed Self-Evaluation Reports (SERs) from the CHE’s 2021–2023 institutional audits, conducted a literature review and held interviews with key university stakeholders.
“The research was complex in many ways, and I think it highlighted the complexities and challenges faced by universities in transforming their curricula, particularly in the context of decolonisation, Africanisation and social justice,” Professor Motala said. “What we noted throughout the study was that there’s not one single definition of curriculum transformation; it encompasses a broad range of initiatives in institutions, including diversity, inclusivity, relevance and transformation.”
“So, the purpose and intention of the study was to understand how curriculum transformation is conceptualised and implemented across South Africa’s 26 universities… It examined how transformation is defined, enacted and experienced in the context of post-apartheid South Africa,” she explained.
In addition to identifying challenges, enabling factors and good practices shaping curriculum transformation, Professor Motala admitted that the study had its limitations. “We had to work within the CHE audit standards and focus areas. The SERs have a page limit, which had an impact on the depth of what universities could provide. Institutional context, history, age and differentiation were all significant variables. We battled at times to get access to all the university’s core documents. And not all focus group attendees who were invited were able to attend, which might have led to an insufficiently nuanced view of university specifics.”
Fellow researcher, Dr Gloria Castrillón (right), Senior Director of the Division for Teaching Excellence at UJ, explained that the study explored curriculum transformation through perspectives such as decoloniality, Africanisation, social justice, employability and technological responsiveness, which all shaped how universities approached curriculum transformation.
She explained that some institutions were, for example, more focused on ensuring that their graduates were employable and ready for the job market, so their curriculum was more focused on skills and industry needs. By contrast, institutions whose priority was correcting historical injustices emphasised decolonising the curriculum or bringing in more African perspectives.
Dr Castrillón also revealed that some institutions adopted a compliance-based approach to curriculum reform and only focused on policy alignment and programme accreditation. She also noted that there was no single definition of curriculum transformation across the sector. This meant that universities prioritised different factors depending on their context, leading to a varied landscape where transformation is interpreted and enacted in different ways.
Dr Castrillón explained that these differences were also shaped by the “extraordinary” weight placed on universities to address multiple demands such as national policy expectations, historical legacies and current social and economic challenges, through the curriculum.
“What came across quite strongly was that there were instances of disconnect between institutional policy and what was happening in the classroom. There was tension between the academic autonomy expected from staff and the responsibility and accountability required for transformation. In some cases, internationalisation was even seen as contradicting local transformation efforts. One example mentioned was how we talk about 4IR technologies, yet many students arrive at university never having used a computer, so how do we begin to bridge those gaps?”
Professor Kirti Menon (above), Programme Director of the Future Professors Programme at UJ, also raised the alarm on the absence of a shared understanding of what curriculum transformation entails, saying that without clarity on whether curriculum refers to content, pedagogy, learning outcomes or the full student experience, it’s difficult to implement meaningful change.
She also questioned where, within universities, the conversation on curriculum transformation is taking place. Without clarity on whether this is led by the Deputy Vice-Chancellors for academic affairs, the transformation offices, the quality assurance units, or academic planning divisions, in other words, without a clear institutional home base for this work, Professor Menon said curriculum reform risks becoming fragmented or superficial.
She drew attention to the wide variations in how universities reported on transformation in their self-evaluation reports, which showed that some institutions viewed curriculum reform narrowly by only focusing on demographic changes, such as staff and student diversity. Professor Menon said other institutions assumed that standard processes such as programme reviews automatically equated to curriculum transformation, without critically examining the substance or impact of those processes.
She was particularly critical of instances where universities cited the adoption of online teaching and learning platforms as evidence of curriculum transformation. Professor Menon argued that simply changing the mode of delivery from in-person to online doesn’t constitute meaningful change. Similarly, she said while many institutions referred to graduate employability, digital literacy, professional body alignment and even new language policies, there was often little attention given to the actual student learning experience or the underlying values that shape teaching and learning.
Professor Menon closed by urging the sector to move beyond isolated efforts and start a national conversation on curriculum transformation that involves a wider range of voices. She noted how, within institutions, important documents like self-evaluation reports often circulate with little feedback or engagement, reflecting a broader pattern of disengagement when it comes to difficult institutional questions.
She noted that while university staff juggle multiple responsibilities such as programme development, professional body submissions and audits, conversations about curriculum reform risk being sidelined or reduced to administrative tasks.
Professor Menon called on the CHE to help facilitate this conversation more deliberately, with participation from across the system. “We don’t only want academic planning, institutional planning, DVCs academic. We actually want academics and students in the room to talk about this,” she said.
Nontobeko Mtshali is a contracted writer for Universities South Africa.
