The Flexible Degree: More time for what?

The Flexible Degree: More time for what? DRAFT Suellen Shay Jenny Clarence-Fincham Karin Wolff Abstract In 2013 the Council of Higher Education (CHE) released a proposal for the reform of South Africa’s undergraduate degree arguing that all current 3-year degrees and diplomas, as well as four-year Bachelor’s degrees be extended by one year with an additional 120 credits. The proposal argues that essential to the success of this reform and its goal of improving student success is how the structure enables a different kind of curriculum. This paper argues that what is fundamentally different about the flexible curriculum structure is that it must enable epistemic access and development. Drawing on the sociology of knowledge, the notion of ‘epistemic access’ is elaborated to conceptualize some of the key conditions of such an enabling curriculum structure. The paper then moves to discuss what a curriculum structure which enables epistemic access and development might look like. This is described at the level of general and qualification specific principles. The analysis reveals how knowledge domains differences (for example, science vs. humanities) and the qualification type differences (formative vs. professional degrees vs. vocational) will require different curriculum models for enabling epistemic access. Introduction: Background & rationale for the study In August 2013 the Council of Higher Education (CHE) released “A proposal for undergraduate curriculum reform in South Africa: A case for a flexible curriculum structure” (CHE, 2013). The proposed policy argues that the current curriculum structure poses a systemic obstacle to access and success that can only be overcome through deliberate intervention at a systemic level. The CHE proposes the introduction of an extended and flexible curriculum structure for undergraduate education in South Africa. In short, the proposal argues that all current 3-year degrees and diplomas, as well as four-year Bachelor’s degrees be extended by one year with an additional 120 credits. The notion of ‘flexible’ refers to the proposal for an accelerated route through exemption for those who can finish in less than four years. The case for structural curriculum reform is extensively argued (and not repeated here). The proposal clearly acknowledges that an extended structure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for curriculum reform. It is necessary because as Ndebele argues in the preface “the conditions on the ground dictate a fundamental systemic review of the undergraduate curriculum. More programme time, more flexibility, more system self-awareness” (CHE p. 9). A structural change is the ‘game changer’: it is what enables a different kind of curriculum. However it is not sufficient because as the proposal notes “true transformation will occur in the field of teaching itself” (CHE, 2013, p. 9). For nearly 30 years South Africa higher education institutions have been offering through their academic development programmes various versions of extended curricula (henceforth referred to as AD extended curricula). The proposal draws on the experience of these programmes – both their strengths and limitations – to argue for a number of ‘essential features’ of the Flexible degree: foundational provision, developmental support through key transitions of the degree, curriculum enhancement through ‘breadth’ and curriculum enrichment through key literacies. In order to illustrate what these high level principles might look like across different faculty domains, the proposal includes curriculum exemplars for four Bachelor’s degrees: BSc Eng, BCom (Accounting), BSc and the BA/BSocSci and one Diploma (DipEng). These exemplars -- produced by academics from across South African higher education institutions -- attempt to translate the Flexible degree principles into the realities of curriculum design, for example, credit load, core and electives and mechanisms for exemption, placement and progression. The public discussion in a range of both national and institutional fora revealed a great deal of confusion about precisely in what ways the Flexible degree is different, except longer, to the existing 3-year Bachelors or to existing AD extended curricula. A research project was launched, funded by the DHET collaborative Teaching Development Grant, which seeks to answer the question, “How is the Flexible degree/diploma different to the status quo – either the existing 3-year degree/diploma or the AD extended degree/diploma programme?” Or put more simply, if the Flexible degree is fundamentally about more time, the question is, more time for what? Given that the AD extended degrees also features ‘more time’, how is the Flexible Degree’s proposed use of additional time different? The project has two phases and the paper presents the key findings from phase one of the research project. In phase one we surface the key principles that underpin the Flexible degree proposal both at a high level and at the level of the specific qualifications. This was done through an analysis of the exemplars, followed up with interviews with exemplar leaders for each of the five degree/diploma types. The analysis of the documents and the interviews were structured around four analytical categories: selection (what?), pacing (how much?), sequence (what order?) and evaluation (what counts?). The paper unfolds in two parts: firstly, we offer some tools for conceptualizing curricula for epistemic access that emerge from the analysis of the exemplars and the interviews with staff. Secondly, we use the conceptual tools to describe the various curriculum models that emerge across the five exemplars. In phase two of the research project (not reported on here) we pursue to