Scientific literacy should be promoted through the teaching of science from Grade R and for this to happen, teachers need to understand what science should be taught and how it should be taught. This interpretive, qualitative study explores the degree to which four foundation phase teachers interpret the life skills programme with regard to the teaching of natural science by using an adapted version of a theory of implementation. Analyses of a questionnaire, documents (Revised National Curriculum Statement and lesson plans) and interviews enabled us to build a picture of how each teacher interpreted the curriculum with regard to a number of constructs. The findings show that foundation phase teachers have great difficulty interpreting the curriculum because the foundation phase curriculum does not give clear guidance with regard to the teaching of science. Their poor content knowledge, the poor understanding of what integration of science in numeracy and literacy entails, as well as their poor understanding of the instructional methods used to teach science exacerbate the problem.
The foundation phase in South Africa constitutes the latter four years of early childhood development (the initial stage of development from birth to nine years) and thus the initial stage of schooling (Department of Basic Education DBE,
With the introduction of a democratic dispensation in South Africa, a curriculum known as Curriculum 2005 (C2005) which was ‘committed to OBE’ (outcomes-based education) (Maphalala
According to the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) (South Africa, DoE
Currently, the curriculum includes a section referred to as ‘Beginning Knowledge’ (South Africa, DBE
A number of factors may affect the way teachers interpret the curriculum. Rogan and Grayson (
Factors that influence teachers’ interpretation of the natural science curriculum.
As this study attempts to discover how foundation phase teachers interpret the curriculum with regard to the teaching of natural science in the foundation phase, these four constructs were used as a lens through which teachers’ interpretations were explored. The research question that guided the study was: How do foundation phase teachers interpret the curriculum with regard to time allocated to the teaching of natural science, integration of natural science in other learning areas, science content to be taught and methods that should be employed in teaching natural science?
We interrogated each of these factors separately to determine how teachers understood their meaning and how they collectively contributed to teachers’ interpretation of the natural science curriculum.
Globally, the main aim of science education is to produce a scientifically literate citizenry that are able to think critically and solve problems. Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (
The way in which science is taught at primary school level has the ability to be a catalyst in developing learners’ interest in the sciences (Harlen
By creating the role of science specialists in primary schools, and investing in science as a specialised knowledge area, science can be promoted, science teaching resources better managed, and teachers who are not confident in science, mentored (p. 19).
Lamanauskas (
Only high-quality natural science education acquired in primary school can guarantee proper continuation of natural science education in basic and secondary school (p. 7).
Lack of science knowledge, however, influences the teachers’ ability to implement appropriate pedagogic strategies to introduce science concepts effectively (Kolokouri & Plakitsi
To achieve the aims of Science Education at the primary school level it is important to consider not just the subject matter that is suitable for the development of scientific understanding, but also the pedagogy that is required for meeting these aims. (p. 17)
A study conducted by Rocard et al. (
According to Van Aalderen-Smeets, Van Der Molen and Asma (
Many initiatives across the world have focused on increasing the scientific knowledge, inquiry skills, and attitudes of primary school students by allocating more time to science education (p. 162).
This does not appear to be the case in South Africa. Currently, there is a strong move in South Africa towards improving basic reading, writing and mathematical skills (Department of Education
This research is located within an interpretive paradigm, as we attempted to understand teachers’ interpretation of the natural science curriculum within the foundation phase learning programme. We implemented a qualitative research approach as it is concerned with describing and understanding trends in the teachers’ natural context, which in this study is the classroom, with the aim of developing meanings imparted by the teachers.
The research site for this study was an urban school. Four foundation phase teachers from Grades R to 3 participated in the research. The four teachers were all female and were given the pseudonyms Karen, Fiona, Carly and Simone. Karen taught Grade R, Fiona Grade 1, Carly Grade 2 and Simone Grade 3. All four participants were assured that all information provided would be treated with the utmost confidentiality and informed that they could withdraw from the study at any point if they so wished. The project was granted ethical clearance by the institution where the researchers were located (ethical clearance number HSS/0922/09D).
