Grupo Virgen de los Desamparados (1952-1962)

Society expects educated people to not only be able to articulate what they know but also to convert such knowledge into practice. The current study, inter alia, explores the extent to which respondents feel that the students assimilated both knowledge and skills from the courses they studied at university.

Respondents’ satisfaction with the curriculum

Through interviews and focus group discussions, a number of issues came up that reflected the students’experiences regarding the appreciation of theory and practice integration in the university curriculum. The majority of new graduates indicated that theory and practice integration was reasonably balanced and relevant in terms of higher education capabilities expansion. One respondent observed:

It (curriculum) really empowered me in that I always aspire for leadership positions wherever I am. Since I finished my bachelor’s degree I have never attained a position below management. ... I always aspire for the positions of management and leadership. Trying with reason to implement what I studied (New Graduate, Interview MPS5)

In such a case, the new graduates appreciated the gains from the curriculum content, and indeed a capability developed. This capability relates to the sociality and participation capability already explained in 5.10.

A contrary view, however, expressed dissatisfaction regarding the integration of theory and practice in the university curriculum. Some new graduates believed that the university curriculum still had some deficiencies. Indeed, one respondent mentioned:

Ah, I would think that ... the education process should be ... more practical, and everything given theoretically should also be put in practical terms so that it is not about getting a first class degree but rather about internalising practical skills that are required in the places of work(New Graduate, Interview NGPS1).

As for the lecturers, they argued that the mix oftheory and practice was reasonable and at an acceptable level. One respondent mentioned:

I think the curriculum does not have a serious problem in terms of the way it has been structured. The problem emerges when it comes to actual implementation of this curriculum. First of all we have the theoretical bit where we actually teach in

154 class and the practical bit. If you look at a social worker and also maybe other courses, such as education and indeed the whole university ... [there is a practical bit of the study] at the same time they are scraping it (practical bit or fieldwork) because of insufficient placement outlets(Lecturer 06inSocial Work, Focus Group SWFM1).

Asimilar observation was made by another respondent, who reported:

If you have students taking social sciences, social work and they are over 2000 and you want all these to go for internship, the questions is: Where are they going? Who is going to supervise them? Where are the logistics? So, when it comes to translation of this curriculum into practice it becomes problematic. Now when it comes to these students going in the industries or factories again it is the same case. Factories look at students going to their places as an added cost. So, they (factories) try to avoid them (students) (Lecturer 02 inSocial Work, Focus Group SWFM1).

The problematic implementation of fieldwork practice frustrates the curriculum objective of enabling students to acquire skills and capacities. Moreover, the practice of offering fieldwork practice as an option, given the insufficient number of organisations for placement, contradicts the useful practice of theory application. This limited use of fieldwork is reportedly due to a huge university student population that cannot be absorbed in the workplaces where the universities would have desired to send them as interns. Therefore, the problem of limited placements in the work environment appears to constrain the desire of universities to integrate theory and practice in their curriculum. This limitation is likely to be contributing to the overall low levels of higher education capabilities expansionamong students.

Respondent conceptions about the curriculum content

The study further established that some senior public officials have reservations about the curriculum content in terms of mix of theory and practical material. These practitioners argue that public universities in Uganda teach a lot of things that are largely irrelevant in relation to the workplace expectations. The irrelevant knowledge and skills disadvantage the graduates in terms of job access. As one respondent reported:

I also have children who are at the university, but when I look at what they are doing, ah! If for example I start with social sciences, I did social work and when I look at the content on the transcript today, I think it is too fragmented... But these days you are limiting the students, and if they are no opportunities in that area

155 they (students) get stuck. The curriculum is limiting. Secondly, I think there is also too much of theory, and it is too theoretical(Public Official, Interview P2)

Another senior public official revealed:

When you look at the curriculum for most of our [public] universities, I think it is wanting: wanting in a sense that it is exam oriented. ...today the student is focused on passing. If he can cram and go to the next semester; that is what is in the universities nowadays, because it is not about knowing: it is about just cramming to reproduce and then go to next level because at the end of the day passing is what counts (Public Official, Interview P1)

Another one observed:

I think the curriculum would not be much of a problem, for me in my courses they were okay – the course I went through: I have no problem with it. My only problem [was that it]... was basically theory-oriented. ...maybe if they (lecturers) gave students more case scenarios, or maybe if they (lecturers) came to workplaces, and they ask for cases that we have [the universities would benefit from the cases]...(Public Official, Interview P4)

Some officials in the public sector believe that the curriculum is more theory-oriented than practice-focused. The theoretical orientation limits the level of skills development owing to lack of opportunity to practisewhat is learnt in class. As revealed by the responses from the senior public officials, the university curriculum was perceived to be fragmented, deficient, limiting students’ opportunities, and theoretically oriented. Therefore the perception of the curriculum by the senior public officials is largely negative. Moreover, from the perspective of the senior public officials,the lecturers rarely approach the workplaces for ideas on how to improve on the integration between theory and practice in the university curriculum. For example, cases are used in teaching only on a small scale. The lecturers who use the case-teaching method prefer to download cases from the internet or adapt some from textbooks.

