LESLIE'S STORY

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS OF LIFE HISTORY DATA

SECTION 2: FIRST LEVEL ANALYSIS - THE RESEARCH STORIES

5.2 Introduction

5.2.1 LESLIE'S STORY

'My Methodologies Reflect my Interest'

Leslie told the story you are about to read. Leslie is a White female and a mother of two children. She was 42 years old at the time I conducted these life history interviews. She had been working as a history teacher since 1984.

I can honestly say that the only thing I remember at all about primary school history is that we called it Social Studies and that at some stage I had to draw an ox wagon!

(Appendix G). I was useless at drawing so I got a boy in my class to draw it for me.

Admittedly it was34years ago since I left primary school but I remember my Standard 4 and 5 history lessons fairly well so it is obvious that my early history lessons meant very little to me - so they had no impact on my life. Our teachers taught all the subjects - we had very few specialist teachers - so perhaps none of the people who taught me had any particular passion for history so their emphasis lay elsewhere. I always got good marks for Social Studies so I obviously didn't find it difficult.

However, Mrs Veal, my grade seven-history teacher made me feels special. I remember being interested in current affairs and learning hard for history. I would take my books home and go over everything that was done for the day at school. I would ask my mother to read to me and help out with my homework. Miss Veal cared about me and when she established that I was not "happy" girl that I looked,she wanted to help me and she went to the extent ofphoning my mother at work to find out about me. I knew that ifI had a problem I could go to her.

She had this confidence in me and that confused me, because I was expected to perform much better than I could. I was always worried and I always carried a book with me everywhere. In the June exams I got a "C" mark for history and I remember Mrs Veal called me into her office and told me, "this is not your mark and you are not going to accept this ", I worked hard and in the December examinations I got a "B" aggregate.

As much as there was the pressure Mrs Veal made you do your utmost. I think that was very important because as students you tend to be lazy and not realize your full potential.

It really helped being on my toes all the time. I learnt from her that there must be some environment that should exist for teaching and learning to occur and it's interesting for me when I talk about this because these values stayed in my mind for a long time.

I did study history at school through to matric. History at school was compulsory for the ''A'' stream pupils. The only alternative was a subject called "Commerce" and that was only done at "B" Stream level (1969 -1973 Transvaal Education Department). I am quite sure that

if

I had been given a choice I would have chosen history any way because I found it interesting and enjoyable.

I suppose one thing that sticks out in my mind is the Trial that our class prepared in standard9. We put Napoleon Bonaparte (Appendix H) on trial for incompetence (I think our focus was foreign policy). We had judges, a prosecutor, a defence attorney, stenographers - everything - and we did a really professional job of it. The Trial lasted for over a week! (I cannot remember the verdict though). We thoroughly enjoyed the experience and everyone seemed to pull their weight. It taught us how to present a convincing, substantiated argument as well as how to detect bias.

My favourite teacher was a rather eccentric man by the name of Mr West. He was incredibly knowledgeable and also passionate about History. His primary methodology was chalk and talk but he was a wonderful storyteller. He could talk and act with ouch enthusiasm and skill that we all sat and listened, sometimes with bated breath. He used humour and irony extensively so we always had something to laugh at. He hardly ever gave us notes - when we finished every section we had to use our textbooks, the library resource and the memory ofhis lessons, to write an argumentative essay - from which we would study. Looking back I realise he did have quite a few flaws (but at the time, I never noticed them) such as: - he only taught sections he enjoyed so we didn't cover a lot ofthe South African History that we were supposed to do. Fortunately for us, our school (Benoni High School) was a project school so we wrote internally set externally

moderated exam papers in matric. That meant that he could set South African History questions on the sections he liked. Once the project was over, I believe his pupils had difficulty writing the South African paper.

I had Mr West in Standard 9and 10 and the only style questions we ever answered were discursive essays and cartoon analysis. No rote learning questions at all. We did lots of research on our own and I really believe that he, more than any ofmy teachers, prepared me for university.

My 'worst' teacher was Mrs Havenga, who taught me in Standard 8. She made us read the textbooks, underline key facts and make notes. Having said that, when she explained something it was done in an animated fashion and she often allowed us to debate controversial issues during which she enjoyed playing devil's advocate. I really enjoyed those lessons!

For me - history teachers were very knowledgeable: interested in film, drama, literature, politics (etc.) as well as history. They encouraged us to form our own opinions and were able to pass their enthusiasm onto us. Most ofthem were critical ofthe 'official textbooks' and even

if

'the official syllabus'. We were allowed to make up our own minds.

I enjoyed history, was fairly good at it and I felt it was the best subject to take in the Humanities field

if

one wanted a good, broad education.

