Monitoring and Support Practices in Rural Schools: Improving Matric Performance in Vhembe East District, South Africa

Abstract

This study investigates how monitoring and support practices are enacted and strengthened to improve matric (National Senior Certificate) performance in the Vhembe East District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Persistent underperformance in rural schools reflects structural challenges related to instructional leadership, limited resources, and weak institutional support systems. While alternative frameworks such as instructional leadership and school effectiveness emphasise formal structures and standardised practices, this study adopts bricolage theory to better capture the adaptive, improvised, and context-responsive ways in which school leaders operate under resource constraints. Bricolage is particularly appropriate in this context as it foregrounds how actors mobilise available resources, relationships, and local knowledge to address immediate challenges where formal systems are insufficient. A qualitative case study design, informed by participatory and reflective principles, was employed and data were generated through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and document analysis, and analysed using a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic approach. Findings reveal that monitoring and support practices—such as teacher supervision, learner support programmes, and parental engagement—are unevenly enacted due to limited resources, weak monitoring capacity, and inconsistent implementation. Based on the participants’ reflections, the study proposes that strengthening monitoring and support in resource-constrained contexts requires integrating locally adaptive practices with structured capacity-building and institutional support. It contributes to a contextually grounded understanding of educational improvement and demonstrates the analytical value of bricolage theory in explaining how school leaders navigate constraints through adaptive practice.

1. Introduction and Background

In South Africa, the matriculation system—formally the National Senior Certificate (NSC)—marks the completion of Grade 12 and serves as a high-stakes school-leaving qualification. Administered by the Department of Basic Education, it determines access to higher education and employment. Learners must offer seven subjects: two official languages (Home Language and First Additional Language), Mathematics or Mathematical Literacy, Life Orientation, and three electives. Assessment combines School-Based Assessment (25%) and final national examinations (75%), which are centrally set and moderated. Results are reported on a seven-level scale (Level 1–7). A minimum pass requires 40% in three subjects (including a Home Language) and 30% in three others. Higher achievement levels determine eligibility for Bachelor’s, Diploma, or Higher Certificate study. Due to its high-stakes nature, the NSC is a key indicator of educational performance and inequality.

The persistent underperformance of learners in the National Senior Certificate (NSC) examination—commonly referred to as “matric” in South Africa—remains a significant concern for the country’s education system. In this context, the performance of provinces such as Limpopo has drawn considerable attention due to consistently low outcomes relative to national benchmarks. Between 2018 and 2022, Limpopo’s matric pass rate fluctuated between 66.7% and 73.2%, often placing the province among the lowest-performing in the country (DBE 2021, 2022). While these figures reflect systemic challenges, they also raise important questions about the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms designed to support teaching and learning. Among these mechanisms, monitoring and support systems play a critical role in ensuring curriculum coverage, maintaining instructional quality, and identifying learner performance gaps. At the district level, curriculum advisors are mandated to provide professional support to teachers and to monitor the implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). Their responsibilities include evaluating curriculum coverage, identifying content gaps, assessing the quality of teaching and assessment practices, and guiding schools in implementing improvement strategies (DBE 2020; Rammbuda 2023). At the school level, School Management Teams (SMTs) are expected to complement these efforts through internal monitoring, instructional leadership, and ongoing support to teachers.

Despite the existence of these structures, the effectiveness of monitoring and support practices in improving learner outcomes remains contested (Rasila 2019). One of the key challenges identified in the literature is the reliance on standardised, top-down monitoring tools that are often insufficiently responsive to the diverse socio-economic and geographic contexts of schools. In rural and under-resourced settings, such as those found in many parts of Limpopo, these rigid approaches may fail to address context-specific challenges, including limited resources, teacher shortages, and broader socio-economic constraints. Consequently, district-led initiatives such as School Improvement Plans and curriculum monitoring frameworks have shown limited impact on improving learner performance (DBE 2023a, 2023b). Empirical studies conducted in Limpopo further highlight that inadequate and inconsistent monitoring, coupled with limited teacher support and professional development, contributes significantly to persistent underperformance (Makhananesa and Sepeng 2022; Malumbete 2021). These findings suggest that the challenge is not only the presence of monitoring systems but also how these systems are implemented, adapted, and sustained within specific school contexts. Against this background, there is a need to move beyond descriptive accounts of monitoring practices and critically examine how they operate in practice, particularly in resource-constrained environments. The current model—largely driven by curriculum advisors and characterised by compliance-oriented procedures—tends to be rigid, standardised, and insufficiently contextualised (Rammbuda 2023). This raises concerns about its capacity to respond effectively to local needs and to support meaningful improvements in learner performance.

This study addresses this gap by focusing on schools in the Vhembe East District of Limpopo Province, where challenges of underperformance persist despite ongoing interventions. It seeks to explore how monitoring and support practices are enacted at school level and how these practices can be strengthened in ways that are responsive to contextual realities.

Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question:

How are monitoring and support practices enacted in Vhembe East District, and how can they be strengthened through contextually adaptive strategies to enhance learner performance? The article proceeds by outlining the theoretical framework underpinning the study, followed by the methodology, presentation of findings, and discussion of implications for policy and practice.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is couched in bricolage theory, originally conceptualised by Lévi-Strauss (1966) within structural anthropology and later developed in organisational and educational research by scholars such as Baker and Nelson (2005), Duymedjian and Rüling (2010), and Altglas (2014). The concept of bricolage refers to problem-solving through the creative use of available resources, particularly in contexts characterised by constraints. It emphasises improvisation, adaptation, and the recombination of existing but often underutilised resources to address emerging challenges.

2.1. Core Assumptions of Bricolage Theory

Bricolage theory is based on the assumption that actors in resource-constrained environments are not passive recipients of limitations but active problem-solvers who creatively reconfigure available resources to meet their needs (Duymedjian and Rüling 2010; Altglas 2014). It highlights three interrelated principles:

• Resourcefulness: Using available human, material, and social resources innovatively;
• Improvisation: Responding to challenges through flexible and situational actions;
• Recombination: Repurposing existing resources for new or expanded functions.

Within educational settings, this implies that schools can enhance monitoring and support systems by optimising existing capacities rather than relying solely on external interventions.

2.2. Rationale for Selecting Bricolage Theory

Although alternative frameworks such as instructional leadership theory, school improvement models, and community engagement or partnership frameworks could have been considered, these approaches are often grounded in more structured, resource-assuming, and top-down systems of educational improvement. Such frameworks typically presuppose the availability of stable institutional capacity, adequate funding, and well-resourced governance structures.

In contrast, the context of this study—rural schools in the Vhembe East District of Limpopo—is characterised by resource constraints, uneven institutional capacity, and reliance on locally available support systems. For this reason, bricolage theory provides a more appropriate analytical lens because it explicitly accounts for how schools function and improve under conditions of scarcity. It shifts attention from idealised policy-driven models of school improvement to contextually grounded, adaptive, and resourceful practices.

In this study, bricolage theory informed both the design of the inquiry and the interpretation of findings. Analytically, the study specifically focused on identifying instances of bricolage in school monitoring and support practices through the following dimensions:

• Resource utilisation: How schools use existing human resources such as School Management Teams (SMTs), Heads of Departments (HODs), experienced teachers, and retired educators to support monitoring processes;
• Adaptive leadership practices: How school leaders adjust monitoring strategies in response to constraints such as limited district visits, large workloads, or infrastructure challenges.

We see bricolage theory in the context of Vhembe East District relevant for effective monitoring rather than to depending solely on external interventions but can emerge from locally generated solutions. For example, where formal school support visits are infrequent, SMTs and experienced teachers may take on mentoring roles. Similarly, retired educators may contribute through workshops or informal coaching, while community structures may assist in strengthening accountability and learner support systems.

Locating this study in bricolage was relevant since the theory encourages the development of flexible, context-responsive strategies that are shaped by local realities. This approach positions schools and communities as active agents in school improvement processes, capable of transforming limitations into opportunities for innovation and sustainability.

3. Literature Review

This section critically synthesises literature on monitoring and support practices that shape matric learners’ academic performance, particularly in resource-constrained schooling contexts. Rather than presenting discrete theoretical traditions, the review organises the literature into three analytically related domains: (i) monitoring as an instructional practice, (ii) support as capacity development, and (iii) improvement as a systemic and context-dependent process. These domains are not treated as separate strands but as interdependent processes that are enacted within schools under varying structural conditions.

The review is guided by bricolage as an integrative lens, which foregrounds how school actors adapt, combine, and reconfigure available resources and practices in response to contextual constraints. This shifts the analysis from idealised, policy-driven models of monitoring and support towards their situated enactment in under-resourced environments. The section proceeds by clarifying core concepts, followed by an integrative theoretical framing that connects and critiques dominant perspectives in the field.

3.1. Conceptual Clarification: Monitoring, Support, and School Effectiveness

Monitoring, support, and effectiveness are central but often inconsistently defined constructs in the literature. In this study, they are conceptualised as mutually reinforcing processes within school improvement rather than disconnected activities.

Monitoring refers to the systematic generation and use of evidence on teaching and learning to inform instructional decision-making (Grissom et al. 2021). While often associated with compliance-oriented practices such as checking curriculum coverage, contemporary perspectives emphasise formative processes, including classroom observation, feedback, and ongoing assessment tracking. However, in practice—particularly in under-resourced contexts—monitoring frequently oscillates between accountability-driven control and developmental support, creating tensions in its implementation.

Support is understood as a multi-dimensional process of capacity development, encompassing professional, instructional, and psychosocial assistance aimed at strengthening teacher competence and learner performance (Fullan 2016). This includes mentoring, coaching, collaborative learning, and targeted interventions. Importantly, support is not only formal and externally driven but also emerges through informal, practice-based interactions within schools.

Effectiveness, within a school improvement perspective, extends beyond short-term examination outcomes to include sustained improvements in instructional quality, learner engagement, and organisational capacity (Hopkins 2013). This broader view challenges narrow performance metrics and highlights the processual and context-dependent nature of improvement.

Taken together, these constructs suggest that monitoring and support function as interlinked and dynamic practices, whose effectiveness depends on how they are enacted within specific school contexts. This interdependence necessitates a framework that can account for variability, adaptation, and constraint—an analytical role fulfilled by bricolage.

