Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

Abstract

Despite the raft of post-apartheid efforts to redress the injustices of the apartheid era in South Africa, much remains to be done in most rural schools across the country to bring about meaningful change in those schools which during apartheid existed on the periphery of development and progress. The past 25 years of democracy have focused on reforming the country’s education system through curricula reform. Notwithstanding the importance of this process, due to erroneous assumptions about the homogeneity of poverty in South Africa, the post-apartheid project of promoting social justice and equity has failed to reach the most deprived rural communities in the country. Of importance to note is that it is not only the learners who are disadvantaged, but the schools that are not prepared to support their needs. While some challenges rural schools are faced with are also prevalent in urban contexts and schools, the intensity of the challenges in the latter are less distinct as compared to rural contexts and schools. From a deficit perspective of rurality, the challenges rural schools face are the primary reasons for the continuing poor academic performance in those schools. This chapter seeks to offer accounts on how families in rural Mpumalanga Province of South Africa act as a resource for learning irrespective of the lack of basic educational resources including textbooks and good quality classrooms. The view of the nature of families’ involvement in learners’ learning discussed in this chapter is framed by Moletsane’s (Perspectives in Education 30:1), 1–8, 2012) idea of strength-based paradigms of rurality and Balfour, Mitchell and Moletsane’s (Journal of Rural and Community Development 3:3 2008) generative theory of rurality. That is, I acknowledge the myriad of challenges the schools face, but I also recognise that in these schools there are active human beings who have knowledge and skills that can be used to configure and implement strategies for improving the standard of education in those schools and in turn improve learners’ academic performance.

Full text

177
© e Author(s) 2020
A. Masinire, A. P. Ndorepi (eds.), Rurality, Social Justice and Education
in Sub-Saharan Africa Volume I, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57277-8_8
8
Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural
Parents andLearners
HlamuloMbhiza
Understanding Rurality andRural Schools:
TheSouth African Context
e conceptualisation of rurality has proven to be dicult because the
interpretation of what rurality means is dierent for dierent people,
leading to a contestation in research literature and government policy
documents about what rurality means (Moletsane 2012; Hlalele 2012;
Myende 2015; Nkambule 2017; Mbhiza 2017). In relation to this, the
Nelson Mandela Foundation (HSRC 2005) postulated that within the
South African context it is dicult to make a clear distinction between
what constitutes a rural and urban context, stating that the conceptuali-
sation often depends on who is making the distinctions between the two
contexts and for what purpose. Similarly, Mukeredzi (2013) argued that
“devising a clear and objective denition of ‘rural’ presents a conceptual
problem” (p.2). Some researchers used the geographical location of areas,
H. Mbhiza (*)
Wits School of Education, Johannesburg, South Africa

178
in terms of their proximity to cities to dene rurality (Mbabazi 2015),
while others conceptualise the term demographically by focusing on vari-
ables which include the population size of an area, household income,
proximity to healthcare and other amenities (Ebersohn and Ferreira
2012; Mukeredzi 2013). Although various authors present dierent per-
spectives about what rurality means, of concern is that the majority of
authors tend to point to negative aspects of rural life, which Moletsane
(2012) refers to as the ‘decit paradigm of rurality’.
Moletsane’s (2012) contention is that researchers should desist from
adopting a deciency-based paradigm characterised by being narrowly
conservative, disadvantaged and isolated from the metropolitan life, and
adopt a strength-based (also referred to as assert-based) paradigm of
rurality. Despite the view of rurality that a researcher adopts, it is essential
to note that rurality is dynamic and complex and needs to be understood
from various perspectives. Another way to desist from the deciency-
based paradigm is acknowledging that rural constituencies are mere
objects to their contexts, but “make use of time, space and resources dif-
ferently to transform an environment”—alluding to the strength-based
paradigm of rurality (Balfour 2012, p. 2). us, the current chapter
adopts a strength-based paradigm to demystify how some rural schools
survive against all odd to provide ‘quality’ education to their learners.
One of the conceptualisations of rurality that resonates with the
strength-based paradigm is oered by Balfour, Mitchell and Moletsane
(2008) in their work on the generative theory of rurality. Balfour etal.
(2008) provide a framework for conceptualising rurality, theorising the
dynamic nature of rural contexts and the multifaceted nature of rural
constituencies’ lived experiences. e authors suggest two reasons why
the generative theory of rurality could be useful. Firstly, Balfour et al.
(2008) propose that the theory could be useful in allowing researchers
who research within rural contexts with rural constituencies to unearth
and interpret the ndings of their inquiries. Secondly, the generative the-
ory can enable rural constituencies to act as subjects and agents of change
within their environments. e rst reason is mainly important for this
chapter because it demonstrates that teachers, learners, families, commu-
nity members and other stakeholders such as local businesses have to play
an active role in advancing the standard of rural education.
H. Mbhiza

