KAREN’S INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRICULUM
6.2 KAREN’S STORY
Karen has a three-year Lower Primary Teaching Certificate, which includes a General Science component. She has more experience of Biology as this was one of her high school subjects. She regards herself as being qualified as she taught Grade One for 26 years and has been teaching Grade R for nine years. Karen has 35 years’ experience teaching in the
143
Foundation Phase. She believes that her experience best qualifies her as a foundation phase teacher. Since there was only one grade R class, she had to complete all the planning and preparation on her own. At 58 years of age at the time of the study, she was the oldest participant. She had 38 learners in her grade R class at the time of data collection.
Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum (Grade R)
Karen’s interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum is presented as a narrative according to the constructs and the related sub-constructs.
Time Allocated for Natural Science
Natural Science forms part of the Life Skills Learning Programme and thus the time allocated was examined in conjunction with the time allocated for the Life Skills Learning Programme. One aspect of Karen’s interpretation of how Natural Science should be taught in the Foundation Phase was reflected by the time allocated to the teaching of Natural Science. This was indicated in the lesson plans provided by the Foundations for Learning documents. Table 6.1 shows the comparison of the allocation of times according to Karen’s responses to the questionnaire and during interviews, lesson plans provided by her and the curriculum documents for each learning programme.
144
Table 6.1: Comparison of the Allocation of Times for Respective Learning Programmes for Grade R
Learning Programmes Time Allocation per day according to Foundations for Learning
Lesson Plans
Curriculum Documents
Karen
Literacy 1 hour 1 hour 50 minutes 1 hour 50 minutes
Numeracy 1 hour 15 minutes 1 hour 30 minutes 1 hour 30 minutes Life Skills Overview of all Life Skills
activities with no time allocation
1 hour 10 minutes 1 hour 10 minutes
Additional Activities:
arrival time work time
small group time tidy up time, health check, hand washing, snack time, music and movement ring, outdoor play, hand washing, toilet time and story time
15-30 minutes 30 minutes 10-15 minutes
The rest of the activities had no time indicated
The time Karen stated that she allocated to the three learning programmes is in keeping with the curriculum documents. However, the time allocated on the lesson plans for the learning areas were much less than the curriculum documents and what Karen stated, as reflected in the last column. The lesson plans supplied by Karen were analysed and these may have been incomplete documents. Although some of the additional activities are allocated times (75 minutes), there was no indication from which learning programme these times should be taken. The life skills lesson plans were integrated with Numeracy, Literacy and aspects from the Life Orientation Learning Area and as such, the time allocated to Natural Science could not be determined.
Teaching of Natural Science in the Foundation Phase
Although the Foundations for Learning lesson plan did not provide direct information on how Karen interpreted the curriculum, the analysis of the lesson plans provided information on what Karen had planned for each day. Karen said, “We are using the Foundations for Learning but we have to write it out.” She explained that this was what
145
the head of department expected of them. She stated that she did try to use the lesson plans as is but there were some things that she would have skipped, especially when it came to phonics as the lesson plan started with the letter ‘v’. Karen thought, “Children do not have names starting with ‘v’ and there are not many words starting with ‘v’. She preferred to start with ‘a’ or ‘o’ as this was more common. It seemed that Karen took the initiative to restructure the literacy lesson plans.
The lesson plans for Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills were analysed on content knowledge, instructional methods, physical resources, types of activities and integration of Natural Science. It was important to note that the lesson plans are only the plans and not necessarily, what was actually taught during the observation lessons. Karen’s lesson plans for Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills for the period of observation were analysed. This analysis gave an indication of Karen’s interpretation with regard to where Natural Science fits in the particular section covered during observation.
The content for the period of observation was on friends. The literacy lesson plan included a class discussion on friends and the songs to be sung did relate to the theme.
Learners were to form pairs and make up a clapping sequence to accompany the rhyme.