a further level of specificity how the implementation of these principles might vary across degree types and in different institutional contexts. Phase 2 involves institutional cases studies comprised of Cape Peninsula University of Technology, University of Cape Town, University of Fort Hare, and University of Johannesburg. The proposal notes that “the exemplars offer a valuable basis for further curriculum analysis and development in institutions … and that an elaboration of these will be a key contribution to implementing the new structure” (CHE, 2013, p. 122). It is our view that even if the Minister of DHET does not support the Flexible degree, this research is an important contribution to the next phase of development of, what we refer to as, a ‘new generation’ of extended curricula. The case is made in the proposal and further supported through this research that what we are currently doing is not enough and there are currently no reform initiatives at any level that address the scale of reform required. We echo the warning of Badat (2015) who, with specific reference to the CHE proposal argues, “unless much needed academic transformations are instituted, we will deny opportunities to people from socially subaltern groups, tragically waste the talents and potential of these individuals, and perpetuate injustice. This compromises democracy, which proclaims the promise of greater equality and a better life for all people.” Conceptualizing curriculum structure Curriculum can be differentiated into the intended and the enacted. The former refers to the curriculum structure and design, the later to how that design is implemented and its effects on learning and learners. The focus of much AD scholarship has been largely on the latter, on the learning and teaching that is enacted through a particular curriculum experience. To put it sociologically, South African Academic Development has focused its research on agency and less attention have been given to structure, in this case, the curriculum conditions that constitute the learning. Part of the challenge in focusing on these conditions is that the Academic Development community has lacked a theoretical language for discussing the intended curriculum. This paper offers a set of theoretical tools for conceptualizing curriculum structure in particular the curriculum conditions that enable epistemic access. This conceptualization is informed by the social realist school of sociology of education in particular the work of Basil Bernstein and Johan Muller. Bernstein defines curriculum as “what counts as valid knowledge” (Bernstein, 1975, p. 85). This definition places knowledge at the centre of its conceptualization of curricula. A concept of knowledge rooted in social realism insists, as Maton (2014) argues, that knowledge is “not only social, but it is also real… it has properties, powers and tendencies that have effects” (p. 9). Whatever else it may do, curricula must enable access to this knowledge – it must enable ‘epistemic access’. Before elaborating it is important to specify the scope of this paper. As noted above the CHE proposal notes that restructuring is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reform. There are many other conditions that are necessary to ensure the success of the Flexible degree in increasing equity of access and outcomes, including mechanisms for placement onto different curriculum pathways, alternative forms of pedagogy and assessment, as well as resources required for implementation, for example, educational development expertise, academic staff development, and a range of infrastructural needs. This paper does not deal with these issues but acknowledges their importance. A second qualifier is that enabling epistemic access and progression is not simply a matter of curriculum structure or more specifically only about more time. It is profoundly about particular ways of teaching that promote particular ways of learning (Case, 2011). This paper again acknowledges this but focuses its attention simply on the necessary structural conditions. “Epistemological access” is a term first coined by Morrow (2009) to make the point in the early post-apartheid days that formal access to the institutions that produce knowledge is not enough; “meaningful access is access to the knowledge ‘goods’” (Muller, 2014a, p. 2). Morrow (2009) argued that if one of the key purposes of higher education is to produce knowledgeable citizens then it follows that one of its core functions has to be to give students access to knowledge, access to what Morrow (2009) calls ‘epistemic values’ – the forms of inquiry of the disciplines. This is more than disciplinary content, it is the “grammar of inquiry” (p. 37). Morrow elaborates on this: “In this way of talking, any established and disciplined practice, such as civil engineering, teaching, mathematics, legal practice, biochemistry, history or primary healthcare, can be said to be constituted by a particular (but not necessarily exclusive) grammar…Higher knowledge of the practice in question would consist in understanding the constitutive grammar of the practice, the grammar that makes the practice what it is” (p. 120). The notion of the ‘grammar of the practice’ is somewhat cryptic. What is ‘epistemic access’ access to? In order to answer this question we need ways of conceptualizing different types of knowledge, disciplinary knowledge structures, curriculum ‘logics’ and qualification purposes. Then we turn to a discussion of the implications of these differences for curriculum models for extended degrees. Firstly, different types of knowledge. Muller (2014b), drawing on Winch, argues that epistemic access is access to both the propositional knowledge (‘know that’) and procedural knowledge (‘know how’) of