The improved ‘Matric” results for 2002 are being hailed as the start of a new era in secondary school education. There are many of us who question whether the much-acclaimed improvement is as significant as the figures indicate.
A new matriculant, seeking my advice on career opportunities, produced a certificate, which showed the following marks:
Home language 59% (D), English 36% (F), Afrikaans 49% (E), Physical Science 31% (F), Mathematics 29%(F), Biology 29% (F), Geography 22% (GG). Overall result: pass senior certificate!
One must query the acceptability of such a certificate, and maybe the bureaucrats responsible for the new system should try to appreciate the devastating impact on such a student of being rejected by universities and technikons.
My background as a chemical engineer and formerly an associate professor at the University of the Witwatersrand made me particularly interested in the newly introduced learning area of technology.
I saw it as an opportunity to introduce concepts of mining, metallurgy and minerals more pertinently into the schools.
Accordingly, I dug deeper into this ‘technology” area by reading the Draft Revised Paper on National Curriculum Statement 2001 — Technology as my reference.
I hoped to obtain a better definition of outcomes-based education (OBE) and some idea of what the area comprises. I read this document several times with an increasing feeling of dismay and disbelief. After wending my way through pages, I came to the conclusion that the draft paper represented a fuzzy technicolour pipe dream.
The definition of technology reads as follows: ‘Technology is a human activity of developing solutions to peoples’ needs by combining skills, values, knowledge and resources with sensitivity to social and environmental factors.”
It is a wide definition, which, in a jocular vein, can include sex therapy, investing in the stock exchange or arranging entertainment for a World Cup opening ceremony. More seriously, there is no mention of technology being based on scientific principles. The main action verb is ‘developing solutions” (an activity most appropriate to universities) rather than using existing techniques, knowledge and skills, which would be far more appropriate at school level.
It seems that the education department’s definition of OBE is more to do with ‘problem solving” than it is with developing skills leading to employment opportunities, as I had thought.
Sure, we need problem-solvers, but for every problem-solver we need many technicians. They are the ‘salt” of the technological society. For example, they keep our power stations running, our steel and ferroalloy plants producing added-value goods for export and our telephones and business computer systems from breaking down.
There is a huge section headed ‘Learner Outcomes” and ‘Assessment Standards” for technology. This is the most amazing section. In it are described abilities and the assessment thereof which would not be out of line in courses for a university engineering degree. Examples of these include: manufacture and process design by modelling and simulation; 2D and 3D, annotated and dimensioned and exploded view drawings; design modifications to allow for ergonometric and anthroponalogic considerations; structure and stress analysis.
Can one expect a scholar in Grade 9 to take a problem-solving exercise in structural stress analysis without a proper understanding of vector and scalar quantities and trigonometry, even in a simplified form?
The technology paper I refer to hasn’t even begun to list topics such as mining, metallurgy, mineral beneficiation, plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, water treatment, paper, food and the many other areas of technological and industrial activity.
Maybe these are planned for later, but why launch a boat when its design is not even half complete?
Over-ambitious maybe?
No. Ridiculously impossible. Because there are just not even a fraction of the teaching staff available with the remotest idea of what these topics entail. The emphasis is on practical work and this implies workshops, laboratories and equipment, way out of reach of most schools.
The OBE system downgrades the examination as a measure of a learner’s ability and places mere emphasis on ‘assessment’ by educators on a project performance basis. Will employers or entrance adjudicators for higher learning institutes ever accept this? All teachers will want to ensure the highest pass rate and cannot avoid assessing pupils to their greatest mutual advantage. But this is of little comfort to employers who are looking at some unbiased quantitative measure of ability. Can there be any reasonable method of moderating results when OBE is such a misty haze of platitudinous definitions and requirements?
Harsh words, you may say.
Intentionally so.
Industry must react to these education developments and inject their criticisms and comments. They must search out and take full advantage of what is good in OBE, but surely the authorities should also focus on deficiencies and provide some basics — such as ensuring a supply of science, maths and technology teachers before embarking on this wonderful dream, probably unattainable and possibly unwanted.
Dr R E Robinson has 50 years’ experience as a chemical engineer and educationalist in related fields. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.