Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 16:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of LifelongEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tled20
Students as learners through the eyesof their teachers in Rwandan highereducationPenelope Mbabazi Bamwesiga a , Lars-Owe Dahlgren b & AndreasFejes ca doctoral student in Education at Linköping University , Swedenb professor in Education at Linköping University , He sadly passedaway in 2011c Associate Professor in Education at Linköping University ,SwedenPublished online: 06 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Penelope Mbabazi Bamwesiga , Lars-Owe Dahlgren & Andreas Fejes (2012)Students as learners through the eyes of their teachers in Rwandan higher education, InternationalJournal of Lifelong Education, 31:4, 503-521, DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2012.689377
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.689377
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Students as learners through the eyes of theirteachers in Rwandan higher education
PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA, LARS-OWEDAHLGREN and ANDREAS FEJESLinkoping University, Sweden
In this study, we aim to explore and thematically analyze higher education teachers’notions about the most important problems related to students’ learning, including theteachers’ notions about the approaches to learning adopted by students. The study wascarried out in Rwanda with 25 university teachers engaged in group interviews. Inspiredby the concepts of metaphors for learning and approaches to learning, five main catego-ries of students’ learning problems were identified: dependence, physical and economicresources, experience of a deep approach to learning, reading culture, and previous prep-aration for higher education. These problems are interrelated and point to the need tounderstand study levels in education systems as interdependent.
Introduction
As a knowledge-based society and economy become the focus of the twenty-firstcentury, higher education is deemed increasingly important, and thus thedemand for higher education in Africa has increased (Openjuru 2011). One ofthe challenges and major problems for education in Africa is quality (Materu2007); in order to enhance quality, there is a need to increase the focus onissues of quality assurance (cf. Woldetensea 2008). This article takes Rwanda as acase study. The Rwandan government stresses the improvement of the capacityof its people as the solution to transiting to a knowledge-based economy. How-ever, previous studies show that the quality of graduates from Post Basic Educa-tion (PBE) is not adequate to serve the economy’s needs across all sectors(MINEDUC-ESSP 2010). Accordingly, the Ministry of Education is calling for asystem of higher education that is aligned with contemporary trends, such as theshift towards student-centred forms of teaching and the ambition to bridge thegap between higher education and working life (MINEDUC-ESSP 2010).
A similar concern regarding quality in learning has been recognised in previ-ous research, where it is argued that it is important to focus on assuring andenhancing the quality of teaching and learning in universities (cf. Biggs 2001,
Penelope Mbabazi Bamwesiga is a doctoral student in Education at Linkoping University, Sweden. Corre-spondence: Linkoping University, Department of Behavioural Science and Learning, IBL, Campus Valla,Linkoping, SE-58183 Sweden. Email: [email protected] Dahlgren was a professor in Education at Linkoping University. He sadly passed away in 2011.Andreas Fejes is an Associate Professor in Education at Linkoping University, Sweden. Correspondence:Linkoping University, Department of Behavioural Science and Learning, IBL, Campus Valla, Linkoping,SE-58183, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, VOL. 31, NO. 4 (JULY–AUGUST 2012), 503–521
International Journal of Lifelong Education ISSN 0260-1370 print/ISSN 1464-519X online � 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandfonline.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.689377
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Abrandt Dahlgren and Dahlgren 2002). In order to enhance quality thereshould be a shift towards a student-centred perspective, where the focus is onstudents’ learning (Abrandt Dahlgren and Dahlgren 2002). Similarly, Mashishiand Rabin (1999) argue that if the aim of educators is to prepare students tocope with the demands of the business world, educators need to improve theirown teaching, drawing on research on student learning at the tertiary level.Doing so would constitute a step towards creating an understanding of institu-tions of higher education as a university of learning, rather than a university ofteaching or of research (cf. Bowden and Marton 1998). One possible require-ment for such a change is an understanding of the nature of the prevailing cul-ture of learning and knowledge. Thus, the aim of this study is to describe andanalyse teachers’ notions about the most important problems when it comes tostudents’ learning and the way they approach learning.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework aims to provide an understanding of student learn-ing. Two areas will be covered: metaphors for learning and approaches to learn-ing. This framework will be used to develop a deeper understanding of what theteachers have to say about the students’ ways of understanding and how they setabout learning.
Current knowledge about students’ learning in higher education has beengenerated through empirical studies where students have been the informants(e.g. Marton and Saljo 1984, Mashishi and Rabin 1999, Biggs 2001, Entwistleet al. 2001, Ramsden 2003, Rodriguez and Cano 2006, Chen et al. 2007, Dahlgrenet al. 2009). There is, however, a shortage of studies in which teachers have beenasked to give their views on student learning, especially in relation to Africanuniversities. The present study introduces a new dimension to the research onstudent learning by investigating teachers’ perspectives on the different prob-lems students are assumed to face when engaged in learning and the ways inwhich they go about their learning.
Basic metaphors for learning
By concentrating on the basic metaphors for learning, we hope to make visiblesome of the fundamental assumptions underlying both learning and our prac-tice as students and teachers. The current discourse on learning includes at leasttwo basic metaphors: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor.The struggle is about trying to shift from traditional learning, which is alignedwith the acquisition metaphor, to more contemporary notions of learning domi-nated by the participation metaphor. The acquisition metaphor for learning, inthe words of Sfard (1998), conceives of human learning as an acquisition ofsomething——the act of gaining knowledge, whereby the basic units of knowl-edge can be accumulated, gradually refined and combined to form ever richercognitive structures. In contrast, the participation metaphor is based on the con-temporary view of learning that focuses on the evolving bonds between the indi-vidual and others, giving prominence to the aspect of mutuality characteristicsof part-whole relationships and thus making salient the dialectic nature of thelearning interaction rather than the individual mind.
