Published Researcher, Author, Lecturer at SACAP, Teacher Well-being Specialist, Founder of SATWI & The Well-being Initiative. Founding Editor of Teachers Matter. PhD Candidate. WOS 2025 Finalist.
SATWI – South African Teacher Well-Being Initiative the Teacher Coach
South Africa’s education system strives to balance educator guidance with student autonomy across Further Education and Training (FET), undergraduate, and postgraduate levels, a task shaped by historical disparities and modern reforms. This article examines how educators can foster responsibility without overstepping, focusing on the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), and Council on Higher Education (CHE) frameworks, aligned with the South African Qualifications Authority’s (SAQA’s) National Qualifications Framework (NQF). Drawing on recent literature (2020–2025), it explores educator roles, student expectations, and skills required at each NQF level, offering practical strategies to empower South African teachers.
Roles of Professional Bodies
Professional bodies define educator and student responsibilities:
- Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS): Administered by the Department of Basic Education (DBE), CAPS structures FET (Grades 10–12), guiding educators to scaffold learners towards matriculation (DBE, 2022).
- Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET): DHET oversees higher education via the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications (MRTEQ), emphasising applied skills at NQF Levels 7–10 (DHET, 2021).
- Council on Higher Education (CHE): CHE’s Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) ensures autonomy and critical thinking in higher education (CHE, 2023).
- South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA): SAQA’s NQF outlines competencies from foundational (Levels 5–6) to innovative (Levels 8–10) learning (SAQA, 2020).
These frameworks challenge educators to support without dominating, a balance complicated by resource gaps (Kimathi & Rusznyak, 2023).
Educator Responsibility
Educators scaffold learning, adapting to academic levels. In FET, CAPS requires structured teaching, yet resource shortages push some to over-simplify content (Sibanda, 2024). In higher education, DHET’s MRTEQ and CHE’s QAF demand research facilitation, but pass-rate pressures can lead to over-involvement (DHET, 2021; CHE, 2023). FET teachers pre-solve problems, reducing student engagement. Educators must guide learners, through modelling methods and techniques to promote the development of problem-solving skills. Undergraduate and postgraduate educators have the task of promoting self-mastery and independent work by acting as a guide on the student’s learning journey while framing questions and content while stepping back to foster student autonomy.
Student Responsibility Across Academic Levels
Student responsibility evolves across phases:
- FET Learners (NQF Levels 5–6): CAPS expects mastery of basics – e.g., mathematics and sciences—via structured tasks (DBE, 2022). Learners follow curricula, complete assignments, and prepare for exams testing recall (Maharajh et al., 2021). Skills include time management, critical reading, and basic analysis (e.g., scientific experiments), laying foundations (SAQA, 2020).
- Undergraduate Students (NQF Level 7): DHET and CHE require applying knowledge – e.g., analysing theories in essays (DHET, 2021; CHE, 2023). Students manage their workloads and seek to function independently with support while acquiring their resources, needing critical thinking, research skills, and academic writing (SAQA, 2020).
- Postgraduate Students (NQF Levels 8–10): CHE and SAQA demand original scholarship – NQF Level 8 aims to refine skills in structured and micromanaged environments, NQF Level 9 empower design thinking through guided independent study, and Level 10 innovates through academic rigour and inquiry focused on adding to the existing body of academic knowledge (CHE, 2023; SAQA, 2020). At this level, the focus is on the development of skills, including advanced research, synthesis, and resilience (Tshuma, 2023).
Theoretical Perspectives
To understand how educators can effectively balance guidance with student autonomy, this article draws on two key theoretical frameworks: Rogan and Grayson’s curriculum implementation model and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). These perspectives offer practical and conceptual insights into fostering responsibility across academic levels, though each has strengths and limitations that warrant exploration, particularly in South Africa’s diverse educational landscape.
Rogan and Grayson’s (2003) model, originally developed to explain how curricula come to life in classrooms, provides educators with a structured way to think about their role. It was later updated by Palestina et al. (2020) to reflect modern challenges, such as technology and socio-economic differences. The model breaks down into three core ideas. First, the profile of implementation focuses on what happens in the classroom – how lessons are delivered and how closely they follow policies like the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) or Council on Higher Education (CHE) guidelines. For example, a FET teacher might pace a science lesson to meet matriculation goals, while a postgraduate supervisor guides research without writing it for the student. Second, capacity to innovate looks at whether educators are ready and equipped to try new teaching methods – think of a rural FET teacher wanting to move beyond lectures but lacking training or tools. Third, external support considers the backing educators get from policies and systems, such as CAPS’ clear rules or DHET’s training programmes. The model assumes these elements work together smoothly, suggesting that if policies are clear and support is strong, classrooms will thrive. However, South Africa’s reality – marked by resource shortages and uneven policy rollout—challenges this assumption. Mandukwini (2020) points out that rigid schedules and limited resources often trap educators in old habits, leaving little room for creativity or student independence.
