KAREN’S INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRICULUM
6.3 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION
6.3.1 Interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum
Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum was based on the constructs depicted in Figure 6.1.
158
Figure 6.1: Factors affecting Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum
6.3.1.1 Time Allocated for Natural Science
As the lesson plans were only an outline for the three observation days, rather than a specific plan for each day, the time allocated for Natural Science could not be determined.
More time was allocated to Numeracy and Literacy indicating that these learning programmes were perceived to be more important. This emphasis appeared to reinforce the notion that Life Skills, and by implication, Natural Science was not very important. As the curriculum, and especially supporting documents such as the Foundations for Learning foreground Numeracy and Literacy, it is understandable that Karen would take this view as her responses indicate that she follows curriculum guidelines. However, a further factor that could affect Karen’s interpretation of the curriculum is the fact that the times allocated in the Foundation Phase Curriculum and the Foundations for learning documents (which are official departmental documents) allocate different times to different programmes.
6.3.1.2 Teaching of Natural Science in the Foundation Phase
Although Karen thought the curriculum promoted Natural Science, she considered the opportunities to be insufficient. She was clearly mindful that Natural Science was supposed to be taught by integrating it into the Numeracy and Literacy Learning Programmes. However she did seem to understand that Natural Science is a learning area within the Life Skills Learning Programme and as such, it is expected that it should be taught within this learning programme. Karen, however, does not have a clear
Time allocated for Natural Science in the Foundation Phase
Interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum
Teaching of Natural Science in the Foundation Phase
Natural Science Content Areas
Instructional Methods used to teach Natural Science
159
understanding of what integration means. The fact that she was confused with the Life Skills Learning Programme and the Life Orientation Learning Area contributed to her misunderstanding. Karen’s reference to health aspects drew specifically from the Life Orientation Curriculum in the Life Skills Learning Programme and this was not an example of natural science integration. It is interesting to note that Karen said she required a textbook to teach Natural Science and yet only used the Foundations for Learning lesson plans to teach Numeracy and Literacy. She clearly needed support to teach Natural Science in Grade R. Her poor understanding of what is meant by integration, contributed to the neglect of Natural Science in her teaching programme.
Although Karen used the Foundations for Learning lesson plans for Numeracy and Literacy, her documentation for Life Skills showed no evidence that she planned to teach Natural Science. This showed her reliance on the Foundations for Learning documents in the absence of such lesson plans, she did not develop her own lesson plans.
Rewriting the Foundations for Learning lesson plans without making changes was a futile activity and time could have been well spent on other important tasks such as preparing resources to be used when teaching, for example, Natural Science.
It was clear that Karen was unaware of the Natural Science Curriculum for the Foundation Phase and therefore she did not know what Science should be taught in Grade R. This contributed to her uncertainty whether the workbooks were in keeping with the curriculum. Her reasons for being hesitant to teach using the workbooks because they were not user friendly was an excuse as she could have copied the pictures in the book instead of cutting it out of the book. This could be easily resolved if she planned her lessons before teaching and not just rewritten the lessons from the Foundations for Learning lesson plans.
Karen’s lack of planning for the Life Skills Learning Programme contributes to her neglect of Natural Science. However, it needs to be said, the topics in the Foundations for Learning lesson plans covered during the period of observation were not helpful in assisting teachers to integrate Natural Science and a teacher such as Karen, who was not confident in teaching Natural Science would not be able to manage such integration.
Karen’s response to designing a qualification for foundation phase teachers revealed that future foundation phase teachers should be taught the actual foundation phase learning programmes. However, she did not place particular emphasis on the inclusion of Natural Science in the training of foundation phase teachers.
