CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings reported in the consulted literature and the empirical findings reported in Chapter 5 of this study, a number of conclusions can be drawn regarding the PAS 111 module and perceptions of factors that influence students’ success or failure in PAS 111. This study afforded students and lecturers an opportunity to share their experiences regarding the PAS 111 module. Most of the findings agree with the literature reviewed, with what lecturers perceived as learning barriers, and what I as the researcher and former lecturer at EATI found to be challenging factors in the module. The conclusions drawn therefore result from the findings from the curriculum document analysis, student responses and lecturer responses.

6.2.1 Conclusions regarding the PAS 111 module

The first subsidiary question of this study inquired into whether the PAS 111 curriculum is appropriate in terms of student learning. The exact question was: Is the PAS 111 curriculum appropriate for learning PAS 111? Factors underlying the curriculum analysis were found to have an indirect influence on academic performance. It was found that the PAS 111 curriculum is not completely aligned with the Physical Science Grade 10-12 (2003) outcomes-based curriculum (see Chapter 5, section 5.2.1). This corresponds with the literature that in South

177

Africa, many first-year students in Chemistry present an inadequate knowledge of the fundamental principles which underpin the study of Chemistry (Marais, 2011; Rollnick et al., 2008; Steenkamp et al., 2009).

In view of the evidence gained from the analysis of the PAS 111 curriculum, it seems safe to conclude that no effort was made to eliminate the observed barriers to the curriculum, the transformation of the curriculum and the attainment of the qualification. The PAS 111 curriculum does not seem to be focused on Chemistry within the context of Agriculture (see 5.3.2.5) studies and thus students appear to have little interest in the module (see Table 5.9). Moreover, little provision is made for the assessment of practical skills in the curriculum and overall the current PAS 111 module seems outdated and may thus benefit from an intensive curriculum inquiry exercise (see Chapter 5, section 5.2.1).

6.2.2 Conclusions on academic factors that influenced success or failure in PAS 111 This section addresses three of the research sub-questions, namely:

 Is the PAS 111 curriculum appropriate for learning PAS 111?

 What are students’ perceptions of factors that influence their success or failure in PAS 111?

 What are lecturers’ perceptions of factors that influence students’ success or failure in PAS 111?

 How do lecturer and student perceptions compare in terms of factors influencing student success or failure in PAS 111?

6.2.2.1 Conclusions based on student perspectives

Firstly, while language is currently (2015) a hot discussion topic at EEATI, when this research was being conducted, the language of instruction was also found to be a contentious topic. Eighty per cent of the students at the time indicated that their first or home language was Afrikaans (see Tables 5.4, 5.14, 5.18, 5.19). However, the lectures in the PAS 111 module were mainly conducted in English. The language barrier also became evident in the curriculum analysis (5.2.1.10.a) and besides this language barrier, chemistry has a conceptual and technical language of its own which also seems difficult for students to adapt to. One may thus conclude

178

that not only the language of teaching and learning, but also the language of chemistry will need intensive attention in any curriculation effort.

Secondly, the findings indicated clearly that the majority of the students did not have Chemistry or an Introduction to Chemistry in high school (see Tables 5.5, 5.13, 5.15, 5.19, 5.20). This is judged to be one of the major reasons why students are struggling in the PAS 111 module. Also, students who had Chemistry in high school might have other conceptions, or perhaps misconceptions, about the subject. PAS 111 is required in subsequent modules and the admission requirements of EATI do not have Physical Science as a requirement. The module is also intended to prepare the students with the necessary skills, knowledge and behaviour in an agricultural working environment, but this is very difficult to accomplish seeing that some of the students have no background or prior knowledge of the subject. It is therefore concluded that the entry requirements for the BAgric programme and PAS 111 module in particular may need serious reconsideration and attention.

Lastly, it also stood out that almost half of the students were not interested in the module (see Tables 5.9, 5.12, 5.13, 5.20) amidst the fact that student interest proves to be an important performance factor as also highlighted in the literature overview in Chapter 3. From the results on the PAS 111 module analysis it does not seem that the PAS 111 module is sufficiently focused on chemistry within the context of agriculture. Seeing that most students who enrolled for the programme are interested in farming, one might expect the module to be more favourably aligned within agricultural contexts. One may therefore conclude that the PAS 111 module should be revised or that an intensive curriculum exercise is needed to address this potential deficiency.

