Personal reflection - Exploring lecturers’ reflections on the use of moodle to teach physical s

Maharajh et al., 2013). These curriculum signals suggest that formal reflection is driven by a formal curriculum, a vertical, or professional curriculum, in order to meet the module needs (Bernstein, 1999; Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Motsa, 2017). Note that the signals from formal reflection advocate a need for a formal reflection (based of researched facts) to address the need of a profession or module during the teaching and learning process (Dewey*, 1938; Khoza*, 2016b; Mpungose*, 2016). As a result, according to Ngubane-Mokiwa and Khoza (2016), formal reflection is highly recognised in the field of education since in each module there is prescribed content to be covered and taught. In other words, there will no teaching without formal reflection.

On the contrary, if lecturers are only grounded with the formal reflection and informal reflection without the personal rationale, which is based on autobiographical experience (currere) for personal development, there will be no quality on the curriculum implementation (Ayers, 1992;

Berkvens et al., 2014; Pinar', 2010).

In addition to the above, Govender and Khoza (2017) as well as Lee Grange- (2016) refer to aims as long-term broad visions for lecturers, and aims gives the broad teaching drive of a module like Physical Science (formulae) (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Mpungose*, 2016). Siemens (2014), Khoza' (2016a), and Amory (2014), emphasise that learning theories like cognitivism and connectivism, are ideological-ware resources which are referred to as cognitive processes that allow lecturers to do more research so as to find facts about their centrality during the teaching and learning process. That is the reason why Mpungose* (2016) outlines that the lecturers role of being a researcher helps them to ask questions (assessment-for-learning) which gives them a direction to establish if students are ready to learn using blended platforms (online and face-to face) in order to assist student to find their own personal identity. This suggest that the personal reflection is the basic reflection of the two others (Informal and Formal) because it allows both students and lecturers to include their unique and lived experiences, cultural identities, and personal talent development so that they will produce new knowledge in the process of teaching and learning (Khoza', 2016a; Mbembe, 2015; Reddy & le Grange, 2017). Curriculum signals in this platform suggest the need for personal reflection which is capable of addressing the personal identity of individuals (lecturers and students) in order to understand their actions and reactions so as to improve and empower themselves to shape their practices (Khoza*, 2016b; Maxwell, 2013;

Mpungose*, 2016; Msibi, 2012).

However, the literature (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Pinar, 2012; Van Manen, 1991) outlines that most studies address the horizontal curriculum which is driven by the informal reflection (societal need) and address the vertical curriculum which is driven by formal reflection (module need), but what seems to be missing are studies about the curriculum which are driven by a personal reflection (lecturer/student need). This suggests that lecturers’ and students’ personal needs seem to be largely ignored by education profession, despite the expectation that they should enhance proper teaching and learning to address the module needs and societal needs which is a huge challenge (Mpungose*, 2016; Ngubane-Mokiwa & Khoza, 2016). Be that as it may, various scholars such as Schoenfeld (2016), recommend that in HEIs personal reflections should be taken as the best resource to help lecturers and students to find their identities before they have relevant knowledge,

skills, and values for improvements in horizontal and vertical curricular, and this may seek them to reflect on their own context of the South African curriculum (personal identity).

2.6 Reflections on South African curriculum

The literature (Behr, 1984; Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Jansen, 1990; Pinar', 2010) done on the history of South African curriculum outlines that, periods of curriculum in South African history are divided into distinct periods namely: pre-colonial period, colonisation or apartheid period, Curriculum 2005 (C2005), National curriculum statement (NCS), and Curriculum and Assessment Policy document (CAPS). All these periods had been embedded on various educational ideologies, which guided the implementation of the policies. Further to this, the history of the South African curriculum started way back before the colonial period, and that period is termed as pre-colonial or traditional education. The indigenous (Khoikhoi, San and Bantu people) believed in their traditional or informal education. Ideology of this education was on the bases of communalism, believing that African children are raised in the community by the community (Horsthemke, Siyakwazi, Walton, & Wolhuter, 2013). In other words, pre-colonial education was informal, social, and without any racial discrimination among various native or indigenous tribes. This suggests that indigenous people were teaching their children various skills based on their gender including hunting, cooking, herding, farming, and housekeeping.