The instruments used to collect data included document analysis, a questionnaire (
A composite table (
The findings that enabled us to answer our research question are discussed within the framework of the four constructs indicated in
Natural science forms part of the life skills learning programme and thus the time allocated was the time allocated for this programme and not natural science specifically. All teachers used set lesson plans taken from supporting documents (
Comparison of the allocation of times in different sources in Karen’s case.
Learning programme | Foundations for Learning Lesson plans | Curriculum documents | Karen |
---|---|---|---|
Life skills | Overview of all life skills activities with no time allocation | 1 h 10 min | 1 h 10 min |
Additional activities | 1 h 30 min |
The time Karen stated verbally that she allocated to life skills is in keeping with the curriculum documents. However, the time allocated on the lesson plans for life skills had no time allocation and therefore the time allocated to natural science could not be verified.
Comparison of the allocation of times in different sources in Fiona’s case.
Learning programme | Foundations for Learning Lesson plans | Curriculum documents | Fiona |
---|---|---|---|
Life skills | No lesson plan given | 1 h 10 min | 1 h 10 min |
The time Fiona stated verbally that she allocated to life skills is in keeping with the curriculum documents. However, she submitted no lesson plan for life skills and this made it impossible to determine the time apportioned to natural science.
Comparison of the allocation of times in different sources in Carly’s case.
Learning programme | Foundations for Learning Lesson plans | Curriculum documents | Carly |
---|---|---|---|
Life skills | No lesson plan given | 1 h 10 min | 1 h 10 min |
The time Carly stated that she allocated to life skills is in keeping with the curriculum documents. However, in the absence of the life skills lesson plans, no comparison could be made with what Carly stated.
Comparison of the allocation of times in different sources in Simone’s case.
Learning programme | Foundations for Learning Lesson plans | Curriculum documents | Simone |
---|---|---|---|
Life skills | No lesson plan given | 1 h 10 min | 1 h 15 min |
The time Simone stated that she allocated to life skills was slightly different from that stipulated in the curriculum documents. In the absence of the life skills lesson plans, no comparison could be made with Simone’s statement.
The curriculum, and especially supporting documents such as the
This construct refers to teachers’ understanding of what the curriculum expected of them with regard to the integration of natural science in other learning areas. Karen said she brought in natural science any time into her lesson ‘because they [the Department of Education] say we must integrate it’. However, she did not think the curriculum provided 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 that 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. From Karen’s response, it is apparent that 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.
Analysis of Karen’s life skills lesson plans provided information with regard to what was planned for each day. This analysis gave an indication of Karen’s interpretation with regard to where natural science fits in the particular section covered during observation. The theme for the period of observation was ‘
Furthermore, the topics in the
Fiona held strong views on how she believed natural science should be taught. During her interview, she elaborated:
‘Besides just being a lesson on its own, it should be integrated in everything because science is around us, look around us and there is science in everything. It shouldn’t be only integrated.’ (Fiona, Female, Grade 1 Teacher, 44 years old)
Fiona made a case for learners learning natural science from an early age as it is all around them. She admitted that if she was conscious of it, she taught natural science once a week in her class, if not, it would have been part of the lesson incidentally. From Fiona’s admission, it was very difficult to ascertain how often she taught natural science, as she did not know this herself. Her views on whether the curriculum promoted natural science were forceful as she responded ‘Oh no! Absolutely not, never, never’.
Fiona indicated that she taught natural science in ‘both ways’, that is, by integrating natural science in numeracy and literacy and by integrating numeracy and literacy in natural science. She provided an example:
‘For instance water and finding out how many cups of water you get from a two litre. That is Science and the water. The science of it, right? The capacity, cups, counting, data handling that’s all.’ (Fiona, Female, Grade 1 Teacher, 44 years old)
The activity was a numeracy lesson in which Fiona’s lesson plan integrated measurement and data handling, which are concepts learnt in both numeracy and natural science.
Fiona’s lesson plans did not provide direct information either on how she interpreted the curriculum or where natural science was addressed. In both the numeracy and literacy lesson plans, there was no sign of natural science integration and no lesson plan for life skills was presented. Fiona’s inability to provide appropriate examples showing how she integrated natural science showed she did not have a clear understanding of what integration meant. The example of the water puddle could be construed as integrating literacy into natural science but there was no evidence of learners engaging in an investigation. It was clear that Fiona was also unaware of the natural science curriculum for the foundation phase and therefore she did not know what science should be taught in Grade 1.
