Constructing new curricular knowledge (NCS)

In this section I present data reflecting that reform ideas cannot be accomplished by teachers learning only the surface form of reform practices. It requires grappling with the underlying ideas and may require deep conceptual change, in which teachers rethink their entire system of interacting attitudes, beliefs and practices. It is not enough to simply communicate the policy. The rationale that motivates such changes is critical. There is a critical need to structure learning opportunities so that teachers can construct an interpretation of the policy and its

implications for their own behaviour. I am emphasising this, because of the concerned respondents’ critical views about their experiences on the OBE- training workshops that they had on the conceptualisation of the NCS. Seemingly there were various problems in this regard. The respondents mostly criticised education officials for the observed lack of training skills. The following quotes are typical respondents’ comments:

“…some facilitators are not efficiently skilled; could not answer questions posed to them on curriculum implementation, especially the teaching methodology for A&C learning…” (T4).

Indeed the surface form of practices can be implemented in such a way as to miss the underlying intent of the reform. Respondents highlighted the fragmented focus of training officials on only one sub-discipline of the A&C learning area. According to the cognitive framework, curriculum conceptualisation or construction of new curricular understandings cannot occur with one isolated activity or sub-discipline. If this is the case, then incoherence arises when the curriculum reform is interpreted as consisting of specific practices essentially out of context. The A&C teacher, who was exposed to the reforms relevant to drama or art alone, has not addressed the system of practice necessary for the underlying idea of the whole learning area. A typical response was:

“…trainers for the A&C learning area were mostly from different and specialised A&C sub-disciplines. As such, training for A&C was too fragmented to learn anything new. Would have welcomed structured training sessions for the whole learning area.…” (T1).

One of the most striking features of the construction of new knowledge or conceptualisation of the A&C learning area in the design and structure of the new curriculum, was the principle of integrating the A&C as one learning area at school level. In Arts and Culture, this concept of integration was especially important as it was linked to the view of how the arts within the ambit of its different forms were conceptualised. However, respondents felt that this

conceptualisation of different art forms into one learning area fell short at the training courses. According to them, training in this learning area was fragmented as can be captured in the views of T2 and T6:

“Where integration of all four sub-disciplines is required as part of the teaching methodology of the A&C learning area, they (trainers) mostly concentrated on disciplines they are individually specialised on…very confusing” (T2).

“…Although there was a high level of presentation (specialised), for me, trainers’ only taught basic and generic things about the A&C learning area sub-disciplines.” (T6).

In general, integration was only one of the many design principles of the NCS. But it is the concern of its importance for the A&C as a new learning area that was singled out by respondents.

Linking to the point made above, respondents’ indicated the need to be trained in all the different A&C sub-disciplines as an on-going cycle, especially in those that they felt short to fully understand and implement it in their schools.

Another overwhelming issue for all respondents was the lack of time to fully engage with issues of how to implement the NCS properly and effectively at schools. Policy is more likely to influence teaching when teachers’ opportunities to learn are extended in time. Concerning the duration of the training courses one of the respondents felt that the short training courses caused them to be ill- prepared, especially for the implementation of A&C as a new learning area:

“…in-service training – limited time-frame, not enough time to absorb new knowledge. One day or one week is too short. Should at least run for two years…” (T5).

According to Spillane et al. (2002) the presentation of the policy is likely to be effective in enabling sense-making on the part of users, helping them to develop

better understanding of the intentions of the designers. As the policy (NCS) seemed to have been poorly presented as in the case of the A&C learning area according to teachers’ views, they encountered numerous problems. Some of these problems were:

“…Lack of enough Arts and Culture teachers to teach learning area efficiently at school” (T2).

“Large classes…not suitable for group work/ painting/ singing/ dancing/ too much? noises, and limited time-frame to complete practical work...” (T3).

To sum up this subsection on the construction of new curricular knowledge, similar studies by Smit (2001), Stoffels (2005) and Blignaut (2008) in South Africa, also reported on the lack of sound preparation for teachers on policy implementation matters. According to them new curriculum initiatives through new policies cannot deliver the intended outcomes if the necessary training, sense-making and support structures are not in place amongst all role players. Furthermore, structural changes in education will not have the desired effect if they are not supplemented with integrated policies intended to empower teachers to perform their role effectively.