Learners’ conceptions of NOS and IK 121

The following tables (Tables 4.6A, 4.6B, 4.7A and 4.7B) show the learners’ pre- post- agreements or disagreements with statements on NOS and IKS based on their responses to the Science-Indigenous Knowledge (SIKS) Questionnaire (see Appendix 6 for more details).

Table 4.6A: Learners’ agreement with SIKS items on NOS

Item Statements Pre-test (%) Post-test (%)

1 Science is based on facts 86 50

2 Science is based on research 100 75

3 Science is universal 79 50

4 Science is tentative 0 75

5 Science changes with new evidence 14 40

6 Scientists are learned 81 100

7 Science is straight forward 25 40

8 Science and IK are different 75 71

9 Science and IK have common elements 29 44

t-test 11.05

critical or table t-value at p ≤ 0 .05 = 2.306. Since the calculated t-value is greater than critical t, the difference is highly statistically significant.

Table 4.6B: Learners’ disagreement with SIKS items on NOS

Item Statements Pre-test (%) Post-test (%)

1 Science is based on facts only 14 50

2 Science is based on research 0 25

3 Science is universal 21 50

4 Science knowledge is tentative 100 25

5 Science changes with new evidence 86 60

6 Scientists are learned 19 0

7 Science is straight forward 75 60

8 Science and IK are different 25 29

9 Science and IK have common elements 79 56

t-test 11.22

critical t-value at p ≤ 0 .05 = 2.306. Since the calculated t-value is greater than critical t, the difference is highly statistically significant.

The calculated t test values in both tables 4.6A and 4.6B mean that the learners showed a significant change in their perceptions about the nature of science as a result of the intervention programme.

The following few examples, taken from the table, illustrate this observation very clearly. Initially, a very high percentage of the learners (86%) felt that ‘science is based on facts only’. After the intervention programme that percentage dropped to 50% of the learners. The percentage saying that science is tentative jumped from 0% before to 75% after the intervention programme.

The percentage of the learners who thought that science changes in light of new information rose from a pre14% to a post 40% of the learners.

Table 4.7A: Learners’ agreement with SIKS items on IK

Items Statements Pre-test (%) Post-test (%)

1 IK is based on beliefs only 100 25

2 IK is only based on experiences 31 87

3 IK is localised knowledge 71 100

4 IK is final or permanent 75 31

5 IK knowledge holders are not learned 86 40

6 IK is mysterious and non-experimentally testable 67 62

7 IK can have scientific explanations 13 31

t-test 16.88

critical t-value at p ≤ 0 .05 = 2.447. Since the calculated t-value is greater than critical t, the difference is highly statistically significant.

Table 4.7B: Learners’ disagreement with SIKS items on IK

Items Statements Pre-test Post-test

1 IK is based on beliefs only 0 75

2 IK is only based on experiences 69 13

3 IK is localised knowledge 29 0

4 IK is final or permanent 25 69

5 IK knowledge holders are not learned 14 60

6 IK is mysterious and non-experimentally testable 33 38

7 IK can have scientific explanations 88 69

t-test 16.90

critical t-value at p ≤ 0 .05 = 2.447. Since the calculated t-value is greater than critical t, the difference is highly statistically significant.

The calculated t test values in both tables 4.7A and 4.7B mean that the learners showed a significant change in their perceptions about indigenous knowledge as a result of the intervention programme.

The following examples, taken from the above tables illustrate this observation very clearly: At first, all the learners thought that ‘indigenous knowledge is based on beliefs only.’ After the programme, only 25% thought so.

Initially, only 31% and later 87% of the learners seemed to acknowledge that indigenous knowledge is a result of careful observation of natural phenomena over many centuries. Before the intervention programme, 75% of the learners felt that indigenous knowledge was final and static. That percentage dropped to 31%.

The results displayed in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 above, show that generally, at the beginning of the intervention programme, the learners did not think much of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge was seen in negative ways while science was glorified or exalted. Then there was a transformation of perceptions. The general shift was an acknowledgement of the viability, strengths and weaknesses of each of the two knowledge systems.

The major shifts about indigenous knowledge were that: indigenous knowledge is not just a belief system but a knowledge system based on careful observation of the world over many centuries; indigenous knowledge changes when new information and evidence becomes available and when situations and contexts change. The major shifts about science were that: it sometimes relies on non-scientific methods to construct its knowledge; it changes when new information and evidence becomes available.

Interpretive commentary

The sessions on the nature of science and indigenous knowledge which I had with the learners aimed at both knowledge construction and the transformation of the perceptions of the learners about the two worldviews especially where the learners had demonstrated serious misconceptions. For example, it was emphasised that both science and indigenous knowledge were sensitive to new contexts and would respond to new information and change their position in light of new evidence. Kaniki & Mphahlele (2002) and Ogunniyi (2008b), for

example, contend that indigenous knowledge is dynamic and fluid, changing with and being sensitive to the times.

Initially, a very high percentage of the learners (86%) felt that ‘science is based on facts only.’ The learners did not seem to know or accept that science can sometimes be quite tentative, if not, downright incorrect. There is evidence that in the past, “science did incorporate false beliefs, sometimes under the influence of emotion and fashion” (Bauer, 1992, p. 62 in Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007, p. 545). As shown earlier on, during the intervention programme, a number of examples from science were used to show that science can sometimes be wrong. Later, half the learners now thought that scientific knowledge was not always tested and experimented knowledge which was infallible and accurate. The learners expressed, on different occasions, the feeling that as human beings, scientists can also make errors resulting in incorrect information being paraded as science facts. A significant number of the learners (25%) now thought that scientists produce some scientific knowledge through non-scientific methods. The intervention programme made reference to science discoveries made by chance.

The following examples were used to illustrate this point: The discovery of penicillin by

chance by Alexander Fleming in 1928 (Roberts, 1986); the discovery of the benzene ring, through a dream by Friedrich August Kekule in 1865 (Wikipedia free encyclopaedia); and the discovery of the relationship between an electric current and magnetism by Hans Christian Oersted in 1820 (Wikipedia free encyclopaedia) and Nelkon, (1975).

In all fairness to the scientific method, it should be stated that these discoveries depended heavily on careful observations and correct interpretation of what was observed, which are skills associated with the scientific method. But the role of mere chance, in these discoveries, cannot be ignored.

The majority of the learners now seemed to acknowledge that the indigenous knowledge is a result of careful observation of natural phenomena and events over many centuries augmented by mental rigour in order to make meaning of those observations. In other words, these learners were in agreement with Kaniki & Mphahlele (2002, pp. 3-4) who see indigenous knowledge as “a cumulative body of knowledge generated and evolved over time, representing generations of creative thought and actions within individual societies.”

According to Ogunniyi (2008b:35), indigenous knowledge is “the accumulated experiences and problem solving approaches that have been used by a local community or ethnic group

over several generations.” In other words, indigenous knowledge is knowledge that has evolved from a local community based on the community’s own creativity and intellectual processing systems. This is the position that the majority of these learners seem to have accepted and embraced at the end of the intervention programme.

The importance of this is that here is a group of indigenous people who have realised and accepted that their knowledge system is valid and valuable instead of just accepting that indigenous knowledge is inferior to other knowledge systems.