504 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
The learning process entails transmission, grasp, reception, internalisation,acquisition, accumulation and so on, while learning during participationmirrors togetherness, solidarity and collaboration, and hence promotes aninterest in people in action. Among the indicators of change are expressionssuch as learning in the community, cooperative learning, communication,reflective discourse and collective reflection and democratic competence. Oneimportant aspect in order for change to take place is that the learner becomesan integral part of the team, interested in participating in certain kinds ofactivities rather than in accumulating private possessions. However, Sfard(1998) and Lave and Wenger (1991) warn us about promoting just one of themetaphors, claiming that learning is after all a kind of interplay between indi-vidual experiences and reflection and participation in social contexts. Contem-porary research views learning as legitimate peripheral participation, or as anapprenticeship in thinking. Rogoff (1990) proposes the idea of apprenticeshipparticipation, referring to the system of values that guides the newcomer to acommunity of practice, the relationship between the nature of the activityinvolved and the institutions of the community in which it occurs. When seek-ing to understand learning and develop ways to approach learning tasks in awell-organised manner, students in higher education would benefit from havingteachers who are good role models.
Approaches to learning
The fundamental concept of approaches to learning emerged in the 1970s (seefor example Marton and Saljo 1976). There are two well-known contrastingapproaches: deep and surface approaches to learning. Based on a number ofstudies, a deep approach to learning may be described as the capacity to criti-cally examine new facts and ideas, incorporating them in existing cognitivestructures and making numerous links between ideas. This eventually leads tothe understanding and long-term retention of ideas so that they can be used tosolve problems in unfamiliar contexts. A surface approach to learning, on theother hand (Marton and Saljo 1984, Entwistle et al. 2001, Ramsden 2003), isdefined as accepting new facts and ideas uncritically and attempting to storethem as isolated, unconnected items, which does not promote understanding orlong-term retention of knowledge and information.
The ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects of learning are important to this view. The‘what’ aspect concerns the meaning of a learning task, while the ‘how’ aspectconcerns the structure of a learning task; depending on how the two aspectshave been merged, one can talk of either a deep-holistic approach or a surface-atomistic approach being employed by students (Ramsden 2003). The practiceof deep or surface learning may be influenced by a variety of factors, in particu-lar the learning environment, teaching approaches, conception of knowledgeand learning and assessment methods, all of which are shared by the teacherand the student (cf. Prosser and Trigwell 1999, Biggs 2001, Abrandt Dahlgrenet al. 2007, Dahlgren et al. 2009). Based on the above, it is worth mentioningthat every learning situation should include the potential for application (ofsomething learned previously), and every application situation implies thepotential for learning (something new).
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 505
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Furthermore, Ramsden (2003) presents three qualitatively different levels inlearning. The most abstract level comprises thinking critically and imaginatively,and being able to communicate effectively, while at the second level there aremore specific, content-related changes in understanding linked to specific disci-plines or professions. Finally, there are highly categorical proficiencies such asknowledge of factual information, technical and manipulative skills and specificproblem-solving techniques. Knowledge at all these levels, and the ability to con-nect knowledge between the levels, is regarded as essential if graduating studentsare to be considered educated people. Related to this, Bowden and Marton(1998) suggest that learners need to acquire rich experiences in their learning,since the ability to deal with varying situations in the future by discerning theircritical features and focusing on them simultaneously originates from past experi-ences. Thus developing familiarity with ways of being, ways of thinking and waysof seeing the world through the eyes of students is central in order to enhancethe quality of learning. University education should inspire and enable individu-als to develop their capabilities to the highest possible levels throughout life sothat they grow intellectually, are well-equipped to work and can contribute effec-tively to society and achieve personal fulfilment (Ramsden 2003).
Higher education in Rwanda
According to the Rwanda National Qualification Framework (RNQF), highereducation comprises learning institutions that provide further general or techno-logical training programmes compared to those provided by secondary schooleducation (Ministry of Justice 2006). The higher education subsector is currentlyundergoing far-reaching reforms which are closely linked to the global forcesgreatly influencing the country’s development agenda, mainly aimed at carving aniche in the knowledge-based society and competing effectively on the labourmarket (MINEDUC-ESSP 2010). As Rwanda strives for acceptability and inte-gration into a wider community——both regional and international——and ashigher education tries to reform, the goal is to give citizens access to quality edu-cation and thus enable them to compete in the world of work. In order toachieve such aims, the Higher Education Council (HEC) drew up a NationalQualification Framework and the associated code of practice that spelt out thestandards meant to support the higher education institutions (HEIs) in providingappropriate learning programmes that are internationally credible; the frame-work aimed at transforming the quality of higher education to be more fit forpurpose (HEC-NQF 2007: 2). The HEC defines quality as being ‘fit for purpose’,meaning that the provision of education enables the students to achieve theintended learning outcomes, which are normally designed to meet the needs ofRwanda. HEIs have the responsibility of publicly demonstrating their sensitivityto national needs, as well as demonstrating that the standard of the educationand training they provide is such that the qualifications can be recognisednationally, regionally and internationally.
Since 2008, the Bologna modular system has been used in teaching andlearning practices in Rwanda. The shift to the Bologna modular system was aninitiative intended to improve the quality of students’ learning by emphasisinga learner-centred approach rather than the teacher-centred one which had
506 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
previously monopolised the education system. It also sought to address thechallenges of limited transferability of students from one institution toanother, failure to permit multiple entries and exits for students and difficul-ties in comparing the programmes of different institutions that characterisedthe previous education system (MINEDUC-HEC, 2007). The Executive Directorof HEC explains:
There was much to gain in terms of quality assurance for graduates if uni-versities adopted the modular system as opposed to the traditional way ofteaching; we have been using the teacher-centred type of teaching wherethe lecturer provides the students with everything hence giving them nochance to do their own research. But this new system will allow participa-tory learning for the students. It allows the component of several teachersdelivering various sections of the module, which helps in quality assurancedue to the more detailed nature of subjects. (Kwizera 2010)
Higher education strives, among other things, to ensure that teaching and learn-ing are based on explicit learning outcomes which are consistent with programmeaims, and that the methods used are innovative and varied as regards the statedlearning outcomes. One aim of the teaching approaches is to encourage indepen-dent learning with critical thinking and to have the students take responsibilityfor their own learning. As this is a change in the teaching system, teachers havebeen required to take the different students’ needs into account as part of theirteaching practice (Mugisha 2010). According to MINEDUC-ESSP (2010), learn-ing could be enriched by means of appropriate references to cross-curricularlinks, current research, industrial applications and the development of genericskills such as communication and teamwork. Additionally, feedback could beobtained regularly from students and employers and analysed and acted upon asappropriate.
