DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDENT SELF-EMPOWERMENT AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDENT SELF-EMPOWERMENT AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME

Introduction

In this chapter the different phases of the Student Self-Empowerment and Enrichment Programme (SSEEP), and the changes that evolved between 1996 and 1999 will be discussed. In addition, this chapter will include comments and reflections by the researcher, who as a presenter/facilitator, was also part of the programme.
All students registered for the second-year level of Psychology received an invitation to attend the programme in a general tutorial letter. (See Appendix A.) The following phases of the programme can be identified and will be discussed.

A Pre-Programme Phase

Students were required to register for the programme, although at every regional centre where the programme was held, there were always those students who registered but did not attend, and always those who attended but had not registered. Students up until 1998 were required to fill in and send back a questionnaire relating to their personal details and their approach to their studies (Student-at-a-Desk-Test). (See Appendix B.) However, a questionnaire relating only to their personal details formed part of the registration prerequisites in 1999 and was included in the general tutorial letter. (See Appendix A.)

Day 1 Facilitating a Domain for Discourse, Activating and Enhancing Students’ Cognitive Resources, Contextualising the Monitoring Study Method and Practising Memory Strategies

Day 1 – First Session: Facilitating a Domain for Dialogue Getting to Know One Another When students arrived at the venue at one of the regional learning centres in South Africa to attend the programme, they completed a pre-test. The pre-test from 1996 to 1997 comprised a number of questionnaires relating to locus of control, self-efficacy perceptions, and students’ general orientation to life (Purpose in Life Test). (See Appendix C.) In 1998, in addition to those already mentioned, open-ended questions were included regarding their perceptions of their personal and interpersonal skills, personal influence, and self-efficacy in different contexts. (See Appendix D.) In 1999, students were only required to complete one questionnaire on skills assessment. (See Appendix E.) Although students were informed that they should register between 8:00am and 8:30am, and that the programme would commence at 8:30am, many students seemed to arrive any time between 8:00am and 9:00am, which could possibly have been due to problems that especially the Black students experience in having to rely on taxi transport. Completing the pre-test therefore seemed to have the advantage of giving those who arrived early something to do, and in this way seemed to prevent boredom and frustration.
The programme usually began at about 8:45am with a brief welcome address by the one presenter/facilitator. However, in 1997, one of the students who had attended the programme in Pretoria the previous year, decided on her own initiative to come to the opening session, to make this brief welcome address herself. She motivated students to become involved in their communities in the way that she had done, which she seemed to have experienced as personally rewarding.
All the presenters then introduced themselves in a personal way to the students. In 1996 and 1997, four presenters were involved, but in 1998 and 1999, the number of presenters was reduced to three, due to financial constraints. The personal introduction seemed to set the tone for the programme and ‘defined’ it as an interpersonal encounter, which differed from the formal hierarchical relationship that traditionally characterised the lecturer/student relationship.
The students then formed themselves into smaller groups of about eight to ten students. Initially, the presenters/facilitators encouraged cross-cultural participation in the groups. Possibly as a result of the euphoria of the first democratic elections in South Africa in 1994, students in 1996 seemed keen to mix with students across the cultural and racial divide. However, students in successive years appeared less keen to mix with one another. The presenters/facilitators believed that it would be in the best interests of students rather to give them the choice to form a group with those with whom they felt comfortable. Some students elected to form a group with their friends, or with students of the same sex or race as themselves, whereas others were comfortable joining a multi-cultural or mixed gender group.
In their groups, they were asked to introduce themselves in a personal way to one another, in much the same way as the presenters/facilitators had introduced themselves to the students. The aim was to encourage students to get to know one another and to form relationships with one another. A context or setting for dialogue was thus facilitated by the formation of the participants into groups. Students stayed in these groups for the duration of the programme.
The total number of students who attended the programme in any one of the regional centres, could range from approximately 50 to about 450 students. It seemed that one of the advantages of forming the students into groups, and thus imposing some sort of order, was, therefore, to model to students how to approach the unmanageable, in this case the mass of students who arrived at a particular venue. It seemed to have the effect of making the experience less personally threatening to students.

Stating Obiectives and Forming a Group Identity

Once the students had introduced themselves to one another in their groups, they were asked to discuss their objectives for the week, in other words what they expected from the programme, which they wrote down on a large sheet of paper. The fun and creative part of the exercise seemed to be in naming their group and providing reasons for the name that they gave to their group. Each group nominated a representative and each representative was given a chance to introduce the group to the body of students, explain why they had chosen their name, and to state their objectives.
This exercise seemed to provide the impetus for the programme and was characterised by easy interaction between students and presenters. In addition, students were interacting with one another, which in the traditional lecture setting, did not often seem to occur.
This exercise began with what the students themselves seemed to want. They were given the chance to articulate their expectations – their ideas of what they expected out of the five-day programme (later streamlined to a four-day programme). Most of the expectations seemed to centre around the following needs:

• The need for cognitive skills which includes effective study methods, improved memory skills, and guidelines on how to study with understanding.
• The need to gain an overview of the course in order to make the course more manageable and comprehensible. This would include an explanation of the various personality theories which comprise the Personology course, and an explanation of the Developmental Psychology course.
• Guidance for the examination.
• Personal enrichment (including a desire ‘to get to know themselves’, tips on how to stay motivated, and ideas on how to develop confidence).
• Interaction with other students and the lecturers, .and the sharing of ideas.
• How to apply what they have learnt in their everyday lives for their own personal upliftment and the upliftment of their communities.
• How to manage their time between their studies, and their personal and social lives.
• Indications of the employment opportunities that would be open to them with Psychology as a major.
• The requirements needed to become a Clinical, Counselling, or Educational Psychologist.