Carly did not believe that the curriculum offered sufficient opportunities to teach natural science in the foundation phase, although it promoted natural science ‘to a certain extent’. Carly stated, ‘Science is incorporated in all the other learning areas and not just taught separately’. Carly admitted, ‘I haven’t tried doing science on its own’. During the interview, Carly stated that she knew that other learning areas needed to be integrated into the three learning programmes, literacy, numeracy and life skills. In both the numeracy and literacy lesson plans, there was no sign of natural science integration and no lesson plan for life skills was presented. Carly was also unaware of the natural science curriculum for the foundation phase and therefore she did not know what science should be taught in Grade 2. She stated that she was fully aware that natural science had to be taught through integration with other learning programmes, but was not confident doing it as she needed to be shown how to do it. She said that she tried to integrate natural science but could not account for the time she spent teaching natural science.
Although Simone was of the view that numeracy and literacy should be integrated with natural science, she admitted, ‘At the moment we are doing it the other way around’. Even though Simone believed the curriculum promoted natural science ‘in a very subtle way’, she found it difficult to discover the natural science content within the curriculum. She clarified, ‘You see if I was science driven as a teacher then maybe I will pick up the aspects of science easier, but because I am not, it is hard to find it’. Simone was of the opinion that the curriculum did not offer sufficient opportunities to teach natural science and admitted, ‘Science is not something we really expose our learners to’. She went on to say, ‘We supposed to integrate it into our learning areas but we don’t really have the equipment’.
As Simone did not have the aptitude for science teaching, she experienced difficulty in identifying the science content in the curriculum. This was very important to note as it implied that the structure of the curriculum was not designed in an accessible manner for all teachers. Simone’s inability to provide appropriate examples of how she integrated natural science showed that she did not have a clear understanding of what integration meant. As was the case with Fiona and Carly, Simone’s lesson plans did not provide direct information on how she interpreted the curriculum or where natural science was addressed. In both the numeracy and literacy lesson plans, there was no sign of natural science integration and no lesson plan for life skills was presented. Simone was also unaware of the natural science curriculum for the foundation phase and therefore she did not know what science should be taught in Grade 3.
Teachers were asked to indicate from a list which content topics they were very confident, confident, not so confident and not confident at all to teach. While confidence to teach a topic does not necessarily mean that the topic is taught well, it does indicate a teacher’s familiarity with the topic and therefore the ability to engage with the topic. We are also of the view that teachers have little confidence to teach topics that they are not familiar with and therefore have little knowledge of those topics. Not all of these topics are meant to be taught in the foundation phase, but we thought it was important to give the teachers the opportunity to select from as wide a range of topics as possible. The topics were taken from the natural science curriculum document.
Karen 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. Her confidence to teach specific natural science content areas was in relation to the content areas taught within the foundation phase at her school. She only taught what she was required to teach and as such with the continued teaching of the same topic, she became confident to teach them. The content selected was taken from the workbooks and
Fiona was very confident to teach nutrition, human body systems and water. She was also confident to teach a number of other topics as indicated in the table as well. She was less confident to teach physics topics. Fiona stated during the interview that she was very confident to teach nutrition, air, weather and water ‘because we teach this’. Fiona recognised that she was not confident to teach the other topics ‘because maybe we don’t teach them’. She elaborated, ‘I didn’t put very confident in knowledge for animals maybe because I do not know all the animals’. Her confidence to teach specific natural science content areas was in relation to the content areas taught within the foundation phase at her school. She was unaware of the natural science curriculum and was guided by the
Carly did not select any content area that she was very confident to teach. She listed a few topics which she was confident to teach, but was less confident to teach most of the other topics. The content areas she taught often were nutrition, air, weather, water and plants. The reasons she gave for this was:
‘It seems to come up a lot depending on our context. Sometimes it does fall in our context, in our lesson planning. Depends on the age group also…. These are the more appropriate depending on the age group of the children, when you are talking about 7 years.’ (Carly, Female, Grade 2 Teacher, 34 years old)