179
In addition to the above discussion, Balfour etal. (2008) identify three
facets of rurality based on their contention that rural areas are generative
and dynamic: forces, agencies and resources. e conceptualisation of
rurality by Balfour etal. (2008) moves away from the traditional tenden-
cies of viewing rurality in terms of its contradistinctions to cosmopolitan
areas, but focuses on the three above-mentioned aspects which concen-
trate on rural areas as unique and independent spaces. is resonates with
Masinire, Maringe and Nkambule’s (2014) denition of a rural setting as
“a space that sustains human existence and development outside the
jurisdiction of metropolitan town authority” (p.148).
Firstly, Balfour etal. (2008) refer to forces as being both “centripetal
and centrifugal” comprising “the movement of labour and production
from the rural to the urban and back again” (2008, p.). is means that
forces focus on the manner in which rural life is a product of time and
space, considering that rural constituents often seek work elsewhere out-
side their immediate contexts, however they return to their contexts with
alternate forms of knowledge and skills. As such, time is considered to be
an important proponent of forces since it takes time for rural constituents
to travel from one place to another, to access amenities such as healthcare
due to isolation within rural contexts. Balfour etal. (2008) posit that:
... space not only is an enculturated and organizational concept in any
discussion of rurality but also the one feature that changes or elongates
time. is elongation of time in turn aects identities, since these are
mostly constituted in relation to communities that exist in relative isola-
tion in space and time from each other, and in greater isolation from
urban centres.
Secondly, Balfour etal. (2008) identify agency as one of the aspects of
the generative theory of rurality. Agency is important as it allows for an
understanding that within rural areas there are individuals who are active
agents in the communities. at is, rural inhabitants are not only prod-
ucts of the environments in which they live, but exercise their agency to
change their communities for the better. In Balfour etal.’s (2008) view,
rural residents are either agents that are passive and allow change to take
place through compliance or they are active participants in advancing
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

180
their communities. To exemplify agencies, Balfour etal. (2008) refer to
entities such as tribal authorities, families, religious authorities and indi-
viduals within a specic rural context and posit that understanding the
dynamics of relations of power and systems in rural areas is essential for
research located in those contexts.
irdly, Balfour et al. (2008) identify resources as another facet of
rurality. Using this facet to conceptualise rurality is helpful for researchers
as it allows us to pay special attention to the resources that the commu-
nity already has, alluding to the strength-base paradigm of rurality. e
view of limited resources desists from the conceptualisation of rurality
from a deciency-based paradigm in which rural contexts are viewed as
places of need and want.
Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, as I posited elsewhere
(Mbhiza 2017), the major diculty in conceptualise rurality and rural
school is “having to make mental ‘imagination’ to focus on the non-
described aspects of rural areas which are assumed to be ‘ips’ of what is
described in urban denitions” (p.15). In terms of the non-described
aspects of rural contexts, Atchoarena and Gasperini (2003) postulated
that in view of the problematic and contentious nature of dening rural-
ity “one is tempted to adopt J.Robinson’s attitude by saying that even if
we cannot dene what an elephant is we are able to tell when we see one”
(p.36). While this could be interpreted to be true, rural researchers must
be careful not to homogenise all rural areas, especially considering that
rural areas dier in terms of distinguishing features and nature of life
from one area to another (Hlalele 2012). us, we cannot overlook that
within dierent rural contexts there are dierent inhabitants who interact
in dierent ways that are context-dependent and time-bound to sustain
themselves and their environments. Accordingly, a rural area in this chap-
ter refers to a space in which human existence, daily activities individuals
engage in, which includes learning and teaching and community devel-
opment, are sustained independently of urban authority (Masinire
etal. 2014).
H. Mbhiza

