RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.2 Findings and Discussions .1 Analysis of questionnaires
4.2.2 Analysis of semi – structured interviews and document analysis
4.2.2.1 Component 1: Vision
using to teach IKS? Teacher centred Inquiry based 7. Teacher role What is your role in
teaching IKS?
Facilitator Interpreter Leader Manager Assessor Specialist
8. Assessment How do you assess
IKS?
Formative Assessment Summative Assessment
9. Time When do you teach
IKS?
Hours Weeks Amount 10.Grouping/Accessibility With whom are you
teaching with?/ Who are you teaching?
Other teachers Physical Financial Cultural
Table 4.3 Components, questions and teachers’ experiences categories guided by the curricular spider web.
4.2.2.1 Component 1: Vision
Why are you teaching IKS?
The reasons given by the teachers are represented in two categories. These categories are personal (pedagogical) and societal (beneficial). Although the professional (content) reason is found in the table above it is not commented on in this discussion on vision as it only became apparent as a vision while exploring findings concerned with the component of content.
Below are the responses of the teachers during the data generation process to the above question which provides evidence of these categories identified.
Participant 1 “IKS can help individuals in rural communities to improve their quality of life.
They could also make use of ethnic medication since they have a lack of medical facilities. It
111
helps us to learn to use our natural resources in a sustainable way so they can be preserved for future generations...”.
Participant 2 “Learners prior knowledge is important for future learning and a learners’
prior knowledge generally comes from home. So to build on future learning I think it’s important to take into account what the learner already knows… it makes learning science more meaningful...”.
Participant 3 “Lots of the content that we teach to learners is above their heads and are difficult for them to conceptualise but if you bring their knowledge and their understanding that they have in their culture of certain concepts, it makes it easier for them to grasp something that you are trying to teach them. Also we have to get over the idea of children being empty vessels and us filling them with knowledge and so they have their own knowledge that they bring to the table as well...”.
Participant 1’s response suggests that her reason for teaching IKS is in line with the societal vision (Schiro, 2013) of teaching and learning where the needs of society are at the centre.
This is evident in her speaking of IKS helping rural communities to improve their quality of life. This issue of IKS improving the quality of life is in alignment with the WorldBank (1998) which views IKS as being part of the strategies which local communities implement in order to obtain development, where IKS is a fundamental part of the lives of the poor and is further explained by Semali and Kincheloe (1999) as having transformative power.
IKS enables individuals in making responsible decisions regarding the sustainable use of natural resources which the societal vision encompasses as it is also concerned with producing individuals who are mature and contributing members of society. This in line with Emeagwali (2003) who views IKS as enabling sustainable development and environmental responsibility. This point of their vision for teaching IKS being societal is re enforced by the basis on which the curriculum has been developed, as it is based on the values of the Constitution of South Africa where in the preamble of the Constitution which includes its aims states that it aims to “heal the divisions of the past and improve the quality of life of all citizens” (DoE, 2011, p. 1). These aims of the Constitution on which the curriculum is based, is definitely in line with a societal vision which the teachers possess. This identification of the
112
participants having a societal vision could be in accordance with Khoza (2015a) who found that teachers’ visions are strongly aligned with the visions of the intended curriculum which are found in the policy document.
The responses of participants 2 and 3 suggest that IKS can be utilised in a pedagogical sense (personal) as both mention the importance of using the learners’ prior knowledge in the teaching and learning process. In a way these responses are aligned with the societal vision, as well, as learning in societal vision is attributed to learners’ competencies in the form of learners’ prior knowledge being drawn upon. In terms of a pedagogical sense (personal) Jegede and Aikenhead (1999) view the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in the teaching of science as being in line with a social constructivist learning theory, which places importance on the role of prior knowledge or indigenous knowledge in the construction of meaning in a new situation. IKS as prior knowledge serves as a vehicle to promote learning through it motivating children due to the fact that they start to see acknowledgement being given to what they do and say in their communities (George ,1999).
In an effort to further ascertain the participants’ attitudes towards IKS which was initially done from the data generated from the questionnaires, I asked the participants if they thought IKS should be included in the Life Sciences curriculum.
Participant 1 “To a certain degree. It could help learners understand why our natural resources need to be used in a sustainable way. They could learn to appreciate nature and try to preserve it and in so doing prevent the further extinction of species...”.
Participant 2 “Yes, I think it should be as it places western science into perspective so western science is not taught in isolation... it could add value to western science...”.
Participant 3 “Yes, I do think it should be allowed as learners knowledge has value to them, it also has value within the science curriculum. So by including it in the Life Sciences curriculum they can see how their knowledge is important in the way science functions or works...”.
113
The three participants are of the view that IKS should be included in the science curriculum.
This is evident in the responses of participants 2 and 3 who speak of IKS adding value to the science curriculum while participant 1 in agreeing with the inclusion of IKS is of the opinion that it could aid learners understand the need for individuals to sustainably use our natural resources. Agreeing with the idea of the inclusion of IKS on the above bases leads one to further identify that the participants of this study have a positive attitude towards IKS.
This positive attitude of the teachers of IKS could also be utilised to re enforce the identification of a personal reason for teaching Life Sciences which involves IKS as content.
Kilinc and Mahiroglu (2009) identified that teachers chose Biology (Life Sciences) to teach as a result of them having an enjoyable experience with the subject at school which fosters a positive attitude. The point of teachers’ having an enjoyable experience with a subject which influences their choice to teach that subject is in line with the personal vision as one of the characteristics of this vision is concerned with school being viewed as an enjoyable place.
This suggests that informed by their positive attitudes, the participants’ experiences in relation to their own schooling was one that they enjoyed.