It was surprising to note that Carly was not confident in teaching the content areas she taught often (nutrition, air, weather, water and plants), while she was confident in teaching which she was not expected to teach. This may have been because of the fact that the selection of content was a decision made collectively by all the Grade 2 teachers and Carly had to accept this. Carly described herself as not having sound science content knowledge. She was unaware of the natural science curriculum and was guided by the
Simone appeared to be either very confident to teach some topics or not confident at all to teach other topics. She was very confident in the content areas she taught regularly. The content areas that Simone interpreted as part of the natural science curriculum included animals, nutrition, air, weather and water. Her confidence levels for the content she taught correlated with the content she taught within the foundation phase at her school. She only taught what she was required to teach and as such with the continued teaching of the same topic, she became confident. The content selected was taken from the workbooks and
The responses from the teachers showed that, with the exception of Carly, they were very confident to teach a limited number of topics such as air, water, weather and nutrition. Given their reasons that they were confident to teach these topics, because they regularly teach them, it appears that the same topics are repeated every year in the different grades, with limited variation. It was also obvious that topics relating to chemistry and physics were not attempted. While it is important to note that the teachers often indicated in interviews that they were not sure exactly what science is, they could select topics they recognised, although they may not have realised before that they were part of the natural science curriculum.
Teachers were given a list of instructional methods they used to teach science and asked to select the methods from this list. The instructional methods that Karen indicated she used in her lesson to teach natural science provided insight into her interpretation of the curriculum. She justified her choice as ‘these are the methods used to stimulate learners’ thinking and imagination’. She did not select investigating as an instructional method, in spite of the fact that the natural science curriculum foregrounded this as one of the essential process skills learners should acquire. From Karen’s responses, she viewed demonstrations as having a place in the curriculum.
‘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.’ (Karen, Female, Grade R Teacher, 58 years old)
It was not clear which science concept this activity was intended to elucidate. While Karen mentioned that she selected problem-based learning, cooperative learning and project-based learning as instructional methods and used them daily, there was no evidence in her lesson plans of such activities. Karen even did not select demonstrations as an instructional method she used in her teaching. However, during the interview, she cited examples of demonstrations that she used. Furthermore, there was no indication that the science concepts underpinning the demonstrations were taught to the learners.
Fiona selected discussion, problem solving and stories or narratives as instructional methods she used in her daily teaching. She selected role-play, hands-on and simulations as methods she used weekly. She said she used discussions daily, because
‘I am a grade one teacher and have learners who are isiZulu [speaking] therefore daily discussions are important to improve vocab and also to teach them to speak in logical sequence and good train of thought.’ (Fiona, Female, Grade 1 Teacher, 44 years old)
She used a hands-on approach, as ‘learners have to be consistently encouraged, motivated and immediately corrected’. She considered hands-on science as ‘Me working with the children and them finding out for themselves, like investigations’. During the interview, Fiona elaborated with an example to demonstrate why she selected problem solving as an instructional method she used regularly:
‘The reason being is that just the other day we had done capacity with water. At random I put seven, eight, nine, 10 cups … All the time I just wanted to see how they how they were going to use these cups. They going to have to fill these cups up and let me see how many cups of water you get out of the two litre, one litre. They must write it down and colour it in. Every time they fill in a cup, they must colour it in.’ (Fiona, Female, Grade 1 Teacher, 44 years old)
Fiona considered it ‘absolutely’ important for teachers to use demonstrations. She believed everybody should be shown how to do things. She elaborated:
‘It starts from even us, people as housewives and in the kitchen needs sometimes, not everybody can use their brains, they need to see a demo. For some children they work with visual stuff and some don’t have the capacity to work with just the theory part of it or oral. They have to see it.’ (Fiona, Female, Grade 1 Teacher, 44 years old)
Fiona’s confusion with the instructional methods indicated that she did not have a clear understanding of the different types of instructional methods used. Her apparent confusion with what constitutes problem solving and the related examples confirms this.
During the interview, Carly provided an example from her teaching that showed how she accomplished this:
‘You know like when you are doing the plants, you make the children bring the plant, the bean plant we actually experiment and they watch the bean plant growing.’ (Carly, Female, Grade 2 Teacher, 34years old)
Carly thought it was important to use demonstrations in teaching natural science, especially ‘on this level’.