In addition to the above, during the colonial period, after the European settlers came to South Africa in 1652, in the Cape colony, formal schools were established. The first biblical schools were established after six years in 1658 based on racial segregation in such a way that there were schools for slaves, Khoisan, Bantu people, and white people separately, all these schools were driven by religious ideology (Eisner, 1985). This suggests that, basically, the South African education system or curriculum started or formed on the grounds or basis of racial segregation and social adaptation as from the colonial period (Zembylas, 2017). As a result, slaves, indigenous people and whites were living in the same colony or country doing different curriculum driven by the same ideology of religion. In other words, native people and slaves were colonised in order to do away with their own traditional, informal curriculum, and follow the colonised, formal curriculum (Mgqwashu', 2017).

Furthermore, Millar (1984), Walton and Rusznyak (2016), as well as Hoadley and Jansen (2013), clearly outline that during the industrialisation period in 1910, the four provinces: Orange Free State. Natal, Cape colony, and Transvaal were combined to form one government/state and education was centrally controlled. This suggests that all education systems were organised based on racial segregation because white schools were controlled by the state whereas black schools were controlled by the church. In other words, the state was providing a formal education (professional education) to the whites’ schools, who were taken as masters/superiors, whereas the church was only providing the teachings of the bible (social education) to the blacks’ schools as domestic workers or slaves so that they may bow and obey their masters (Jansen, 1990). This further indicates that blacks were only taught hand work, work skills, and respect so that they will respect and assist their masters in the field of work (Hoadley & Jansen, 2009). This is an indication that the curriculum was designed at a particular time to serve the purpose of the authorities of that particular time and place (Bernstein, 2000). That is the reason why Eisner (1985), and Hoadley and Jansen (2013), further reveal that in the 1940s and 1950s (19^th century) during the apartheid period, there were various educational institutions in various levels of education in South Africa which includes primary schools, high schools, and tertiary institutions. These studies outline that the curriculum of these educational institutions were designed on the bases of social adaptation and racial segregation in such a way that there were black schools only and white school only.

In addition to the above, the studies outline that, in the basic education level, blacks’ schools were offering courses/subject as from standard 1 to standard 8 (grade 10). Note that the only subject that were offered was vocational and technical at a lower level such as typing, metalwork, farming, etc (Eisner, 1985; Hoadley & Jansen, 2009; Khoza-, 2015d). Studies indicate that blacks were not allowed to do Physical Science and Mathematics subject which enhance cognitive thinking (formal learning) but they only had an allowance to those subjects equipping them with skills of work (informal learning) in the field. Studies outline that unqualified teachers, who were very authoritative, taught only black learners. This then suggests that black learners were taught only skills and competences to do field of work, that blacks were only taught at a lower cognitive level of understanding and recalling since their teachers were also unqualified (Bloom, 1956; Purvis, Aspden, Bannister, & Helm, 2011). In other words, according to Bernstein (1999) and (Khoza-,

2016b), during the Christian National Education (CNE), blacks were offered a competence-based, integrated, or horizontal curriculum, because teachers were only given a content driven syllabus which was prescribed, and teachers were given less hours to teach the content but more hours were given to them to teach hand work (skills) as well as to do physical training. Thus, teachers were taken as technicians only to deliver the content through rote learning (Msibi, 2012; Samuel-, 2008).

In other words, teachers were not given any opportunity to engage in the curriculum development and training. As a result, this made students to be reluctant receivers of the content because even textbooks were encouraging teacher-centeredness because there were only summarised content, examples, and exercises (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013). Thus, this curriculum only produced people with practical skills because of this horizontal curriculum. As a result, few black learners had access to the tertiary institution but they were only hired to work in companies. Further to this, after a long working experience , blacks would be than given a trade test certificate because of their skills (horizontal curriculum) (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Khoza*, 2016b)