Today, according to the MINEDUC-ESSP 2010-2015 (2010), the major chal-lenge is to ensure quality and equality in education, improving the quality ofteaching and learning in order for the graduates to have the requisite catalyticskills. Some studies raise concern about students’ academic preparedness, suggest-ing that graduates from higher education may lack the competence and lifelonglearning skills needed to be successful in the world of work (ESSP 2010: 26). TheRwandan Minister of Education and the Executive Director of HEC state that theissue of poor quality of graduates has often been raised and the higher educationprovided has weak linkages to the labour market, with low employability of gradu-ates and incompatibility with employers’ needs (Kwizera 2010, 2011, ESSP 2010:26). This may be attributed to the need to address the issue of quality in teachingand learning in higher education, especially in view of the increasing competitionfor employability skills in the labour market (ESSP 2010: 26).
With reference to previous studies, it is important to develop knowledgeabout how students approach and orchestrate their learning, and what beliefsthey hold about knowledge and learning, as a way forward in order to enhanceteaching and learning (Rodriguez and Cano 2006). This study relates to such anambition by focusing on students’ approaches to learning and their problems asregards their learning. It is assumed that in order to improve this kind of prac-tice, the problems students face must be understood.
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 507
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Methodological considerations
Design and data collection
In order to obtain a variety of understandings about the important problemsrelated to students’ learning and how they approach it, a variety of teachers wereengaged. This study targeted teachers as significant actors in the students’ life(Chen et al. 2007) as they would thus be able to provide important views aboutstudents’ learning and their approaches to it. Focus groups were used as ameans of capitalising on group interaction to facilitate the collection of richresponses to the questions posed. According to Patton (2002: 385), focus groupinterviews should consist of small groups of approximately 6 to 10 people withsimilar backgrounds in order to obtain a variety of perspectives.
Data collection took place in conjunction with a workshop on teaching andlearning in higher education organised at the National University of Rwanda.Participating teachers were informed that a research project about student learn-ing was in progress and were invited to participate in interviews. One of theresearchers explained the nature and purpose of the study and it was made clearto the participants that the researchers would maintain the confidentiality ofparticipants by using codes so as not to reveal their identity. A total of 25 teach-ers volunteered to participate in the interviews and were asked to stay behindafter the workshop for the data collection interviews. Of the 25 participants, fivewere from the area of education, five from economics and management, fourfrom medicine, four from agriculture, six from arts and humanities and onefrom the faculty of sciences. The teachers were randomly divided into five focusgroups (GI, G2, G3, G4, G5) and five moderators were randomly allocated tothe five groups; each group consisted of five teachers and one PhD candidate asa moderator. The reason for mixing the groups was in line with the aim of focusgroups, which is to gain a variety of opinions about the phenomenon discussed.Accordingly, the aim was to have a variety of opinions rather than making acomparison of teachers from different faculties.
Two main questions were asked and discussed by the groups: the first con-cerned important problems when it comes to students’ learning, while the sec-ond concerned students’ ways of setting about learning. Each group discussedthe questions under the leadership of the moderator; at the end of the sessionseach moderator presented the aspects highlighted by his/her group and themembers elaborated if clarification was considered necessary. The data were col-lected in the form of notes by moderators, thus the notes represent what theteachers as a group stated rather than their exact ways of expressing themselves.This also extends to the excerpts which appear in the study findings: they havebeen taken from the notes of the moderators as a representation of a grouprather than an individual statement.
It must also be acknowledged that focus groups, like all forms of data collec-tion, have their limitations and their findings must be considered tentatively.The most significant challenges concern first the difficulty in capturing non-verbal interactions, since researchers may have less control over the direction ofthe discussion compared to a one-on-one interview, and second the possibilitythat as a consequence of the size of the group, not everyone has a chance tocontribute (Patton 2002). These challenges were addressed by the moderators,
508 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
who made written notes while the focus groups were being interviewed andlinked non-verbal interaction to the verbal accounts. The direction and controlof the discussion were facilitated by the researchers preparing a line of question-ing prior to the interview and having moderators manage the discussion. Thesize of the group was limited to allow all participants to contribute.
Data analyses
In order to establish descriptive categories, the different understandings withinand between groups were thematically analysed. Thematic analysis is a methodfor identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It mini-mally organises and describes the data set in rich detail, and may even interpretaspects of the phenomenon (Braun and Clarke 2006: 79, Boyatzis 1998). Thethemes identified are strongly linked to the data and the ‘keyness’ of a theme isnot necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures, but rather on whether itcaptures something important in relation to the overall research question(Braun and Clarke 2006: 82). The analysis was conducted following the variousphases of familiarisation with data, generating initial codes, searching forthemes, reviewing themes, defining and naming and producing the report, asrecommended by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Familiarisation with the content and understanding of the data began duringdata collection and continued during analysis. While searching for meaningsand patterns, a list of ideas about what was in the data and what was interestingabout the data was produced. Data extracts were then coded and groupedtogether. Through compilation and reduction, an organised version of a fewsorted data-based themes was constructed. Here, multiple groupings of codeswere made based on their meaning and all the relevant coded data extracts werethen collated within the agreed potential themes, thus ensuring that the extractsfitted into their themes and that the proposed themes actually captured the con-tours of the coded data. Defining and naming the themes was made possible byreaching an understanding of the relationship between codes forming a themeand the difference between the constructed themes. Attention was paid tonames identified, with care taken about the language to ensure that the nameswere concise and gave the reader an immediate sense of what it referred to.Through negotiated consensus, the final meaning and themes Dependence, Physi-cal and economic resources, Experience of a deep approach to learning, Reading cultureand Previous preparation for higher education were created. A clear description ofthe five themes in relation to important problems when it comes to students’learning and the ways in which they approach it is provided below. A number ofextracts demonstrating the prevalence of the theme have been provided.