3.2. Theoretical Framing: A Bricolage Perspective on Monitoring and Support

This study adopts bricolage as an integrative theoretical lens through which existing perspectives on monitoring and support are interpreted. Bricolage conceptualises practice as the adaptive recombination of available resources, knowledge, and relationships in response to context-specific challenges (Lévi-Strauss 1966). This enables a more nuanced understanding of how monitoring and support are actually enacted in schools facing structural constraints.

From an instructional perspective, monitoring is often framed as a structured process of supervision, feedback, and data use to improve teaching and learning (Grissom et al. 2021). However, such formulations tend to assume stable organisational conditions and adequate resources. A bricolage perspective challenges this assumption by showing that, in practice, monitoring is frequently improvised, uneven, and mediated by contextual limitations, requiring school leaders to adapt prescribed processes.

Similarly, school improvement literature promotes systematic, data-driven change as a pathway to effectiveness (Hopkins 2013). While valuable, this perspective can underplay the complexity and unpredictability of change in under-resourced settings. Bricolage extends this view by foregrounding non-linearity, experimentation, and context responsiveness, suggesting that improvement is often achieved through iterative and locally constructed practices rather than linear implementation models.

In relation to support, capacity-building approaches emphasise the development of teacher knowledge and skills through structured professional development (Fullan 2016). Yet, in many rural contexts, such opportunities are limited or inconsistently delivered. A bricolage lens highlights how capacity is often developed through informal collaboration, peer learning, and contextually embedded problem-solving, thereby broadening the understanding of what constitutes meaningful support.

Furthermore, perspectives that emphasise shared or distributed responsibility in schools (Spillane 2005 resonate with bricolage in recognising the role of multiple actors in improvement processes. However, bricolage extends this by illustrating how agency is not only distributed but also emergent and contingent, shaped by the need to respond creatively to constraints.

Across these perspectives, a common limitation is the tendency to conceptualise monitoring and support as coherent, structured, and policy-aligned processes. In contrast, bricolage reveals them as situated, adaptive, and often fragmented practices, particularly in resource-constrained environments. By integrating these perspectives, bricolage provides a unifying analytical framework that connects monitoring, support, and school improvement while accounting for the realities of practice.

3.3. Monitoring and Support Through a Bricolage Lens

3.3.1. Instructional Leadership and Adaptive Monitoring

Monitoring is widely recognised as a core component of instructional leadership, aimed at improving teaching quality through observation, feedback, and data use. However, evidence from rural contexts suggests that monitoring practices are often inconsistent and constrained by limited resources, time, and capacity (Mouton and Malumbete 2023; Rammbuda 2023).

While traditional perspectives interpret these limitations as failures in implementation, this view overlooks the realities of under-resourced schools. For instance, irregular school visits by curriculum advisers weaken formal monitoring systems, thereby limiting accountability and instructional support (Rasila 2019). This raises critical questions about the feasibility of standardised monitoring models in such contexts.

From a bricolage perspective, these constraints necessitate adaptive practices. School leaders and teachers often engage in informal monitoring strategies, such as peer observation, collaborative planning, and shared feedback mechanisms. These practices reflect a shift from hierarchical, compliance-driven monitoring to relational and practice-based approaches.

Overall, the literature suggests that monitoring in resource-constrained contexts is less a structured process and more an adaptive practice, reinforcing the relevance of bricolage as a framework for understanding how schools sustain instructional oversight under challenging conditions.

3.3.2. Capacity Building and Teacher Development as Situated Practice

Teacher development is widely regarded as central to improving learner outcomes. However, there is growing evidence that traditional professional development models are often ineffective, particularly in rural and under-resourced contexts (Popova et al. 2022).

While formal training programmes aim to enhance pedagogical and technological competencies, they frequently fail to address contextual realities. Studies (Aruleba and Jere 2022; Grimus 2020) indicate that many teachers lack digital skills, yet access to meaningful training remains limited. This suggests a disconnect between policy intentions and implementation.

From a capacity-building perspective, sustained professional development requires continuous, context-responsive learning opportunities (Fullan 2016). However, where such opportunities are lacking, teachers rely on informal strategies, including peer collaboration, resource sharing, and experiential learning.

This aligns with distributed leadership, where professional learning is embedded within school practices. Kelkay (2020) further highlights that leadership capacity constraints often limit formal support structures, thereby reinforcing the importance of collective problem-solving.

From a bricolage perspective, teacher development emerges as a situated and adaptive process, shaped by available resources and collaborative practices. This challenges the dominance of formal training models and highlights the importance of contextually grounded approaches to capacity building.

3.3.3. Learner Support as Context-Responsive Intervention

Learner support programmes, such as extra classes and enrichment initiatives, are widely implemented to improve academic performance. While research suggests that these interventions can be effective (Tan et al. 2020), their impact is often uneven.

In many cases, such programmes are implemented in isolation from broader school conditions, limiting their effectiveness (Muthala et al. 2022). Additionally, factors such as absenteeism and lack of psychosocial support undermine learner engagement (Erasmus 2023; Chinyama et al. 2021).

These challenges highlight a critical limitation in existing approaches, which often assume that standardised interventions will yield consistent outcomes. However, this assumption does not hold in contexts characterised by socio-economic constraints and institutional weaknesses.