Complementing this, Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) offers a student-focused lens. ZPD is the gap between what a student can do alone and what they can achieve with help from someone more knowledgeable, like a teacher. Vygotsky argued that learning happens best when educators provide just enough support to stretch a student’s abilities without overwhelming them—think of it as a scaffold that gets removed as the student grows stronger. In FET, this might mean guiding a learner through a maths problem step-by-step and then letting them solve a similar one solo. For a postgraduate, it could be suggesting research methods while leaving the analysis to them. This approach builds autonomy by tailoring guidance to each student’s potential, aligning with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) goals of self-reliance. Yet, it is not without challenges: ZPD requires educators to know their students well and have the time and resources to adjust their teaching—demands that are tough to meet in large classes or under-resourced schools.
Both theories have their critiques. Rogan and Grayson’s model focuses heavily on what educators do – planning lessons, and following policies – but pays less attention to what students bring to the table, like their own motivation or ideas. This gap can limit its ability to fully address student responsibility, a key focus of this article. Meanwhile, Vygotsky’s ZPD is powerful but resource-heavy. In South Africa, where rural schools might lack books or urban lecturers juggle hundreds of students, tailoring support to each learner’s “zone” feels like a tall order. Together, these frameworks suggest a balance: Rogan and Grayson help educators navigate systems and structures, while Vygotsky reminds them to keep students at the centre, adjusting guidance to build independence over time.
Practical Strategies
Educators across South Africa’s academic spectrum—Further Education and Training (FET), undergraduate, and postgraduate levels—can enhance their teaching by applying Rogan and Grayson’s curriculum implementation model and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as explored earlier. These theories emphasise structured guidance and tailored support to cultivate student autonomy, aligning with the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), and Council on Higher Education (CHE) expectations. The strategies below target teaching a language in FET, psychology at the undergraduate level, and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) for postgraduates, offering practical steps to adapt subject-specific demands, reflect on current methods, and upskill for a shift from educator-driven to student-centered learning. To implement these effectively, educators can adopt a gradual, reflective approach, starting with one strategy per term and refining it over time to build skills in language comprehension, psychological application, and teacher education.
For FET language instruction (Grades 10–12), where CAPS governs subjects like English, educators can employ inquiry-based tasks to meet Department of Basic Education (DBE) outcomes while fostering independence (DBE, 2022). In a Grade 11 English class, rather than dictating grammar rules or providing pre-written essays, an educator might select a CAPS-aligned short story, such as The Coffee-Cart Girl by Es’kia Mphahlele, and dedicate a week to the activity. On day one, they introduce key vocabulary (e.g., “apartheid,” “resilience”) and pose a question: “How does the main character’s language reveal her strength?” Learners then read, discuss in pairs mid-week, and write a paragraph linking dialogue to themes by the end, addressing CAPS’ focus on comprehension and expression (Maharajh et al., 2021).
Rogan and Grayson’s profile of implementation ensures CAPS alignment, while their capacity to innovate encourages a move beyond rote exercises to student-led analysis. Vygotsky’s ZPD provides initial support-vocabulary and a question-before stepping back to build foundational skills at NQF Levels 5 – 6 (SAQA, 2020). Post-task, educators should note: Did learners express original interpretations? If depth was lacking, sharper questions (e.g., “How does her word choice reflect her context?”) or additional modelling might help. Trialing one task monthly and seeking DBE workshop feedback can refine this balance.
At the undergraduate level, where CHE’s Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) prioritizes critical thinking in psychology (CHE, 2023), educators can implement Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to promote applied competence. For a second-year psychology course, an educator might introduce a two-week scenario: “A teenager shows anxiety after a family conflict—how would you assess and support them?” Students, supported by lecture slides on cognitive-behavioural therapy and journal articles, work in groups to research theories, propose interventions, and present findings (Tshuma, 2023). During tutorials, the educator asks, “What evidence supports your approach?” rather than offering solutions.
Rogan and Grayson’s external support reflects CHE’s innovative teaching emphasis, while capacity to innovate drives the shift to PBL. Vygotsky’s ZPD scaffolds with resources and questions, fading as students apply concepts at NQF Level 7 (SAQA, 2020). Reflection should assess: Did students link theory to practice? If connections faltered, refining the scenario (e.g., “Focus on a specific trigger”) or enhancing feedback can strengthen depth. Piloting one scenario per semester and attending DHET PBL seminars can hone this approach.