Findings
The findings build on the following question posed to the participants: What arethe most important problems when it comes to students’ learning and the way theyapproach learning? In the empirical data, a fairly large number of points wereraised by the participants. Table 1 lists the main themes identified to provide an
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 509
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
organising framework prior to presentation of the detailed findings. Each sec-tion begins with a brief description of the meaning of each theme, followed byexcerpts from the interview chosen to provide both a ‘flavour’ of the evidenceon which the summaries are based and an expansion and clarification of the dis-tinctions being made. At the end of each section, our results are related to pre-vious research.
Dependence
Students’ dependence on teachers was seen as a problem for their learning andthe ways in which they approach it. Below are some comments from teachers onthe issue of dependence.
Students fail to participate in learning; the students expect the teacher tostudy and then bring the knowledge to them. (G1, G2, G3, G5)
Students are dependent on the teacher; students think that all the knowl-edge comes from the teachers, and the time spent on learning is a wasteof time. (G1)
During teaching and learning, the teacher’s time is most effective. (G1,G2, G5)
Students feel that a teacher is an authority and should not be questioned;this makes students see themselves in a receiver’s position where theyexpect to receive everything from their teachers. (G3, G5)
Outside class, there is no contact with lecturers and students feel aban-doned and believe no study can take place without him/her. This, in turn,gives lecturers so much power, as they continue to spoon-feed the studentsand hold them to ransom through tests, examinations and other forms offormal assessment. (GI)
Table 1. Aspects of the participants’ utterances
DependenceFailure to participate in learningTeacher dependentKnowledge comes from teacherPower relationTeacher time most effective
Physical and economic resourcesLimited resources
Experience of a deep approach to learningAbsence of reflection during studying
Reading cultureLack of reading culture
Previous preparation for higher educationStudents not prepared for higher education
510 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
When analysing these teachers’ comments about dependence, the followingaspects are discerned: reliance, sufficiency, a lack of necessity for students to beinvolved and committed, and power relations. Here, the implication is that theteacher is regarded as the guardian and conveyor of knowledge. Is this attribut-able to learning experience?
In the third excerpt above, the explanation given is that most time is utilisedby the teacher, and that the teacher’s time is more effective than the students’.The explanation given by the teachers explicitly shows that students are not anintegral part of the learning activity, such that they are not active participants.Further it can be recognised from the teachers’ illustration that limited interac-tion exists between the teachers and the students.
There is also an aspect of power relations stressed above; students might feelthat they cannot be free with their teachers. There is an argument that studentsview their teachers as an authority and as unchallengeable; this in turn givesteachers so much power that learning cannot take place without them. If one crit-ically considers the teachers’ comments, one can discern an aspect of ineffectivenetworking between students and teachers. According to the findings, studentshave learnt throughout their educational career that a teacher is an unchallenge-able, inaccessible, unfamiliar person who has the power to determine their future.Students have taken this kind of conception with them into higher education andstill refer to it in their interaction with teachers. According to the findings, thiscould be an obstacle to effective learning, in the sense that it blocks the opportu-nity to access feedback about teaching and learning. The notes from Group 2expressed: ‘A good teacher–student relationship should promote effective com-munication and free sharing of knowledge and experience so that both can havea common view of understanding as far as teaching and learning are concerned.’
What we see here is that students are encouraged not to be independent intheir learning, but rather to wait for the teachers’ study materials. Bearingin mind that teaching and learning are intertwined, involving both teacher andstudent, one can identify two main factors——both teaching and learningapproaches——supporting this kind of dependence in learning (knowledge trans-mission). Biggs (1996) suggests that for teachers to achieve the desired level ofunderstanding among their students, the different agents in the teaching andlearning process (teachers and students) should engage in teaching/learningactivities. Previous, related studies by Bowden and Marton (1998) and byRamsden (2003) have noted that aspects similar to those discerned above,together with a teacher-centred approach to teaching, are characteristic of asurface approach to learning. Furthermore, this happens to be in consonancewith the acquisition metaphor for learning (Sfard 1998), which construeslearning as transmission, reception, attainment, internalisation, accumulationand so on, associated more with traditional learning. Warren (2004) believesthat surface learning does not promote understanding or long-term retention ofknowledge and information. Students experience the relevance of learningextrinsically, and the quality of their learning outcomes or their capacity to han-dle situations that could arise tomorrow do not take priority (Ramsden 2003).Available studies (Prosser and Trigwell 1999, Abrandt Dahlgren 2001, Biggs2001) tell us that a teacher-centred approach encourages knowledge transmis-sion and allows for more time and active involvement on the part of the teacher,while there is less time and less involvement on the part of students.
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 511
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
When students and teachers share an understanding of what it takes to learn,we would expect improvement in the quality of learning in higher education.This might be possible if there exists a close teacher–student interaction andhence effective communication. Teachers are in a good position to understandboth the strong and weak points in teaching and learning if they activelykeep watch on and listen to the students. This will enable the teacher to knowwhere, what, how and when to improve the situation in order to achieve betteroutcomes.
The more students fear their teachers, the more the gap widens, with the like-lihood that the students’ attitude towards and interest in the learning subject willbe affected. Indeed, previous studies have suggested that attitudes towards learn-ing and teaching are more important than methods and techniques. One mightconclude that as long as the culture of interaction is not well developed, eveninteraction between students themselves is affected, in the sense that discussionsamong students about studies will be both minimal and non-productive.