Similar to the above context, according to the studies by Pinar' (2010) and Behr (1984), white schools’ education offered various subject as from standard 1 to standard 10. It outlined from studies that white learners were allowed to do technical and vocational subject at higher and international level only such as Mathematics and Physical Science in higher grade as from standard 8 to standard 10. From these studies, it is clear that offered subject were supporting the academic stream (formal education) where learners were equipped with high levels of understanding the subjects because of formal education that supported internationally recognised knowledge from researched work. White learners were taught by teachers who were trained, qualified, and resourceful in engaging them to resolve real life problems during the teaching and learning process (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013). This then suggests that learners were actively engaged in constructing their own knowledge during the teaching and learning process and their schools were well resourced in such a way that they taught formally, academically, and professionally in order to be able to compete at an international level (Piaget, 1976). In other words, whites were given a performance-based or vertical curriculum since white learners were taught to think at a higher level (application, synthesis, and evaluation) based of school knowledge so that they can have access to higher education (Bernstein, 1975; Bloom, 1956; Khoza*, 2016b). As a result, white learners were

assessed following a vertical approach where learners have to start from simple content to complex content with a purpose of grading from one standard to another (Bernstein, 1999). For this reason, most of them were privileged to have access to tertiary institutions to gain their qualifications within a specified period of time through the implementation of the vertical curriculum.

Moreover, the above-stated South African history of education outlines the battle of the two curricular; where the horizontal curriculum was addressing the social need of the majority of South Africans whereas vertical curriculum was addressing the formal or professional need of the minority of the south Africans (Jansen, 1990). This suggests that various higher education institutions around South Africa and Africa were and are still affected by the above-highlighted history because universities are still influenced by both students and lecturers who are from the very same context of South African history of education. As a result, both the local and international community are still calling for the balance of the two curricular (Vertical and Horizontal) in higher education institutions; see Higgs (2016) as well as Sellar, Gale, and Parker (2011) who advocate that curriculum is the major element in the transformation of higher education. Thus, higher education institutions like universities requires to take into consideration that the presence of both students and lecturers when implementing the university curriculum is important. In other words, universities must observe that the implementation of the curriculum should take care of both the formal need (vertical curriculum) and societal need (horizontal curriculum) of the university community (lecturers and students).

Furthermore, see the interpretive case study conducted by Khoza* (2016b) in one of the South African universities with an aim of exploring two of the twenty postgraduate students’

understanding of curriculum visions and goals in teaching their subjects after graduation. The study revealed that postgraduate students as the community/society of the university were not aware of the visions that drive their teaching of the current South African curriculum. The study also revealed that the most important visions that drive learners are societal vision and professional vision. This suggests that informal or social vision places society at the centre during the implementation of the curriculum, this context of implementation of the curriculum is called competence or integrated or horizontal curriculum (Bernstein, 1999). On the other hand, this suggests that formal or professional vision places a discipline or profession (module) at the centre

of the curriculum implementation and this context is termed to be performance, collection/vertical curriculum (Bernstein, 1999). In other words, this is an indication that both students and the lecturers should be aware of the discourses around horizontal and vertical curriculum.

In addition to the above, see the literature which indicates that horizontal or competence curriculum consists of integration of subjects for example, Mathematics, Physical Science, and Technology were are combined into a single learning area called Science (Ayers, 1992; Davids, 2013; Mpungose*, 2016; Stenhouse, 1975). Competence curriculum is driven by learning outcomes where everyone is expected to achieve at the end of a module/subject. This curriculum does not care about the Bloom (1956) cognitive levels of outcomes (lower, middle or higher order).

This suggests that teaching and learning is driven by aspects of socialisation towards the achievement of learning outcomes at a local context. In other words, student learning is influenced by informal opinions from their peers and lecturers and they passively engage or receive information since they do not engage with the researched work. This suggests that this curriculum addresses the social need of students and lecturer. As a result, this curriculum advocates that,

“knowledge is mostly generated horizontally from simple sources or local known sources”

(Khoza*, 2016b, p. 107). This means that vertical process of constructing knowledge is not the case during teaching and learning in this curriculum.