160
6.3.1.3 Natural Science Content Areas
The content areas that Karen interpreted as part of the Natural Science Curriculum included nutrition, air, weather and water. Her confidence to teach specific natural science content areas was in relation to the content areas taught within the Foundation Phase at her school. From the reasons supplied, Karen stayed within the confines of the Foundation for Learning curriculum documents, as she believed that was what was expected of her. Karen was unaware of the Natural Science Curriculum and was guided by the Foundations for Learning books. She only taught what she was required to teach and as such with the continued teaching of the same topic, she became confident to teach them. The content selected was appropriate and taken from the workbooks and Foundation for Learning curriculum documents and not from the Natural Science Curriculum documents.
6.3.1.4 Instructional Methods
While Karen mentioned that she selected problem-based learning, cooperative learning and project-based learning as instructional methods and used them daily, there was no evidence in her lesson plans of such activities. Karen did not select demonstrations either as an instructional method she used in her teaching. However, during the interview she cited examples of demonstrations that she used. The learners could easily do these examples as investigations. In addition, there was no indication that the science concepts behind the demonstrations were taught to the learners.
The examples that Karen cited provided evidence that she did use demonstrations when teaching natural science content to her learners. The natural science content that was involved in the examples were both on water. However, it is not clear what was specifically taught about water. Young learners enjoy making bubbles and blowing them and are fascinated on how bubbles are made and how bubbles float. The activity on dissolving salt and sugar in water would have been captivating for young learners as they have difficulty comprehending where the sugar or salt went. Again, it was unclear what the intended outcome of the lesson was. Although these are important natural science concepts for young learners to grasp, it is uncertain if the underpinning science concepts were actually taught to the learners. Both these activities were planned as demonstrations; however, they are easy enough for grade R learners to carry out themselves, as the materials needed are easily accessible and the activities would not have been harmful to the learners. By
161
allowing learners to carry out the activities on their own could have been regarded as an investigation, which would have been in keeping with the learning outcomes for Natural Science in this phase. Learners would have enjoyed carrying out the activities on their own. While the activities may be related to Science, there was no evidence to indicate that science concepts were taught in the process. Learners taking the project home to complete did not necessarily mean that they were doing it themselves.
6.3.1.5 Karen’s level of interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum
The levels for Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum were determined.
Table 5.11 shows the composite levels for each sub-construct, namely time allocation, teaching Natural Science in the Foundation Phase, natural science content areas and the instructional methods used to teach Natural Science. The descriptors for each level were developed and used to determine the level at which Karen was located with regard to the way she interpreted the curriculum as described in chapter five. These levels were derived from the findings discussed in this chapter. Table 6.2 reflects Karen’s interpretations of the different sub-constructs, which were obtained from the questionnaire, interviews and document analysis. The table shows the levels at which Karen was placed.
Karen was placed at level one for time allocated to teaching Natural Science, as there was no evidence of this. Even though she knew Science has to be integrated, there was no evidence of this in her lesson plans. Furthermore, she had no knowledge of science learning outcomes and although her lesson plans corresponded partially to the curriculum requirements, I decided to place her at level one. Karen was at level two for science content knowledge as she did mention appropriate science topics for the Foundation Phase. She was placed at level three for instructional methods used to teach Natural Science. Although there was no evidence of this in Karen’s lesson plans, the fact that she indicated in the questionnaire that they used a variety of instructional methods, appropriate to science teaching was taken into account. This composite picture of Karen’s ability to interpret the Natural Science Curriculum in Grade R showed that she had certain limitations with regard interpreting the Natural Science Curriculum.
162
Table 6.2: Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum
Level Time Allocation Teaching Natural Science Content Areas Instructional Methods
1 Time allocation for all three learning programmes (Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills) were not indicated
Karen was cognisant of the fact that Natural Science needed to be taught through integration or as a freestanding subject but there was no evidence of this in her lesson plan
Karen has no knowledge of natural science learning outcomes
2 Foundation for Learning
Workbook and lesson plans did correspond to the curriculum to a certain extent but did need adapting
Certain topics mentioned by Karen were appropriate for the Foundation Phase
3 Karen mentioned a number of
instructional methods
appropriate for teaching Science and provided suitable examples but there was no evidence of this in her lesson plan
4
163