At this point, it is worth concluding that effective communication makes itpossible for teachers and students to access, understand and support each other.Additionally, effective communication motivates the development of an interestin and a positive attitude towards learning. This could enable the students tobenefit from both individual and collective learning, which ultimately impactson the quality of learning.
Physical and economic resources
The participants also raised issues related to resources as one of the problemsbehind students’ learning. Some typical comments were:
We have limited facilities and resources, yet the new reforms require animproved study environment. The infrastructure is not adequate; there aretoo many students for existing classrooms, laboratories and even thelibraries. (G1, G2, G3, G4)
Students have to queue for the library materials, have little time to use thematerials and have to return them to the library for others to use. (G1, G3,G5)
Enrolment is quite high yet the infrastructures available are not beingimproved in order to support the increased intake. (G1, G4)
The ever increasing number of students admitted to universities every yearhas put a significant strain on existing infrastructure and staff. (G3)
Teachers regard the environment as unfavourable for quality learning and out-comes. When the participants were asked to explain in greater detail how eco-nomic resources have become a problem, the explanation given was that ‘theinstitution is finding itself with insufficient funds to meet the constant need toimprove the study environment and study materials; with the poor readingculture students have, they still have to queue for library materials’ (G2). Thiscould provide an understanding of the extent to which the library supports
512 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
student learning. Furthermore, supporting the teachers’ comments, the NURtop management indicates:
The university has a critical need to build capacities of its staff, infrastruc-ture, and managerial institutions. We are able to accommodate only aquarter of our students also in bad conditions. (Kwibuka 2009)
Facilities on the main campus are overstretched, the student–teacher ratiois very high, and this makes the student-centered system of teaching andlearning difficult. (Ntayombya 2008)
More than 1000 new students were enrolled by the university in various dis-ciplines, joining over 8000 others at different levels who were already expe-riencing the problem of accommodation. (Kwibuka 2007)
This comparison of teachers’ and top management’s views shows the commonchallenge of limited physical and economic resources facing the institution.
Participants emphasise that inadequate resources have a negative impact onstudents’ learning. The student–teacher ratio is high, meaning that follow-up ofstudents may be difficult for the teachers and that facilities are inadequate insize and number and as a result are overstretched; yet all these are essential fora supportive learning environment. Considering that all these challenges havefinancial implications and they have existed for a long time, it is clear that teach-ers consider physical and economic resources to be an important problem inrelation to students’ understanding of learning and the way they approach learn-ing. Cheng and Ching (2007) illustrate how a supportive study environment hasbeen linked to quality learning and emphasise that a lack of facilities can beone explanation for students’ low motivation and lack of commitment to learn-ing. In their study of lifelong learning, Lekoko and Modise (2011) mention sup-port provision systems for learners, arguing that the learner’s success isattributable to the entire situation in which she/he learns/lives. Thus, one possi-ble interpretation is that insufficient physical and economic resources are athreat to the quality of the learning environment and, by extension, a threat tothe quality of learning outcomes. Indeed, such a situation could make theachievement of reform goals even less realisable.
Education quality is the natural result of achievement of quality resourcesand inputs for the institution. Procuring scarce resources for effective func-tioning and ensuring smooth and healthy internal processes and fruitfullearning experiences are critical in order to achieve stated goals and pro-duce high quality educational outcome. (Cheng and Tam 1997: 25)
Abrandt Dahlgren (2001) states that a more supportive educational environmentencourages students to adopt a deep approach to learning——whereby the stu-dent’s role changes in terms of increased responsibility for and active commit-ment to his/her studies and learning——while a less supportive environmentencourages students to adopt a surface approach to learning. Based on our anal-ysis, we would not hesitate to emphasise that students’ conceptions of learningmust be developed in parallel with the upgrading of physical resources. Hence,
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 513
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
a budget should be allocated to students to build stronger commitments andobligations to their learning, as well as to building renovation and facilitatingmodernisation (Chen et al. 2007).
Experience of a deep approach to learning
Students’, and even some teachers’, lack of experience of a deep approach tolearning was highlighted in the focus groups. Participants’ comments on deepapproaches to learning included:
Students have the problem of failing to put questions to themselves, inother words failing to make reflections in their learning. (G2, G3, G4, G5)
Students use the surface approach to learning; they think that studyingmeans memorising the teacher’s study materials/notes and reproducingthem during examinations. (G3, G5)
Some teachers are not innovative; they use the same old approaches theylearnt during their school time methodology. (G1, G5)
Students’ practice of deep learning means ‘cramming’ the notes especiallyfor assessment purposes, and after getting a pass grade the notes then haveno other value. (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5)
The quality of learning seems to be lower than is expected by teachers. Studentsare criticised for their tendency to memorise information, as well as for lack ofreflection in their learning. However, the implication in these comments is thatstudents do not approach learning with higher-level aims. One may then wonderif such a situation is attributable to the ways in which students understand learn-ing and knowledge, in terms of both their previous and their current learningexperiences. It is also interesting to note how some teachers self-reflexively posi-tion the role of the teacher as important for facilitating a deep approach tolearning among the students.
The participants’ utterances portray the learning experience and conceptionsof learning that students should have. Marton and Saljo (1984) and Bowdenand Marton (1998) argue that learners’ perceptions of a learning task and waysof acting spring from and reflect their past experiences of similar situations,meaning that there is a link between conceptions of learning and approaches tolearning. A possible interpretation here is that the learning experiences of thestudents may not only be attributed to higher education, but may also be linkedto their previous educational background. According to Woldetensea (2008), ifaccess to education is not balanced with quality, and if proper quality assurancemechanisms are not in place early on in the school system, the influx of poorlyprepared students into higher education will increase, contributing more andmore to overall quality deterioration. Relating this to our study, the adoption atan early age of deep and surface approaches to learning would have a significantimpact on students’ learning, and the awareness of when to apply one or theother might be useful preparation for higher education. Children would developa more elaborate understanding of learning and what it takes to learn,
514 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
developing learning skills at an early stage and using them throughout highereducation.
