CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.3 Implications for science teaching and learning
5.3.1 Teacher education
The researcher supports the suggestions made by the Ministerial Committee on Teacher Education in 2005 (Kruss, 2009) that in-service teachers should be exposed to ongoing upskilling in order to broaden their pedagogical and content knowledge. This research showed that teachers have knowledge of socio-constructivism but had limitations on implementation of constructivist strategies. Introducing mentorship in schools could close the gap knowledge of skill and implementation of skill. Teachers should be able to build mentorship programmes for the benefit of both the novice teachers and veteran teachers
83
(Smith, 2002). This is a mutual relationship where the novice brings new ideas on teaching and learning. The veteran shares ideas on classroom management and day-to- day challenges that the novice teacher might encounter.
5.3.2 Teaching practice
There is a need to develop teachers in other constructivist instructional strategies. The teachers seemed to know about discussions, debates, and question and answer strategies. Constructivist classroom success is based on inquiry based learning, and problem-based learning. Teachers should also incorporate technology in their classrooms. Technology has become an integral part of learners’ lives, and technology can help in promoting inquiry learning
5.3.3 Policy
As mentioned in 1.3, CAPS seeks to engage learners in active and critical learning (Department of Education, 2011) Findings showed that the teachers involved in this research comply with CAPS. The researcher cannot ascertain what really happens in their classroom but they all mentioned that their learners were engaged in learning and teaching. Science teachers are channeled by curricula needs, for example, to cover the content for examination purposes. This impacts on how they teach, and so it is likely that they use a teacher-centred approach to accelerate the amount of work covered. This is in contrast with constructivist instruction, which puts the learner in the centre of learning. Decreasing the content might help with the implementation of an inquiry based instruction. Assessment strategies must accommodate a constructivist learning environment.
5.3.4 Further research
The research focused on teachers’ perceptions of their teaching environments, and thus future research can include how learners perceive these environments. This will allow investigators to compare and contrast the perceptions of both teachers and learners. Studies reveal that there is a relationship between the learners’ perceptions of their learning environment and academic performance (Fraser & McRobbie 1995; Fraser, 1998; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Learners in these studies indicated their teachers’ attributes as being helpful and a good instructor who contributed to academic performance Science teachers are channeled by curricula needs, for example, to cover the content for examination purposes. This impacts on how they teach, and so it is likely that they use a
84
teacher-centred approach to accelerate the amount of work covered. This is in contrast with constructivist instruction, which puts the learner in the centre of learning. Decreasing the content might help with the implementation of an inquiry based instruction. Thirdly, assessment strategies must accommodate a constructivist learning environment.
5.4 Conclusion
This study investigated the extent to which science teachers create constructivist learning environments in their classrooms. The study revealed that science teachers are knowledgeable about constructivist teaching strategies and perceived their environments to be constructivist. Comments from the interviews revealed that there are factors that inhibit teachers from implementing constructivist strategies. For instance, summative assessment dominates science classrooms. Therefore, more time is spent on preparing learners for examinations. Also, according to constructivism, the tasks done in class must be authentic in order to enhance meaningful learning. The teachers indicated that they relied on textbooks for activities.
The findings indicate that in as much as the teachers are knowledgeable about constructivist strategies, they have limitations. They employ few strategies out of many that are available. None of them indicated the use of inquiry based strategies. Therefore, it is argued, teachers need to be empowered with the necessary skills in order to create constructivist learning environments.
85
References
Aaron, S., Crocket, J., Morrish, D., Basualdo, C., Kovithavongs, T., Mielke B., & Cook, D. (1998). Assessment of exam performance after change to problem-based learning: Differential effects by question type. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 10(2), 86-91.
Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms.
Learning Environment Research, 16, 131-150.
Aidoo, B., Boateng, S. K., Kissi, P. S., & Ofori, I. (2016). Effect of problem-based learning on students’ achievement in chemistry. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(33), 103-108.
Aldridge, J.M., Fraser B. J., & Laugksch, R. C. (2011). Relationships between the school- level and classroom-level environment in secondary schools in South Africa. South
African Journal of Education, 31(1), 127-144.
Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J. & Sebela, M.P. (2004). Using teacher action research to promote constructivist learning environments in South Africa. South African
Journal of Education, Vol 24(4) 245-253.
Aldridge, J.M., Fraser B.J., Taylor P.C., & Chen, C.C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International
Journal of Science Education, 22:37-55.
Alemu, B.M. (2010). Active learning approaches in mathematics education at universities
in Oromia, Ethopia, University of South Africa. Pretoria.
Anagun, S.S. & Anilan, H. (2013). Development and validation of a modified Turkish version of the Teacher Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning
Environment Research, 16, 169-182.
Anyanwu, R.N. (2008). The Implementation and Evaluation of a Constructivist
intervention in Secondary School Science in Seychelles, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.
86
Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning.
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70
Balaban, N. (1995). Seeing the child, knowing the person. In W Ayers (Ed.). To become
a teacher, 52-100, NY: Teachers College Press.