From a bricolage perspective, learner support is understood as a dynamic and context-responsive process, where teachers adapt interventions to meet learners’ diverse needs. This may include informal tutoring, flexible scheduling, and the integration of emotional support into teaching practices.

Thus, the effectiveness of learner support programmes depends not only on their design but also on their adaptability to specific contexts.

3.3.4. Parental Involvement and Community-Based Support

Parental involvement is widely recognised as a key determinant of learner success. However, the literature reveals significant disparities in parental engagement, often linked to socio-economic factors (Du Plessis and Mestry 2019).

While traditional models emphasise structured forms of parental involvement, such as meetings and academic supervision, these approaches may not be feasible in disadvantaged communities. Studies (Goodall and Montgomery 2023; Wilder 2023) suggest that rigid expectations can inadvertently exclude parents who lack resources or formal education.

This creates a tension between policy expectations and contextual realities. From a school improvement perspective, effective parental engagement requires flexible and inclusive strategies that accommodate diverse circumstances.

Bricolage provides a useful lens for understanding how schools navigate these challenges by leveraging existing community relationships and informal communication channels. For example, schools may engage local leaders, adapt meeting schedules, or use alternative forms of communication to involve parents.

Overall, parental involvement in resource-constrained contexts is best understood as a contextual and adaptive process, rather than a fixed set of practices.

3.4. Structural Constraints and the Need for Bricolage

3.4.1. Resource Constraints and Inequality

Resource limitations remain a significant barrier to effective teaching and learning. Rural schools often face shortages of infrastructure, teaching materials, and qualified staff (Molaudzi and Adeyemo 2022).

While school improvement theory emphasises systemic reform, such changes are often slow and uneven. Digital inequality further exacerbates these challenges, limiting access to technology and innovative teaching methods (Selwyn 2021).

From a bricolage perspective, schools respond to these constraints through creative resource utilisation, including sharing materials and improvising teaching aids. This highlights the importance of adaptability in addressing systemic inequalities.

3.4.2. Overcrowding and Adaptive Teaching Practices

Overcrowded classrooms pose significant challenges for effective teaching and monitoring (Biyela 2019). High learner–teacher ratios limit individualised support and reduce instructional quality.

However, teachers often adapt by employing strategies such as group work and peer learning. These practices demonstrate how teaching is reshaped in response to contextual constraints.

From a bricolage perspective, such adaptations reflect the capacity of teachers to navigate challenging conditions through innovative practices.

3.4.3. Leadership Constraints and Distributed Problem-Solving

Leadership capacity is critical for effective monitoring and support. However, school leaders often face competing demands that limit their ability to focus on instructional improvement (Govindasamy and Mestry 2022). This creates a gap between policy expectations and practice. While instructional leadership models assume active engagement in teaching and learning, the reality is often characterised by administrative overload.

Bricolage addresses this challenge by emphasising distributed and collaborative leadership, where responsibility is shared among multiple actors. This approach enhances collective capacity and supports adaptive problem-solving.

3.5. Research Gap and Contribution

Although extensive research exists on monitoring and support, much of it assumes the availability of resources and well-functioning institutional systems. There is limited understanding of how these practices are enacted in resource-constrained rural contexts, where formal structures are often weak or inconsistent.

In particular, the literature does not sufficiently explain how school leaders and teachers employ bricolage strategies to adapt monitoring and support practices under conditions of scarcity.

This study addresses this gap by examining how monitoring and support are reconstructed, negotiated, and enacted through bricolage in the Vhembe East District. In doing so, it contributes to a more contextually grounded understanding of educational improvement and extends existing theoretical frameworks.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Paradigm, Approach and Design

This study is located within the transformative research paradigm, which seeks to address inequality and context-specific educational challenges while contributing to practical improvement. The transformative paradigm was appropriate because the study aimed to understand how monitoring and support practices operate in under-resourced schools and to identify contextually relevant strategies for strengthening those practices.

A qualitative approach was adopted to enable an in-depth exploration of participants’ experiences, perspectives, and contextual realities regarding monitoring and support practices in rural secondary schools.

The study employed a qualitative case study design, informed by participatory and reflective principles. A case study design was considered suitable because it enabled the researcher to investigate monitoring and support practices within the real-life context of selected schools in the Vhembe East District. While the study incorporated collaborative reflection through participant engagement during interviews and focus group discussions, it did not involve iterative cycles of intervention, implementation, and evaluation required in full Participatory Action Research.

4.2. Study Context and Sampling Strategy

The study was conducted in four rural secondary schools in the Niani West Circuit of the Vhembe East District, Limpopo Province. Criterion-based purposive sampling was used to select information-rich cases, with accessibility enabling sustained engagement with participants.

Selection criteria included: (i) persistent challenges in matric performance, (ii) rural and resource-constrained contexts, (iii) functional School Management Teams (SMTs), and (iv) willingness to participate in reflective engagements and discussions related to monitoring and support practices. This ensured relevance to the research problem and feasibility of participation.

4.3. Participants

The study involved eight participants: four principals and four Heads of Department (HODs), one from each school. Participants were selected based on their direct involvement in monitoring and support practices, a minimum of two years’ experience within School Management Teams (SMTs), and formal appointment by the Department of Education.

