The Teaching Biology Project (TBP) is an initiative of AEGI and UWC (initially the Education Faculty and School of Science and Mathematics Education, now the Centre for Natural Science for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Department) to develop appropriate content for the teaching of new scientific material in schools (GET and FET) as well as provide training opportunities to science educators responsible for teaching this material in schools. The AEGI and UWC components of the TBP are run separately by each organisation.
SEEDS funds TBP to the sum of R16m, 18.8% of Focus Area 1 funds: it is the third largest project in maths and science. Through AEGI, which is the project fund holder UWC will receive a total of R1.7m of TBP funds (10.6% of the available funds).
The TBP is in line with the national Ministry of Education’s new curriculum statements and new learning areas included in the CAPS as well as the National Curriculum Statements (NCS) for science, particularly life science, which are informed by genomic discoveries. The new curriculum challenges call for re-training and the up-skilling of Science teachers in-service: the challenge extends to pre-service teachers’ content knowledge which is compromised if University academics fail to teach at the cutting edge and science textbooks include information that might be dated.
The introduction of new teaching content assumes that educators have the capacity to design and implement appropriate teaching programmes. While adequate guidelines for both learning outcomes and assessment standards have been developed, the content is challenging for educators at all levels. According to the TBP project document, the majority of teachers of Science lack the most fundamental knowledge in the new learning areas. Teachers are also challenged to adapt their teaching styles and to approach their teaching differently; they are challenged to include innovative practices which include teaching to develop critical thinking skills, adopting a Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) approach in addition to understanding subject matter knowledge:
“The problem is that with CAPS we are on to our fourth Biology curriculum since 2006 ... one more than maths. Evolution was introduced in 2008 for the first time. There was very poor grasp and knowledge amongst existing teachers.” (AEGI)
The TBP’s goal is to support the professional development of pre- and in-service teachers at the General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) phases with expertise being drawn from the Western Cape Education Department, Western Cape universities and various senior Science and Education consultants in order to improve the teaching and learning of Natural Sciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences:
“New CAPS document this year (2011) but no departmental support, especially in practical teaching.” (AEGI)
Between 350 and 400 teachers have benefitted from the TBP, as have approximately 300 undergraduate, and a ten pre-service, life science students at UWC.
The in-service Training in Evolutionary Biology at the GET and FET levels is run by AEGI and focuses on: professional development through thrice-yearly conferences, complemented with ongoing lesson plan and material development support. Pre-service teachers from US and CPUT are also invited to attend also attend.
The four-day conferences integrate appropriate phase content knowledge in the science of genomes and evolution with discussion on scientific method. The use of ICT is integral to the learning and teaching methodology of the AEGI conferences:
“At the conferences the teachers are divided into two groups, Darwin and Mendel – based on questions they answer on their registration forms about their ICT skills. This is because of the need to develop the confidence of teachers with regard to their use of ICT in the classroom…. There seems to be a correlation between LS knowledge and ICT skills and between ICT skills and the schools in which teachers teach…. It seems that it is lack of knowledge of how to use ICT and lack of confidence to try is what hinders the teachers rather than lack of access to ICT and a number of teachers expressed their gratitude at being exposed to ICT and the opportunity to use a data projector and reflected on the confidence this gave them to use the resources available to them at school and how the teaching materials provided by TBP make this a possibility. Out of this need has grown TBP Goes Social, the rationale behind this is to get teachers to use a familiar technology, namely cell phones, to access both administrative information and content and from this to start to use social pages either on cell phones or computers, allowing teachers to move from an area of comfort with technology to making greater use of ICT resources”
AEGI also believes that Biology as a subject lends itself to an ICT learning and teaching platform:
“In most schools the computer labs are set aside for maths not biology but teaching maths off the Internet is very hard. Biology on the other hand, lends itself to Internet/ICT, because it is process-based. In our school [Bishops] while all our boys have laptops our school maths doesn't use these laptops. Maths is very difficult to use on a computer. But biology is really easy, because so many resources are available online. Because biology is process-based, it is very difficult to teach it with static drawings. But if you can show process … the kids understand it better. It makes more sense for teachers to show the stuff than to teach it out of the textbook.”
Key elements at each conference are these ICT literacy pre-tests; self-assessment tests for subject knowledge; and the AEGI ‘small groups’ facilitated by small group leaders:
“We have developed a method which involves first trying it out in small groups. Then they go away, and redevelop. Then hold a round-robin which is sharing with a larger group. Then store and find it on the network, and finally present it.”