181
A Methodological Statement
To shed light on the strength-based paradigm of rurality, I centre the
discussion on the information provided by parents and learners about the
nature of help rural learners receive from their family members to ensure
that there is learning continuation at home. e information was selected
purposefully from a wider range of similar iterations made by both par-
ents and learners regarding learning at home; as such they provide insight
into the relationship between families and schools in Mpumalanga rural
schools. is primarily exploratory study was part of a larger research
project that explored conditions of teaching and learning in rural
Mpumalanga schools and uses a quantitative research approach to explore
a variety of factors that inuence teaching and learning processes in this
context. De Vos, Deloport and Fouché (2011) posit that an exploratory
study is conducted to understand phenomena, community or individu-
als. According to Neuman (2011), an exploratory research design is use-
ful when the subject under study is new or if little knowledge about the
subject exists or nothing is known about it.
Considering that rurality and rural education remains underresearched
and marginalised in South Africa, there is a need to popularise research
and report on these aspects. e primary goal of the project resonates
well with the general characteristics of exploratory studies as it sought to
provide a basis for understanding the nature of teaching and learning
within rural areas and schools. While the study focused on a myriad of
factors that facilitate and/or constrain learners’ learning of dierent con-
tents of the subject matter, this chapter focuses primarily on two parts of
the larger research project: the role of rural parental involvement in facili-
tating learners’ learning, and rural learners’ experiences and attitudes
towards learning mathematics. To explore the phenomena, semi-
structured individual interviews were conducted with parents and learn-
ers. e interviews with parents focused on their understanding of
parental involvement and their involvement in their children’s learning,
and the interviews with learners focused on their experiences of learning
within rural contexts and schools, mathematics learning in particular.
e practices emerging from these two aspects allowed for a deeper
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

182
analysis of how rural families are and can be a resource for learning in
those contexts and opening space for considering what constraints could
be withdrawn to enable eective learning within rural contexts.
Learning atHome: Beyond aDeficit View
ofRural Family Involvement inEducation
e schools in rural and farm areas of South Africa still face many chal-
lenges in oering quality education for the communities which they serve
even post-apartheid. Of concern is that parental involvement in educa-
tion in rural and farm areas seems to be very low compared to the involve-
ment of parents from well-o socioeconomic backgrounds in their
children’s education (Joan 2009 as cited in Kainuwa and Yusuf 2013).
While various post-apartheid educational policies stipulate that parents
and the communities should be recognised as partners, it is not clear if
school principals in rural and farm schools encourage parents and the
communities to be part of this partnership. is is to ensure that the
children are constantly motivated to attend school and take part in learn-
ing. e discussions in the following subsections demonstrate that
beyond the decit understanding of rural education there are families
within rural contexts who play active roles in ensuring that there is learn-
ing continuation at home amidst the grand narratives about teaching and
learning in rural contexts.
Through theParents’ Voices
Jabulani said, “I am always involved in task that he is not sure of … tasks
that are a little bit complex, he is always inviting me and I am helping.”
is shows that some parents identify the importance of always being
available and checking children’s homework, in particular for tasks that
seem challenging. is relates to Vygosky’s concept of the zone of proxi-
mal development, where children need assistance with tasks they are cur-
rently unable to do, to be able to attempt to do them independently. is
idea also concurs with Epstein and Salinas (2004) that parents at home
H. Mbhiza

183
can motivate their children to take the initiative and develop a high work-
ing ethos to actively participate in learning. Because of the positive sup-
port and inspiration they receive from their parents at home, they can
aspire to advance their academic performance and horizons.
e interest that parents show in assisting their children with home-
work or monitoring that tasks get completed possibly shows their chil-
dren that they are interested in what they do at school. Of importance
also to note is that some parents only assist their children when it is pos-
sible for them to assist, that is, they are sometimes constrained from help-
ing their children due to the nature of the subject. For instance,
omas said:
Yes, I do assist them … then the other one because she is doing science I
make sure that we organise our church member, he also invite all the learn-
ers who are doing science and maths, so we are encouraging them to attend
over the weekends … when coming to English and other learning areas I
do assist …
e response suggests that the participant tries to assist his children
where possible and when he is unable to assist due to limited subject
knowledge, he seeks help outside. Of importance is that children are
assisted with subject knowledge from home to ensure that they are not
frustrated at school, at the same time helping teachers to teach the con-
tents easily. In addition, Lerato maintained that he does help his child
with schoolwork, although the focus is on mathematics and no other
subjects:
… to be honest, I used to ght with my rst born child because each time
she comes from school she must take a break of 20 minutes … undressing
and take whatever she can eat and she must seat on the table before she can
go around playing … I must assist her do her maths activities… it’s not
that I don’t like SS [Social Science], I don’t like EMS [Economic and
Management Science], but since I grew up I loved Mathematics…
So, it was interesting for me to see how the parents’ own interests and
preferences between learning subjects shape how they help their children
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

