The role of the learner

In an OBE Curriculum 2005 approach the learner needs to be able to negotiate between himself/herself, the process of learning and also the knowledge and skills that need to be acquired. The learner therefore needs to be a far more active and involved partner in the learning process, contributing as much to the learning process as (s)he receives. The emphasis on cooperative

learning compared to an individualised learning process means that the learner is as responsible for successful classroom communication as the teacher is (Richards and Rodgers 2005: 166), because the roles of the teacher and the learner “are, in many ways, complementary” (Nunan 1993: 87). Because the learner is a co-constructor of knowledge in the classroom, it is clear that the learner has to accept co-responsibility as a problem solver and also for the rate of progress in his/her learning, as established in 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. Therefore learners should be guided to accept accountability for their own learning (van der Horst and Macdonald 1997: 92), as an OBE approach requires motivated learners who are prepared to work towards achieving the outcomes (3.4; 3.7.1).

As important as it is for learners to take co-responsibility for their own learning, they need to be persuaded that classroom activities are sufficiently interesting, relevant, accessible and authentic. There also need to be as many links as possible between classroom activities and what happens outside the school in real life (2.5). This aim can be realised if classroom material is chosen carefully. It would be ideal if the learner could be much more actively involved, not only in the activity or learning material, but in the design of these activities and the selection of the learning material, but whether this will materialise in South Africa with its legacy of authoritarian power relations in the classroom and its legacy of having many under-qualified teachers remains to be seen.

Above all, the learner will have to be “adaptable, creative, inventive and most important of all independent” (Nunan: 1993: 81). Enabling learners to become independent is a complex process. One factor is their ability to use learning strategies (2.5). Another is a climate that encourages risk- taking (2.5). Both of these are integrally tied to giving learners as many opportunities as possible to engage in seeking and processing new information in situations which encourage negotiation, because communicative interaction is essential to reach a particular objective (Richards and Rogers 2005: 22; Tomlinson 1999b: 15; Brown 1994: 181).

Given the increased importance accorded to cooperative learning by OBE and Curriculum 2005 (3.7.3), one would expect the module to provide scope for, and guidance in, the use of cooperative learning. As was apparent from the classroom implementation of the module (5.2.1), we often had to make room for cooperative learning as there was very little scope in the module for this approach to learning. When we did make provision for cooperative learning, we discovered that one of the factors influencing the development of risk-taking and the use of learner strategies is the size of the group. The problem with a whole class activity was highlighted in these two classes once again when dealing with the exercises on question marks and exclamation marks – in fact, with most

exercises and activities done which required answers from the class as a whole. Usually only those learners who were confident that they could answer correctly supplied answers voluntarily, and in every whole class activity they were more or less the same learners. The more subdued or less confident learners, who might well have known the answers, as well as those who did not know the answers, did not take part, preferring to remain silent. As I have already noted, the whole class activities also placed on emphasis on offering ‘correct’ answers, which by definition do not entail negotiation.

Our experience illustrated that group work is more time-consuming (3.8.2) and does not ensure that all learners will participate in group discussions (Randall 1999: 30), or even that the group as a whole will actually concentrate on the task, as shown in 3.7.3. In spite of that, in our experience group work does lead to greater participation than whole class activity (see also Savignon 2002: 5), as is evident from the discussion of exercises 3 to 5 (5.2.1). In my class group work seemed to encourage a few learners who had not normally contributed before to take a bolder role. It therefore seems that time and activities should be planned which place the learner at the centre of the learning process as “an active and responsible partner” (Celce-Murcia and Oshtain 2000: 229; 3.4 and 3.8.2), so that it becomes “a self-generating process” and not a teacher-controlled process.

This highlights the shortcomings of this module’s choice of activities and the role accorded to learners even when group work is involved. Effective group work requires a clear sense of what each person in the group is required to do and a goal that cannot be reached unless this is done (Blanckenberg 2000: 87; Bennett and Dunne 1992: 25). However, the compiler of this series does not include advice on managing group work, perhaps assuming that teachers are conversant with the effective implementation of the technique of group work. During the implementation of the module we became aware of shortcomings in our understanding of, and our ability to manage, group work. In addition, both of us found we had to be very firm during group work, otherwise the noise rose to unacceptable levels, with the danger of disturbing neighbouring classes. The fact that not all members of the group participated is another indication of our shortcomings. What is needed is proactive planning rather than reactive responses.

5.2.5 Assessment

As established in 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.2, assessment is one of the cornerstones of OBE. A wide range of different types of assessment is provided for in Curriculum 2005, with a strong emphasis on continuous evaluation in the course of the learning process using an equally wide range of

assessment tools. Assessment should have a strong diagnostic element in order to facilitate the learners’ achievement of the knowledge and skills they need in order to demonstrate whether they have attained the critical and language learning area outcomes (DoE 1997: 13, LLC 9; DoE 2003 16, 17).

It is, therefore, a significant shortcoming that very little guidance is provided for teachers with regard to assessment. There are no rubrics or other guides to assessment. In the first exercise (the comprehension test), it is left to the teacher to decide how the marks are to be allocated. In most cases there is little opportunity to use continuous assessment as a means of assessing the learning process. The concern with product or ‘correct’ answers predominates.

Similarly, no indication is given on how the discussion topics, which come after Exercise 8, or the mapping and writing activities, at the end of the module are be assessed. If guidelines on peer assessment of the writing activity had been given, as well as a simple rubric assessing the number of adjectives, their variety and effectiveness (the focus of the activity), it would have given the learners (and the teachers) an idea of what the indicators of success were. The lack of a clear focus is obviously not in line with the OBE requirement to achieve outcomes, which are “predetermined” (Killen 1996: 3) end products of “a clearly defined process” (Spady 1994a: 18). The crux of OBE (3.4) is that the learner must be able to demonstrate that (s)he has attained certain outcomes and, for that to be possible, the outcomes have to be assessed appropriately and accurately. OBE should be an integrated whole, from achieving outcomes to assessment.

Although the evidence is anecdotal, my observation of teachers (at the WCED conferences and workshops on Curriculum 2005 and assessment that I attended in recent years) suggests that many teachers are still hesitant and unsure of how to assess and assist learners in working towards acquiring the skills they need. One or two suggested rubrics for the activities which have to be assessed would have assisted teachers struggling to cope with the new approach with its strong emphasis on process assessment. In seeming to encourage process assessment but not giving the teacher the necessary skills and tools, the compiler of this module is encouraging the teacher to remain within the familiar realm of product marking. The importance of considering this aspect when evaluating teaching material must be considered (3.8.2). “[T]here is very little point in demonstrating to teachers the theoretical and empirical utility of an approach unless the issues involved in setting it up can also be demonstrated ... for example ... assessment practices” (Bennett and Dunne 1992: 34).