Baviskar, S. N. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ belief regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the
technology of instruction (pp17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Bentley, M. L. (2003). Introducing critical constructivism: Critical consciousness through
a critical constructivist pedagogy, (a paper represented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Studies Association. Mexico City, October 2003, University of Tennessee, Mexico.
Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta, Georgia.
Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. London: Open University Press.
Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148
Bloomberg, L.D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road
map from beginning to end. SAGE Publications.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction
to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borich, G. D. & Tombari, M. L. (2004). Educational assessment for the elementary and
middle school classroom. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
87
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: the case for
Constructivist Classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, USA.
Brooks, M.G., & Brooks J.G. (1999). The courage to constructivist. Educational
Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.
Brownstein, B. (2001). Collaboration: The foundation of learning in the future. Education, 122(2).
Brunning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, J. A. (1995). Cognitive psychology and
instruction. University of Michingan: Prentice Hall.
Bryant, L. (2011). Structured interviews. Available at
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/structured_interviews.htm Accessed on 5/5/2019 Burry-Stock, J.A., & Oxford, R.L. (1994). Expert science teaching evaluation model
(ESTEEM): Measuring excellence in science teaching for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 267-297.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13.
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. A
commissioned paper prepared for a workshop on exploring the intersection of science education and the development of 21st century skills. Washington, DC:
NABSE
Bybee, R.W., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program from Biological Sciences Improvement Study (BSCS). The
American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development
Cakir, N.K. (2017). The effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement, attitude and science skills: Meta-analysis study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(11), 157-170.
Capps, D., & Crawford, B. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497- 526.
88
Chapman, J. M. (2014). Differences in eight grade science student and teachers’
perceptions of students’ level of input into academic planning and decision making
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation & theses database. (UMI No. 3617333)
Cho, J., Yager, E. R., Seo, H.A., & Park, D.Y. (2010). Changes in high school teachers’ constructivist philosophies. School Science and Mathematics, 97(8), 400-404. Cimer, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A review of literature. Journal of Turkish
Science Education, 4(1), 20-44.
Cirik, İ., Çolak, E. & Kaya D. (2015). Constructivist learning environments: The teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Journal on New Trends in Education and
their implications, 6(2), 30-44.
Clason, D.L. & Dormody, T.J. (1994). Analyzing Data measured by Individual Likert-type Items, Journal of Agriculture Education, Vol 35(4), 31-35, New Mexico State University
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in Education. 6th Ed.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16(1), 3-56.
Cooke, M., & Moyle, K. (2002). Students’ evaluation of problem-based learning. Nurse
Education Today, 22(4), 330-339.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. (2nd ed.). University of Nebraska, Lincoln: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crippen, K. J. & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry –based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1), 157-173.
Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic. Education Psychology Review, 4(2), 165-194.
89
Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Knuth, R. (1993). Textbook of the future. In C. McKnight Hypertext: A psychological perspective. London: Ellis Horwood Publishing.
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research methods – A user-friendly guide to mastering
research techniques and projects by Deer Park productions. Oxford, United
Kingdom
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching. Vol 37 (6), 582-601.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination
Research. (pp 3-33). Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press.
De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 33-43.
De Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning
Inquiry. 1(1), 19-30.
Delisle, R. (2002). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom.
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/delisle97book.html 25 June 2019
De Mesa, A. P., & de Guzman, A. B. (2006). Portrait of Filipino teachers Classroom practices: Traditional or constructivist? Educational Research for Policy and
Practice. 5(3), 235-253.
Department of Education, (1997). South African education for the 21st century. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Department of Basic education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement,
Further Education and training Phase, Grades 10-12. Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Basic Education, 2017. National Senior Certificate 2016 Diagnostic Report Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education. 2018. National Senior Certificate 2017 Diagnostic Report Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
90
Department of Science and Technology. (2016). National advisory council on innovation. Pretoria, South Africa
De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. 2005. Research at grass roots:
For the Social Sciences and human service professions. 3rd ed. Pretoria: Van
Schaik.
diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dorman, J. P., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ assessment of classroom environment to develop typology of secondary school classrooms.
International Education Journal, 7(7), 906-915
Donald, D., Lazarus, S., & Moolla, N. (2014). Educational psychology in social context: Ecosystemic applications in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 271-275.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dragos, V. & Mih, V. (2015). Scientific literacy in school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 167-172.
Drever, E. (1995) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research (Edinburgh, The Scottish Council for Research in Education).
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon, Boston: MA. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12
Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.). New perspectives on conceptual change, 263- 282. Amsterdam, NL: Pergamon.
Duit, R., & Treasgust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
du Toit, E.R. (2009). Expert Educator Series. Powerful learning environment. Macmillan South Africa.
Duran, E., Duran, L., Haney, J. & Scheuermann, A. (2011). A learning cycle for all students. Science Teacher, 78(3), 56-60.
91
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49-58.
Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18, 368-378.
Entwistle, N. (2005). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and
studying in higher education (pp. 106-125). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T.J. 2013. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Fazio, X. & Volante, L. (2011). Preservice Science teachers’ perceptions of their practicum classrooms. Teacher Educator, 46(2), 126-144.
Folashade, A., & Akinbobola, A. O. (2009). Constructivist problem based learning technique and the academic achievement of physics students with low ability level in Nigerian secondary schools. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry
Education, 1(1), 45-51.