The curriculum I was offered at university was interesting enough but itlacked flexibility and choice for the student. My preference is for modern history but our entire first year course was from Ancient Times to the Middle Ages. We had done nothing beyond about 1918 by the end ofthe 3^rdyear.

My worst misconception was that people generally find history and politics interesting. I have discovered that this is not the case.I still believe that for anyone studying at tertiary level, history is one ofthe most preparatory subjects

if

it is properly taught.

I have tried to develop the image of a teacher who encourages debate, critical thought and intellectual agility - rather than someone who simply knows a lot offacts. You know to me the most important thing, which really affects me very much or even makes me feel that I would just as soon leave teaching is the feeling that I have for children. My feeling to watch children destroyed really hurts me a lot.

The goals and approaches of the history curriculum prior to 1994 in the old Natal Education Department were skills based. Our aim was to use knowledge as vehicle to teach the skills of analysis, synthesis, essay writing etc. Our 'inspectors' as they were known then, allowed us the freedom to use the syllabus as a starting point, not as an end in itself, provided our motives were to encourage pupils to choose history as a subject and to teach the higher order skills stipulated in the curriculum. Contrary to popular beliefwe were not compelled to adopt a pro-government, nationalist viewpoint and many history teachers I know were openly critical of that type ofpropaganda. We were not textbook bound either - most of us used our own notes and a fairly big variety of textbooks for our pupils.

The goals and approaches of Curriculum 2005¹² were evidently to counteract the emphasis on rote learning and Christian National Education¹³ that existed in many schools. From my point of view, in attempting to do this, they overreacted. They tried to change the old system so completely that knowledge of the past was widely regarded as unimportant by many teachers. Outcomes-based Education¹⁴ is a very idealistic, complex system, which requires high levels of skill and competence, which many of our teachers do not have. It purports to be flexible but was presented in a very rigid way, demanding an enormous amount of energy and time from teachers whose workload is already excessive. The extensive us of acronyms and terminology was bewildering and/or annoying for many.

12

13

14

Curriculum 2005: represents a paradigm shift from content-based teaching and learning to an Outcomes-based one.

Christian National Education: education of Blacks must be basedinthe life-and world-view of the Whites during apartheid.

Outcomes-based Education: based on the principle that decisions about learning programmes should be driven by outcomes which pupils display at the end of their learning.

I don't think that the input was as democratic as people claim at the top. What I experienced (was that) the document would come to us for discussion and that document would have been accepted already at the top- level structures, so we were used to always be one phase behind. We were told, "y our inputs are crucial", but then the next document would come and the document that we were busy discussing had been finalized already and people got fed up. People got tried ofthat kind ofprocess.

The Revised National Curriculum Statement'?is now clearer, less reliant on acronyms and it has been streamlined in such a way that it is now more practical.

Other than including new, more recent sections of history in our syllabus, I haven't noticed any really fundamental changes. I remember teaching Apartheid and reaction up to 1964 in 1985 and 1986. In the I"year of teaching (1979) I taught the Cold War and the Middle East section up to the Yom Kippur War (Appendix I).

Curriculum 2005 was not such a major change for me. I don't do much junior high school teaching and what I did do had always been skills based. I think perhaps I did increase the number of co-operative learning and group work lessons but I had always used these methods ofteaching (learning and assessment before).

It made me more aware ofthe need to make use ofa wide range ofassessment tools.

I haven't really experienced difficulties as such, but we have had less adaptation to do than many other teachers. We have also moved to the 'new system' slowly and cautiously because we know that new systems have teething problems. Our primary concern is that our pupils learn what they need to learn (content and skills) so as to prepare themselves for matric and beyond for example; we have kept History and Geography separate. The latest documents indicate that this practice will continue in the Further Education and

15 Revised National Curriculum Statement: due to the cnncism that emanated as a result of impractical implementation of Curriculum 2005 - a more streamlined curriculum was implemented in 2004.

Training phase'". (1 last did Geography in Standand 6! Who better to teach Geography skills than a Geographer!)?

If

they (teachers) are particularly enthusiastic and keen on History, then 1think they're going to highlight the historical aspects of this, perhaps to the detriment of otherside, particularly if like me, they have not got a Geographical background. A teacher whose strengths isn't History for instance will just forget about it and it will just lose out of it doesn't have to be taught as an essential section ofwork. But somebody who's more into Geography will just ignore it.

These have been modified. 1have always tested skills but have not previously assessed each skill individually.1find the bureaucracy and time involved in the latest assessment techniques very onerous.1feel sorry for those with far bigger classes than 1have! The number oftimes1see my junior classes in a cycle makes it difficult to know them all well enough to assess them according to so many different criteria. The theory is good but in practice the burden is enormous.

Without resources, the system cannot work efficiently.1am very fortunate to have every resource 1 need available to me but 1 know that many teachers have none.