On the other hand, profession, subject, or discipline, is a major element in the implementation of the curriculum in both schools and universities Heystek and Lethoko (2001). That is the reason why Bernstein (1999), Tyler' (1959), and Khoza* (2016b) outline that in the vertical or performance curriculum modules, subjects or disciplines are on their own vertical and they consist of relevant terminologies which include concepts, theories, language, culture, ideologies and knowledge of specific subjects without any integration. This suggests that this curriculum addresses the subject or professional need during teaching and learning since it is based on specific facts which addresses the specific content, module, or subject (Biggs, 1996). Further to this, vertical curriculum is driven by internationally recognised content where all students construct their own knowledge of the same profession from the lowest to the highest cognitive level (Bloom, 1956; Piaget, 1976). The emphasis in this curriculum is that of researched facts, school knowledge

which address the subject or module content, and international standards are to be reflected during teaching and learning to address the professional need (Khoza-, 2016b).

Moreover, teachers, lecturers, schools, and the universities including officials from department of basic education and department of higher education lack the understanding of the influence of the nature of vertical curriculum related to the nature of horizontal curriculum (Bernstein, 1999; Pinar, 2012). That is why Khoza* (2016b) stipulates that teaching without understanding curriculum nature or vision is a high risk. This suggests that, for instance, (refer to Figure 2.1 below or overleaf), teaching without understanding both horizontal curriculum (x-axis) and vertical curriculum (y-axis) is a high risk especially at a university level because no curriculum is innocent or more important than each other. In other words, they all need each other during the teaching and learning process as from the start. Most surprisingly, lecturers or academics from the university fail to balance the two structures of curricular (Myers, 2016). This is evident on the studies (Bates*, 2016; Khoza', 2011; Wahab, Ali, Thomas, & Al Basri, 2013) conducted on the use of Moodle as a learning management platforms by both students and lecturers. Studies outline that Moodle was designed for constructivist learning. This suggests that student can use skills and ideas to socially construct the knowledge by interacting with the surrounding of Moodle space during teaching and learning (Piaget, 1976). In other words, this suggests that Moodle addresses the student, societal, or informal need (horizontal curriculum). On the contrary, the literature (Bates, 2000; Bernstein, 1999; Pinar', 2010) outlines that lecturers, as professionals, who are driven by formal or vertical curriculum fail to use Moodle to accomplish formal, professional, subject, or content need during the teaching and learning (curriculum implementation) process. This then suggests the problem in the implementation of the curriculum. As a result, when you refer to Figure 2.3, my study than claims that there is a missing link between student, informal, or societal need (horizontal curriculum), and formal, professional, module, or subject need (vertical curriculum).

Be that as it may, my study therefore advocates the connecting link between the two curricular in order to close the gap, a link which can connect the two curricular by addressing the personal need of lecturers or teachers (personal curriculum) in order to bring an understanding between vertical and horizontal curriculum.

Figure 2.3: Gap identification

Furthermore, both Bates* (2016) and Ngubane-Mokiwa and Khoza (2016) are of the same view that after adoption of Moodle most lecturers silently boycott the use of Moodle. This suggest that universities adopted Moodle for constructivism learning (student needs) such as the use of Moodle chat rooms and discussion forum. On the other hand lecturers only use Moodle as a tool for displaying material (slides and readings) and not as a tool for engaging students to interact for themselves in order to bring the understanding of the module content (subject need). Thus, my study claims that in spite of the learning management platforms (Moodle) being adopted by the universities, there is still a continuum that leads lecturers to not to use Moodle. Moreover, my study further questions as to how we can address the personal lecturers’ needs after this silent rejection of Moodle. In other words, referring to Figure 2.1, the study is concerned about the claim of socialisation (societal/student need) pushing towards the horizontal or informal direction to infinity societal needs, and the profession (module need) is also pushing on the vertical or formal direction to the infinity. This then suggests a problem if there is no ending point or connecting point on the directions taken by both these two curricular (horizontal and vertical), and there are few studies trying to address this problem (personal needs-lecturers). In fact, that is why this study is making a move of introducing personal curriculum, which addresses lecturer’s needs as a connector in order to do away with infinities of the other two curricular when using Moodle during the implementation of the curriculum. As a result, lecturers’ reflection (personal needs) on the use

Dalam dokumen Exploring lecturers’ reflections on the use of moodle to teach physical science modules at a South African university . (Halaman 63-74)