KAREN’S INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRICULUM
6.3 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION
6.3.2 Implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum
163
164
contribute substantially to Karen’s capacity to be innovative with regard to implementing the curriculum.
Although the Department of Education sent workbooks for the learners, there was no separate workbook for Life Skills. However, the life skills activities in the workbook were integrated across the Numeracy and Literacy Learning Programmes. According to Karen, the activities in the workbook included science concepts, such as parts of the plant but the focus was on Literacy and Numeracy not on Natural Science. Karen did not receive any support or training in the use of the workbooks. It was not clear how the workbooks facilitated the development of Learning Outcome One if only pictures of plants were included.
6.3.2.1.3 Professional Development
Karen’s professional development was limited to school meetings and workshops held by the Department of Education on grade R teaching. From Karen’s admission, she was of the opinion that these staff meetings are of no value to her. Karen lacked the confidence and knowledge to teach Natural Science. The limited opportunity she received to build her capacity was insufficient to give her the confidence and knowledge she needed to teach Natural Science.
There is a need for workshops and training sessions to be held for the teaching of Natural Science.
6.3.2.1.4 Karen’s level of implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum with regard to Outside Agencies
Table 5.12 shows the composite levels for the constructs included in the support from outside agencies. The discussion above informed my interpretation of how outside agencies support Karen’s ability to implement the curriculum. This means that Karen receives limited support from outside agencies and this does not contribute substantially at all to the enhancement of her ability to implement the Natural Science Curriculum. Table 6.3 reflects how the different sub-constructs related to outside agencies influenced Karen’s implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum. My findings are based on classroom observations and what was indicated in the questionnaire, interviews and document analysis. The table shows the levels at which Karen was placed.
Karen was at level two for learner support as she had some support from the parents and she spoke isiZulu to assist her learners. While the availability of an integrated workbook could place Karen at level two, all the other factors related to physical resources were at level
165
one, placing her overall at level one. Although Karen attended limited non-science workshops, all the factors related to professional development were at level one, placing Karen overall at level one. The levels Karen was placed at for the support from outside agencies, show that she has limited capacity to support the implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum.
166
Table 6.3: Karen’s ability to implement the Curriculum with respect to Support from Outside Agencies
Level Learner Support Physical Resources Professional Development
1 No provision of science equipment to teach
Natural Science
No facility to teach Science, for example classroom space, water, school yard
No staff development planned by school No workshops on Science offered
2 Minimum support by parents with regard to language, finance or homework
Minimum support from Karen to assist learners experiencing difficulty with the language of teaching, e.g. teacher translates in isiZulu
Integrated workbook was supplied Limited non-science workshops attended
3 4
167
6.3.2.2 Capacity to Support Innovation
The constructs pertaining to Karen’s capacity to support the curriculum as an innovation are presented in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.3: Karen’s Capacity to Support Innovation and the sub-constructs (from Rogan 2007, p. 99)
6.3.2.2.1 Teacher Factors
Karen’s passion for teaching in the Foundation Phase and background in Biology was a positive aspect. Although Karen’s description of herself showed her commitment and confidence in her ability to teach Natural Science, there was no evidence to support this.
It was difficult to ascertain if Karen had sound science pedagogical content knowledge, as there was no evidence that she taught Science during the observation period, which in itself could imply that she did not possess science pedagogical content knowledge.
Her undecidedness to be able to explain some science concepts correlated with her not having sound science content knowledge, which was an important aspect in determining her capacity to implement the Natural Science Curriculum. Furthermore, Karen’s reluctance to work with insects and other animals indicates that she has a poor understanding of how to use the environment to teach Science although she professed that Science was ‘everywhere’. Animals are found in the school environment and form part of the science content area in the Natural Science Curriculum. Her reluctance to use animals as teaching and learning resources could impede Karen’s ability to arrange practical hands-on activities e.g. allowing children to observe the different animals in the school environment. Her intention to have a garden again was
Learner Factors Teacher
Factors
Capacity to Support Innovation
School Ethos and Management Physical
Resources
168
laudable but there was no evidence of this activity. Karen’s confusing responses indicated that her capacity to support the implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum could be negatively affected. Karen seemed to think she had the capacity to manage hands-on science ensuring it was developmentally appropriate for her learners. However, there was no evidence to prove this was true.
With all of Karen’s experience, she was still unable to balance all her responsibilities as a foundation phase teacher. Hence, her capacity to support the implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum was uncertain, as more preparation and planning time would be required to teach Natural Science. Karen’s view that all kinds of additional support will help her to teach Science more effectively, will not work if she does not have the necessary knowledge of science concepts and instructional methods to teach Science. The fact that Karen never taught Science is the most telling aspect of all as she indicated that her interpretation of the Life skills Learning Programme advised that Natural Science be integrated, yet she did not implement this. Furthermore, her explanations of the science lessons that she said she taught indicated a number of misconceptions. Karen acknowledged that challenges with regard to assessment also affect her capacity, as she may not be able to record learners’ performance in Science. In conclusion, Karen’s confidence stems from her experience and not her ability to teach Science.