These issues are also linked to teachers’ methods in carrying out their teach-ing. Some of the teachers called for innovative methods of teaching in order tofacilitate a deep approach to learning. The traditional teacher-centred way ofteaching has been prevalent in Rwandan education, not least in higher educa-tion, as illustrated by Mugisha (2010) in his study of geography students inhigher education. He calls for student-active methods of assessment in order tofacilitate a deep approach to learning among the students. It is clear that qualitylearning, which in the past was mostly defined in terms of the amount of infor-mation one has acquired and recorded in examination percentages rangingfrom 0% to 100%, is now measured by the amount of learning that can takeplace in real-life situations (Lekoko and Modise 2011). Encouraging students toreflect on their own thoughts and actions and have an open dialogue whereboth individual and collective learning is produced and where the students arecoached to see phenomena and situations in new ways is crucial to quality learn-ing (Bowden and Marton 1998). According to Abrandt Dahlgren (2001), a rele-vant example of this could be problem based learning (PBL), a way of designingteaching for the purpose of promoting a deep approach to learning among thestudents. PBL is commonly associated with participation, reflection, criticalthinking, generic skills, acquiring knowledge intrinsically and confidence promo-tion among students.
Furthermore, it is important that higher education should facilitate learners’understanding of learning as looking beyond what is taken for granted. The par-ticipation learning metaphor heavily emphasises aspects of reflective learning,reflective discourse and collective reflection that might enable learners to gobeyond their individual thinking (Sfard 1998). One might also argue that highereducation should encourage innovations that capture multiple reciprocal rela-tionships across boundaries at different points in the process of knowledge capi-talisation for the purpose of improving students’ familiarity with real-lifeexperiences, such as the triple helix strategy underlying academia–industry–government relations aimed at stimulating full learning through sharing(Etzkowitz 2002).
Reading culture
Another theme raised by the participants in relation to students’ learning-related problems and approaches to learning is the lack of a reading culture.The following comments illustrate this theme:
There is a lack of reading culture among students, it looks like they havenot been exposed to the culture of reading and this heavily affects most ofthem when it comes to higher education. (G1, G2, G5)
Students are unmotivated to read extensively, yet this is a universallystandard academic requirement for tertiary students; and they heavilydepend on lecture/course notes as lifeblood for their academic survival.(G1, G3)
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 515
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
It is as if students are not aware that a reading culture exists, and when stu-dents are assigned some reading tasks, they instead see it as if the teacheris running away from his/her role and now students are assuming the tea-cher’s responsibility. (G1, G3, G5)
The comments above imply that students have not regularly been exposed toextensive reading. They avoid reading not because they are not interested or hatereading, but because they have not been exposed to the culture of reading in theirdaily life or studies. Students take reading to be the teacher’s responsibility——theyfeel it is their teachers who should present the learning content to them.
The participants associated students’ poor reading culture with their back-grounds, claiming that most of the students did not engage in extensive readingprior to entering university. They feel that students at university expect theirteachers to transfer the findings of their own reading to them during lectures.According to Abrandt Dahlgren (2001), students need to be trained and encour-aged to accept learning as their responsibility and must develop study strategiesin collaboration with a teacher who will act as a monitor and guide. Addition-ally, Marton and Saljo (1984), in their findings on students’ approaches to learn-ing, indicate that there is a close relation between learners’ motives and theways in which they go about learning. In relation to the present study, teachersneed to know how to engage students, in order to sustain their interest in learn-ing and gradually replace the conception that reading is a ‘teacher’s responsibil-ity’ with the understanding that it is the students’ own responsibility. Throughextensive reading, students would be exposed to a variety of understandings ofdifferent phenomena; this would consequently improve their understanding.Hopefully, they would then also develop the confidence to become independentin their learning.
Preparedness for higher education
The issue of students’ lack of preparation for higher education was raised by allthe groups, with comments including:
Students are not prepared for higher education. They think learningmeans passing examinations and this is achieved by reproducing the tea-cher’s notes. (G5)
When students join universities and still cannot get orientation to learningin higher education, they at times develop a negative attitude towardsprograms, and students resort to changing from one study option toanother, thinking that the alternative would be easier to study. (G5)
Students are either unprepared or underprepared before entering the ter-tiary level; they assume the same style of learning as in secondary school.They think they have to wait for the teacher to come to class to tell themwhat to do. (G2)
As noted above, participants emphasised the students’ background. Accordingto the findings, prior learning has not enlightened students about higher
516 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
education, and this creates difficulty for students’ learning at tertiary level.Students’ unpreparedness for higher education proves to be a problem when itcomes to their learning and the ways in which they approach it. There is animpression that students are not sufficiently knowledgeable when it comes tolearning in higher institutions; their background knowledge appears to be shal-low, and this makes it difficult for them to learn and understand. Entwistle et al.(2000) argue that on entering higher education, students often expect theirteachers to provide the right answers, which they can then learn and reproduce.The findings in this article point to students’ failure to acquire an orientationtowards higher learning, and highlight that this could lead students to assumewrongly that, for example, changing from one study option to another mightlead them to ‘easy study options’. In such situations, it is more likely that stu-dents will experience the relevance of their courses extrinsically. However, par-ticipants argue that this is heavily attributable to students’ background (shallowprior knowledge as well as lack of experience of how learning takes place inhigher education). This appears to be in consonance with the views expressedin Hodgson’s (1984) study, where she identified students’ background knowl-edge and familiarity with the subject as sources of influence as regards whetherstudents experience the relevance of their lectures as extrinsic or intrinsic.
