132 advancing their knowledge of teaching strategies through the programme, with about 69% of the respondents indicating ‘development to a great extent’ in this regard. It was also particularly noteworthy that teachers indicated progression in their skills of ‘selecting materials for teaching’; ‘designing learning according to context’ and ‘integrating indigenous knowledge’. The least perceived improvement was on ‘practical work skills’. This was logical as explained by one of the UKZN ACE tutors because the last module was to cover explicitly, the teaching of practical skills. Whilst teachers had conducted practical work during the course of the study, the pedagogy of imparting the skills to the learners was to be taught in the last module.
On the whole, the cohort of UKZN ACE students appeared to be benefiting immensely from the programme. Through open-ended questions, students highlighted specific topics where they advanced their content knowledge. They also noted improvement in pedagogic skills such as dealing with students’ misconceptions; handling diversity in classrooms; learning new teaching strategies; learning how to conduct practical work/experiments.
5.6.2 Perceived development through participation in training
133 Table 5.6.6: Teachers’ opinions of training workshops showing percentage, mean and standard deviation
Items SA (%) A (%) N (%) D (%) SD (%) Mean Std. dev 1. We learn subject matter that is directly relevant to
what we have to teach.
78.6 15.2 3.4 1.4 1.4 4.68 0.73
2. We learn how to help our learners answer exam questions better.
74.1 20.4 3.4 0.7 1.4 4.65 0.71
3. We learn new ways of teaching subject matter. 69.2 25.3 4.8 0.0 0.7 4.62 0.64 4. We enrich our knowledge of the subject matter. 72.5 20.8 4.0 0.7 2.0 4.61 0.78 5. We learn new ways of including practical work in
our teaching
61.2 25.2 10.9 1.4 1.4 4.44 0.84
SA = strongly agree; A= Agree; N= neutral; D= disagree; SD = strongly disagree
The ambiguity in teachers’ responses can be seen from the following comment made by one of the teachers who had selected ‘strongly agree’ for all the items above:
In 3 years, workshops have been of NO value at all. Had there been workshops like before, these would be my answers (indicating strongly agree for all five items).
(Teacher)
This teacher then elaborated on the questionnaire indicating that they used to have workshops run by ‘experts’, most likely suggesting people from outside the department of education, people with possible links to higher learning institutions. The idea of bringing experts into training workshops was reiterated by other teacher respondents. For example one of the teachers argued that ‘bringing experts on the subject at least once every year to mass workshops’ would ensure that teachers ‘see the need to not only to attend workshops but to check if they are really updated and clued up with current information on the subject’.
A closer observation of data showed that the comments about experts came largely from district 3. As indicated in chapter 3, this district had been without an Advisor for at least 18 months. Workshops were conducted by cluster leaders. It is likely therefore that the comment came against this background.
Other excerpts from open ended responses of the same item in the questionnaire revealed a scenario of training workshops that fail to adequately address the immediate needs of teachers. The following extract for example, clearly suggested a fair degree of dissatisfaction
134 with the duration of the workshops, a position that has been argued strongly in many research studies.
Workshops must at least take 3 days for teachers to get time to discuss all aspects.
One day workshop is meant to flood teachers with information and becomes futile.
(Teacher)
From teachers’ accounts, it is not merely the duration that renders workshops somewhat ineffective, in addition there were issues of regularity of these workshops. The following extracts from different teachers illustrate the point.
I wish workshops would be conducted each and every term so that I can be developed in different areas of each term. Two workshops a year are not enough…(Teacher)
I would like to see a lot more content workshops conducted for capacity building and follow up rather than one day workshops which don’t help us much. (Teacher)
We need more regular workshops that will start at the beginning of the year and continue through the year, not just one workshop a semester. (Teacher)
A number of teachers shared this sentiment, appealing for more workshops that would focus mainly on content, with some teachers calling for ‘greater degree of content workshops’;
‘rigorous discussion of Life Sciences content during workshops’; ‘more focus on content during workshops’.
Teachers also linked these content workshops to teaching strategies.
Workshops need to deal directly with content and skills….methods of delivery.