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1-5. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect.
In Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K.G. and McRobbie, C. J., Eds., The Second International
Handbook of Science Education, Springer, Dordrecht, 1191-1239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_79 15 September 2018.
Fraser, B. J., & McRobbie C.J. (1995). Science laboratory classrooms at schools and universities: A cross-national study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 289- 317.
Gagnon, G. & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design, Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Goodenough, K., & Cashion, M. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning in the context of school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and
92
Gordon, M. (2009). The misuses and effective uses of constructivist teaching, Teachers
and teaching, 15(6), 737-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600903357058 6 May 2019
Gray, R. (2014).The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327-341. Grayson, D. J. (2010). Critical issues in school mathematics and science: Pathways to
progress. Pretoria: Academy of science of South Africa.
Green, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: the
challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San, Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Hackling, M., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking Science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers
Association, 56(1), 17-22.
Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist based teaching practices. Science Education, 86(2), 783-802.
Hartle, R. T., Baviskar, S., & Smith, R. (2012). A field guide to constructivism in the college science classroom: Four essential criteria and a guide to their usage, Bioscene:
Journal of College Biology Teaching, 38(2), 31-35.
Henderson, J. & Wellington, J. (1998). Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science. School Science Review, 79(288), 35-46.
Henson, K. T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: A knowledge base.
Education Fall, 124(1), 5-16.
Hermida, J. (2015). Facilitating deep learning: Pathways to success for university and
college teachers. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Hewson, P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Madrid: National Centre for Educational Research, Documentation and Assessment.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional
93
Houghton, W. (2004). Engineering subject centre guide: Learning and teaching theory for
engineering academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.
Huynh, T. L. & Nguyen, U. N. T. (2019). Students’ perceptions and design considerations of flipped interpreting classroom. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(9), 1100-1110.
Hunter, J. L. (2014). High possibility classrooms: Technology integration in action. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2014, 1850-1856, Chesapeake, VA:
AACE
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W. & Stick, S.L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory designs. From Theory to Practice. 18(3), 1-19.
James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and Learning, 47-60, London: SAGE.
Johnson B. R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research. Quantitative, Qualitative
and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks: California.
Johnson, B. & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning Environments
Research, 7(1), 65-80.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivity versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education. Juta and Company Ltd.
Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B.J. (1999). Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary school classes in Korea. Evaluation and
Research in Education, 14, 3-22.
Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist based teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific
94
Kim, M., Kim, S., Khera, O., & Getman,J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet
and Higher Education, 22, 37-50
Kong, S. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classroom: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: Journal of Education
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 1-9.
Kriek, J. & Grayson, D. (2009). A holistic professional development for South African Physical Science teachers. South African Journal of Education, 29 (2), 185 – 203. Kruss, G. (2009). Opportunities and Challenges for Teacher Education Curriculum in
South Africa, Pretoria: HSRC Press.
Kumar, A. (2002). Research methodology in social science. SARUP & Sons. New Delhi. India.
Kyei, K. A. & Nemaorani, T. M. (2014). Establishing Factors that affect performance of grade ten students in high schools: A case study of the Vhembe district in South Africa. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 5(7), 83-87
Lee, M. (2006). What does constructivism suggest for science education? Issue Paper, California State University, Northridge, CA.
Leech, N.L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007).An array of qualitative data analysis tools. A call for data analysis triangulation, American Psychological Association, 22(4), 557-584.
Lelliot, A. (2014). Scientific literacy and the South African curriculum. African Journal of
Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 311-323.
Levin, B. B. (2002). Energizing teacher education and professional development with
problem-based learning.
95
Lim, C. S., & Presmeg, N. (2011). Teaching mathematics in two languages: a teaching dilemma of Malaysian Chinese primary schools. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 137-161.
Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching High School Science through Inquiry and Argumentation. Sage: Corwin.
Luckay, M. B., & Laugksch, R. C. (2015). The development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of social constructivist learning environments in grade 9 science classroom in South Africa. Research in Science
Education, 45(1), 1-22.
Makgato, M. (2007). Factors associated with poor performance of learners in mathematics and physical science in secondary schools in Soshanguve, South Africa. Educational Research, 4(1), 89-103.
Maree, K. (2007). First Steps in Research. Pretoria. Van Schaik Publishers.
Marlowe, B. A. & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist
classroom. Sage: Corwin
Mavuru, L. & Ramnarain, U. (2017). Teachers’ knowledge and views on the use of learners’ socio-cultural background in teaching Natural Sciences in Grade 9 township classes. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education. 21(2), 176-186.
Mayer, R. E. (2000). Intelligence and education. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence 519-533. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807947.024 3 September 2018
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning?
American Psychologist, 59(1), 14
McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies 12(3), 184-207.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-Based
Inquiry. New York. Pearson Education, Inc.
McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education, Evidence-based Inquiry 7th Ed, Pearson.
96
Mdletshe, L. (2008). Business Systems Group (BSG) helps mathematics and science
gain momentum in schools, Retrieved from http://www.bsg.co.za 24 September