The next day, the teacher was to revise the learners’ names and colours by singing a song.
A number of non-science related activities were planned for the second and third day.
Much time was spent on the literacy lessons, which did show integration with other learning areas such as Art and Craft but there was no planned integration with Natural Science.
The lesson plan for the week for the Numeracy Learning Programme showed that it began with counting to 10. This was followed by revising the names of shapes already learnt. The shape of a diamond was to be discussed. Board games were to be created using shapes. There was no numeracy lesson planned for the following day. On the third day, a graph was to be drawn on the qualities listed on what made a good friend. Results were to be discussed with the learners as a whole class. More time was allocated to be spent on Literacy than Numeracy and there was no evidence of planned integration of Natural Science.
Although Karen initially stated that the curriculum did promote Natural Science, she later said, “I think so…not altogether.” However she thought “it does especially when it comes to play as the learner can play and investigate”. Karen said she brought in Natural Science any time into her lesson “because they [the Department of Education] say we must
146
integrate it.” She explained, “I could be doing it in Literacy or Numeracy or even in Life Skills Learning Programme.” She viewed the curriculum as not having sufficient opportunities to teach Natural Science and believed “we could do with more of it” as in
“Grade R only certain things are touched on”. Karen said the teachers “don’t sit down and say this is Science we are doing” rather “a lot of it is integrated into everything else.”
Karen admitted that sometimes the “Science is lost during the integration” with the other learning areas.
Concerning the teaching of Natural Science, Karen stated, “I would teach it through experimenting, investigating, things like that there, just making it something the children will accept and like because Science is all around them and an everyday part of their lives.” However, there was no evidence of Karen planning to teach Natural Science and more specifically teaching it in this manner.
Karen was not clear on how often she taught Natural Science in a week. She responded, “You know with ... so much being integrated – we do some every day or once a week.” From Karen’s response she was clearly mindful that Natural Science was supposed to be taught by integrating it into the learning programmes. However, by integrating Natural Science she was unsure of how often she taught Natural Science in her class. Planning of natural science lessons and ensuring the resources were available also becomes a challenge.
Karen did consider the Numeracy and Life Skills Curriculum to be adequate as it encompassed key content areas but believed that there are other subjects that she “didn’t get to”. She mentioned, “Like with Natural Science there is no book to follow and the Science is lost.” She was of the opinion that “eventually the teacher is concentrating more on…can the child read or can the child count?” and “the health aspects and things like that are lost.”
The lesson plan for the Life Skills Learning Programme began with learners being asked to bring a photograph of themselves to school the following day. A number of activities related to friends were planned and there was evidence of different learning areas being incorporated in the activities such as Music, Dance, Art and Craft, Drama, but Natural Science was not one of them. There was no integration of Natural Science across the literacy, numeracy and life skills lesson plans. There were no scientific investigations indicated in the numeracy, literacy and life skills lesson plans nor was there any evidence of hands-on science in the lesson plans.
147
Karen’s opinion on the learner workbooks (resource) contributed to her interpretation of the curriculum. Karen was hesitant as she described whether the workbooks she received from the Department of Education referred to the curriculum. Her response was
They more or less are... they are. It’s just ... you know not everyone is ...
you know when they give you...an activity when you have to cut something out, they don’t leave a blank page they put another activity on the other side, you know instead of leaving it blank. So the planning of the workbooks is not that good.
It was difficult to ascertain if Karen was making an excuse not to do the activities. There are ways to work around the cutting out activities and to ensure all the activities are done in class.
In a further attempt to ascertain her understanding, she was asked to give her ideas on what needed to be included in a qualification for foundation phase teachers. Karen’s response was that if she had the opportunity to design, a qualification for foundation phase teachers she would ensure it had “Literacy, Numeracy, Life Skills, Natural Science, Physical Education and Health.” She acknowledged that in the current curriculum, Natural Science, Physical Education and Health is under the Life Skills as well.” These learning areas are already part of the foundation phase curriculum. It appears that she would like the teachers’ qualification to focus on the existing learning areas in the Foundation Phase.
