PROGRAMME EVALUATION

As indicated in previous chapters, the goal of the study was to evaluate one of the outcomes of the Listening, Living and Learning programme by investigating change (if any) in senior students’ stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes. The constructs measured to obtain the abovementioned goal, were gender, language, race, socio- economic status and nationality (country of origin). Although programme evaluation is a much more comprehensive process, due to the limited scope of the dissertation, the parameters of the study have been set to evaluate only one outcome of the LLL programme.

Programme evaluation, in general, refers to a process in which research methods are used to assess programmes (Smith, 2010:20) and investigate the effectiveness of interventions (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004:16). Programme evaluation is important as it helps to clarify and describe how the intervention works, which goals it is pursuing and how the programme is monitored and assessed (Smith, 2010:5). As the purpose of the programme evaluation is to gather information for improving the LLL programme, formative evaluation was utilized. Formative evaluations are regarded as activities directed at improving a programme’s design, planning, development and implementation (Monette, Sullivan & DeJong, 2008). In essence, by

129

evaluating a programme’s objectives, one is, in effect, testing hypotheses about how one thinks a client will change after a period of time in the programme (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2012:170).

The one outcome or objective of LLL that was evaluated for the purpose of this study was:

The LLL programme aims to develop students as agents of change to continue establishing and supporting healthy communities when they leave SU after graduation. Positive social change needs to be continued and is not bound to SU campus, time or space.

In order to act as agents of change on Stellenbosch campus, and when they leave, they need to be familiar with diversity, as well as attitudes regarding stereotypes and discrimination. Five constructs, for the purpose of this study, collectively formed the concept of ‘diversity’. The students’ attitudes regarding the five constructs were tested by using the Student Attitude Questionnaire (Fourie-Malherbe, 2012). As indicated earlier in the chapter, it has proven to yield reliable results.

The results indicated for all five constructs – gender, language, race, socio-economic status and nationality – a change in senior students’ stereotypical and discriminatory attitudes, decreasing to a more intolerant level from February to May 2013. However, the change was not significant and the outcome is contradictory to what the vision of the LLL programme is.

As the Social Change Model (Komives & Wagner, 2009) served as the theoretical framework for the LLL programme for the purpose of this study, a reflection on the model in the context of developing LLL students as agents of change is required. The three levels of the model will be discussed accordingly as these three levels interact and together contribute to the overall goal of the model – positive social change:

a) Individual level

Three values are applicable to the individual level – consciousness of self, congruence and commitment. The individual values involve qualities of individuals that contribute

130

to positive group functioning (Haber, 2011:67). Komives et al. (2009) explain that consciousness of self refers to the understanding of one’s values, one’s motivations and having knowledge of one’s passions, goals and dreams. Congruence refers to living one’s values and commitment can be defined as dedication to one’s passions, goals and dreams.

The researcher is of the opinion, based on the results of the study that the majority of the LLL students are currently still functioning on the individual level of the SCM. These students, having finished their first semester in the LLL setting, tend to still be in a self-understanding process regarding their opinions and stances on controversial matters, and being confronted with ‘the other’.

b) Group level

The values in the group level are collaboration, common purpose and controversy with civility. The group values reflect group skills and processes that contribute to affecting positive change (Haber, 2011:67). Komives et al. (2009) define collaboration as commitment to work together and having a consensus-driven approach. Having a common purpose refers to functioning as a group with aligned goals and a shared vision. The value of controversy with civility refers to the group being able to welcome diverse opinions and points of view, and knowing that generativity comes from disagreement.

Based on the results of the study, the majority of the LLL students have currently not reached this level of the SCM. The increasing levels of intolerance regarding constructs representing ‘the other’ do not portray students as having a common purpose and shared vision. The researcher is of the hope that this might develop during the second semester in the LLL setting.

c) Societal level

Citizenship is the value emphasized on societal level. The community value focuses on the greater community’s needs (Haber, 2011:67). Citizenship, according to Komives, Wagner and Associates (2009), occurs when individuals recognize they are part of something larger than themselves. The interconnected nature of the world and

131

the role each person has in making it a better place is recognized. The researcher is of the opinion, based on the results of the study, that the majority of the LLL students have not yet reached the societal level of the SCM. This might have occurred on an individual level, but as a collective, it does not seem that there is recognition of citizenship. The researcher is of the hope that this might develop, in concurrence with the group level values, during the second semester in the LLL setting.

In revisiting the outcome of the LLL programme being evaluated in this study, namely that it aims to develop students as agents of change to continue establishing and supporting healthy communities when they leave SU after graduation, development in terms of the Social Change Model of Leadership has occurred. The LLL students seem to be still functioning on the individual level of the SCM and the other two levels, Group and Societal, still needs to be reached. The LLL students have therefore been exposed to diversity and social change issues, and development as social change agents seem to slowly occur. However, additional research studies need to monitor the development of students as social change agents in the second semester, and beyond, of LLL.

Due to the short timespan between measurements and the adjustment processes of the students, the Student Attitude Questionnaire provided valuable information in terms of the journey LLL-students travel when entering the programme – both on an interpersonal and intrapersonal level.

Possible limitations in the study will be addressed accordingly.