6.3.2.2.2 Learner Factors
Karen’s learners experienced challenges in the classroom, one of which was language. Her learners worked at different paces, and this may prove to be challenging in designing and implementing the Natural Science Curriculum. Although Karen believed her learners were capable of doing scientific investigations, she thought that they could not work independently.
Karen mentioned that learners seemed to enjoy activities that involved doing Science however, there was no evidence to support this from the classroom observations. Karen’s learners did not enhance her capacity to be innovative with regard to implementing the curriculum as she had many other challenges to consider.
The fact that learners rely on public transport means they have no control when there is a strike and are thus unable to attend school, which will negatively impact on their learning.
The feeding schemes that the school and the teachers organise ensure learners do not attend classes when they are hungry and they can concentrate on their learning.
Karen’s description of the learners in her class is contradictory to what was observed.
Her learners constantly disrupted the lesson. It was not possible to verify if the learners were
169
creative, critical thinkers as no opportunity was provided for them to display these characteristics.
6.3.2.2.3 Physical Resources
Karen gave the learners an activity from the workbook to complete even though she did not understand its context and used the activity directly as is from the Foundations of Learning workbooks. Even though Karen said she planned her lessons well, this was not evident.
Using textbooks and exercise books for grade R learners seemed overly ambitious, as the learners could not read. Although there were natural science activities in the workbooks, Karen could choose what she wanted to teach. I was unable to determine how many natural science activities were in the workbooks as all workbooks were not available. There was no evidence that Karen selected any natural science activities from the available workbooks either.
Karen did not select science equipment, the natural environment, videos, computers and models as resources that she used to teach Science. This was confirmed from the observation as no science equipment or the natural environment was used in her teaching because she did not teach Natural Science.
6.3.2.2.4 School Ethos and Management
The school ethos supports teaching and learning and is well organised, but there was little support for Karen to develop as a grade R teacher and she received no support for science teaching. Karen had no support from her head of department and had to organise and plan everything on her own for Grade R, as she was the only grade R teacher. This did not contribute to her ability to implement the curriculum at all.
6.3.2.2.5 Karen’s level of implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum with regard to her Capacity to Innovate
Table 5.13 shows the composite levels for the constructs used to determine Karen’s capacity to support innovation with regard to natural science teaching. The discussion above informed my interpretation of how Karen’s capacity supports her ability to implement the curriculum.
Table 6.4 reflects how the different sub-constructs influenced Karen’s capacity to implement the Natural Science Curriculum. My findings are based on information obtained from classroom observations and not necessarily, what was indicated in the questionnaire, interviews and document analysis. The table shows the levels at which that Karen was placed.
170
Karen’s professional qualification could locate her at level three, however, all her other characteristics relating to teacher factors are located at level one, therefore placing Karen overall at level one. Karen indicated her learners were capable of guided investigations;
therefore, she was placed at level two for learner factors. Karen used integrated life skills workbooks, however there was no evidence that she selected any science activities from these books. In addition she received no support to use the workbook, thus she could be placed at level two for physical resources. However the fact that Karen used no science equipment and textbooks, nor did she make use of available space to conduct investigations, placed her at level one for physical resources. While certain factors, such as the role played by the governing body could place Karen at level two, all other factors relating to school ethos and management were at level three, placing Karen overall at level three. From the levels at which Karen was placed with regard to her capacity to support the implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum, she had limited capacity to support the implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum. Although the school ethos supports teaching and learning and is well organised, little support is given for Karen to develop as a grade R teacher and she received no support for science teaching.
171
Table 6.4: Karen’s Capacity to Support Innovation
Level Teacher Factors Learner Factors Physical Resources School Ethos and Management
1 Karen had minimal science content knowledge
Karen had minimal science pedagogical content knowledge Karen was not able to balance all aspects of her responsibilities Karen acknowledged that she placed much more emphasis on Literacy and/or Numeracy and very little on Life Skills Karen was not confident to teach Natural Science
Karen used no science equipment
Karen did not use additional science textbooks
2 Learners were capable of
carrying out scientific investigations with guidance Learners enjoyed some scientific investigations Learners enjoyed working in groups
Karen used integrated workbook but received no support on how to use it.
A School Governing Body was in existence but not visibly active
Teachers and learners played a minimum role in management Parents played a minimum role in supporting the school
172
3 Teacher had a professional qualification appropriate for the Foundation Phase which
included minimal Natural Science
Timetable mostly adhered to Principal and/or HoD was present at school most of the time and was in regular contact with his/her staff
Staff meetings regular but not well-planned
Good organisation of extramural activities which seldom
interfered with classroom activities
School was secure and limited control of who enters the premises
Adequate evidence of COLT 4
173
6.3.2.3 Profile of Implementation
The constructs pertaining to Karen’s profile of implementation are presented in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4: Karen’s Profile of Implementation and the sub-constructs (adapted from Rogan 2007, p. 99)
6.3.2.3.1 Integration of Natural Science
The example that Karen hesitantly cited in the interview as an integrated natural science lesson was on measurement and water. The water was used to demonstrate the concept capacity. The argument may be made that this concepts falls within the Numeracy Learning Programme and that specific science concepts regarding water should have been included. Karen appears to have difficulty integrating natural science concepts in her teaching which could be due to her poor understanding of what science concepts could be taught.