For PGCE students at NQF Levels 8–10, where SAQA and CHE demand original educational contributions (CHE, 2023; SAQA, 2020), blended supervision can guide teaching practicums. An educator might support a student crafting an inclusive education lesson plan by uploading a template (digital or printed for equity) outlining objectives, activities, and assessment, followed by a monthly in-person review. They ask, “How does your plan address diverse learners?” instead of rewriting drafts (Tshuma, 2023). Rogan and Grayson’s profile of implementation aligns with SAQA’s autonomy goals, and external support leverages CHE standards. Vygotsky’s ZPD offers early structure-templates and questions – reducing as students refine plans, fostering synthesis and resilience at NQF Levels 8 – 10 (SAQA, 2020). Outcomes to evaluate include: Did the student show confidence? If not, more prompts (e.g., “List three inclusivity strategies”) or check-ins can adjust support. Starting with one review cycle and joining PGCE forums can enhance supervision skills.
To sustain this shift, educators should log reflections—using a notebook or digital file – tracking successes and challenges: Did FET pairing boost participation? Did shorter psychology scenarios sharpen focus? Did PGCE in-person talks build trust? These insights, refined term-by-term, draw on Rogan and Grayson’s systemic focus to navigate policy and Vygotsky’s student-centered lens to tailor guidance. Upskilling through peer feedback, subject-specific workshops (e.g., DBE language seminars, DHET PBL training), or colleague observations can further this evolution, transforming classrooms into spaces where students craft interpretations, solve problems, and design lessons, fulfilling the article’s vision of balanced guidance and autonomy.
Conclusion
This article explored the critical task of harmonising educator support with student independence across South Africa’s educational spectrum – Further Education and Training (FET), undergraduate, and postgraduate phases – underscoring its necessity for developing self-sufficient thinkers equipped to tackle societal demands. Central to this endeavour is recognising the shifting roles of educators and students along the South African Qualifications Authority’s (SAQA’s) National Qualifications Framework (NQF), progressing from basic skills at Levels 5 – 6 to pioneering work at Levels 8 – 10.
Frameworks such as CAPS, DHET, and CHE steer this journey, outlining expectations for language instruction in FET, psychology at the undergraduate level, and PGCE training for postgraduates, bolstered by Rogan and Grayson’s curriculum implementation model and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Educators facilitate this shift – introducing Grade 11 learners to story analysis, aiding psychology students in applying theories to practical cases, and mentoring PGCE candidates in crafting inclusive lesson plans – while students advance from following structured CAPS tasks to generating original educational insights (SAQA, 2020). Theoretically, Rogan and Grayson ensure policy alignment, and Vygotsky tailors guidance to unlock potential, as seen in strategies like inquiry-based language tasks, problem-based psychology projects, and blended PGCE supervision. However, resource inequalities—such as scarce materials in rural FET classrooms or limited digital access for psychology undergraduates—complicate these efforts, necessitating creative adaptations like printed guides or peer collaboration (Ngwenya et al., 2020).
These practical approaches empower educators to reflect on their practice, asking whether language students express ideas, psychology learners solve problems, or PGCE trainees gain confidence, and to upskill through workshops or experimentation. Beyond the classroom, fostering autonomy aligns with South Africa’s goal of overcoming past disparities, requiring educators to refine their methods continually and advocate for systemic solutions, such as enhanced DBE funding for FET or DHET support for rural campuses. Ultimately, by leveraging these frameworks, theories, and strategies, educators can create learning environments where guidance fuels independence, preparing students across NQF levels to contribute meaningfully to the nation’s future.
References
Council on Higher Education (CHE). (2023). Quality assurance framework (QAF) for higher education. Pretoria: CHE.
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2022). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS): Senior phase and FET. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). (2021). Minimum requirements for teacher education qualifications (MRTEQ). Pretoria: DHET.
Kimathi, F., & Rusznyak, L. (2023). Advancing professional teaching in South Africa: A framework for development. South African Journal of Education, 43(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v43n1a123
Maharajh, L. R., Nkosi, T., & Mkhize, M. C. (2021). Teachers’ experiences of CAPS implementation in KwaZulu-Natal: Challenges and opportunities. Education Research International, 2021, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/556789
Mandukwini, N. (2020). Curriculum implementation in South African schools: Policy versus practice. South African Journal of Education, 40(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n2a1234
Ngwenya, M. D., Ferreira, R., & Fraser, W. (2020). School-based interventions in resource-constrained communities: Lessons from rural South Africa. Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.17159/ijtl.v15i2.7890
Palestina, R., Smith, J., & Jones, K. (2020). Exploring curriculum implementation in low-to-middle-income countries: A comparative study. Frontiers in Education, 5, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00112
Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145819
Sibanda, T. (2024). Challenges facing South African teachers: A qualitative study of rural and urban contexts. Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 19(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.17159/ijtl.v19i1.9876
South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). (2020). National qualifications framework: Level descriptors. Pretoria: SAQA.
Tshuma, R. (2023). Problem-based learning in South African higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Education, 91, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i91a04
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.