the discipline Winch draws on Ryle who in fact notes 3 types.. According to Winch (2013) propositional knowledge is not isolated propositions, but propositions that are embedded within a conceptual structure (p. 130). Procedural knowledge is the ‘how to do something’ but Winch argues that what is critical is the way in which the propositional and the procedural knowledges are related to each other: some mastery of ‘know that’ is required for ‘know how’. The complexity of this relationship is underestimated in discussions about ‘skills’. Relevant to curriculum design is how these ‘know how’s “ascend epistemically” (Winch, 2013), in other words, how they increased in conceptual complexity. Hence why sequence in curriculum is critical. The challenge for curricula, argues Muller (2014b), is how to make visible the “epistemic obstacle course”, how to illuminate the “differential internal epistemic and pedagogical architecture that students have to negotiate” (Muller, 2014b, p. 7). While these challenges may be more acute for students from less privileged educational backgrounds, they are not their preserve alone. Muller argues that at least with reference to the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), the rapid growth in the specialization of knowledge will require greater explicitness in the future curriculum for all. “Demands for access to, and demands for, STEM knowledges and practical know-how will also escalate, bringing larger and more diverse constituencies into the universities” (p. 7). To further elaborate on the notion of ‘epistemic access’ we note that the particular combinations and progressions of ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ will vary depending on the structure of the knowledge that constitutes the discipline/s of the degree. Bernstein (2000) uses the notion of ‘structure’ to refer to the manner in which the knowledge grows or is produced. Differences between the sciences are characterized by Bernstein using the metaphors of ‘hierarchical’ and ‘vertical’: natural science disciplines are broadly characterized as hierarchical, in other words, they grow cumulatively, by subsumption of phenomenon into increasingly more higher-order explanatory principles/laws. The humanities are characterized as ‘horizontal’. They grow by the development of new ‘languages’ or theories that do not necessarily replace one another but are on offer as competing explanatory frameworks. These metaphors are limited but they alert curriculum designers to the very different epistemic conditions of these disciplinary domains. The epistemic ‘journey’ into science will not be the same as that into humanities due to the different structures of their respective disciplines. And finally the particular combinations and progressions of ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ will vary depending on the purpose of the qualification. The HEQSF specifies three broad qualification pathways – vocational, professional, general formative. These pathways point to different curriculum purposes and hence different ‘logics’, that is, what gives the curriculum sense or meaning (Muller, 2009). Formative degrees are typically constituted by a collection of ‘singulars’ or disciplines that have strong autonomy (Bernstein, 1975), for example, a science degree is made up of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The coherence or logic of this kind of curriculum is conceptual (Muller, 2009), in other words, the curriculum ‘spine’ is made up of the basic conceptual building blocks of those disciplines packaged up into, for example, Chemistry 100, 200 and 300. Similarly a humanities degree is a collection of ‘singulars’ such as history, sociology and politics, each of these with their own distinct ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ knowledge. Unlike science the conceptual progression of a humanities curriculum may be more arbitrary, evidenced by the heated debates over what goes in Sociology 100, 200 and 300. Nonetheless the coherence is still conceptually-driven. In contrast to this collection of ‘singulars’, professional degrees are more ‘integrated’. While in the foundation years they may start as a collection of singulars with a conceptual logic, for example the early years of a medical degree consisting of physics, chemistry, anatomy, at the advanced levels the ‘logic’ shifts towards a more contextual logic given the outward professional orientation of the degree. The curriculum at the more advanced levels assumes basic foundations are in place and requires integration across the ‘singulars’ and application to the ‘problems’ of the profession. These are fundamentally different epistemic journeys. The formative journey is one of increasing complexity along a conceptual spine. The professional journey requires fundamental epistemic transitions, for example, in Engineering from one kind of ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ of the basic sciences to another of the applied sciences to yet another of the design disciplines. Thus the epistemic transitions of the collection code curricula are different to those of the integrated code. There are also important differences in terms of the acquisition of professional identities in the latter. This is not elaborated in this paper but the ways in which knowledge specializes the knower is a crucial feature of epistemic development in vocational and professional qualifications. The implication of the above is that while there may be a set of general principles that characterize the Flexible degree (and these are discussed below), beyond these general principles, curricula which enable epistemic access will have different requirements depending on the knowledge/disciplinary domain (science vs. humanities) and the