6.2.2.2 Conclusions based on lecturer perspectives

Firstly, and in accordance with the perceptions of PAS 111 students, the EATI admission requirements and Chemistry as a prerequisite to the BAgric programme were found to be a concern (see sections 5.2.3.1.2 and 5.2.3.1.15, 5.2.3.2.5, 5.2.3.2.6 (Table 5.22A), 5.2.3.2.9. 5.2.3.2.10 and 5.2.3.2.12). These findings relate to what Byrne and Flood (2005) have found, namely that students’ prior knowledge influences their academic performance, a factor that

179

potentially raises concern about the admission requirements for PAS 111 at the EATI. The conclusion is thus that the entry requirements for the BAgric programme and PAS 111 module in particular may need reconsideration and attention.

Secondly, the findings showed that language use in tuition is very important (see sections 5.2.3.1.3, 5.2.3.1.5, 5.2.3.1.14 and 5.2.3.1.18). This finding could be linked to the finding in the curriculum analysis (5.2.1.10.A) where language is seen as a barrier to learning (6.2.1). It is evident from the literature that students’ willingness to engage in learning may be adversely influenced if they find themselves in an environment where few or no others speak and understand their first language and they are expected to communicate in a second or even third language. In the PAS 111 module, lectures were mainly conducted in English; also, chemistry has a conceptual and technical language of its own which students seem to find difficult to adapt to. One may thus conclude that not only the language of teaching and learning, but also the technical language of chemistry will need attention in any re-curriculation effort.

Thirdly, the findings from the lecturer responses indicated clearly that little student support was available to students at the time of the study (see sections 5.2.3.1.6, 5.2.3.1.7). Many students seem unable to manage the level of learning expected of them; thus student support initiatives may be relevant and needed. Such initiatives are mentioned by Cruce et al. (2008) in particular who suggest possible intervention measures which may also help to prevent or limit failure in a module such as PAS 111. One may thus conclude that support programmes or support initiatives for students may be needed at EATI and for PAS 111 students in particular.

Lastly, the findings from the lecturer responses showed that there is a skewed reflection of performance by students coming from the results of the National Senior Certificate (see section 5.2.3.1.15). This includes an underestimation of the difficulty of the subject, inaccessible learning material, a poor understanding of the subject, a lack of integration of the module content with other modules, the need for tutorials and summer schools and the need for increased contact time with the lecturer. One may thus conclude that in order to address such perceptions or deficiencies the selection criteria for the BAgric programme may need to be

180

revised. In the process, the PAS 111 module may need to be re-aligned within the programme and students need to be accommodated according to their learning needs after being selected into the programme.

6.2.2.3 Comparison between student and lecturer perspectives

The data generated by this study have indicated that the perceptions of students and lecturers largely correspond in terms of the factors that may influence learning in PAS 111 at EATI. These factors include the language of instruction, the admission requirements to the BAgric programme, that students who did not have Physical Science in high school struggle with PAS 111, a lack of proper student support, and that students are not interested in the module. As the perceptions of students and lecturers correspond on these issues, one may conclude that a strong case can be made for them to be further investigated or to be addressed by EATI in order to improve students’ performance in PAS 111.

Synthesis

Two factors were prominent in all three sets of the empirical findings. The first was the issue of admission requirement for the BAgric programme where Physical Science is not a prerequisite for the programme. This has appears to have a major influence on academic performance. The second was the language of instruction, which does not correspond with the first language of many students. It is evident that this issue, which recently led to major student upheavals at EATI, cannot be ignored. A disturbing factor is that students do not seem interested in the PAS 111 module, especially because the module is not aligned with contextual examples or situations. This may be linked to students’ different cultural and academic backgrounds, their preferred learning styles and lecturers’ inability to take these into account when teaching the PAS 111 module.