While Carly mentioned that she selected inquiry, lecture, discussion and hands-on as instructional methods and used them daily, there was no evidence in her lesson plans (numeracy and literacy) of such activities. The example that Carly cited during the interview was a practical activity showing the growth of the bean plant, which was a science content area. However, there was no evidence that the lesson was taught as a practical activity and what science concepts were specifically taught. Carly believed that learners learn more from demonstrations because of their background.
Simone’s view was that demonstrations can be ‘very effective’ in teaching natural science. She believed showing the child an effective method ‘so that it will stick in their heads’ rather than just telling them to do something. Simone did not select problem solving as an instructional method used by her to teach natural science. However, during the interview, she stated that there was a place for problem solving in the teaching of natural science. She responded:
‘Yes, problem solving involves everything. To investigate, you are giving them a problem and they have to investigate. How many litres in a two-litre container? How many 250 ml will you get from two litres? That’s problem solving.’ (Simone, Female, Grade 3 Teacher, 43 years old)
Her understanding of hands-on science was ‘where they must go and do it themselves’. She explained that the teacher had to show and demonstrate and then the learners do it.
While Simone mentioned that she selected demonstrations, discussion, role-play, problem-based learning, cooperative learning and hands-on activities as instructional methods and used them daily, there was no evidence in Simone’s lesson plans (numeracy and literacy) of such activities, except for small group teaching. The activity cited as an example of problem solving was a numeracy lesson on capacity in which Simone integrated measurement, which is a concept learnt in both numeracy and natural science. Once again, the activity cited as an example of hands-on science was a numeracy lesson in which Simone integrated measurement.
While hands-on science was indicated as a method often used, discussions with the teachers indicated that they had a very poor understanding of what problem solving, project-based learning and inquiry learning are. While they professed to apply these methods, deeper discussions revealed that the transmission method was dominant with limited demonstrations. It was also clear from the interviews that teachers chose the methods they used in general, rather than for teaching science specifically.
Based on the above findings, we placed the teachers on levels with regard to their interpretation of the natural science curriculum (
Summary of the teachers’ levels of interpretation of the natural science curriculum (Levels 1–4).
Participants | Time allocation | Teaching natural science | Content areas | Instructional methods |
---|---|---|---|---|
Karen | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Fiona | 1 | Between 1 and 2 | 2 | 2 |
Carly | 1 | Between 1 and 2 | 2 | 2 |
Simone | 1 | Between 1 and 2 | 2 | 2 |
Research has shown that teachers’ content knowledge affects their confidence to teach science (Akerson & Flaningan
The findings also demonstrated the teachers’ poor understanding of the meaning of integration. This is one of the major reasons why natural science in the foundation phase is taught poorly or not at all. Their interpretation of the curriculum stemmed from their understanding of a curriculum that consists of discrete subjects. From this viewpoint, the teachers believed that the curriculum did not offer sufficient opportunities to teach natural science, as they were unable to find links between topics included in literacy, numeracy and other areas of life skills. Because the teachers mainly used the
The teachers were truthful in their responses when they said they did not teach much natural science. They are not specialist science teachers, so they were inclined to avoid teaching science. This type of action is found where teachers with poor subject knowledge in science often lead to neglect of the subject (Southerland et al.
The findings of this study highlight the importance of designing curricula that provide sufficient guidance for teachers, without which it becomes very difficult for teachers to interpret what curriculum developers had in mind when designing the curriculum. This is especially important in the case of foundation phase teachers who are generalists expected to teach all subjects. To teach science effectively requires knowledge of content and appropriate instructional methods. Furthermore, the curriculum needs to be supportive in terms of the time allocated to teaching science effectively, and if such a curriculum requires integration with other subjects, clear guidance should be given as to how this should occur. A curriculum that spells out exactly which topics should be taught as the CAPS (
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s), which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
S.B. collected data towards her PhD and prepared a draft of the findings. Her instruments were designed in collaboration with M.S. and A.J. M.S. extracted the section on teacher’s interpretation of the natural science curriculum and prepared the article focusing on this aspect. A.J. refined and edited the article.