qualification type (formative vs. professional degrees vs vocational). The analysis that follows firstly extracts these general structural principles and then explores them in each of the qualification types to reveal different curriculum models. More time for what: principles of an enabling structure We now turn to make explicit the general principles of the enabling structure. In answering the question ‘more time for what?’, the CHE task team proposal argues that there are three structural problems that the Flexible degree needs to address: The first is “discontinuity between secondary and higher education in South Africa” what is referred to as the ‘articulation gap’ (CHE, p. 17). This is a structural gap which arguably could be addressed by improvements in the schooling sector but until such time as this happens higher education must interrogate and adjust where necessary its entry level assumptions. Drawing on decades of experience in ‘bridging’ this gap through extended curricula for talented but educationally disadvantaged students, the report stipulates that the extra time must be used to “provide additional curriculum time for foundational learning” (p. 18). This involves “… not only subject knowledge but also academic skills, approaches to study, background or contextual knowledge and forms of social capital” (p. 17). Thus in response to the systemic structural gap between secondary and higher education, a key feature of the restructured curriculum is the normalization of foundational provision. In other words it is not an add-on for a minority group of students Nationally only 15% of the students are enrolled on extended degrees (CHE, 2013, p. 73). but it is integrated into and part of regular degree provision. The second ‘structural’ problem that the curriculum reform must address is ‘key transitions’ through the undergraduate curriculum (p. 19). As noted above, these are essentially ‘epistemic’ transitions. Thus a further key feature of the restructured curriculum is reform beyond foundational provision into second and third year. The third ‘structural’ problem calling for “urgent attention” is curricula to be “enhanced to meet contemporary local and global conditions” (p. 19). This is the formation of a particular kind of graduate through “broadening the curriculum to include learning that is professionally and socially important in the contemporary world … and that lays the foundations for critical citizenship (p. 19). To summarize the general principles which characterize the flexible extended curriculum, at the entry level there is a recognition that serious knowledge gaps need to be filled given problematic curricular assumptions about students’ prior knowledge. There is further acknowledgment that addressing these gaps will not suffice and that beyond entry level there is a need to scaffold students’ epistemic development. Finally there is a need for a structure which enables greater ‘breadth’ of exposure in order to produce graduates for the contemporary world. Beyond the general principles for an enabling curriculum structure, what becomes clear from the data is that what this looks like – how epistemic access is enabled through the extended structures – varies. It varies across two dimensions – one is the nature or structure of the disciplinary knowledge and the purpose of the qualification. We now turn to these qualification specific differences. Bachelor of Science How does the extended structure of the Bachelor of Science (henceforth referred to as the 4Y BSc) enable epistemic access and development? Or, more time for what? The exemplar characterizes the 4Y BSc as a “redistribution of the load over four years” (CHE, 2013, p. 236). The aim is to “facilitat(e) the successful assimilation of scientific concepts and …translat(e) these into operational skills” (p. 230). This succinctly encapsulates the notion of epistemic access being about the ‘know that’ (the concepts) and the ‘know how’ (the operational skills). The question is, what kind of BSc structure would enable this? One way of conceptualizing the notion of ‘redistribution’ is that the 4YD BSc is a ‘stretch’ of the existing 3YD curriculum. This is both a helpful and limited metaphor. It is helpful in that it signals that the selection and sequence of the conceptual building blocks for the 3YD and the 4YD are largely the same. The ‘singulars’ that make up the BSc are hierarchical knowledge structures with strongly sequenced conceptual building blocks. The BSc curriculum coheres around a largely uncontested conceptual spine. There will be broad agreement among experts about the content and sequence of Chemistry 1-2-3, Physics 1-2-3 etc… One way to conceptualize the difference between the 3YD and the 4YD is that the conceptual ‘spine’ is simply stretched. Or drawing on another metaphor, the epistemic terrain to be covered remains unchanged, there is simply more time to explore and cover the ground. The question is, where is the stretch? The stretch could be predominantly (or only) in the first year, stretching ‘back’ to the school syllabus covering missing (or badly) covered content. The exemplar is clear however that the 4Y BSc is not only this. It distinguishes itself from what it calls ‘front-ended’ models of foundation provision or a 1+3 model. What distinguishes it is that the ‘stretch’ is in two places. It does indeed ‘stretch back’: semesters 1 and 2 of the 3YD (or the first 120 credits) are stretched over semesters 1, 2 and 3 of the 4YD into180 credits. The additional 60 credits in the first semester provide ‘introductory/foundational material’. This is an intentional strategy to address the articulation gap between the levels of preparedness in the basic sciences of maths, chemistry and physics. The second ‘stretch’ is that