6.3.2.3.2 Hands-on Science
The example that Karen provided for using play to teach Natural Science indicated that learners washed their dirty hands. Again, this was a life orientation lesson on keeping clean and not Natural Science. It seemed that the ‘play’ involved learners playing in the water. There was no evidence that the science aspects of water were taught.
6.3.2.3.3 Scientific Investigations
The example that Karen mentioned when she taught scientific investigations was a lesson on healthy eating where learners made a fruit salad. Again, this activity was a life orientation
Profile of Implementation
The Nature of Classroom Interaction Integration of
Natural Science
Hands-on Science
Scientific Investigations
174
lesson on healthy eating habits and not a science lesson taught through investigation. The fact that Karen sees the making of fruit salad from fruit as a natural science lesson demonstrates her superficial understanding of what is meant by scientific investigations. Karen’s obvious neglect of Science is related to her lack of knowledge of science concepts as well as her poor understanding of appropriate science instructional methods.
6.3.2.3.4 The Nature of Classroom Interaction
The routine that Karen had established for her was in keeping with the lesson plans as there was time allocated to these additional activities. However, she did end her lessons 15 minutes before the expected finishing time. These 15 minutes over a period of a week would accumulate to one hour 15 minutes. If the lack of time was the reason Natural Science was not taught, this accumulated time could have easily been set aside for the teaching of Natural Science. Although there was structure to the day, it was not in keeping with the lesson plans.
Karen may be commended for accommodating learners in her class who had difficulty with the instructions by speaking to them in isiZulu. However, the instructions that Karen gave learners seem to be confusing for all her learners. The fact that learners were not paying attention may have also contributed to learners not understanding what was expected of them.
There could be many reasons for the learners being disruptive and inattentive. There could be a correlation between learners discipline and them not understanding the instructions. There needed to be a common understanding between Karen and her learners as to what they were expected to do when they entered the class.
On a typical day a minimum of 10 songs were sung. The majority of the songs were sung in an attempt to maintain discipline. Another aspect to consider could be that the learners did not find the lesson interesting and thus started to misbehave. There was also time between each activity that caused learners to become rowdy. The issue of discipline could have been minimised if the activities and instructions were at the level of the learners’ understanding;
well-thought out and planned properly. The class was spacious and yet the area that the learners sat on the carpet was very small which could have been the reason learners were constantly fidgeting and interfering with each other. The classroom could easily be re-arranged to allow for a bigger area for learners to sit on the carpet, as this is where most of the teaching occurred
Learners constantly sought Karen’s attention and their interruptions interfered with Karen’s working with individual groups. Learners seemed to lack confidence and could not work independently as they frequently needed Karen’s approval. In addition, there seemed to
175
be a sense of competition between the learners to see who finished their work first. This resulted in learners handing in work to Karen that was firstly not complete and secondly did not adhere to the instructions of what was expected. During the classroom observations, Karen did not attempt to address concepts that learners did not understand. For example, the activity on shapes, which was poorly understood, was not revisited. Instead of stopping and re-teaching the concept, the learners’ books were collected and the activity ended.
Karen’s use of stories was in keeping with the instructional method she used to teach.
The fact that learners fell asleep could be because they had heard the story before. Even though Karen was expected to give her grade R learners’ homework every day, she did not do so.
Karen’s decision to give learners homework seemed to be unplanned as she spent half an hour cutting out the worksheets. This could have been cut and prepared before the lesson if she intended giving the learners homework.
Some of the methods Karen used to form groups proved to be a challenge for grade R learners. Karen’s attempt to work with the group of eight learners on the carpet was unsuccessful for a number of reasons. It was clear that proper planning was not done. The learners who were at their desks were not gainfully occupied which resulted in their being disruptive. Karen had to divide her attention between the learners at the desks and the learners on the carpet, which made it very difficult for her to manage the group activity, and she thus had to stop.
The type of questions Karen asked could have elicited meaningful responses from the learners if they answered the question. She probed learners to find out more and she asked questions that could have benefitted the discussion on friends. She tried asking questions that made learners think before responding such as: “what would happen next?” Although Karen engaged learners with questions, she often had to answer the questions herself.
The poster served as a prompt to initiate the discussion on friends. The purpose of using the big book was difficult to comprehend as the pictures were not enlarged and learners had difficulty seeing it. Karen should have realised this and made alternative arrangements such as enlarging the picture.
Although Karen mentioned during the interview that the parents supported the learners in her class, many of them did not have stationery and she had to encourage them to share.
Karen seemed undecided as to whether she wanted learners to colour or draw a picture. This may have been because she did not plan what she wanted to do. Her inconsistent instructions could also be confusing for her learners.