184
with schoolwork. A question of interest is that since Lerato focuses on
assisting the child with mathematics, how is the child assisted with other
subjects? However, Leraro seems dedicated to assist the child and make
sure the understanding of content knowledge and good performance is
attained. While this practice is good, it is also imperative that the parent
recognise that other subjects also need as much time at home as the one
they are passionate about, to ensure balance in performance.
From the discussion, it appears that parents believe that when they are
constantly monitoring their children’s school activities, it does inuence
their children’s academic performance. is means that parents who are
aware of their children’s school work and areas of diculty motivate their
children to work hard and perform successfully at school. Regarding this,
Jabulani said: I work with my kids always, because when they have got a
task, assignment I sit down with them, I am helping them, I am doing, I
am working with them.
e responses seem to suggest that when parents have regular discus-
sions about schoolwork with their children and constantly monitor their
work, it can shape the children’s motivation to attend school and strive to
perform well. Similarly, Epstein (2013) posits that most children want
their families to be actively involved in their education and that they are
knowledgeable partners in their educational activities. Although partici-
pants maintain that they are involved in assisting their children with
school work at home, it is also important to acknowledge possible prob-
lems that can be encountered if teachers do not clearly set out expecta-
tions and guidelines on how the parents are supposed to assist their
children. As Epstein and Sanders (2002) state, parental support at home
should be through encouraging, listening, reacting, praising, monitoring,
guiding, and discussing. It is evident in the information provided by the
parents that they are eager to support their children, and it is the partner-
ship that the school and parents form that can enable this to happen
successfully. e partnership that is formed between parents and school
also addresses issues of decision making, that is, involving parents in
making decisions about processes of schooling. Parental involvement also
includes allowing parents to be part of the decision making body, either
during parents’ meetings or through other forms of practice or
engagement.
H. Mbhiza

185
Through theLearners’ Voices
While some participants acknowledged that the classroom—as the
microsystem according to the Bioecological theory—is valuable, in par-
ticular their teachers in their learning of mathematics, others illustrated
that home also plays a crucial role in their learning. is theme is about
how learning mathematics at home and interactions with family mem-
bers inuence the development of particular experiences and attitudes
towards learning mathematics. e ndings from the interviews with
learners suggest that family members play crucial roles in learners’ learn-
ing as Guides in Mathematics Content (GMCs), which I discuss below.
is addresses the school-home and home-school interrelatedness in
learning mathematics, which Bronfenbrenner calls the mesosystem.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that the learning potential can be
increased as a function of the supportive links that are available for the
learner within dierent microsystems. e ndings suggest that learners’
experiences and attitudes towards mathematics are deeper and mostly
associated with the learning environment, rather than from interacting
with the contents of the subject matter.
Learning at home has been overemphasised in previous research as
playing an important role in ensuring that learners are motivated to take
the initiative and develop a good working ethos to actively participate in
learning mathematics (Epstein 2004; Msila 2012). In this study, some
learners’ responses highlighted the powerful inuence of the home envi-
ronment on their learning of mathematics. eir responses suggest that
their family members assist them at home to make sense of the mathe-
matical content, skills and processes that were covered by the teacher in
the classroom but resulted in misunderstandings by the learner. is
relates to what Mestry and Grobler (2007) mentioned that when family
members assist their children with homework continuously and consis-
tently, it helps to enhance learners’ performance in schools and also
shapes learners’ interest to actively participate in learning. For example a
learner, Tsan’wisi, said:
My aunt helps me, she doesn’t give me all of these answers, she shows me
that you can do this, and do this. She will say, ‘I will give you an answer for
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