semesters 3 and 4 of the 3YD of 120 credits are stretched over semesters 4, 5 and 6 into 180 credits. The final year the 4YD is in theory identical to the final year of the 3YD, in other words, semester 5 and 6 of the 3YD and semester 7 and 8 of the 4YD are the same. This second ‘stretch’ points to a fundamental difference between the models of AD extended degree structure (as they currently exist in most institutions) and the Flexible Degree structure: the former largely ‘stretches’ back and leaves the rest of the curriculum intact. The Flexible Degree acknowledges the need for ‘more time’ across the degree. The limitations of the notion of ‘redistribution’ or ‘stretch’ is that it might suggest that there is no new content in the 4YD. This is not the case. Recall that the purpose of ‘stretching’ is not simply more time but making the ‘epistemic architecture’ (Muller, 2014b, p. 7) of the various disciplines more explicit. As when stretching fabric where the actual strands, weave and texture become more visible, the extra time is there to make more explicit and more visible the ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ of the specific disciplines. How this is done is a matter of pedagogy – the selection of material, the assessments that are set, the kinds of learning that are promoted. The assumption of the 4YD is that this ‘explicit-making’ pedagogy needs more time. So in summary, in the 4YD BSc more time (60 credits) is used in year 1 to consolidate essential basic conceptual building blocks and additional time (60 credits) is allocated to year 2 and 3 to build on those epistemic foundations. Bachelor of Humanities The exemplar is called Humanities and Social Science Bachelor’s Degree. We refer to it as Bachelor of Humanities (BHum) for short. The Bachelor of Humanities (BHum) is also a formative degree. Like the Bachelor of Science, its coherence is conceptual but there are important differences given that the ‘singulars’ that make up the BHum are typically more ‘horizontal’ in their knowledge structure; they develop through the acquisition of different perspectives/theories. This results in a different kind of epistemic journey and thus a different model of curriculum is required. The exemplar summarizes the difference between the 3YD and 4YD BHum as the latter would include the same amount of “content” but the added credits “would allow for greater focus on a vertical ‘spine’ of concepts and practices running through the four years” (CHE, p. 247). We return to the distinction between content and concepts below. The BHum exemplar stresses, as the BSci does, that epistemic access is both about ‘know that’ (the concepts/ content) and the ‘know how’ (practices). In answering the question -- more time for what? – there is a strong emphasis on the ‘know how’ but ‘know how’ that cannot be separated from the ‘know what’. Thus the vertical ‘spine’ or ‘thread’ of the curriculum is in fact a ‘braid’ of ‘know that’ and ‘know how’. The ‘know-how’ is referred to as ‘discipline-related academic practices’: these are the thinking/reading/writing practices of the disciplines (also referred to as ‘academic literacies’). Their inseparability from the disciplines is stressed repeatedly: “At the root of academic reading and writing, therefore, are a set of discipline-based principles and values related to what counts as knowledge and how knowledge can be known” (CHE, 2013, p. 245) We turn to two different kinds of ‘know that’ in the exemplar: the distinction between ‘content’ and ‘concept’. Inferred in the exemplar is the practice of designing Humanities curricula with reference to a particular ‘content’ logic. The example given is a Sociology curriculum which focuses on sociology of the family in the first year and ‘progresses’ to the sociology of education in the second year and perhaps to sociology of the South African economy in third year. It could be argued that this content selection and sequence is rather arbitrary; it may have more to do with the interests and specializations of the academic staff than any inherent progression in conceptual complexity. In this way of constructing a curriculum the requisite academic practices (or ‘know how’) is assumed to be present at entry or acquired along the way. In this way of thinking, the skill of, for example, critically reading a text is acquired by being required to critically read a text. In contrast the 4Y BHum is designed using the following principles: keep the ‘content’ coverage the same but use this content to develop the vertical spine of concepts and practices identified as central to the disciplines. The added year allows for more time to develop the ‘spine’ of concepts and practices. Interestingly, in contrast to the ‘content’ (family vs. economy) the conceptual logic is less arbitrary. It is argued that there is a “hierarchy of concepts and practices” which is necessary to build up a particular kind of knower/gaze, for example, a historical or sociological way of viewing a particular problem. The example is given from History where the ability ‘to assess secondary sources’ precedes the ability to ‘use primary sources based on archival research’. So, more time for what? The answer is, additional curriculum space is given to the essential conceptual ‘know what’ and especially the ‘know how’ of the disciplines which were previously assumed to be acquired. So what is the best curriculum model for this? Here different options present themselves Only one of these models is presented in the report exemplar, the other model emerged in the interview. . There is agreement that the best model will keep the ‘know that’ of the concepts close to the ‘know how’ of the practices. Thus the allocation of extra credits to ‘generic’ reading and writing skills is firmly