(Teacher)
We need workshops that deal with most difficult content problems and to be empowered with a variety of methods of teaching those problem areas. (Teacher)
Essentially, the question of what exactly is covered in these training workshops was a matter of concern for the majority of the teachers. Training of teachers through workshops to a large extent rests with Subject Advisors. Subject advisors themselves are aware of these
135 shortcomings. The following comment from one of the Subject advisors clearly outlined the challenges they face.
At the beginning of the year we conduct workshops called Orientation workshops.
Then in the middle of the year, we again call them (teachers) for another workshop, the Content workshop. But these workshops run only for one day. So it becomes very difficult, almost impossible to say you’ll be doing content and also how to teach it because in fact you have three hours. We are told that workshops must start at 12pm and end around 3pm. So really what can you do in 3 hours? If you have two sessions, one at the beginning of the year and another in the middle of the year, each for 3 hours…really there is nothing much you can do to capacitate teachers. (Subject Advisor)
Similar problems were experienced in training teachers for CAPS. Whilst some form of training was done for the curriculum revision in 2007 for the implementation in 2008 in Grade 10, the curriculum was then revised again to produce CAPS, which was implemented in Grade 10 in 2012. The advisors explained that they did the same kind of workshops, that is, the Orientation workshop at the beginning of the year (2012) and the Content workshop in the middle of the year to train teachers for CAPS. There was obviously nothing additional done to capacitate teachers for CAPS.
There was nothing more to prepare them in terms of content. What assisted us was that some of the content that was now in Grade 10 of the new CAPS curriculum was previously in Grade 12. Some of the teachers that were teaching Grade 12, were also teaching Grade 10 & 11 and those teachers already know the content. But in big schools where there are many teachers teaching different grades, there was not enough training for the Grade 10 teachers in terms of content. As I said, it was just a day training where we just advised them on what was in the CAPS curriculum. There was no time to go deep into the content. We just focussed on the logistics. We definitely need more time for content. (Subject Advisor)
It was clear that Subject Advisors had very limited contact time to conduct training workshops that would make meaningful impact on teachers’ classroom practices.
Another important aspect that had been at the centre of this research was the identification of teachers’ needs prior to engaging them in training workshops. A number of comments from
136 the teachers clearly indicated that the relevance of training workshops was important. The following quotations were extracted from teachers’ open-ended responses:
We would like to be asked what we need to be work-shopped on, before we come to workshops. (Teacher)
Subject Advisors are supposed to get from the educators areas to be treated in workshops; areas which give us educators difficulties. (Teacher)
As discussed in the theoretical framework of this study, one of the assumptions on which Knowles ‘theory of Andragogy is grounded is ‘the need to know’. According to Knowles (1968), adults need to know why they must learn something before they undertake it. As expounded by Merriam (2001), Knowles’ idea of ‘self-directed learning’ in adults comes from the perspective that adults manage all aspects of their lives, and are thus likely to direct and plan their own learning. Functional theorists such as Daloz, (1986) and Trotter (2006) backed Knowles’ theory arguing that adults prefer to plan their own educational paths, where they can select educational topics that they could directly apply in their own classrooms. As these theorists assert, teachers should be given autonomy to plan their own professional development, dealing with what they feel they need to learn. Comments from teachers in this study clearly revealed the need for autonomy in deciding on their learning. Their needs should therefore be surveyed prior to embarking on any training workshop, if meaningful learning is to be achieved.
The analysis of teachers’ qualitative responses together with interview comments from subject advisors revealed that a great deal of effort was required to improve the impact of training workshops on teachers in general, and on teachers of Life Sciences in particular. In line with previous research studies, to improve the development of teachers through training workshops, the duration and frequency of the workshops has to be increased. Again, as with previous research, focusing on teachers’ immediate needs such as dealing with content and teaching strategies seems to go a long way in ensuring that meaningful learning on the part of teachers takes place.
To a very large extent the mandate for the improvement of teacher training workshops, in particular those organised through education districts, lies with the provincial and national departments. A unique outcome of this study is that districts need not do this single-
137 handedly; they need to bring in experts to train teachers in complex and new areas of content and associated pedagogy. This seems to be of utmost value to teachers and therefore this idea should be taken forward to improve the impact of these training workshops. Also important for teachers is the assessment of their needs prior to planning any training workshop.