LESIONES BENIGNAS

Reddy (2011) recognised that in South Africa, professional development programmes offered to teachers are related to school reforms and education transformation. If teachers in schools are to meet the requirements of the curriculum, teachers‟ pedagogical practices, assessment practices and knowledge needs to be examined (Lotz-Sisitka, 2011). This needs to be reviewed through professional development activities for teachers‟ improved practices and successful implementation of the curriculum (ibid.). Following the launch of Curriculum 2005 in 1997 was the cascade model (also called the training of trainers‟ model) (Lotz-Sisitka & Janse van Rensburg, 2000). The cascade model was introduced by the Department of Education to introduce teachers to Curriculum 2005 and help train them for the implementation of Curriculum 2005. In this model, a first generation of teachers were trained on a particular topic, aspect of teaching or subject matter, and once proficient, became the educators of the second generation (Griffin, 1999). This was part of the government‟s advocacy campaign, which provided educators with tables contrasting learner centred and teacher centred education, constructivist and behaviouristic education, content based and outcome based education, and rote learning and activity based learning as a complete paradigm shift (Lotz-Sisitka & Janse van Rensburg, 2000). This situation has no doubt contributed to the simplifications and reductionism of educational reform (ibid.). The training was far from adequate, used inappropriate models and methods and focused on introducing complex terminologies in Curriculum 2005 (ibid.; Ono & Ferreira, 2010).

Professional development has been inadequately supported by teacher development staff who lacked the capacity to adequately complement workshops with follow-up work in the classrooms (Lotz-Sisitka & Janse Van Rensburg, 2000). This contributed to the implementation of outcome s based education and Curriculum 2005 not being as successful as was hoped (ibid.). Lessons learnt from the cascade model led to the piloting and implementation of collaborative models in South Africa (ibid.). The teacher cluster models were an attempt to respond to technicist teacher development models in South Africa, although at the time these were not policy (Du Toit & Squazzin, 2000).

environmental learning in South Africa. As part of the projects, professional development processes and programmes were structured around the spiral model (Figure 2.4) within a cluster-based approach to professional development (Du Toit & Squazzin, 2000). The spiral model was introduced out of concern that traditional professional development models (such as the cascade model) used in South Africa were inadequate (Janse van Rensburg & Lotz-Sisitka, 2000). The spiral model, in keeping with constructivist and critical approaches to the professional development of environmental educators, presented its own problems to participating teachers. Spiral models for teacher professional development required adequate structure and coherence (ibid.). The spiral model promoted increased sophistication of knowledge and practice over time that is achieved through a reflexive approach of working together (in the cluster) and then working away (in classrooms), and then reporting on practice back into on-going cluster meetings (ibid.). The spiral model is briefly discussed below:

Figure 2.4: The spiral model informed teacher professional development in the Learning for Sustainability pilot project (Janse van Rensburg & Lotz-Sisitka, 2000:42)

Du Toit & Squazzin (2000) provided details on the spiral model. Key to the model was that professional development of teachers was an open-ended, continuous and reflective process (Janse van Rensburg & Lotz-Sisitka, 2000). The NEEP-GET project worked with both curriculum support

staff and teachers (NEEP-GET, 2004). Through a cluster-based approach, groups of educators (sometimes with curriculum staff supporters) met regularly to share ideas, perspectives and experiences related to curriculum development and professional development processes. T he project development process in the NEEP-GET was approached differently in the different provincial project sites, shaped by various contextual factors, provincial organisations and management and geographic proximity of schools and resources (NEEP-GET, 2004). This led to an establishment of different cluster models in South Africa. Some were provincial based clusters, district based clusters, or clusters for specific learning areas, grade or phase (NEEP-GET, 2004). For example, in the Eastern Cape province, the cluster model started with the provincial subject advisor cluster, and through service providers, subject advisor clusters at district level were established (Raven, Timmermans, Lotz-Sisitka, & Nduna, 2005). Teacher clusters were established in four districts in the Eastern Cape (Grahamstown, King Williams Town, East London and Butterworth).