While the sample is small, it is appropriate for a qualitative case study that prioritises depth, contextual understanding, and detailed exploration of participants’ experiences. The study does not aim for statistical generalisation but rather seeks to generate analytically transferable insights that may be applicable to similar rural and resource-constrained educational contexts.

4.4. Participant Engagement and Reflective Processes

The study incorporated participatory elements through structured engagement and collaborative reflection with participants. Initial semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore existing monitoring and support practices, implementation challenges, and areas requiring improvement. Thereafter, focus group discussions were used to validate emerging findings, facilitate reflective dialogue, and collaboratively identify practical strategies for strengthening monitoring and support practices.

These reflective processes enabled participants to co-interpret the realities of their school contexts and to propose adaptive solutions based on their experiences.

4.5. Data Collection Methods

Data were collected over four months (February–May 2024) using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and document analysis to ensure triangulation.

4.5.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

Eight individual interviews (45–60 min each) were conducted face-to-face using an interview guide aligned with the research objectives. Questions focused on monitoring practices, implementation challenges, adaptive strategies, and support mechanisms. Interviews were conducted primarily in English.

4.5.2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

Two FGDs (60–90 min each), involving all participants, were conducted following the initial interviews. These sessions focused on validating emerging findings, facilitating collective reflection, and collaboratively identifying strategies for strengthening monitoring and support practices. FGDs supported interaction, consensus-building, and deeper exploration of shared experiences.

4.5.3. Document Analysis

Document analysis was used to enhance triangulation. Documents included attendance registers for extra classes, school-based monitoring records, and parent meeting records. These documents were analysed for evidence of monitoring practices, intervention activities, and learner participation patterns.

4.6. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic analysis approach. The first phase involved inductive coding, where themes emerged directly from the interview transcripts, focus group discussions, and documents reviewed. This allowed the researcher to identify recurring patterns and experiences relating to monitoring and support practices in participating schools.

In the second phase, deductive coding was applied using bricolage theory as an interpretive framework. Specifically, themes were analysed according to dimensions of resourcefulness, improvisation, collaboration, and recombination to understand how schools adapted their practices within resource-constrained environments.

The researcher conducted the initial coding process, after which emerging themes were discussed with participants during focus group engagements to validate interpretations and strengthen credibility.

4.7. Data Sufficiency

Data sufficiency was reached when no new themes emerged from the data, and patterns became consistent across participants and schools.

4.8. Trustworthiness and Reflexivity

Trustworthiness was ensured through established qualitative research criteria. Credibility was enhanced through data triangulation and participant validation during focus group discussions. Transferability was supported through detailed contextual descriptions of the study setting and participants. Dependability was ensured by maintaining an audit trail of methodological and analytical decisions throughout the research process. Confirmability was strengthened through reflexive journaling to minimise researcher bias.

The researcher maintained continuous reflexivity, acknowledging their influence on data generation, interpretation, and the co-construction of meaning with participants during the research process.

4.9. Triangulation

Triangulation was achieved through the use of multiple data sources, including semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and document analysis. Findings were cross-verified across these sources to enhance credibility and ensure consistency in interpretation.

4.10. Ethical Considerations

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the General/Human Research Ethics Committee (GHREC) of the University of the Free State (Approval No. UFS-HSD2023/1637) prior to data collection. Following institutional approval, formal permission to conduct the study in public schools was granted by the Limpopo Department of Education (LDoE). Thereafter, access to the selected schools was negotiated with school principals, and participation was sought from eligible participants.

Participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty, and the measures in place to ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

To protect participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used throughout the study. For example, “P1” refers to Principal 1 and “HOD1” refers to Head of Department 1. No identifiable personal or institutional information was included in the reporting of findings.

Given that the study involved school leaders as participants, specific measures were taken to manage potential power dynamics and ensure ethical integrity. Participation was strictly voluntary, and no participant was placed under obligation to take part. Data collection processes were conducted in a manner that encouraged open and honest responses, emphasising that the study was not evaluative in nature and that responses would not be shared with the Department of Education or used for performance appraisal.

All ethical principles, including voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and respect for participants, were upheld throughout the research process in accordance with established qualitative research ethics guidelines (Wiles et al. 2008).

5. Findings and Discussion

The findings presented in this section reflect participants’ experiences and collaborative reflections on existing monitoring and support practices within their schools. The analysis highlights current practices, implementation challenges, and contextually relevant strategies proposed by participants. The study does not report on the implementation or evaluation of these strategies over time; rather, it offers insight into how school leaders understand and respond to the realities of monitoring and support in resource-constrained contexts. This section presents the findings on monitoring and support practices in the Vhembe East District as reported by participants. Data were generated through document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. The study sought to answer the main research question: How are monitoring and support practices enacted in schools in the Vhembe East District, and how can these practices be strengthened to improve learner performance?

Thematic analysis followed an inductive process. Transcripts and documents were first coded line-by-line to identify meaningful units related to monitoring practices, support mechanisms, and contextual constraints. These initial codes were then grouped into broader categories based on conceptual similarity. Through iterative comparison and refinement, these categories were consolidated into higher-order themes that captured patterned meanings across the dataset. From this process, three overarching themes emerged:

(i)

Monitoring and Support Practices;

(ii)

Challenges in Their Implementation;

(iii)

Bricolage strategies for strengthening monitoring and support.