Other more general concerns can be illustrated in the following examples. In 1998, the Cape Town students’ ‘voiced’ their anxiety regarding the workload and what was expected of them with respect to the second-year Psychology course. The Pretoria students, on the other hand, ‘voiced’ their desire to know what to do with the knowledge, and how to apply it in community contexts. These examples also seem to illustrate how diverse the groups were in the different regional centres.
Therefore, instead of what occurred in the initial programme in 1994 where the lecturers/presenters informed the students of what they could expect based on the lecturers’ perceptions of their needs, in this programme it was the students who informed the presenters/facilitators of their expectations. This exercise seemed to give them a sense of ownership of the process as they felt that their needs, and expectations were taken into account in the initial session of the programme. It seemed that they felt that their needs or expectations were being listened to and were directing the contents and nature of the programme. This seemed to occur despite the fact that the invitation to the programme contained details of the structure and aims of the programme which were nonetheless based on what the presenters had learnt from the frustrations that students experienced in the initial programme in 1994. It seemed evident that the presenters/facilitators had listened to what it was that students wanted. Therefore, the fit between the students’ expectations and the contents of the programme that the presenters/facilitators structured, was not entirely unexpected.
The exercise seemed to introduce a fun element in having to choose a name and many groups were quite innovative in their choice of name. They chose names such as Knowledge Seekers, the Rainbow Group, the Optimists, the Neonates, D.J.F. Y. (an acronym for Do It For Yourself), Sisize Sanke (which translated from the Zulu means ‘help us all’), the Panic Mechanics, U.P. (an acronym for Understanding People), Simunye (which translated from the Zulu means ‘we are one’), Bafana Bafana (the name of the South African national soccer team, which translated from the Zulu means ‘our boys’), STUDY (an acronym for Success, Tolerance, Unity, Determination, and Youth), Ba Dira Mmogo (which translated from the Sotho means ‘people working together’), and so on. One of the groups was called Phenyo which translated from Sotho means ‘winner’. The reasons that they gave for choosing this name were the following: they are willing to learn so that they can be winners, winning seems to draw attention, it reminds them of their past and how the ‘struggle’ made them winners, and winning will give them self-confidence. Another group called their group the Melting jigsaw. They said that they gave their group this name because « we want to melt and fit together to the benefit of all. »
The opportunity to use a microphone and introduce the group, give the group’s name, the reasons for the name, and the group objectives, to the student body, seemed to be a novel experience for many. After the initial feeling of reserve, students appeared to really enjoy using the microphone. It seemed that this was their chance to be someone, to feel really important, and the students appeared to rise to the occasion. However, although the group spokesperson was asked to mention only those objectives that had not been referred to by previous group spokespersons, they did not always seem to do this, and it therefore became necessary in the larger centres, such as Pretoria and Durban, to ask group representatives to mention only one group objective, as the process at times tended to become bogged down by repetition. By doing this, it was felt that respect for the other group representatives, who were waiting for their chance to present, was demonstrated.

Comments on the Initial Session

Right from the initial session of the programme, a more equal relationship was established between presenters/facilitators and students in the exercises. Respect for one another as human beings thus seemed to set the tone for interaction between presenters/facilitators and students, and between students. Pai (cited in Knott, 1991) contends that respect is shown to people as a result of one’s belief in the intrinsic worth of people. Dialogue and the sharing of ideas was therefore encouraged in order to enable people to connect with one another. A further advantage of the interactional tone was that students were given a voice, and it appeared that they felt that they were being listened to, and were also active in guiding the process. This seemed to be an empowering experience.
The experience of working in small groups and sharing ideas was quite an uncommon experience for many students, but they soon ‘warmed’ to the idea. It seemed that being part of a small group tended to be less threatening than being one of a large group of ‘faceless’ students.

Awakening Community Sensitivity

In 1996, after students stated their group objectives, the presenters/facilitators informed students that one of the functions of Unisa is to serve the community in order to address the needs and challenges of South African society. Students were informed that the Department of Psychology was also involved in community outreach and encouraged students to become involved in their communities. This section enjoyed minimal importance at the time and yet seemed to make an impact on some of the students who later became involved in their communities. In 1997 more prominence was granted to this section of the programme and the community session was moved to the final day of the programme. More will be said about this session later on.

1 INTRODUCTION 
General introduction
Aim and Rationale of this Study
Conclusion
2 PHILOSOPHYUNDERL YING THE STUDENT SELF-EMPOWERMENT AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME 
Introduction
Learner Support Strategies at Unisa
Traditional Instructional Design Model
Development of Cognitive Skills
Reflections
Presenters’ Thinking Evolved in the Direction of a Resource/
Reflections
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDENT SELF-EMPOWERMENT AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMME
Introduction
Day 1 – Session 3: Contextualising the MSM and Practising Memory
Strategies
Day 2: Discussion of the Personality Theories
Exercise Based on Allport’s Theory
Day 3: Discussion of Developmental Psychology
Day 4 – Community Session
Conclusion
4 EMPOWERMENT VERSUS ENHANCEMENT OF STUDENTS’ PERSONAL RESOURCES
Introduction
Defining Empowerment
The Paradox of Empowerment
5 ENHANCING STUDENTS’ PERSONAL RESOURCES THROUGH NARRATIVE
Introduction
Conclusion
6 THE RESEARCH METHOD
Introduction
Conclusion
RESULTS – PART 1 PATTERNS AND THEMES
7 CONNECTION
Introduction
Conclusion
8 FACILITATING GROUP PROCESSES
RESULTS – PART 2 nINTERPRETING PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEMORY BOXES 
REFERENCE
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
ENHANCING STUDENTS’ PERSONAL RESOURCES THROUGH NARRATIVE