De Clercq and Phiri (2013) observed that clusters are in fact a South African version of PLCs. This study sheds more light on this statement. Clusters are a tool that schools can use to promote collaboration, reflection, sharing and continuous learning among teachers (Turkey, 2004). Clusters support teacher capacity to teach effectively and serve as an innovative network to support, promote and inspire teacher development leading to quality education (ibid.). However, most clusters do not function as expected (De Clercq & Phiri, 2013). Cluster meetings should be structured as a framework that can allow teacher engagement, continuous interaction, innovation and creativity to mutually benefit from one another (Mphahlele, 2012). This will result in teachers sharing resources, expertise and other facilities in their communities (ibid.). The success of cluster activities depends on the leadership; support materials; the system support; and teacher incentives or officially recognition and praise of participating teachers (ibid.).

Jita and Ndlalane (2009) noted that, in spite of the fairly rich history of the clustering in the 1980s and early 1990s among a number of NGOs and teacher organisations, including the Transvaal Teachers‟ Association and the South African Democratic Teachers‟ Union, there had been little research conducted on teacher clusters in South Africa. This posed a challenge to understand the teachers‟ collaborative activities in South Africa, but motivated for a need for research on teacher collaborative models such as this study. Some of the evidence of research in South Africa on collaborative models is by Ndlalane (2006); Jita and Ndlalane (2009); Ono and Ferreira (2010); Botha (2012); Mphahlele (2012); Mokhele (2013); Steyn (2013); Jita and Mokhele (2012; 2014) but none has focused specifically on Life Sciences teachers and/or biodiversity. These researchers seemed to conclude that with all the challenges affecting education in SA, teacher collaborative

models might be one of the substantive ways to build teachers‟ skills and knowledge for their educational professional growth.

The research carried out by Jita and Mokhele in 2012 reviewed the official Department of Basic Education teacher clusters. They also found that other kinds of clusters operating outside the Department of Basic Education structures exist which they termed „alternative clusters‟. The formation of the alternative clusters had been driven by the needs of the participating teachers with support and sustainability from higher education institutions and/or NGOs. Teacher participation in the alternative clusters was voluntary (Jita & Mokhele, 2012). On the other hand, the Department of Basic Education clusters were more mandatory (ibid.). Welch (2012) observed that PLC activities should be voluntary; when systematised they stop functioning.

Jita and Ndlalane (2009) explored the “opportunities to learn” that teacher clusters in South Africa presented to Science and Mathematics teachers. They argued that the mere presence of cluster structures does not lead to effective professional development as this requires certain pre-conditions. Effective clusters should focus on improving teacher performance for better learner achievements and need quality teacher-led interactions, based on professional knowledge and skills, and a collegial reflective culture (ibid.). Reddy (2011) noted that teacher learning through collaborative models can contribute to better understanding, stronger policies and improved implementation in schools. Discourses of professional learning that reflexively build, sustain and develop spaces for meaningfully enacting environmental education in schools and recognise the importance of teacher agency and PLCs, have the potential to move the focus from educators‟ implementation to building their normative and technical capacity, both individually and collectively to improve their practice (Reddy, 2011).

Teachers have individual needs, experiences, motivations and personal circumstances (NEEP-GET, 2004). They experience professional development differently (ibid.). Thus, instead of imposing professional development on teachers, teachers should be actively involved in determining their own developmental trajectory (South Africa. DHET & DBE, 2011a). They should then be supported to pursue the identified needs. Support given should provide appropriate structures and processes to enhance learning and accelerate performance (South Africa. DBE, 2014). The quality of teacher priority activities will be dependent to a large extent on the quality of teachers‟ own education and their ability, not only to evaluate their own needs but to find appropriate opportunities to meet those needs (Welch, 2012).