From the main themes sub-themes emerged. The table below (

Table 1. Emerging themes and sub-themes.

Themes	Sub-Themes
5.1 Monitoring and Support Practices	5.1.1 Teacher Monitoring and Support Skills
	5.1.2 Parental Involvement
	5.1.3 Regular Learner Assessment
	5.1.4 Extra Lessons and Camps
5.2 Challenges in Implementing Monitoring and Support Practices	5.2.1 Inadequate Infrastructure
	5.2.3 Teacher Capacity and Professional Development Gaps
	5.2.4 Outdated Pedagogical Practices
5.3 Bricolage Strategies for Strengthening Monitoring and Support	5.3.1 Informal Mentoring and Internal Capacity Building
	5.3.2 Collaborative Practices and Distributed Leadership
	5.3.3 Community Engagement as a Support Mechanism
	5.3.4 Resource Reconfiguration and Improvisation

) shows the themes and sub-themes.

5.1. Monitoring and Support Practices

The findings reveal how monitoring and support practices are enacted within schools in the Vhembe East District. These practices include teacher monitoring, parental involvement, learner assessment, and supplementary academic programmes.

5.1.1. Teacher Monitoring and Support Skills

Participants reported that inadequate monitoring and support from principals, School Management Teams (SMTs), and curriculum advisors significantly contributes to poor matric learner performance. They emphasised that weaknesses in leadership monitoring capacity and limited external support reduce the effectiveness of teaching and learning support at school level.

One participant (P1) explained that “a lack of monitoring skills by Principals and SMT members” is a key factor negatively affecting learner outcomes. This suggests that internal school leadership structures are not always adequately equipped to implement consistent instructional monitoring.

In addition, participants raised concerns regarding the infrequency of curriculum advisor visits. In a focus group discussion, Participant P2 noted that “subject advisers don’t come more often as we expect them to do… sometimes they might come in Term 2, which is very bad”. The participant further highlighted that when monitoring does occur, it is often not accompanied by adequate follow-up support, stating that “even if there is something wrong, they do not provide the correct document that is being required.” This reflects perceived gaps in both the frequency and quality of external support provided to schools.

Participants also stressed the importance of targeted professional development to strengthen monitoring capacity at all levels. One participant (DH3) emphasised that “training should be provided, adequate training that will help to bring some changes in the performance of learners.” This indicates a strong perceived link between capacity building and improved learner outcomes.

Documented accounts from participants suggest that irregular and ineffective monitoring and support constrain teachers’ ability to respond to classroom challenges in a timely and structured manner. This finding is consistent with Mouton and Malumbete (2023), who observed limited training and capacity among curriculum advisors, and Rammbuda (2023), who reported infrequent monitoring visits in Limpopo schools.

From a bricolage theoretical perspective, these challenges highlight the need to reconfigure existing institutional resources rather than rely solely on external expertise. Strengthening monitoring and support may therefore involve repurposing and enhancing the capacity of existing actors—such as principals, Heads of Department, and curriculum advisors—through context-specific and continuous professional development. Such adaptive capacity-building approaches could improve the functionality of monitoring systems and contribute to more effective teaching and learning outcomes in resource-constrained school environments.

5.1.2. Parental Involvement

Participants highlighted that parental involvement is a critical factor in supporting learner achievement. Principals reported that schools conduct regular meetings with parents to communicate expectations regarding learner support and to guide them on how to assist with studying at home. One participant (P1) explained that “parents are expected to assist us [principals] in monitoring and also supporting learners. That’s why we conduct meetings with them where we tell them what we expect from them and what kind of support they can give to learners… they will monitor these learners when they are doing their studies… and that will assist in learner performance.” This reflects an institutional expectation that parents play a complementary role in reinforcing learning beyond the classroom.

However, the findings also reveal that parental involvement is uneven and often inconsistent. While some parents actively engage with schools, others provide limited or no support. Participant P2 noted that “some of the parents leave everything to us. They thought we would do everything in their absence… but there are some who are cooperating.” This indicates a divided pattern of engagement, where parental support varies significantly across households. Similarly, another participant (DH3) observed that “some parents leave everything to the school,” reinforcing concerns about limited parental responsibility in learner support.

Document analysis, including attendance registers from parent meetings, corroborated these accounts by showing that a considerable number of parents do not attend scheduled meetings. This further demonstrates the inconsistency of parental participation in school activities.

Participants attributed these challenges to contextual factors such as poverty, low levels of literacy, and competing socio-economic demands, which limit parents’ ability to engage meaningfully with schools. These findings are consistent with Maqoqa et al. (2023), who identified weak school–parent partnerships in rural schools, and Labuschagne (2021a, 2021b), who found that many rural parents are unaware of their role in supporting education.

From a bricolage perspective, these findings suggest that schools operate within constrained social environments where formal parental engagement structures are insufficient. As a result, schools may need to creatively mobilise alternative community-based resources, such as civic organisations, traditional leaders, or local community structures, to mediate between schools and parents. Such adaptive strategies could strengthen communication, enhance parental participation, and foster more sustainable school–community partnerships, particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts.

