The teacher acts as the more knowledgeable other who is expected to facilitate learning in the classroom. It is important to stress the potential of learners’ participation to contribute to their learning. There are different forms of learner participation; however, during lesson observations, only explicit and visible participation could be accounted for. It included learners offering their ideas and thoughts spontaneously, answering questions when called on, volunteering to answer questions, demonstrating at the chalkboard, completing written work, and talking to peers or the teacher about tasks (Turner & Patrick, 2004: 1760). Learner participation in the classroom creates an avenue that enables teachers to have glimpses of their learners’ thinking processes and learning. It also provides opportunities for teachers to identify problems with learning or evaluate their learners’ progress (ibid). Teachers’ failure to effectively utilise these opportunities to support learning results in missed learner support opportunities. Examples of learner support include scaffolding learning, or providing cognitive and affective support to learners to ensure a better understanding. Investigations in this aspect of the research sought to establish the extent of learners’ participation in the classroom, and whether or not learners were supported by the teachers in the learning process. Teacher MK
During the lesson on exponents, the mentor observed that Teacher MK’s learners confused the use of a comma and a full stop between numbers; for example, they wrote
3,2
5 instead of 52 .
3 . The report further stated that this was corrected through co-facilitation. This suggested that the teacher was unaware that his learners made such an error to which the mentor alerted him. This was a possible indication that Teacher MK was not checking what the learners had been doing in their books in class. Indeed, Lanhart’s (2010) research has found a relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and instruction in the classroom. Therefore,
124 the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and, ultimately, their pedagogical content knowledge have to be further developed. This will help to sufficiently transform their own knowledge into the content of instruction and, in this case, to support learners whose written work displays errors. Misconceptions could arise or increase, if interventions to correct errors were neglected. Thus, the mentor encouraged Teacher MK to do his self-directed learning tasks, which were given to all the participants, as this would assist him with his own development.
Initially, the mentor noticed and reported that very few learners participated in the lesson joined in. Through co-facilitation, the teacher and his mentor were able to get more learners involved in the lesson. This indicated that the mentoring assisted the teacher to develop facilitation skills that enable him to involve more learners. The subsequent reports did indicate that the learners participated massively, that the learners worked in groups, and that the teacher gave them feedback on the work done. Some reports (Lesson observation for grade 10B, 7 May 2012; Lesson observation for grade 10A, 24 October 2012) also indicated that the learners received “immediate” feedback.
Teacher NK
Teacher NK used the group work strategy effectively, in that homework or classwork was marked immediately after the learners had completed it in groups and then present their answers. The mentor regarded this as a good method, especially because the teacher moved around the groups to support them. It must be stressed that this method also increased learner involvement in class. However, this method was very time-consuming and contributed to the teacher lagging behind with the syllabus. Indeed, at times, an entire period was spent on correcting the homework alone. The mentor encouraged Teacher NK to do the provided self-directed learning tasks, to assist with her professional development so as to alleviate this time issue. However, the report acknowledged that this teacher dissipated learners’ difficulties by moving around the class when classwork was in progress, and that learner participation in class was generally good. It was also reported that the learners were comfortable to ask Teacher NK clarification questions, because she availed herself during group work.
125 Teacher RB
The mentor report indicated that Teacher RB gave learners class exercises and provided them with feedback in the same period (First semester mentor report, 2012). This gave the learners an indication of how they were performing in that aspect of the curriculum. Nevertheless, the mentor report indicated that the learners’ participation in class was generally unsatisfactory, despite Teacher RB’s attempt to involve passive learners. At the end of the grade 10 learners’ lesson on linear equations, the teacher re-emphasised the steps to be followed when solving equations (Lesson observation for grade 10, 12 March 2012). Re-emphasising the steps affords the learners the opportunity to revise and internalise the content.
Teacher SB
The mentor reports indicated that Teacher SB gave learners individual attention and tried to involve passive learners by using the question and answer method (First semester 2012 progress report). It was even mentioned that “he was able to reach the learners” (Lesson observation, 22 July 2012).
Teacher SR
Teacher SR assisted his learners in developing the important skill of working independently as a class, especially in his absence or when he was delayed and could not arrive in class on time. This is confirmed by the following excerpt:
The learners are so disciplined that even when the teacher is not in the class they continue to do their work in an organised manner, usually discussing tutorials (First semester 2012 mentor report).
Learners would thus continue to work in his absence as if they were being supervised by their teacher. This was noticed by both the mentor and the researcher. On 16 March 2012, the mentor observed that the teacher was delayed in the principal’s office; yet, upon arriving in his class, “we found the learners already discussing the homework with one of them writing the correction(s) on the board. That was impressive. There was order”. This was an indication that the learners did not sit idle in class, they worked as a collective to check the solutions to their homework.
126 It was noted that Teacher SR started with the revision of aspects that were already covered, but which had to be used in new sections, to ensure that learners were not hindered by a lack of prior knowledge. This approach warranted that prior knowledge was refreshed in time. For example, the theorem of Pythagoras was revised before learners were expected to incorporate it in the trigonometry questions. Feedback on classwork was also provided immediately, as a form of support to learners. As stated by the mentor, “A lot of worksheets and classwork were used to ensure that learners get enough practice on topics done” (First semester 2012 mentor report). Teacher SR also tried to involve passive learners. The mentor also reported that the learners asked clarification questions (Lesson observation for grade 10, 16 March 2012). This was an indication that the teacher created a conducive environment in which learners felt safe enough to ask clarification questions, which has the potential to promote learning.
Teacher SR also taught Saturday classes to support learners so as to better their performance and to ensure that the syllabus was completed on time. He kept attendance registers as evidence that the interventions occurred and to document the attendees.
Furthermore, the layout of this teacher’s work on the board was well-organised and promoted teaching and learning.