The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Head of Department Speaks Out
Dr. Kasozi F. Mutaawe, the head of Philosophy Department discloses that during the academic year in question, Dr. Kanakulya was the most suitable person to teach the course since Dr. John Barugahare was on study leave. He told the probe committee that the head of department always monitors teaching in the department both formal and informally and that he achieves this through interacting with the lecturers.
He disclosed that he had never received any complaints from the students regarding Critical Thinking EHR3102 during the semester. However, he says there were complaints in semester 2 in April 2019, yet this was a semester one paper. He says he convened a meeting with students at first when they attempted an industrial action.
He informed the committee that in the examination of Critical Thinking, students were required to write their names on the answer sheet, which he said was a practice in the department. According to the audit report, “The head of Department expressed disappointment with the establishment of the committee. If he had the powers, he would have disbanded the committee.”
To Dr. Kasozi, the establishment of the committee was a sign of anti-intellectualism and hatred for academics. “He initially objected to the formation of the committee as considered it unfair to the teaching staff. ‘Should they investigate students who miss lectures?’ he wondered,” reads in part the report.
Dr. Kasozi allegedly told the probe committee that the department should have been allowed to solve the problem internally other than being hijacked especially for students who do not want to learn. According to the report, the head of department had heard about a student who conducted lectures for Dr. Kanakulya during the first meeting with the students but noted students had not complained to him.
“I come from a very good academic background. I would not have allowed it. I have a personal relationship with my teachers, there is none of them that I fear even those who have been there longer than me, so to get a complaint from a student and letting the lecturer know about it has not been my problem,” Dr. Kasozi told the probe team. He also disclosed that there were no field trips regarding the critical thinking course citing that he only heard about it when it had happened.
Kanakulya Defends self
The lecture told the committee that since the course had initial problems, he decided to change the teaching approach to experimental learning, which he thought would work. He says the course was similar to logic, which is mathematical and required students with a background of mathematics. He says he applied group work methods.
According to Kanakulya, he couldn’t share a course outline with the students since he was still developing it before releasing it. The probe report notes that the lecturer didn’t roll call nor provide attendance lists where students would write their names. He told the committee that he never recorded attendance because only half of the students would attend.
He further disclosed that he only missed three weeks when the class had challenges of lecture rooms. According to Kanakulya, he taught the course alone and only gave students practical work through peer learning, which was conducted by identifying students who showed more interest in the course.
He denied allegations of having sent a student from the evening programme to deliver lectures on his behalf to the day class. The lecturer also told the probe committee that he was not aware of any student who was caught cheating and her paper torn in the test and that course work results were displayed by the head of department. He also refuted claims that he favored some students.
Committee Verdict
The probe committee that the lecturers hadn’t taught more than five lectures to the day class for the entire semester. The committee discovered that the number of lecture time given to students on the Day Programme was far below the recommended 45 lecture hours required under the semester system.
On coursework assessment, students who interacted with the committee raised concern about the basis on which, the concerned lecturer made coursework assessment and awarded marks to students. The probe found the lecturer in breach of university academic rules provided for under the 5th Edition of the Prospectus 2007/2010.
“Given that no course outline was provided, the plan for coursework assignments/ tests was supposed to be administered for the final grading of the course. This was a breach of the General Academic/ Examination Regulations No. 1.0 on Course Work Assignments,” read the probe findings.
The probe committee also established that the concerned staff supplied examination question paper, which also served as answer booklet for section A of the examination in which students were required to write their names on the question/ answer booklet in contravention of examination rules that clearly state “Do not write your name anywhere in the answer booklet hence only your student’s number and Registration number should be written on the answer book.”
The committee noted that subjecting students to the same examination for which they didn’t receive similar content and instruction was unfair. The committee had also a burden to ascertain whether the concerned member of staff displaced himself with his undergraduate students in respect of lecturing.
The report notes that all the students the committee interacted with confirmed that Ms. Irene Nakibirige, an undergraduate student from the Evening Programme (EHR3102: Critical Thinking) delivered lectures to the day class. Nakibirige also testified having taught for about one month and that she was sent by the concerned staff.