Natural Science Content Areas
Karen had to select content areas where she was very confident, confident, relatively confident and not confident to teach (Appendix D). From Karen’s responses, it was also evident which content areas were not taught and her interpretation of which content was/was not part of the Natural Science Curriculum for Foundation Phase was also elicited.
Karen said she was very confident to teach the content areas of nutrition, air, weather and water. She did not reveal her confidence levels to teach any other content area that was asked in the questionnaire. However, during the interview she mentioned that she was confident to teach about plants and animals as well. The reasons she gave were that “it is part of the school curriculum” and “these topics are taught across the grades yearly.” She admitted to never teaching the rest of the content areas given in the questionnaire. The
148
reasons she gave was that it was “inappropriate to my grade R curriculum” and that it was
“not part of our curriculum.”
Instructional Methods
The instructional methods that Karen indicated she used in her lesson to teach Natural Science provided insight into her interpretation of the curriculum (Appendix D). In her response to the questionnaire, she selected discussion, role-play, problem-based learning, cooperative learning, project-based learning, hands-on, and stories/narratives as instructional methods she used daily. She justified her choice as “these are the methods used to stimulate learners thinking and imagination.” She further explained during the interview that “it is easier for the child to understand these methods” and “I get the best results.”
During the interview, she mentioned using project-based learning. She cited an example where she gave the learners a project where they had to build a house and “they take it home and do it.” She did not select any other instructional method that she used weekly, fortnightly, monthly, once a term or never, implying that she used the above- mentioned methods often. Karen did not select “scientific investigations” as an instructional method that she used to teach Natural Science. Karen’s response indicated her understanding that a variety of methods was necessary when teaching Natural Science.
However, her example did not provide evidence that she used these strategies. The purpose for giving learners the project of building a house was not clear.
Karen’s understanding of hands-on science revealed that she believed it is “things that they (learners) actually do, the experiments that they do themselves.” Furthermore, she advocated, “Science should be taught using hands-on methodology as learners must experience it.” From Karen’s responses, she viewed demonstrations as having a place in the curriculum. She thought demonstrations were important as they “stick to the mind and they can remember it”. She provided examples where she had used demonstrations:
Just lately, we took water, put some soapy solution in and blew bubbles.
We also put sugar or salt in the water and mixed it and the learners could taste this and see which one....
It was not clear which science concept this activity was intended to elucidate.
149
Karen’s implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum - the influence of Outside Agencies
A number of factors, which affect Karen’s implementation of the curriculum, are influenced by outside agencies.
Learner Support
Learner support is considered in terms of learners’ socio-economic status and their experience with the language of instruction. Karen believed the learners in her class came from supportive home environments. Karen described the parents’ as being “helpful” and
“supportive especially with their homework”. Karen believed that the parents wanted to
“give them a good start in life.” She explained, “Parents support the child as it is the child’s first year of school and in most cases it is the youngest child and the parent wants to do the best for them.” Karen admitted she “had to speak to parents about helping the children with homework” in her parent meetings. Karen’s response seemed to be contradictory, although the parents supported their children; she had to remind them to do so. This may imply that Karen may have experienced problems with cooperation from some parents when she needed parents’ assistance. Although Karen mentioned that the majority of learners in her class came from homes where parents were able to afford to supply learners with the necessary resources required for schooling, there were a number of learners who did not have scissors and glue with which to stick their worksheets in their books.
Karen mentioned that not all children grasped concepts at the same pace.
Although some of learners could work independently, not all could. The learners exhibited difficulties with the language of instruction. Karen assisted the Zulu learners by “speaking isiZulu so they can understand the content taught.” Karen explained, “I mix English and isiZulu when teaching. Some parents do not want me to talk in isiZulu. I stopped talking in isiZulu in June. It is amazing how they learn when isiZulu is stopped.”