This questionnaire aims to understand your interpretation of the natural science curriculum within the foundation phase classroom. The information will be treated confidentially.
This questionnaire comprises eight sections (Sections A–D). Please answer all questions honestly by ticking (✔) the relevant column or writing your opinion in the space provided. Please complete all items. Thank you for being willing to complete this questionnaire.
Surname | |
First name | |
Preferred calling name | |
Age | |
Gender | |
Home language | |
Level | |
Academic qualification | |
Professional qualification | |
Years of experience in teaching | |
Years of experience teaching in the foundation phase | |
Grade currently teaching | |
Other grades taught |
1. Tick the science content that you believe that you can teach confidently. If you feel the list is incomplete, please add any topics to ‘other’ at the end of the list.
Content topics | Very confident | Confident | Not so confident | Not confident |
---|---|---|---|---|
Light energy and colour | ||||
Heat energy | ||||
Sound energy | ||||
Magnetic interactions | ||||
Electrical energy | ||||
Simple machines | ||||
Plants | ||||
Animals | ||||
Nutrition | ||||
Air | ||||
Weather | ||||
Water | ||||
Matter and materials | ||||
Reactions and changes of materials | ||||
Universe and solar system | ||||
Earth and moon systems | ||||
Human body (systems) | ||||
Matter and motion | ||||
Atoms | ||||
Ecology | ||||
Other |
2. Which science content (from the list above) do you teach often? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Which of the science content (from the list above) have you never taught? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. The following is a list of classroom methods. Please tick the box that most accurately describes how often you use these methods in your teaching of science topics. Please refer to the addendum, which will clarify what is meant by the instructional methods given below:
Daily | Weekly | Fortnightly | Monthly | Once a term | Never | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inquiry | ||||||
Lecture | ||||||
Demonstration | ||||||
Laboratory | ||||||
Discussion | ||||||
Role-play | ||||||
Problem-based learning | ||||||
Cooperative learning | ||||||
Project-based learning | ||||||
Discovery | ||||||
Scientific investigations | ||||||
Problem solving | ||||||
Hands-on | ||||||
Journal | ||||||
Learning centres | ||||||
Role-play | ||||||
Scaffolding | ||||||
Simulations | ||||||
Case studies | ||||||
Graphic organisers | ||||||
Stories/narratives | ||||||
Other |
2. Could you give reasons why you use the methods that you selected?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. The following is a list that could possibly describe you as a teacher. Please select the ones that could be used to describe you as a foundation phase teacher teaching natural science. You could include others if you so wish. Write a short paragraph to explain your choice.
Dedicated | Confident | Conscientious attendance |
Caring | Approachable | Committed |
Well qualified | Tries innovative teaching techniques | Make an extra effort to improve teaching |
Experienced | Plans lessons well | Competent |
Attends professional development activities | Sound science content knowledge | Sound science pedagogical (teaching) content knowledge |
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What do you see as your greatest strength as a foundation phase teacher? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What do you see as your greatest weakness as a foundation phase teacher? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you attended any professional development workshops with regard to teaching natural science in the foundation phase in the last year? If you have, name them.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What proportion of the school day do you spend on each of the learning programmes, that is, literacy, numeracy and life skills?
Learning programmes | Time (%) |
Literacy | |
Numeracy | |
Life skills |
2. In what ways do you feel that your professional qualification and related field experience have best prepared you to be an effective foundation phase teacher?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Addendum for Section C
Inquiry uses scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop an understanding of science.
Lecture is direct instruction used to help students learn the concepts and skills.
Demonstration involves the teacher showing students a process or procedure such as a science process, a cooking procedure or a computer procedure.
Laboratory method is based on the principles ‘learning by doing’, learning by observation and proceeding from concrete to abstract.
Discussion is a combination of lecture and teacher questioning of students. It is designed to encourage thinking skills and allows learners to increase interpersonal skills.
Role-play deals with solving problems through action. A problem is identified, acted out and discussed.
Problem-based learning is a collaborative learning process that presents students with complex, real-world problems and provides guidance as they collaborate to develop content knowledge and problem solving skills.
