transformation at school level from the introduction of Curriculum 2005, to the most recent attempt – the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) − has affected both lecturers and teachers in the manner in which they teach. The researcher agrees with Parker’s (2006) contention that school curriculum documents usually project symbolic images of what the state considers worthwhile knowledge and pedagogical practices for schooling that would advance these new transformation ideals.
In this discussion it is argued that teachers of mathematics and science have been negatively affected by the curriculum transformation. A key principle of the new curriculum according to the Department of Education (2003:2) is social transformation aimed at “ensuring that the educational imbalances of the past are redressed and that equal educational opportunities are provided for all sectors of our population.”
It is reasoned that the prescriptive nature of CAPS, for instance, has forced teachers to focus on the preparation of learners for standardised and official examinations.
This undermines the teachers’ responsibility to select, sequence and pace knowledge.
These reforms, it is argued, have not had an adequate impact on transforming classroom practices, since they were not well assimilated into current practice as a result of the inadequate training of those involved and the poor management of change by the Department of Education. The Department of Education did not provide a distinction between innovation (the policy for change), and change itself (the transformation of social practices that might result from the engagement with the CAPS policy).
Responses to the implementation of curriculum reform and transformation in schools varied between individuals, as reflected in the interviews. This study avers that some teachers have accepted the transformation process and have acted in accordance with the new roles of educators, while others have rejected transformation and have continued with their old classroom practices; these teachers seeing themselves as passive implementers of externally initiated innovation. This perspective has lowered teachers’ morale and motivation levels. Their response was thus to adapt superficially (for instance in terms of paperwork), while continuing with more established practices. There are also instances where teachers have merged the old with the new by selecting aspects that they feel are more suitable to them, considering their circumstances, such as availability and adequacy of learner support materials; text books in particular; class size; and infrastructure.
The responses of teachers to the implementation of the curriculum and the transformation process described above, resonate with Priestley’s (2011) outcomes to a process of transformation. These outcomes are: (a) morphogenesis, where the new ideas supplant the old; (b) morphostasis, where the old ideas are maintained and the new are rejected; and more commonly (c) where elements of the new merge with elements of the old, leading to a form of morphogenesis, particularly where there are points of consensus, as well as contradictions between the old and the new, or where the dissonance between them is not significant enough to merit conflict.
It is argued in this research that in order to embrace transformation, teachers of mathematics and science need to undergo a deep change which requires new ways of thinking and behaving. Some teachers however still apply their conventional teaching styles to teach mathematics and science, such as ‘watch and do’ (Cuoco, 2001: 169), where learners watch teachers solve problems on the board and then learners are required to emulate the teacher by following the same procedures that he/she used in solving the problem. This is then followed by lots of practice on nearly identical problems; the cycle repeats until the class ends. Thereafter, learners are given homework that requires even more practice. The problems given to learners often involve substituting numbers in formulas or applying the procedure over and over. Learners therefore apply rules that they do not understand. Another traditional instructional practice that mathematics and science teachers still adhere to amidst curriculum transformation is the ‘show and tell’ style (Handal, 2003: 50), where working in small groups is not common, learners do not participate actively, teacher questioning emphasises wrong or right answers, and learners often experience passive learning. Another defining characteristic of this traditional style of teaching is that too much emphasis is given to rote learning, procedures and facts. Excess teacher talk dominates the communication in the classroom and learners’ desks are arranged to face the teacher’s desk. It is argued in this discussion that instead of these traditional/conventional practices, teachers may adopt research-based ‘best practices’ in teaching mathematics and science (Zelmelman, Daniels & Hyde, 2005: 116). This entails using the following as part of instruction, namely: a manipulative/hands-on approach (making learning concrete and active); cooperative group work; discussion and inquiry; questioning and making conjectures; the justification of thinking; a problem-solving approach to instruction, making content integration a part of instruction; using technologies, such as calculators and personal computers; assessment as a part of instruction; and promoting the role of the teacher beyond that of transmitter of knowledge to facilitator of learning. It is further opined that the use of problem-based learning might be a successful instructional strategy where mathematics and science are integrated to make them relevant and meaningful to the learner. Integrating mathematics and science provides the opportunity for learners to apply the disciplines to real situations that are relevant to the learner’s world and presented from the learner’s own perspective.
The discussions in this chapter suggest that the way in which curriculum transformation was handled by the National Department of Education as the employer, particularly the orientation stage and monitoring implementation, has been inadequate. It is argued that the lack of involvement of lecturers and teachers, as practitioners of education by the National Department of Education is the major barrier to reform implementation. This lack of involvement has denied the practitioners an opportunity to play their roles of being real active participants in decision making; of conveyors of curriculum philosophy; of motivated and effective implementers and designers of curricular materials and teaching approaches; and lifelong learners for constant improvement (Nan-Zhau, 2006). It is further argued that the National Department of Education has not provided quality programmes of professional development needed to support teachers to reinvent themselves professionally, so as to cope with the demands of transformation. Instead, short training workshops have been organised for teachers who are then expected to train other teachers.