Physical Resources
Physical resources as support from outside agencies is the support the school received with respect to textbooks, workbooks, science equipment that the school is given by an outside agency, e.g. the Department of Education as well as the school’s infrastructure. The buildings, although old, were in good condition. The school had a small library which the learners could not access unless a teacher accompanied them. The grade R class was at
150
the back of the school and they had their own play area and a jungle gym with murals painted on the walls. The classroom seemed to be two classrooms which were combined into one as both ends of the classroom had chalkboards. Karen’s classroom was spacious with the learners seated in groups. She used the carpet at the front of the chalkboard for group discussions. At the back of the class an open area was used for play activities. The classroom was cluttered with items that she used for the play activities, many of which were donated by more advantaged schools. Her desk was cluttered with books, paper and containers of stationery. She used the chalkboard, textbook, worksheets, whiteboard and the library daily in her teaching.
Karen said that every learner in her grade R class had been given one book by the Department of Education, which had activities for Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills.
Karen explained:
There is only one learner book for Literacy and Numeracy together that was sent by the department. I have other books that were given to me by the Deputy Principal that I could use as reference books but have not used them yet as they are too busy for them. Maybe I will try later on in the year. They are Grade One books. There is no life skills book that was sent by the Department.
Professional Development
Professional development is the training that teachers receive by either the school, Department of Education, Unions or any other outside agencies. Karen admitted that she did not attend workshops often. She did not attend any natural science workshops but did attend a workshop on using ‘play’ to teach. If there were workshops on how to teach Natural Science in the Foundation Phase, Karen would have liked to attend. In terms of development, they had foundation phase staff meetings once a week on a Wednesday.
Karen thought these meetings were “not beneficial.” Karen declared, “I am on the outside.” She maintained that she did not usually fit in with the grade meetings but was allowed to attend the meetings organised for Grade R by the Department of Education.
Although the school had grade meetings, these did not assist Karen, as she was the only teacher teaching Grade R. Besides the staff meetings there was no staff development planned by school.
151
Karen’s implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum-Factors, which shape her Capacity to Support Implementation
A number of factors influenced Karen’s capacity to support implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum.
Teacher Factors
A number of factors contributed to Karen’s decision to become a foundation phase teacher.
Karen responded confidently to the question: why she became a foundation phase teacher,
“I was always a foundation phase teacher. From the time I started, I always did that, I did the Foundation Phase.” She preferred “being with the children, the little ones.” During the interview, Karen was asked if she enjoyed Science when she was at school. She said,
“Yes, I did Biology. I enjoyed it.” The subject was then called General Science. Karen thought that this qualification helped her as a foundation phase teacher to teach Natural Science. She said, “You got the basic and you more or less were taught to deal with the subject at the Foundation Phase” and “it gave us ideas on how to teach Natural Science at the Foundation Phase and we used the ideas from there.” Karen did not mind the noise and messiness when children played and experimented when doing Natural Science. She responded, “No, I am not that way a disciplinarian that they won’t be able to do that.”
During the classroom observations, Karen did not teach Natural Science. Karen described herself as being dedicated, confident, approachable, caring, well qualified and experienced in teaching in the Foundation Phase. She attended professional development activities, made an extra effort to improve her teaching and tried innovative teaching techniques.
Karen said in the questionnaire that she planned lessons well, had conscientious attendance and was committed and competent with sound science pedagogical content knowledge. Karen admitted during the interview that she used the Foundations for learning lesson plans with minor adjustments. Therefore, she did not plan her lessons herself. Karen acknowledged that she did not believe she had sound science content knowledge.
Karen was of the view that she possessed the characteristics of a good science teacher because of her “experience and been at it for so long”. As an outcome of this, “the way you handle a child and even teaching is done in a different way.” She believed that with her experience she made changes in her teaching. She stated, “This year you could