Cooperative learning or group learning is an instructional strategy which organises students into small groups, so that they can work together to maximise their own and each other’s learning.
Project-based learning organises learning around projects. Projects are complex tasks based on challenging questions or problems that involve learners in design, problem-solving, decision making or investigative activities, give learners the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time and culminate in realistic products or presentations.
Discovery learning is an inquiry-based learning method in which learners use prior knowledge and experience to discover new information that they use to construct learning.
Scientific investigation is the process that can be defined in five words: observation, questioning, hypothesis, testing and explanation. These words, taken in this order, define the scientific method, the set of procedures biologists follow for sound and rational approach for proper practice of their discipline.
Problem-solving as a teaching method involves alternate ways of dealing with a problem and coming up with a previously unused or novel solution. It could involve integration of different learning areas.
Hands-on learning is learning by doing. Hands-on learning involves the child in a total learning experience, which enhances the child’s ability to think critically. The child must plan a process to test a hypothesis, put the process into motion using various hands-on materials, see the process to completion and then be able to explain the attained results.
Journals are often used in classrooms to allow students to record reflections and ideas. Typically written in a notebook and recorded each day, the journal serves as a method of communication between the student and the teacher.
Learning centres are self-contained areas where students work independently or with small groups (pairs or triads) to complete a task. Centres may take the form of chairs placed around a table for group discussion, display boards that present questions/problems/worksheets, or computer/computers where students perform hands-on activities or research on the web.
Scaffolding involves the teacher modelling the skill and thinking for the student. As the student increases understanding, the teacher withdraws the assistance allowing the student to take on more responsibility for the learning.
Simulations are used to put the student in a ‘real’ situation without taking the risks.
Case studies involve groups of students working together to analyse a ‘case’ that has been written on a particular situation or problem to find a solution.
Graphic organisers are found in the form of diagrams, maps and webs and illustrate information in a graphical format.
Stories/narratives as an instructional strategy are designed to convey abstract concepts through concrete experience. The narratives engage students in critical thinking and personal reflection. There is evidence that sharing ideas and concepts through story is an important way of encouraging social relations and helping students make connections between what they are learning in school and what they know of the world.
Composite levels for teachers’ interpretation of the natural science curriculum (Adapted from Rogan and Grayson
Level | Time allocation | Integration of natural science | Content areas | Instructional methods |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Time allocation for all three learning programmes (literacy, numeracy and life skills) was not indicated. | Teacher was cognisant of the fact that natural science needed to be taught through integration or as a freestanding subject but there was no evidence of this in her lesson plan. |
Teacher had no knowledge of the natural science content that should be covered in the foundation phase. | Teacher mentioned instructional methods that were not appropriate for teaching science. |
2 | Time allocation for all three learning programmes (literacy, numeracy and life skills) was indicated but was not in accordance with the RNCS | Teacher was cognisant of the fact that natural science needed to be taught through integration or as a freestanding subject and there was minimal evidence of this in her lesson plan. |
Certain topics mentioned by the teacher were appropriate for the foundation phase | Teacher mentioned a number of instructional methods appropriate for teaching science, but there was no evidence of this in her lesson plan. |
3 | Time allocation for all three learning programmes was clearly indicated together with the time allocated for natural science which was indicated but was not in accordance with the RNCS. | Teacher was cognisant of the fact that natural science needed to be taught through integration or as a freestanding subject and there was substantial evidence of this in her lesson plans. |
Most of the content topics mentioned correspond with the content mentioned in the curriculum. | Teacher mentioned a number of instructional methods appropriate for teaching science and provided suitable examples but there was no evidence of this in her lesson plan. |
4 | Time allocation for all three learning programmes was clearly indicated together with the time allocation for natural science which was clearly indicated in accordance with the RNCS. | Teacher was cognisant of the fact that natural science needed to be taught through integration or as a freestanding subject and there was substantial evidence of this in her lesson plans which was in keeping with the learning outcome for natural science. |
Teacher was knowledgeable with regard to the natural science content in the curriculum and selected appropriate topics from there. | Teacher mentioned a number of instructional methods appropriate for teaching science, provided suitable examples and there was evidence of this in her lesson plan. |
RNCS, Revised National Curriculum Statement.