Discussion
The focus of this study is teachers’ notions about the most important problemsrelated to students’ learning and the way that students approach learning inhigher education. The themes of dependence, physical and economic resources,experience of a deep approach to learning, reading culture and previous prepa-ration for higher education were identified. This discussion starts with a briefpresentation of the problems identified and concludes with the important con-tribution made by this study.
According to the findings, students focus more on their teachers’ work andteaching than on their own learning. They perceive the teachers’ work as suffi-cient and unchallengeable. However, teachers find such an understanding prob-lematic, especially when it comes to students’ involvement (or lack of it) in theirlearning activity, which they heavily attribute to the students’ previous learningexperience. Insufficient physical and economic resources are another importantproblem noted in relation to students’ learning in higher education. Accordingto the findings, institutions need to be financially healthy to be academicallyhealthy. Institutions lack sufficient funds to create a supportive learning environ-ment, and this has become a threat to the students’ commitment and under-standing and the quality of learning outcomes. Furthermore, students arecriticised for their tendency to memorise information and a lack of reflection intheir learning. According to the findings, the students have not been regularlyexposed to situations that enhance a deep approach to learning; this hasinfluenced the meaning students construct for learning and the ways in whichthey approach it. Additionally, while the teachers expect students to be indepen-dent explorers in their learning, they find that students have an understandingthat learning should be teacher-centred. We have also seen that students lacka reading culture and thus experience difficulties when they are exposed to
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 517
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
independent learning that requires extensive reading. The findings also showthat previous learning experiences do not prepare the students for highereducation. Due to a lack of preparedness for higher education, students tend toextrinsically experience the relevance of courses and lectures; they thus developan extrinsic approach to learning.
In some ways, we can see how these five problems are interrelated. Due tothe history of education in Rwanda, the students’ prior experience is of tradi-tional education, which we consider to be very much associated with both theacquisition metaphor of learning and teacher-centred approaches to learning.Thus, students have not been regularly exposed to situations that enhance par-ticipatory learning or a deep approach to learning. This might also be con-nected to the lack of a reading culture. Without extensive reading experience,students are challenged to adopt a deep approach to learning that requiresthem to engage in extensive reading and to become active participants in learn-ing activities. This becomes more serious when the higher education institutionsdo not have sufficient resources to create a supportive learning environment forstudents. These factors, taken together, might create a situation where studentsare regarded as unprepared for higher education. Furthermore, what all thethemes have in common is that the issue of prior learning experience is vital forstudents’ quality of learning in higher education. One important argument isthat learning both at home and at school has a significant influence on stu-dents’ preparedness for higher education.
In line with previous research, the study found that the learning environmentis crucial to how learners conceive of learning and influences both theapproaches learners adopt to their learning and the quality of learning out-comes. In this regard, if the transformation in academic quality is to be achievedefficiently and effectively in Rwandan higher education, teaching and learningsystems, resources and information, and the approaches taken by the peopleinvolved in the reform need to be upgraded simultaneously. According toProsser and Trigwell (1999), Abrandt Dahlgren (2001), Cheng and Ching(2007) and Lekoko and Modise (2011), a supportive environment encourages adeep approach to learning and increases students’ active commitment to theirlearning. Furthermore, since teachers in higher education are expected to makean effort to take into account the different needs of learners, effective teacher-student interaction (communication) could be one way to gain a betterunderstanding of students. As noted earlier, teacher–student interaction couldinfluence the learners’ interest, motives and attitudes toward learning, and theapproaches to learning that they adopt. This could be a starting point for creat-ing the means to support quality learning in higher education institutions.
By applying the approach taken in this article, it has been possible to acquireknowledge of teachers’ notions of the important problems when it comes to stu-dents’ understanding of learning and the approaches they adopt to learning inRwanda. This is helpful insofar as it provides a starting point for reflection onchallenges and possible solutions, especially as Rwandan higher educationembarks on improving the quality of learning while emphasising the importanceof being fit for purpose (MINEDUC-ESSP 2010). This study illustrates existinglearning-related problems among university students and how we can deal withthem in order to contribute to the enhancement of quality of learning in highereducation in Rwanda. The study identifies features of traditional approaches to
518 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
teaching and learning, which have been linked with poor quality learning out-comes. The study has contributed ideas for enhancement of approaches toteaching and learning in higher education in Rwanda.
The study points to the need to understand the interdependence of educa-tional levels and to expose students to deep learning in their early education.The fact that educators have often taken these levels to be independent of oneanother is critical for our understanding. This study illustrates, on the contrary,how the levels seem to be interdependent; the output of one level feeds thenext. Thus, the learning practices which students experience in their early edu-cation develop into learning conceptions that learners carry with them to highereducation. Consequently, these influence the learning approaches they adoptand the quality of learning outcomes. Relating this to the reforms in higher edu-cation in Rwanda, for example, we see that while teaching and learning inhigher learning institutions shift from a teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach, it is equally important for the early levels of education tomake their teaching and learning methods student-centred. Possibly, the trans-formation could yield more positive results if a quality foundation were laid atthe early levels of education, especially in view of the fact that education levelsimpact on one another. Importantly, students should not be identified as havinga fixed approach to learning. Rather, everyone is capable of adopting differentapproaches from early childhood and onwards. This is vital when trying to carefor students’ different learning needs.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the fruitful collaboration through the years withProfessor Lars Owe Dahlgren, who most sadly passed away during thefinalization of this article. He will be greatly missed.
References
ABRANDT DAHLGREN, M. (2001) Portraits of PBL: A cross-faculty comparison of students’ experiences.Linkoping Studies in Education and Psychology, 80. (Linkoping: Linkoping University ElectronicPress).
ABRANDT DAHLGREN, M. and DAHLGREN, L.O. (2002) Portraits of PBL: Students’ experience of the char-acteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering and psychology.Instructional Science, 30, 111–127.