5.1.3. Regular Learner Assessment

Participants agreed that regular learner assessment plays a central role in identifying struggling learners and guiding targeted instructional interventions. They emphasised that continuous assessment enables teachers to track learner performance and respond timeously to learning difficulties. One participant (DH1) explained that regular assessment “gives a lead to early identification of struggling learners” and supports the profiling of learners into performance categories such as high achievers, average performers, and those requiring additional support. This profiling process enables teachers to plan differentiated interventions aimed at improving learner outcomes.

Similarly, another participant (DH2) concurred, stating that this approach “is assisting us to identify learners who are performing well, and those who are struggling as early as possible.” This highlights the perceived value of continuous assessment as an early warning mechanism for academic support.

Further elaborating on assessment practices, a principal (P3) explained that “we also profile learners, checking their item analysis, wherein we assist learners differently according to their way. We see that some need more attention.” This indicates that teachers use item analysis not only to measure performance but also to inform differentiated teaching strategies tailored to learner needs.

Document analysis, including school journals and reports from curriculum advisors, supported these accounts. These documents indicated concerns regarding the consistency, quality, and frequency of assessment tasks, suggesting variation in implementation across subjects and grade levels.

These findings are consistent with Ismail et al. (2022) and Andrade and Brookhart (2020), who argue that continuous assessment enhances learning outcomes by providing timely and actionable feedback that informs instructional decision-making.

From a bricolage perspective, regular learner assessment functions as an adaptive instructional resource that teachers use to interpret learner performance and adjust teaching strategies within resource-constrained environments. The process of profiling learners and analysing assessment results reflects how educators creatively utilise available data to respond to diverse learner needs. However, the effectiveness of this practice depends on the consistency and quality of assessment implementation. In contexts where assessment practices are uneven, the potential of feedback as a support mechanism is constrained. This underscores the importance of strengthening monitoring systems to ensure that assessment practices remain meaningful, reliable, and aligned with learning objectives.

5.1.4. Extra Lessons and Camps

Participants identified extra lessons and academic camps as key interventions aimed at improving learner performance by addressing learning gaps and enhancing motivation. These initiatives provide additional instructional time beyond the formal timetable, enabling more focused engagement with subject content. As participant DH3 explained, “it gives a positive motivation towards the learners, more focus is given as we will be having more time to make a full participation with the learners”. This highlights the perceived value of extended learning opportunities in promoting active learner participation.

Similarly, participants emphasised that these interventions allow for targeted academic support. During a focus group discussion, one principal (P4) noted that “it also allows the educators to give these learners work which is related to what is being difficult to them… on those topics, they can focus on specific topics which are being challenging to the learners”. This suggests that extra lessons create opportunities for differentiated instruction, enabling teachers to respond more effectively to learners’ specific needs. Another participant DH4 added that “these types of classes are where we work with the struggling learners and those that are doing well to improve on their levels”, indicating that such interventions are used to support both remediation and enrichment.

Despite these perceived benefits, analysis of documents like learners’ attendance registers revealed inconsistencies in learner attendance, particularly among underperforming learners who are the primary targets of these interventions. This irregular participation limits the overall effectiveness of extra lessons and camps as sustained support strategies.

These findings are consistent with existing literature, which shows that supplementary instructional programmes can reinforce classroom learning, improve examination preparedness, and enhance academic confidence (Reis and Renzulli 2023; Subba and Gotamey 2022). However, their impact is often constrained by inconsistent attendance and varying levels of learner commitment (Ngema and Maphalala 2021).

From a bricolage perspective, extra lessons and academic camps can be understood as adaptive, resource-constrained practices, where teachers mobilise available time, professional commitment, and learner engagement to extend learning opportunities. These initiatives reflect the capacity of school actors to creatively assemble support mechanisms in the absence of sufficient formal resources. However, their reliance on voluntary participation and additional effort also underscores their fragility and limited sustainability. Strengthening these interventions may therefore require more structured support mechanisms, including strategies to improve learner attendance and institutional recognition of teachers’ additional efforts.

5.2. Challenges in Implementing Monitoring and Support Practices

Participants identified several structural and capacity-related challenges that hinder the effective implementation of monitoring and support strategies in schools. These include inadequate infrastructure, limited teaching resources, and the use of outdated pedagogical approaches, all of which negatively affect teaching and learning processes.

One participant (P1) emphasised the need for improved infrastructure, noting that “additional classrooms, laboratories and library facilities are needed. It will also help to reduce overcrowding and provide necessary spaces for commercial subjects and science subjects, like a mini-laboratory or a library where we get enough books and equipment to do scientific experiments.” This highlights the impact of physical infrastructure limitations on curriculum delivery, particularly in practical and resource-dependent subjects.

In addition to infrastructure challenges, participants highlighted gaps in teacher capacity and professional development. One participant (P2) explained that “teachers are lacking capacity… training is needed… there should be programmes that offer teachers professional development… because some are still using outdated teaching methods.” This suggests a perceived need for structured and continuous professional learning opportunities to improve instructional practice.

Similarly, during a focus group discussion, Participant P4 added that “professional development of teachers is very important because they are the ones who deliver the curriculum… they need to be continuously developed so that they can use modern technologies and new methods of teaching… there is what we call a content gap.” This underscores concerns regarding both pedagogical relevance and subject content knowledge, particularly in relation to evolving curriculum demands.