denounced by the exemplar. From this point there are two options: One model simply extends, for example, SOC 100, 200, 300 into SOC100, 200, 300 and 400, and embeds the conceptual and practice-based ‘know-how’ into these core modules of the major. Another model is to ‘front-load’ the curriculum with developmental modules that provide ‘dedicated’ curriculum space for these concepts and practices. Even in this model its success depends on the conceptual/practice threads introduced in the foundation developmental modules being pulled through upstream. One way of doing this is to give second and third year level courses additional space/credit values – they are ‘augmented’ through extra lectures or tutorials. Both models agree on the epistemic inseparability of the ‘know that’ and the ‘know how’ – whether these are fully embedded or partially embedded in core modules depends on issues of autonomy, resources, and staff expertise. Bachelor of Science (Engineering) Given that the epistemic taproot for an Engineering degree is Science, it is not surprising to find similarities between their epistemic journeys. There are however two important inter-related differences which affect the curriculum model. Firstly, in Engineering the epistemic journey experiences a number of key transitions and secondly, the professional purpose of the degree means that the curriculum logic is both conceptual and contextual. With respect to the epistemic transitions, in science epistemic progression is largely a matter of increasing conceptual complexity (though clearly there are differences across the various science disciplines). By contrast in Engineering there are marked differences in the ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ as the curriculum progresses. The exemplar is clear that extra time is needed to support “transition points at which students are expected to be able to think in different ways and deal with different types of knowledge” (CHE, 2013, p. 170). These are characterized as transitions from school to university, basic sciences to engineering sciences, engineering sciences to design, from knowledge of discrete subjects to analysis of systems and integration of knowledge (p. 170). In addition to adherence to key conceptual building blocks, the logic of the curriculum must simultaneously adhere to the requirements of practice or demonstrate contextual coherence. The exemplar notes that the curriculum needs to produce “qualified engineers who have the knowledge, skills and attributes to contribute to the quality of life of the societies in which they work and who are able to be gainfully employed” (p. 170). This signals that epistemic access is an induction into ‘know that’ (knowledge) and ‘know how’ (skills, as well as attributes) marshalled for particular professional purposes. What are the implications of this for the model of curriculum? The key difference between the existing 4YD and the 5YD is the inclusion of what are called ‘developmental courses’. In the exemplar there are 10 additional courses that account for the additional 120 credits. These courses are spread thickly at entry and more sparsely toward the exit of the qualification -- a kind of a triangle of development support. Of the ten courses four are in the first year, like the 4Y BSc, in recognition of the need for extra foundational credits that ‘stretch back’ and fill gaps, to firm up shaky or non-existent conceptual foundations. These are foundations in mathematics, physics and chemistry. There is an additional Introduction to Graphical Communication for students who have no background in technical drawing. In second year, there are three courses supporting the epistemic transition from basic to engineering sciences and the particular epistemic requirements of design. In the third year, there are two courses to support students’ transitions into modelling and systems. Each of these transitions represent not simply new content, or new concepts, but they are as one interviewee reported “fundamentally different ways of thinking”. As Morrow (2009) might describe it, different “grammars of inquiry”. The last additional course - in the fourth year - provides advanced communication. The contextual coherence becomes more pronounced further along the degree. These are the professional requirements – such as professional and technical communication, professional and ethical behaviour and the importance of sustainable development. At the risk of over-simplication, the curriculum model in Science could be characterized as ‘stretch’, in Hum it is a ‘wrap’, in Engineering it is essentially a ‘thickening’ or ‘padding’ of support which enables a smoother passage across a changing epistemic topography. The metaphors are not perfect but the point is that each extended curriculum structure/model is responding to the particular epistemic demands of the degree. Bachelor of Commerce In each case indicate what the exemplars focus on – General BCom How does the 4Y BCom extended structure enable epistemic access and development? In terms of the epistemic terrain to be covered, there are similarities between the 5Y BSc(Eng) and the 4Y BCom. They have common epistemic taproots in the sciences and mathematics in particular, and both have a professional orientation. The general BCom is a formative degree, but has a strong professional orientation. The exemplar states that the purpose of the re- structuring is to enable graduates to “attain the knowledge levels and attributes required by employers and relevant professional bodies” (CHE, 2013, p. 202). So, more time for what? The intention of the 4Y BCom is two-fold. Given the under-preparedness of incoming students, particularly in mathematics but also in areas such as accounting and economics, some of the extra time