Incidentally, the new graduates’ conception of the relevance of the curriculum was largely positive. For example one respondent indicated: “The content I would say, it was nice. It was well intended, in my view... At the beginning of the semester we would get a course outline. Many items down the list and interestingly many of them are related to what I intended to do. If I could relate that [content] to the field [requirements]; the

156 content was nice”(New Graduate, Interview MSW8).From the perspective of this respondent, considering the content per se, the curriculum had the potential to expand some knowledge and skill applicable to the world of reality. This view is, however, contrary to the one expressed by senior public officials indicated above.

In the quantitative questionnaire, the new graduate respondents were requested to state their opinion about whether or not the university curriculum integrates practical learning with theoretical learning (see Appendix I, question 204). Their responses are summarised in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: New graduates’ perception of the curriculum content as integrated Questionnaire measure Number of respondents Percentage Strongly agree 2 1.2 Agree 12 7.2 undecided 6 3.6 Disagree 121 72.9 Strongly disagree 25 15.1 Total 166 100

As Table 6.3 shows, the majority (88%)of respondents considered the level of theory and practice integration within the curriculum to be low. The 88% arises from the 72.9% who disagreed and the 15.1% who strongly disagreed. Therefore, using this perception data, it is possible to speculate that thepublic university curriculum is more theoretical than practical.

A review of some course outlines (2001-2010) from the departments covered by this studyfurther revealed that most of themhad not listed practical methods of instruction. The outlines mainly listed approaches such as ‘lecture’ and ‘discussion’. In practice, some lecturers improvise creative ways of making the curriculum more balanced. For example, such lecturers use a blend of teaching methods that translate theory into practice. One respondent reported:

When I am teaching, I normally use examples that are of day-to-day. I contextualise theory into practice. ... If I am talking about lesson planning and

157 scheming then I let them scheme. Let them have lesson samples for us to look at. When we are talking about what the contents of a teaching file are, we encourage them to have a teaching file which will be assessed. ... In this way I am trying to link the theory and practice(Lecturer in Education, Interview FCSM1)

These creative and practical ways of operationalising the curriculum, although rarely practised in public universities in Uganda, increase thehigher education capabilities expansion among students. This increase is because the integration of practice and theory makes the curriculum holistic and increases the opportunities for learning.

However, some lecturers believe that the university curriculum should have a lot of theory in its content. Such lecturers expect students to appreciate theory and internalise its applicability. As one lecturer argued:

At university level, this is where we have expertise. We are not teaching apprenticeship: we are teaching people who can use theory to comprehensively address problems. For example, it could be a research problem or it could be poverty... They (students) should be able to apply theory, but they do not want theory; and they do not know what brought them to university. This is different from any other college. University is about real theory and then being able to apply it. That is all(Lecturer 07in Social Work in a Focus Group, SWFM1)

This argument, inter alia, reveals the lecturers’ conception of what students should take from the university, which is predominantly theoretical knowledge but also the application of theory to real-life situations. By implication, in such a lecturer’s classesa lot of theoretical teaching is offered although students hate theory. Students argue that theory is complicated and that it is irrelevant to the workplace. Hence, there is a mismatch between students’ expectations and lecturers’ expectations of the curriculum. Thiscontradiction could partly explain the deficiencies in higher education capabilities developed at public universities in Uganda.

Curriculum coverage

Regarding the level of coverage of the university curriculum, most lecturers feel that it is exhaustive and, therefore, caters for a wide range of issues that the students need to learn from the specific disciplines. For instance, one respondent reported:

158 I think the curriculum is exhaustive enough; we have had curriculum reviews for the last seven years... And in the department now we are implementing a new curriculum, which has factored in new developments within the higher education sector globally, in Africa and in Uganda in particular. ...and I think it is a good curriculum despite a few limitations here and there(Lecturer inSociology, Interview LSAM1)

Overall, new graduates and lecturers rate the curriculum highly in terms of exhaustiveness but as fair in terms of linking practice and theory. Similarly, among the 166 questionnaire respondents 43.4% agree and 7.2% strongly agree that the university education curriculum was exhaustive (see Appendix I, question 201). To the contrary, in qualitative interviews, the senior public officials are largely doubtful about the exhaustiveness of the university curriculum. They also expressed reservations about the balance between theory and practice in the university curriculum. They tend to believe that there is much more theory in the curriculumthan is necessary.

It appears that, owing to the tenuous link between practice and theory, the curriculum of public universities in Uganda limits education capabilities expansion among students. Otherwise, students seem to learn best whena balance exists between practice and theory in pedagogy. More weaknesses are apparent in the curriculum in cases of early specialisation of courses. In the view of senior officials in the public sector of Uganda, when students specialise at thefirst degree level their flexibility and job access are limited. Actually, the senior public officials argued that all weaknesses in the curriculum end up making the university curriculum irrelevant to the workplace needs.