186
this one, but you will do this one on your own.’ I have to do that on my
own and she will never help me, she will never help me.
Even though Tsan’wisi emphasised that his aunt gives him the oppor-
tunity to do mathematics himself, his choice of words “she shows me”
and “I will give you” demonstrate that the aunt is helpful when he experi-
ences challenges, as a way of mediating unknown knowledge.
While family inuence on learners’ mathematical capabilities and the
promotion of more positive attitudes has been argued to be essential (Van
Voorhis et al. 2013; Mestry and Grobler 2007), it might be perceived
that the kind of support that Tsan’wisi receives from his aunt does pro-
vide him with an adequate opportunity to make sense of the mathemati-
cal contents himself. As the aunt gives him the opportunity to engage
with other maths problems without assistance, it suggests some kind of
scaolding and the space to learn and make mistakes. With this in mind,
it seems from Tsan’wisi’s response above that his aunt’s availability to
assist him with mathematical contents at home fosters a positive attitude
towards learning the subject.
Another learner, Tiny stated that: “Maths is not dicult, get the right
person who can teach you maths, like my father, he helps me when I am
stuck in maths because he studied pure maths”. Similarly, Musa said:
My brother at home gives me questions and I answer, and where I don’t get
answers good, he gives me corrections. He takes me and shows me how we
do this here; I then have to redo the same questions that I did not
understand.
ese learners’ responses demonstrate that the assistance they receive
from their family members when they encounter diculties in under-
standing the mathematical content promotes a sense of hopefulness in
learning the subject. Both Tiny and Musa believe that in adverse circum-
stances when learning mathematics, the assistance from the father and
brother respectively can help them clarify misunderstandings, which in
turn appears to instil positive attitudes towards mathematics. ese
responses also show that in a rural context there are educated people to
assist learners with learning, a reason some learners perform successfully.
H. Mbhiza

187
e responses show that the identied family members are GMCs,
because they have some level of mathematics background. is means
that for a family member to act as a GMC they should have some level of
mathematical prociency and rural families, especially parents, are always
perceived to lack this prociency (Ndlazi 1999; Msila 2012). Epstein and
Salinas (2004) argue that family involvement and learners’ attitudes and
behaviour towards their school activities are directly proportional to each
other. is means an increase in parental involvement in educational
activities can play a role in shaping learners’ behaviour during the process
of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Strength-Based Paradigms: Families
asResources forLearning
From the information provided by the parents, the ndings demonstrate
that they consider their participation in their children’s educational activ-
ities to be an important element in their children’s learning. e ndings
concur with the belief that when parents are involved in their children’s
education, they can motivate and help their children to develop a high
working ethos in their educational activities and consequently their per-
formance. It is evident from the participants’ responses that they have
high aspirations for their children to attain higher grades in their academ-
ics. us, my ndings concur with ndings from other research on paren-
tal involvement which suggest that parents play a very important role in
their children’s learning and ensure greater learner performance at school
(Msila 2012; Kainuwa and Yusuf 2013; Okeke 2014). Although parents
identied factors that impinge on their eective involvement in their
children’s education, such as their socioeconomic status and time—which
are not focused upon in the current chapter—however, they still empha-
sised that their participation in their children’s learning is of utmost
importance. From the parents’ responses only ve out of the six types of
parental involvement as coined by Epstein were reected, with collabora-
tion with community not reected (Epstein 2004).
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

188
In terms of mathematics learning, the information provided by the
learners show clear roles played by their family members in their learning
of mathematics, which in turn shape the promotion of positive attitudes
and enhance meaningful learning of mathematics for the learners. From
learners’ information, those with existing support and motivation from
family members not only show the ability to learn mathematics, but
show positive experiences and attitudes towards learning the subject,
which is often overlooked inlocal research. e ndings from the infor-
mation provided by learners show that in cases where learners encounter
unfavourable learning experiences within mathematics classrooms, at
home these could be countered through family support and motivation
to learn. us, the involvement of family in learners’ learning of mathe-
matics helps learners to engage in the learning processes at school with
positive experiences. In relation to rural education, the ndings are
broadly in harmony with suggestions made by Moletsane (2012) that
rural areas should not be viewed through decit lenses, instead through
strength-based paradigms. e information provided by both parents
and learners illustrate that in rural areas there are people who are edu-
cated and have the ability to assist learners with subjects such as mathe-
matics, a reason learners perform successfully and develop positive
attitudes towards education. In view of the above discussion, there is a
need to conduct research that examines learners’ experiences of learning
within rural areas and schools, and consequently how rurality shapes
learners’ learning and in turn their academic performance. Furthermore,
research should also be conducted with parents within rural areas to gain
an understanding of their perceptions of education, because consciously
or subconsciously they do play a role in inuencing their children’s inter-
ests to attend school and participate in learning.
References
Atchoarena, D., & Gasperini, L. (2003). Education for rural development towards
new policy responses. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning
(IIEP) UNESCO.
H. Mbhiza

