FOUNDATIONS FOR LEARNING

3.7.1 Background

Engelbrecht et al. (2011:3) were not surprised that the dramatic changes in South African society in the past years which included the movement away from segregated settings for learners with special educational needs to IE, were received with misgivings by some. They also viewed IE as an unending set of dynamic processes instead of an ideal state or idea. In this regard it is important to recognize the nature and extent of the problems which existed in the education system but it was also equally important to recognize visible strengths throughout the system (DoE 1997:40). Such strengths must be critically analysed so as to engage in a process of evaluation and ongoing transformation towards a system of education for all. In this light therefore, it must be acknowledged that many countries also face challenges pertaining to failure to teach basic mathematics skills to both learners who had an ID and learners who did not have the disability. However, they have not devised a national programme, like the FFL to specifically address the issue of school failure (DoE Government Gazette 2008:3-7; UNESCO 2009c:22). Concurrently, it had been observed that it fundamentally has the main features of promoting meaningful learning for learners with a MID. This meant that if learners with a MID received support that took into cognisance the typical areas of difficulty which were being promoted in the FFL, they were likely to learn the basic mathematics skills. There was need, therefore, to conduct the study on the FFL as a responsive national curriculum adaptation for foundation phase learners with a MID.

The researcher of this study had looked forward to the official evaluation of the FFL at the end of the four-year intervention period but the campaign was ongoing as the FFL forms part of the CAPS (DoBE 2009a:7, 63). The use FFL lesson plans was cited among the major resources for lesson planning to be used with CAPS (DoBE 2011d:101). The move of incorporating FFL into CAPS was not clear in the documents. However, as a result of pressure on the DoBE to end OBE curriculum and following the curriculum news updates, the researcher found that just copying and pasting the FFL into CAPS, without proper evaluation of the programme efficacy, seemed an easy way out for the DoBE. There were also flaws in delivering FFL materials to schools as noted in curriculum news; some schools were still waiting for delivery for materials in May 2010 (DoBE 2010f:2, 10), meaning they would not have enough time to implement the FFL hence the evaluation could not be done.

However, the initial plan was FFL was targeted at all primary schools in South Africa to increase learner performance pass rate in mathematics to no less than 50% by the end of 2011. All primary schools were to undergo annual national assessment in literacy and mathematics to measure

progress towards achievement of the set targets (Gauteng North District 2008; DoE 2008c:39). FFL was also used in Annual National Assessment (ANA) in mathematics and language. Therefore, the decision of the DoBE to deviate from the original plan to formally evaluate the FFL yearly and at the end of 2011 has been a setback. This is because within the education system, it has been concluded that what gets measured gets done and data on interventions, review of effectiveness of policies and processes is the life blood of continuous improvement in education (UNESCO 2009a:71-72; Moloi et al. 2010:477). However, with reference to South Africa, little attention was paid to investigating the responsiveness of national curriculum or intervention in meeting the educational needs of learners in IE.

3.7.2 Literature and content pertaining to the Foundations for Learning

It has already been mentioned in this study that the FFL was highly commendable, however, Ensor et al. in Pendlebury et al. (2009:55-57) noted that the FFL was very difficult for some teachers to follow. Such assertions were based on a study in Western Cape, poor semi-urban area and the main observations were that teachers in the Foundation Phase did not follow the FFL guidelines and lesson templates. For example, instead of a whole class discussion as recommended in the FFL guidelines, there was lots of “teacher talk.” Whole class discussion has an important place in the classroom together with other instructional practices because some of the opportunities offered in whole class discussions, such as depth of student understanding and identifying misconceptions, do not occur in small groups or individual settings (Grouws & Cebulla 2000:24). Findings of research by Smit and Mpya (2011:33) also showed that teachers needed practical experience, understanding, ongoing support and positive perceptions to help them embed effective techniques in their daily practice. The government therefore, needed to enable schools to provide teachers and learners with appropriate financial and other resources to ensure success in learning (Smith in Smith 2010:113).

However, one study did involve the use of the FFL in the Foundation Phase. According to Umalusi (2010:36-47), the study compared aspects of the FFL and RNCS with mathematics curricula of Canada, Singapore and Kenya. The FFL did best compared with the other countries in aspects like specification of content breadth and depth, pacing sequencing, progression and assessment; especially in relation to the topic of number and calculations. FFL was frequently mentioned for filling in missing gaps in the RNCS and also for de-emphasizing group work like in the OBE in RNCS. Little good was said about the RNCS and the number of mathematics documents that needed to be consulted for assessment (390 pages). The FFL provided good detail in a single document. The only general positive comment about the RNCS was the acknowledgement of guidance for teachers. However, this was scattered in too many documents, was unclear and repetitious and incoherent (section 3.5.4). What was not done was to compare learner

achievement or more so shed more light on inclusivity, instead the research concentrated only on how the FFL was user-friendly and available to teachers. Basically, studies on FFL are very few, and do not answer the questions and concerns raised in this study. Notwithstanding the observations highlighted above, the researcher of this study seeks to unmask important aspects of the FFL, which when implemented by teachers effectively, may ensure quality delivery of mathematics curriculum to learners with a MID in the disadvantaged village primary schools. As described in Ensor et al. (op cit); Umalusi (2010); DoE Government Gazette (2008) and DoE (2008b) these aspects include:

1. Stipulation of milestones to guide teachers in pacing curriculum content over a school year; 2. Term by term arrangement of content to be taught and formal assessment tasks to be written; 3. A template for managing instruction in a typical lesson with routine activities and teaching

methods;

4. A list of appropriate apparatus and resources to be placed in all classrooms; 5. Standardized assessment programmes;

6. Teacher support.

Berlach (2004:4) argues that the only way to test if an approach works in education is to take it to the teachers and ask the questions. To the researcher of this study questions raised in this study have not yet been undertaken. The next chapter deals with research design.

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on the research methodology. It begins with the rationale for research followed by the research design and thereafter discussions on population, sampling methodology and sample. Next presented are data gathering procedures including the research instrument, details on the pilot survey conducted to test the efficacy of the questionnaire, questionnaire administration and data processing procedures. Lastly, issues pertaining to measures of trustworthiness and ethical considerations are discussed.