Responses from teachers have been varied. Most see the value and enjoy experimenting with new techniques and methodologies for some ofthe time - but to do it all the time is, in a way, counterproductive because it becomes routine. Some of the exercises we have done at our school have been extremely time consuming and the teachers have felt that the amount that has been learnt (knowledge and skills) is disproportionate to the time spent.

Group work and Co-operative learning are difficult to monitor - particularly in a large class. Some students benefit but others do not - some participate others do not.

16 Further Education and Training phase: this includes Grades 10, 11 and 12 at high school.

The fact of the matter is that we still have a matric exam. Even

if

the latter falls away, examinations are the primary assessment tool in tertiary institutions.Learners have to be taught to cope with them. The theory and practice of Outcomes-based Education is incongruent with the examination.system.It is going to be very difficult to marry the two.

It is also a reality that some people are more intellectual and academically able than others. The current trend, in trying to do away with the marks and competition will eventually try to bring everyone to one of4 common denominators - better than average, average, weak and very weak. While that might be goodfor some peoples' selfimage, it is not designed to encourage people to strive for excellence and to be designed to encouraged people to strive for excellence and to be the best.Lots ofmy History learners are better than average. Only 3 or 4 of them are really excellent. They need to be acknowledgedfor that and I know ofno better way than an exam to do.

As indicated elsewhere in my responses, I do not believe that there has been any fundamental change in my methodology in response to the curriculum changes indicated.

Obviously I have grown as a teacher so my skills have improved and my repertoire of ideas has expanded but this has been more a result of a desire to strive towards excellence throughout my career than to the curriculum.

I still make a lot ofuse ofchalk (Overhead Projector pens actually!) and talk when I am explaining the actual content of a section. I always begin with an overview so the learners understand where we are going. I try to provide the section with content:

geographical, political, and historical, in an attempt to relate it to my students' prior knowledge.

If

there is one central character involved in the section I will usually spend a whole lesson giving them a biographical overview, showing them pictures etc. This is so that they can emphasis with the individual and sees himlher as a real person rather than just someone to learn about. I try to use story-telling techniques, humour to pique their interest. Once further into the section I use questions and answer sessions often to assess their level ofunderstanding, to reinforce what is important and to engage discussion and debate. Most of the worksheets I give them are skills based - very few deal simply with knowledge.

I make extensive use of maps, cartoons, written sources - primary and secondary, posters, graphs, tables, etc. This enables me, and the learners themselves to assess how much has been understood rather than remembered, and at the same time they can practice and hone their skills. I use videos a lot to consolidate a section after it has been completed.I try to use a variety offun/different techniques at some point in each section, e.g. group work, role play, structured selfstudy, debates/discussions, etc. but I find the syllabus too crowded to employ these techniques more often as they are very time consuming. I spend a lot oftime on the teaching ofskills such as essay writing, analysing and defining biased sources (for example cartoons, propaganda, speeches or posters). I do make use ofpeer assessment as a technique for example when they first do empathy exercises,I get them to swop with one or two oftheir friends and ask them to advise their friends on how to improve. When my standard 8's write their first full-length argumentative essay, I usually have 3 examp les typ es and printed (usually from the previousyear) . I then ask each girl to read the essays, indicate wherever there is focus and then rank the 3 giving reasons for their rankings. Then in groups they compare their findings and then we have a class report back when I give my input.

I think these teaching strategies are ones I have always used - I just do them a bit better now than I did when lfirst started out and perhaps a little more often now because I have grown in confidence and I have a better idea about what works with classes of different abilities. Where I am going to have to change is in the way I record my assessment so as to de-emphasize the formal testing component.

What does all this say about me as a person and as teacher? I think my methodologies reflect my interest in people and what makes them tick and that I like things to be done thoroughly or not at all. I find it difficult to teach sections for which I see no real purpose or relevance to the children.

I believe that History,

if

done properly, is a very academic subject and that is where its real value lies. The really weak child, who perhaps remembers a few historical facts,

does not fully benefit from taking History as a subject

if

he or she cannot internalise and utilize the skills we teach.

Leslie is an excellent storyteller. She responded effectively to the chronological signposts that were designed in the interview schedules. Leslie has always enjoyed my company who continued to question and challenge the ways of life and living as a White in South Africa. Growing up in a middle-to-upper-class neighbourhood in Gauteng provided Leslie with a particular orientation to the meaning of success and wealth, crucial signifiers of class and elitist forces that have shaped and continue to shape her varied and contradictory subject positionings. Leslie's advantaged context has helped shape her teacher identity formation because the new transformation process in education made very little difference to her and the change was less traumatic for her than for the other participants.

The next story was narrated Moreen entitled 'Paradigm Shift'.

5.2.2 MOREEN'S STORY