“We get teachers to develop their own material addressing teachers’ fears in developing their own materials.
“The kind of thing we do is to show them that practical work doesn't have to be frightening.”
“We developed the AEGI method to show teachers how to integrate content in a very user-friendly way.”
Delegates leave with lesson plans developed at the conference together with AEGI learner materials and other resources loaded onto a flash drive and DVD’s. They are also logged into the TBP webpage and Facebook group. This implies, as AEGI opines, that conference lesson plans and material, website development and online support are closely inter-linked aspects:
”The materials given to teachers and that are developed at the conferences … include books, magazines, Word documents, Power Points (saved to flash disk)…. The flash disks given to teachers are invaluable learning support materials and the activities developed by the teachers together with practicals developed by the TBP staff can easily be used in the classroom. The website is updated regularly and useful links are posted on the Facebook wall and in response to requests from teachers. We sms teachers regularly to remind them of these resources, using SchoolTools which enables us to send regular sms’s at low costs and we plan to grow our online and cell phone presence through ‘TBP Goes Social’ Material developed at the TBP resource development week end in 2010 has been added to the flash drive and a number of excellent resources … are included on the flash disk. Online material, useful websites, downloadable resources and how to use these form part of the programme at the conferences.”
AEGI has developed a core of lead teachers and a close association with WCED and these lead teachers have been used to assist with CAPS training and feedback to WCED curriculum advisors.
TBP set up a school-based network called ‘Critical Friends’ comprising teachers who participated in the TBP under the mentorship of a lead teacher:
“We discovered that production of materials is only a small part of the problem and we needed to address the lack of understanding of scientific method and also running practicals and classroom practice. Our growing pedagogical focus grew out … a stress on provision of resources which however revealed gaps in teaching methods for biology in the classroom. The key blockage is effective teaching methods. In response, we developed "critical friends group"; began with a small group of 8 to 10 teachers. Our methodology is to co-develop material and demonstrate how best to unpack the material in the classroom.”
Many of the challenges AEGI faces supporting quality biology teaching in the classroom relates to factors intrinsic to the schools and how teachers approach their classroom practice, which in turn is leading to changes in emphasis in the programme for example increased focus on classroom-based support methodologies and the urgent need to address practical skills into pre-service training programmes:
Biology is the second-largest subject after languages. There are very few trained biology teachers in schools. So schools tend to allocate biology at the lower levels (primary) mainly to teachers without a specialisation and expect – in Grade 12 - qualified teachers to get learners through the senior certificate examination period.”
“We discovered that production of materials is only a small part of the problem and we underestimated the need to address the lack of understanding of scientific method and also running practicals and classroom practice.”
Our initial stress on provision of resources has revealed huge gaps in teaching methods for biology in the classroom.
Pre-service teachers "have very little practical skills to use their content knowledge in the classroom. CPUT plays a critically important role in the supply of teachers and is the largest supplier of teachers. But we have found that their pre-service programmes don’t include practicals.”
The use of ICT in the classroom is a major stumbling block:
“Integration of ICT in classrooms is tricky “
“Teachers are terrified of data projectors”
“There is enormous emphasis on giving hardware, but very little focus on what to do with it.”
“There have been definite changes since January 2009, when perhaps half our participating teachers agreed they had interactive white boards, computer labs, internet access, e-mail etc. By June 2010 all participating teachers indicated they had these things but now they also indicated that none of them are using them.”
“There are practical barriers impacting the use of ICT in classroom’s including things like the department’s limit or ‘cap’ on monthly internet usage.”
AEGI’s current project challenges include some of the following:
“Most important constraint is reaching the teachers who need it the most [i.e. in township schools]”
Encouraging sufficient numbers of teachers to participation in the programme: “We have found that provision of bursaries to teachers is not a sufficient incentive.”
Responding to the need for large-scale intervention: “WCED asked me if I would take 300 teachers in September but I declined since the ICT component of the TBP is a very important component and we don’t have sufficient ICT resources; also I felt that the main part of the TBP conference is our small group concept. Working with the small groups over a period is never just about attending lectures. I don't think that works. So between working in small groups and the ICT you can't take more than 55 teachers at a time.”