is intended to strengthen conceptual foundations. The second aim is to broaden students’ knowledge of the field. This broadening is seen as important given the reality that many students come into a BCom with naïve motivations – as one interviewee noted, “students decide to do a BCom with the idea of, ‘I want to make money, I want to have my own business’”. Thus what can be inferred from the exemplar is that epistemic access and development is ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ but with a strong orientation towards particular professional context within the field of commerce and business. This strengthening of foundations and broadening of experience happens as with the extended BSc (Eng) through ten courses that make up the extra 120 credits. Eight of these courses (foundation courses) are in the first year and two (developmental courses) in second and fourth. Thus, consistent with all the models above, the ‘extra time/credit’ is ‘thick’ in first year but spreads beyond first year. In terms of the foundation courses, the assumption is that many students have weak mathematical grounding, limited information technology skills, and often have very limited exposure to the world of business. Thus six of the ten courses are Mathematics, Computer Application, Statistics, and three introductory courses in Economics and Accounting. Economics and Accounting are standard BCom courses but the foundation courses offer a “structured introduction to skills, history, context but also cover the 1st year material” (p. 218). In addition to these first year courses intended to broaden students’ knowledge and experience there are two semesters of introduction to Integrated Business Studies. These courses are “language-rich and will enable the development of business acumen, familiarity with the discourse and practical applications in realistic contexts” (p. 217). Following from Business Studies in years 2 and 3 there are courses in Business Ethics, Business Law, Commercial Law and a final capstone course in year 4. These courses constitute an important strand in the curriculum of exposure to the broader field or curriculum ‘breadth’. It is not clear whether this strand is more ‘know-that’ or ‘know-how’. Neither is its relationship to the other strands clear, for example, the majors in economics or accounting. Like the 5Y BSc (Eng) there is an acknowledgment of “critical articulation and transition points” but these are not described as epistemic transitions. They appear to be more about transitions of ‘context’ – from school to University with its shift in volume and complexity of work, from university to the world of work and the need for graduate attributes. The third transition is what they call the ‘gate keeper’ courses, for example, the transition from Accounting 2 to 3 with its minimum requirements. The transition between different kinds of disciplines is not noted, for example, Economics and Management Studies have different knowledge structures with the former having some features of hierarchical knowledge structures and the latter more horizontal. Diploma of Engineering How does the extended structure (Dip Eng) enable epistemic access and development? More time for what? There are similarities between the 5Y BSc (Eng) and the 4Y Dip Eng in terms of the epistemic journey. Both curricula are premised on a progression from foundational basic sciences to integration across these knowledge domains for application and problem-solving. One of the differences however is that the Diploma has a stronger contextual coherence given its strong orientation towards practice: “the principle of progression is across the different knowledge areas towards increasingly complex integrated forms of practice” (CHE, 2013, p. 184). Once again we see a strong relationship between ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ where in this case the ‘know that’ enables, indeed needs to serve the ‘know how’. What does this look like in terms of curriculum structure and how is ‘more time’ used? In order to understand how more time enables epistemic access and development towards these “integrated forms of practice”, it is useful to contrast it with the existing AD extended curriculum. The existing AD extended curriculum is the provision of ‘extra time’ to complete the first two or three semesters of mainstream content, but with additional foundational support in core content, notably in subjects such as physics, chemistry and mathematics. This approach, together with a range of ‘academic support’ initiatives (academic literacies and mentorship programmes, for example) are generally targeted at bridging the structural gap from secondary to tertiary education. From the end of first year or mid-way through second year, the extended curriculum reverts to mainstream. This is essentially a 1+3 model. In contrast to this existing model, the flexible curriculum exemplars for the engineering diplomas stress that the purpose of the qualifications is the provision of ‘a sound knowledge base in the discipline… and the ability to apply their knowledge and skills to particular career or professional contexts’ (p. 187). In terms of selection, the core disciplinary knowledge areas see allocation of more time for deepening and extending the same traditional ‘content’, not only as a response to ‘foundational gaps’, but also as a response to increasing complexity of the professional field. The most significant structural reform is the weaving of ‘application’ opportunities (drawing on the appropriate disciplinary content) through the curricula. In other words, there is a defined pattern of theory/practice sequencing which sees more time for both conceptual development and contextual application, with the latter becoming increasingly complex