189
Balfour, R.J., Mitchell, C., & Moletsane, R. (2008). Troubling contexts: Toward
a generative theory of rurality as education research. Journal of Rural and
Community Development, 3, 3.
Balfour, R. J. (2012). Rurality research and rural education: Exploratory and
explanatory power. Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 9–18.
Bronfenbrenner, E. (1979). e ecology of human development: Experiments by
design and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Vos, A.S., Delport, C.S. L., Fouché, C.B., & Strydom, H. (2011). Research
at grass roots: A primer for the social science and human professions. Pretoria: Van
Schaik Publishers.
Ebersohn, L., & Ferreira, R. (2012). Rurality and resilience in education: Place-
based partnerships and agency to moderate time and space constraints.
Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 30–42.
Epstein, J.L. (2013). Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, fam-
ily, and community partnerships. Teaching Education, 24(2), 115–118.
Epstein, J.L., & Salinas, K.C. (2004). Partnering with families and communi-
ties. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12–18.
Epstein, J.L., & Sanders, M.G. (2002). Family, school, and community part-
nerships. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting, 407–437.
Hlalele, D. (2012). Social justice and rural education in South Africa. Perspectives
in Education, 30(1), 111–118.
Human Sciences Research Council, Nelson Mandela Foundation, Education
Policy Consortium (South Africa) & Education Policy Consortium (South
Africa). (2005). Emerging voices: A report on education in south African rural
communities. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Kainuwa, A., & Yusuf, N.B. M. (2013). Inuence of socio-economic and edu-
cational background of parents on their children’s education in Nigeria.
International Journal of Scientic and Research Publications, 3, 10), 1–10), 8.
Masinire, A., Maringe, F., & Nkambule, T. (2014). Education for rural develop-
ment: Embedding rural dimensions in initial teacher preparation. Perspectives
in Education, 32(3), 146–158.
Mbabazi, P. (2015). In quest of understanding more about rural poverty and an
adaptable rural growth among rural poor households in Rwanda: New reali-
ties, new choices for tomorrow. International Journal of Scientic and Research
Publications, 5, 7.
Mbhiza, H.W. (2017). A critical exploring of grade 10 rural learners’ experiences
and attitudes towards learning mathematics in Acornhoek classrooms,
Mpumalanga province. Doctoral dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand,
South Africa.
8 Reclaiming Hope: De-normalising Rural Parents and Learners

190
Mestry, R., & Grobler, B. (2007). Collaboration and communication as eec-
tive strategies for parent involvement in public schools. Educational Research
Review, 2(7), 176.
Moletsane, R. (2012). Repositioning educational research on rurality and rural
education in South Africa: Beyond decit paradigms. Perspectives in Education,
30(1), 1–8.
Msila, V. (2012). Black parental involvement in south African rural schools:
Will parents ever help in enhancing eective school management. Journal of
Educational and Social Research, 2(2), 303–308.
Mukeredzi, T. G. (2013). Professional development through teacher roles:
Conceptions of professionally unqualied teachers in rural South Africa and
Zimbabwe. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 28(11), 1.
Myende, P.E. (2015). Tapping into the asset-based approach to improve aca-
demic performance in rural schools. Journal of Human Ecology, 50(1), 31–42.
Ndlazi, S.M. (1999). An investigation of parental non–involvement in the gover-
nance of a Duncan Village school and its implications for the management of the
school: A case study. Unpublished Master’s treatise, Rhodes University,
Grahamstown.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nkambule, T.C. (2017). Student teachers’ perceptions of a Wits rural teaching
experience project: What to learn and improve. South African Journal of
Higher Education, 31(1), 191–206.
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J.L., & Lloyd, C.M. (2013). e
impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A
focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional
skills. MDRCapter 9aaq21: Places Mandela never reached: rural schools surviv-
ing against all odds.
H. Mbhiza