ABRANDT DAHLGREN, M., REID, A., DAHLGREN, L.O. and PETOCZ, P. (2007) Learning for the professions:Lessons from linking international research projects. Higher Education, 6, 129–148.
BIGGS, J.B. (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–367.BIGGS, J. (2001) The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learn-
ing. Higher Education, 41, 221–238.BOWDEN, J. and MARTON, F. (1998) The University of Learning (London: Routledge).BOYATZIS, R.E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information (London: SAGE Publications).BRAUN, V. and CLARKE, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychol-
ogy, 3, 77–101.CHEN, C., PHYR, S. and SOK, K. (2007) Benchmarking potential factors leading to educational quality.
Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 128–148.CHENG, Y.C. and TAM, W.M. (1997) Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Educa-
tion, 5(1), 22–31.CHENG, Y. and CHING, M. (2007) School-based management and paradigm shift in education: An
empirical study. International Journal of Education Management, 21(6), 517–541.
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 519
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
DAHLGREN, L.O., FEJES, A., ABRANDT DAHLGREN, M. and TROWALD, N. (2009) Grading systems, featuresof assessment and students’ approaches to learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2),185–194.
ENTWISTLE, N., MCCUNE, V. and WALKER, P. (2001) Conceptions, styles and approaches within highereducation: Analytic abstractions and everyday experience. In R.J. STERNBERG and L.F. ZHANG
(eds.) Perspectives on Thinking, Learning and Cognitive Styles (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates), pp. 103–136.
ENTWISTLE, N., SKINNER, D., ENTWISTLE, D. and ORR, S. (2000) Conceptions and beliefs about ‘goodteaching’: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research & Develop-ment, 19, 5–26.
ETZKOWITZ, H. (2002) The Triple Helix Of University-Industry-Government: Implications for Policy and Evalua-tion. Institute for Studies in Education and Research Working Paper. Available online at:http://www.sisters.nu/pdf/wp-11.pdf.
HODGSON, V. (1984) Learning from lectures. In F. MARTON, D. HOUNSELL and N. ENTWISTLE (eds.) TheExperience of Learning (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press), pp. 90–102.
KWIBUKA, E. (2007) Accommodation problem hits NUR student. The New Times, Kigali. January 16.Available online at: http://allafrica.com/stories/200701171255.html (accessed 17 April 2011).
KWIBUKA, E. (2009) NUR seeks $110m for five-year strategic plan. The New Times, Kigali, March 20. Avail-able online at: http://www.newtimes.co.rw/index.php?issue=13840&article=14340 (accessed 17April 2011).
KWIZERA, C. (2010) Rwanda varsities to adopt modular system of teaching. The New Times, Kigali, June29.
KWIZERA, C. (2011) Rwanda quality education: Varsity boards urged to uphold quality education. TheNew Times, Kigali, May 30.
LAVE, J. and WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press).
LEKOKO, R. and MODISE, O. (2011) An insight into an African perspective on lifelong learning:Towards promoting functional compensatory programme. International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 30(1), 5–17.
MARTON, F. (1988) Describing and improving learning. In R.R. SCHMECK (ed.) Learning Strategies andLearning Styles (New York: Plenum), pp. 53–82.
MARTON, F. and SALJO, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning 1: Outcome and process. Brit-ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
MARTON, F. and SALJO, R. (1984) Approaches to learning. In F. MARTON, D. HOUNSELL and N.J. ENTWIS-
TLE (eds.) The Experience of Learning (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press), pp. 36–55.MASHISHI, M.K., and RABIN, C.E. (1999) A study of the approaches to learning, engagement with the
learning context and conceptions of learning of a group of fourth year accounting students.Paper presented at the HERDSA Annual International Conference (Melbourne, 12 July),pp. 1–15. Available online at: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/1999/pdf/mashishi.pdf.
MATERU, P. (2007) Higher Education Quality Assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa: status, challenges andpromising practices. World Bank Working Paper No. 124. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2006) Codes and Laws of Rwanda: Governing the organisation and functioning of highereducation. Law no. 20/2005 of the 20/10/2005. Official Gazette no. 5, 1 March. Availableonline at: http://www.amategeko.net (accessed 4 April 2011).
MUGISHA, I. (2010) Assessment and Study Strategies: A study among Rwandan students in higher education(Linkoping: Linkoping Electronic Press).
NTAYOMBYA, S. (2008) Stopping private students raises a number of questions. The New Times, Kigali,Rwanda. December 3, No.13732. Available online at: http://business.highbeam.com/437666/article-1G1-195231429.
OPENJURU, G.L. (2011) Lifelong learning, lifelong education in higher institutions of learning in East-ern Africa: The case study of Makerere University Institute of Adult and Continuing Educa-tion. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(1), 55–69.
PATTON, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd edn.) (Thousand Oaks: Sage).PROSSER, M. and TRIGWELL, K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: Experience in higher education
(Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press).RAMSDEN, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd edn.) (London: Routledge Falmer).RODRIGUEZ, L. and CANO, F. (2006) The epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study orches-
trations of university students. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 617–636.ROGOFF, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive development in social context (Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press).RWANDA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (MINEDUC-HEC) (2007) National Qualification Framework and Proce-
dures for Quality Assurance (Kigali: MINEDUC).RWANDA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (2010) Education Sector Strategic Plan 2010–2015 (Kigali: MINEDUC).
Available online at: http://www.mineduc.gov.rw (accessed April 2011).
520 PENELOPE MBABAZI BAMWESIGA ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SFARD, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. EducationalResearcher, 27(2), 4–13.
WARREN, H. (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and teaching theory for engineering academics(Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre).
WOLDETENSEA, Y. (2008) Steering African higher education towards achieving the millennium develop-ment goals: quality assurance focus. Paper presented at UNESCO Third International Confer-ence on Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Africa (Dakar, Senegal, 15 September).
STUDENTS AS LEARNERS IN RWANDAN HIGHER EDUCATION 521
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
38 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