and situated in relation to the profession itself. The exemplars demonstrate significant structural reform in addressing the need for the application of knowledge in complex, professional contexts through a ‘woven’ as opposed to ‘add-on’ approach to the required knowledge practice development. Discussion & Conclusion In this paper we seek to answer the question, how is the proposed Flexible degree different to the existing Bachelors/Diploma and AD extended degrees? The principle difference is more time, but more time for what? Given that more time is a necessary but not sufficient condition, the fundamental difference between the Flexible degree structure and the status quo is that the later must enable epistemic access and development. In order to elaborate on what this might mean we offered some tools for conceptualizing different types of knowledge, knowledge structures, curriculum ‘logics’ and qualification purposes. The implications of these differences for different models of curriculum are then discussed using the CHE exemplars. In contrast to the existing three-year Bachelor’s but consistent with the existing AD extended degrees, the Flexible degree unequivocally acknowledges and addresses the structural articulation gap between secondary school provision and university preparedness. The Flexible degree/diploma is premised on a fundamentally different set of assumptions about the necessary entry point conceptual foundations. It assumes that these conceptual foundations are required for the majority, not the current minority who benefit from AD. The Flexible degree normalizes this foundational provision. This normalization is not only educationally sound but it sends an important political signal. In the current climate the existing AD beneficiaries often feel stigmatized, even ‘pathologized’ by AD provision. This is acutely so for black students in historically white universities. The reaction of university management to these perceptions may be to retreat from such provision or make it voluntary in an attempt to treat all students equally. We argue that curricula premised on ‘equal’ treatment when the entry level playing field is not equal is wrong. It will only perpetuate social injustice. It will have the effect as de Vos (2014) argues of ‘freezing inequality’ (also Badat on this). In contrast to the AD extended curriculum the main difference is that the Flexible curriculum structure assumes that epistemic access and development is not something which can be achieved in a year – the epistemic journey is a long one. While the AD extended programmes have made an important contribution, they have not been as successful as they need to be. In some cases, particularly in science and engineering, the cohort completion rates are dismal. Further analysis in Phase 2 of the research will attempt to explore this in more detail. Higher Education in South Africa finds itself at a critical crossroad. The 1997 White Paper commits us simultaneously to the imperatives of redressing the inequalities of the past and addressing the needs for growth in an increasingly competitive global future. In South Africa the latter cannot be achieved without the former. The CHE’s curriculum reform must be understood as a bold systemic policy proposal for navigating this tension. In the preface to the CHE proposal, Ndebele writes, “This publication is one of an increasing number of signals that South African democracy is entering the second stage of its historic new life.” He notes that a marked feature of these ‘signals’ is the diligent critique of a “future more evoked than realised in self-conscious effort: a future that keeps receding because it seems to disappear in a murky and unfocussed present severely lacking in human capacity” (CHE, 2013, p. 8). Whether the policy proposal is approved by the State or not, the Academic Development community in South Africa (in its widest inclusive sense) stands as a remarkable pool of capacity to bring about the necessary curriculum reform at this crossroad. References Badat, S. (2015, March 29). Social Justice in Higher Education: Universities, State, and Philanthropy. The advancement and financing of the social justice mission of Higher Education institutions: A symposium. Cape Town. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes & control (Vol. III). London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique, rev. edn. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Case, J. (2011). Knowledge matters: interrogating the curriculum debate in engineering using the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Education(51), 1-20. CHE. (2013). A proposal for undergraduate curriculum reform in South Africa. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. De Vos, P. (2014, August 29). Can the constitution respond to the challenge of addressing South Africa's inequality? Retrieved from The South African Civil Society Information Service: http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/2117 DOE. (1997). Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Government Gazette, Vol. 386, No. 18207, Notice 1196 of 1997, July. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London and New York: Routledge. Morrow, W. (2009). Bounds of democracy: epistemological access in higher education. Cape Town: HSRC Press. Muller, J. (2009). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 205-226. Muller, J. (2014a). Every picture tells a story: Epistemological access and knowledge. Education As Change, 1-15. Muller, J. (2014b). The future of knowledge and skills in science and technology higher education. Higher Education, 1-8. Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum design and epistemic ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 128-146. 1