Challenges Of Working Towards The Implementation Of Education 5.0 In Zimbabwean Universities In The Year 2020: A Case Of Chinhoyi University Technology (CUT)

Education 5.0 has been the raison d’être for revamping Zimbabwe’s tertiary and higher education and training systems. To that end, it has also been a raison d’état (state interest) to instigate change in tertiary and higher education and training. Using the case of Chinhoyi University of Technology (CUT), particularly the Department of Creative Art and Design (DCAD) housed under the School of Art and Design (SAD), the study explored challenges faced by higher education institutions (HEIs) in Zimbabwe in their attempt to get ready for the uptake of Education 5.0 prior to the start of first-years mid-2020. During this period, the Zimbabwean government suspended enrollments of all first-year intakes. It also declared that tertiary and higher education and training institutions would start working on Education
5.0 implementation in the following semester. This study is informed by the Revised Bloom Taxonomies of education and training. The inquiry employed a phenomenological research approach and a purposive sampling technique to guide data collection processes. Thus, five face-to-face interviews with DCAD lecturers were conducted during fieldwork to solicit data in line with the research questions. Archival research through an analysis of the module outlines before they were modified to follow the alternative nomenclature was also used to substantiate the findings from the interviews to draw conclusions and recommendations. Through archival research, we also have an opportunity to explore the artworks made by the alumni at CUT. Subsequently, the data was analysed thematically. The following major themes that emerged include: the politicisation of the Zimbabwean higher education and training sector; restricted stakeholder engagement; lack of financial and technological resources; and an up-to-date skills inventory, to mention a few. Though not the intention, the results of this study may ruffle feathers. Its gist was meant to unpack the challenges endured by lecturers in higher education in an attempt to work aligned with the “new” Education 5.0 prescription starting in mid-2020 on. The main findings point to the politicisation of tertiary and higher education and training in Zimbabwe, partial stakeholder engagement by the government and inadequate financial
resource allocation as HEIs fit out to embrace Education 5.0. This research, however, contradicts Munikwa and Mapara’s (2022) claim that CUT lecturers demonstrated a “positive attitude” as they worked to align with the Education 5.0 prospectus. Furthermore, this investigation did not find and conclude that all lecturers had an insincere appreciation for the Education 5.0 curriculum. Some understood what it truly meant or was. Aside from their institution-wide research, this one is department-based to investigate the intricacies of adapting to Education 5.0 curriculum. This study concludes that the Education 5.0 policy was hurried as CUT embraced the curriculum changes
with reservations and the need to fulfill a pompous position dubbed “the cuticisation of tertiary and higher education” in the country. It also concludes that lecturers left marginalised on the stage of Education 5.0 curriculum reform.Therefore, it is recommended that wider stakeholder consultations should have been undertaken to define the road map of curriculum revisions. At once, it should be noted that this research was a precursor to a book chapter by Keche (2021) which explored the applicability of new higher education methods in Zimbabwe’s “Second Republic”