In 2000, the Review of C2005 recommended that in-service training of teachers for the new curriculum should be conducted by higher education institutions.
As a result, in 2001, the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) formed a strategic partnership with eight higher educations institutions in the province to train Grade 5, 6 and 9 teachers due to implement C2005 in its original form this year and next year.
The GDE developed a framework and a set of specifications that all training institutions had to adhere to. Institutions were free to interpret this brief as they chose.
Training for Grades 5 and 9 was conducted from June 2001 to January 2002. Earlier this year, the GDE commissioned an in-depth evaluation of the training materials used by the different institutions for this training. This evaluation was intended to act as a form of quality assurance that would lead to the production of better training materials in future.
The overall picture painted by this evaluation is that most courses were badly structured and lacked coherence. In some cases, a course was a set of hurriedly put together notes and handouts apparently developed for another purpose, presented together with copious extracts from policy documents. Only very few courses were well-written, coherently structured, interesting and creative.
In general, course materials varied with regard to the interpretation of outcomes-based education (OBE). In many cases, the emphasis was superficial, in some cases it was misleading, and in almost all cases there was a lack of critical engagement with OBE and C2005 policy.
Materials tended to concentrate on making sure that participants knew and understood key terms. Often these were not presented in a conceptually clear way. In most cases, there was no attempt to illustrate the implications of new terminology for classroom practice.
The majority of courses did not model OBE practice. In almost all cases, the developers’ understanding of OBE practice was to start with the outcomes and leave it at that. Activities were not developed to meet the course outcomes or aspects of the outcomes, nor were tasks designed to assess these outcomes.
None of the courses were located within a rigorous OBE framework: identify the outcomes, highlight performance indicators and assessment criteria, as well as assessment tasks, to determine the extent to which the outcomes have been achieved.
Almost all of the learning area specific materials focused on generic OBE concepts and issues with hardly any engagement with the salient issues of the learning area. In some cases, examples from the learning area were merely used in an illustrative way. All reviewers felt that more emphasis on the learning area was necessary, although time constraints were acknowledged.
Most courses did not display a good understanding of assessment. This was most obvious from the approach taken to assessing course participants.
Nearly all the courses seemed to have limited insight into the resources, experience and English-language abilities of the majority of teachers in Gauteng. Much was taken for granted as a baseline for developing the course, especially teachers’ competence in their learning areas.
Only one of the courses addressed the issues of multiculturalism, multilingualism and anti-racism and this was done in a
limited, superficial way. Given the time constraints it may not have been possible to address these issues in any depth. However, the values of anti-racism and multilingualism should have permeated all the materials.
There was much use of material from other sources. This is not problematic in itself, especially if this material is of a high quality. However, much of this material was of a low quality. Also, acknowledgement and referencing of other sources was not rigorous. It is doubtful whether permission was sought to use copyright material.
A surprising number of the courses were didactic, lecture-orientated and treated the participants as passive recipients of knowledge. Of the courses that were interactive, challenging and creative, the focus still tended to be on low-level cognitive tasks.
Only one institution provided a set of facilitator notes, and even these were not very detailed. Detailed, clear facilitator notes are imperative to ensure shared perspectives on the content and the methodology that should be used.
The findings of this evaluation were used by the GDE to give detailed feedback to the relevant higher education institutions. Institutions were required to use this feedback to improve their training materials for the next recipients – Grade 6 teachers currently undergoing training. A further evaluation of the Grade 6 training materials is planned for later this year.
This experience of the GDE shows that provincial departments cannot simply abdicate responsibility for training teachers by handing over the task to higher education institutions. Provincial departments need to play a crucial role in quality assuring the work of these institutions.