Document analysis and participant accounts collectively indicate that limited infrastructure, insufficient resources, and outdated teaching practices significantly constrain the effectiveness of monitoring and support systems. These challenges also reduce the ability of schools to respond effectively to learner needs and curriculum requirements.

These findings are consistent with Molaudzi and Adeyemo (2022), who argue that resource allocation plays a decisive role in shaping learner outcomes, and Yan et al. (2021), who highlight that outdated pedagogical approaches limit the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes.

From a bricolage perspective, schools often respond to these constraints by reconfiguring available resources in creative ways. For example, community facilities such as halls or underutilised spaces may be repurposed as temporary learning environments, and teachers may collaborate to share limited instructional materials. However, while such adaptive strategies demonstrate resilience and agency, they remain insufficient to fully address structural inequalities. The findings therefore suggest that sustainable improvement requires a dual approach that combines context-sensitive bricolage practices with systemic investment in infrastructure, technology integration, and continuous teacher development.

5.3. Bricolage Strategies for Strengthening Monitoring and Support

Despite structural constraints, schools actively employ adaptive strategies to strengthen monitoring and support practices. These strategies reflect key principles of bricolage, including resourcefulness, improvisation, and recombination.

Participants reported the use of informal mentoring, where experienced teachers and Heads of Department support less experienced educators. This compensates for limited external monitoring and enhances internal instructional capacity. Collaborative practices such as peer observation and shared lesson planning were also reported by the participants in the study. These practices align with distributed leadership and demonstrate how monitoring responsibilities are shared across staff.

Schools further engage community structures, including parents and local leaders, to support learner discipline and academic engagement. Although participation is inconsistent, these efforts extend the support system beyond the school.

From a bricolage perspective, these findings indicate that strengthening monitoring and support is not solely dependent on external interventions but can be achieved through strategic use of locally available resources. However, these practices require formal recognition and support to ensure sustainability.

6. Limitations

This study is subject to several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study employed a criterion-based purposive sample of four principals and four Heads of Department (HODs) from four rural secondary schools within a single circuit of the Vhembe East District. While this enabled in-depth, contextually grounded insights, the small and localised sample limits the generalisability of the findings. Consistent with the qualitative case study design described in Section 4.1, the study does not seek statistical generalisation but instead offers analytical transferability to similar rural and resource-constrained contexts.

Second, the study focused exclusively on School Management Team (SMT) members, due to their formal responsibility for monitoring and support practices. The exclusion of other stakeholders—such as teachers, learners, parents, and curriculum advisors—limits the breadth of perspectives, although triangulation through interviews, focus groups, and document analysis strengthened the credibility of the findings.

Third, the study incorporated participatory and reflective elements but did not implement iterative intervention cycles or evaluate changes over time. Consequently, the findings reflect participants’ experiences, perceptions, and collaboratively generated strategies, rather than evidence of implemented or tested interventions.

Finally, the study relied on self-reported data generated through interviews and focus group discussions, which may be subject to response bias. However, this limitation was mitigated through data triangulation

Despite these limitations, the study provides contextually rich and analytically transferable insights into the enactment of monitoring and support practices in rural schools. Future research could focus on the empirical implementation of the proposed monitoring and support model in underperforming rural schools. Comparative studies across districts and provinces are necessary to assess the transferability of context-sensitive approaches. Further investigation is also required at the classroom level to understand how monitoring and support influence teacher instructional practices and learner outcomes.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study examined how monitoring and support practices are enacted in the Vhembe East District and how these practices can be strengthened to improve learner performance. The findings reveal that, although key monitoring and support mechanisms are present, their effectiveness is constrained by limited resources, weak monitoring capacity, and broader systemic challenges. Notably, the study highlights that schools do not operate passively within these constraints; rather, they actively engage in bricolage practices, including informal mentoring, collaborative teacher support, and community engagement, to sustain teaching and learning. These adaptive strategies demonstrate the agency of school leaders and educators in navigating complex and resource-constrained environments. Consequently, the study concludes that improving learner performance may require a dual approach that strengthens formal monitoring and support systems while simultaneously recognising and integrating contextually grounded, adaptive practices already embedded within schools. Such an approach offers a more sustainable and context-responsive pathway for educational improvement.

In light of these findings, several recommendations emerge. There is a need to strengthen instructional leadership capacity at the school level through targeted professional development and continuous support for principals and Heads of Department, enabling them to effectively monitor curriculum delivery and support teachers. At the same time, adaptive practices—bricolage, should be formally recognised and supported within policy frameworks, ensuring that innovative, context-driven strategies are not overlooked but rather scaled and institutionalised where appropriate. Improving the consistency and quality of district-level monitoring is also critical, requiring clearer guidelines, regular engagement with schools, and accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, schools should be supported in developing flexible and context-sensitive school–community engagement strategies to enhance parental involvement and local support for learner achievement. Addressing persistent infrastructure and resource inequalities remains essential, particularly in rural schools, to create enabling conditions for effective teaching and learning. Finally, policy frameworks should be aligned with the realities of under-resourced contexts, allowing for flexibility and responsiveness in implementation while maintaining clear standards for accountability and performance.