Concept 7: Assessment How is your supervision assessed/
4.2 Findings and discussions
4.2.3 What are you supervising when you get to a school or classroom? (Content) On this question SAs were expected to focus their answers mainly on the Mathematics
content areas that need to be covered in Grade 3. The content areas are Numbers, Operations and Relationships, Patterns, Functions and Algebra, Space and Shape, Measurement, and Data handling. Through the data generated from reflective activities, interviews and focus group, SAs were vocal about what they supervise in Grade 3 Mathematics classrooms. Focus
99
was placed on the five mathematics content areas, as per mathematics CAPS, and other content related matters that may make the teaching and learning of Mathematics successful.
4.2.3.1 Mathematics Content areas
SA2 said, ―I supervise content that they are supposed to teach for that particular term”.
SA8 also indicated that, “I supervise all the Maths content areas. Other SAs also agreed that they are supervising the Mathematics content areas as prescribed by Mathematics CAPS”.
Other SAs agreed.
The findings indicated that SAs supervise the teaching of the prescribed Mathematics content that should be taught to Grade 3 learners. This is consistent with literature that suggests that many educators are aware of what they are expected to teach in terms of the CAPS Mathematics Grade 3 content. According to the CAPS Mathematics Foundation Phase (DBE, 2011a), the Mathematical content that needs to be taught to learners are Number, Operations and Relationships, Patterns, Functions and Algebra; Space and Shape, Measurement and Data handling.
4.2.3.2 Time allocation
These content areas are not equal in value and the time allocated to each content area is different. Number, Operations and Relationships has the biggest weight and, depending on the Grade, the most time is allocated. The biggest chunk of the Mathematics content is in Numbers, Operations and Relationships, while Data handling has the least. Hence the SAs‘
indication that:
SA7: “I also check the time allocation per content area”
SA6: ―…correctness of time table‖
There is a common understanding that time for the content areas that educators teach needs to be allocated correctly as required by CAPS Mathematics.
4.2.3.3 Planning
In the first phase of reflection, SA6 indicated that: “… I am also checking the educators’
lesson planning and making sure that they have planned according to CAPS…” Others agreed and were vocal in mentioning that lesson plans are very important as they are an
100
indication that educators plan for what they teach and that teaching is aligned to the CAPS content for Mathematics.
After being conscientised that good planning, according to content only in a subject, does not ensure good teaching and learners performing well Kahan et al. (2003); and educators content knowledge may affect the goals and objectives of their lesson plans; SAs view of planning changed in the second phase of reflection. All the SAs maintained that they still check the educators‘ planning, especially lesson planning, and whether they correspond with leaner activities. When checking the coverage of the five content areas‘, SAs indicated that they also check whether the level of work that the educator is teaching is relevant for the Grade and whether they cater for the different abilities of the learners (inclusivity). These findings confirm that SAs became aware that not only is planning important, but that it also has to cater for learners‘ different abilities which is consistent with the requirement of CAPS. It is also evident that planning before teaching plays an important role in the teaching of Mathematics in Grade 3 as this will help educators to ensure that they cover the relevant content for a particular term, each week.
4.2.3.4 Usage of correct LoLT
SA8 also added the issue of using the correct Language of Learning and Teaching (LoLT).
SA8 is the only one who indicated that the issue of Language of Learning and Teaching is a thorny issue. It is recommended that in the Foundation Phase, learners should be taught in their mother-tongue. Internationally, research suggests that in the early years of schooling learners will learn better if they are taught in their home language and that second language will be acquired more easily if the learners have a good foundation of his or her home language (Daniel, 2012). The LoLT issue is a cause for concern as some learners attend Ex- Model C schools where the LoLT is English and some rural and township schools also use English to teach Mathematics by arguing that they are preparing the Grade 3s for the Intermediate Phase. However, this is against policy and causes a lot of confusion for learners when they are assessed provincially and nationally. The issue of using the wrong LoLT has been identified in the phase two analysis of learners‘ sampled scripts by SAs and also in a workshop that was conducted afterwards with the educators. Yao Sua & Raman (2007) noted with concern that using English as a language of learning and teaching in primary schools leads to learning difficulties arising out of learning barriers.
101
The overall findings from the first reflection phase in the content theme indicates that SAs were supervising according to the requirements of CAPS as a performance curriculum.
According to Hoadley and Jansen's (2012), evaluation in performance curriculum is focused on what is to be taught and in what order it is to be taught. The danger of this may be that the advisors may be over-emphasising the importance of religiously following CAPS when teaching, leaving little opportunity for educators to be innovative and less time to understand the exact implementation challenges educators face every day.
The second reflection cycle came about with some changes when SAs reflected that all along they have been supervising whether educators were teaching the correct content, but they were not so much concerned with the way they that particular content is being taught. SA4 mentioned that taking into consideration the approaches that educators use is of utmost importance and SA1 supported her by adding that he also observes the ways that educators impart knowledge to the learners as this may also indicate the educator‘ content knowledge.
They acknowledged that this was an oversight because they are aware that educators are not fully knowledgeable with regard to the various methods of teaching, including unpacking the content itself. The danger of educators not knowing CAPS compliant teaching methods is that they then tend to use the educator-centred approach in order to finish their syllabus which is presented to them by their subjects‘ CAPS documents (Khoza, 2015a). There is an extensive body of research that postulate that in rural schools educators were struggling to use multiple teaching strategies because they have not been exposed to them (Peat, 2009; Jansen, 2009;
Eurydice, 2008).
Their reflections were now more critical in nature and consistent with literature as Mohd Meerah, Halim, Rahma, Abdullah, Hassan and Ismael, (2010), based on their research findings, confirmed that educators were unaware of alternative approaches, but had no confidence in using inquiry-based teaching methods in their classroom practices to help enhance the teaching of relevant mathematics content in a rewarding manner. Hence SA‘s account that ―…not all educators have challenges on content knowledge and various teaching strategies. We have to work collaboratively with them so that those who are able and knowledgeable serve to assist in capacitating those who are not.‖ They agreed that this move will promote good practice and social justice. Furthermore, SA2 added that when supervising teaching of content she will, at the same time, be assisting educators with strategies that help learners who are not coping or experiencing barriers to learning. This
102
account is in agreement with the general aims of the National curriculum on accommodating inclusivity organisation, planning and teaching.
From the SAs‘ reflections it may then be concluded that, SAs were rigid in following CAPS content and time allocation. They were, of course, consistent with Mathematics CAPS, however, disregarding other thorny implementation issues such as the teaching methods/
strategies that educators use. Following curriculum in a rigid manner, according to Berkvens et al. (2014), does not allow for individualised learning. However, they transformed and identified a crucial need to involve educators in coming up with strategies of teaching that will help in their classrooms.
4.2.4 What resources do you use during the supervision visits? (materials and