Overcoming schools’ lack of ICT know-how to effectively implement the TBP programme model
“We don't know how efficient and sustainable our impact is on the classrooms”
“High numbers of repeat attendees” (a ‘positive’ challenge indicative of the popularity of TBP amongst participating teachers)
“There is a need to link TBP with Dinaledi Schools. Only 26 Dinaledi schools attended TBP so far – there are 120 schools in the province – life sciences are being neglected”
Improving life sciences syllabus coverage: “At this point in the year, some schools are 13 weeks behind in the syllabus. Most schools are 3 to 4 weeks behind in the syllabus. Halfway through the year they are way behind in the syllabus, because there is no teaching time in the fourth term.”
Language of L&T: “TBP is offered in English but many of our teachers, especially those from small-towns are Afrikaans speaking. I don't know whether we are reaching enough teachers who are Afrikaans-speaking, and it is the smaller towns where this becomes a problem.” “
The participation in TBP of WCED curriculum advisers for wider impact: “About four curriculum advisors have attended AEGI conferences. Tommy Botha tried very hard to get them to attend … but there is a block and he does not know how to get more of them there. This is why we are setting up a meeting with the WCED to propose developing resources for them. In this way we can help them and they can help us. This raises a key question of sustainability. If we develop materials we want them to reach as many teachers, not just the TBP teachers, and it seems to us, the only way of getting this to happen is with greater involvement of the curriculum advisors”
AEGI collaboration with the other SEEDS parties has been extensive:
“We have actively looked for as much cross pollination as we can… because that was one of the Consortium goals. There is no use in us all acting independently. We talk a lot of with the other partners. This includes Scifest, MSEP, ELRU, SAILLI and EMEP. We share a lot with other organisations. IMSTUS Life Sciences lecturers participate in and give presentations at the AGEI teacher conferences”
TBPs pre-service programme in life sciences and ecology is run by UWC’s Centre for Natural Science for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Department and embraces curriculum and materials development specifically around the new curriculum (including in UWC’s undergraduate life sciences), development of a framework for training of pre-service life sciences teachers, holding of annual conferences and public promotion of life sciences, and running of Short Courses and Biology Colloquium/workshops in specific topics for teachers in the field.
The Centre has developed – but not published due to resources constraints - materials that teachers can use for each section of the syllabus and for each grade (eventually), with activities for each topic, which have been trialled in 10 schools. The Centre has developed a ‘misconceptions in life sciences’ tool as a basis of biology students’ needs assessment in the subject in support of a pedagogical content-knowledge approach to life sciences teaching, in addition to appropriate materials that address these knowledge gaps. Again, inadequate resources are cited as a key obstacle.
Amongst the activities prescribed in UWC’s original proposal to SEEDS is a partnership with tertiary institutions in the province to ‘develop an appropriate framework and series of interventions that will ultimately enhance and improve pre-service learning’ involving visitation and sharing with Dutch colleagues to learn from their curriculum and practices. This component of the TBP will be implemented over the next year.
The pre-service component of the TBP to ‘reshape and revitalise professional practice amongst new life sciences teachers enrolled in the Western Cape’s higher education faculties’ is being implemented by both AEGI and UWC. AEGI’s contribution is through participation of CPUT pre-service life sciences students in its conferences. UWC’s involves working with their life sciences students as well as with their mentor teachers in the schools. Conceptual, pedagogic and skills training are available for students during the academic year, with special workshops provided in new learning areas as well as addressing curricula changes. During their three-month practice teaching in schools, UWC offers support, help with lesson plans, books, worksheets and props for lessons, and school visitations. Learning support materials have been produced, core practical lessons at Grades 10-12 work shopped, and a website for on-line access by students developed.
The TBP pre-service component has been downscaled due to the limited funding available to UWC. Nonetheless the project has ensured that life sciences pre-service teachers at UWC are more fully exposed to biology and, to an extent, earth sciences and ecology. Their project work has further addressed, through development of a ‘misconceptions in life sciences’ tool, which supports their pedagogical content-knowledge life sciences teaching approach.
UWC is adamant that their impact factor on per-service in other tertiary institutions could be significantly improved with more adequate funding being made available from project funds, pointing to positive project benefits including improved 2011 student pass rates from support provided to undergraduate life sciences courses at UWC (UWC has been allocated a total of R1.7m of TBP funds, 10.6% of funds available).
TBP’s third area of activities seeks very broadly to promote academic and learning support materials development for teaching about evolution, biology, and the nature of science, developing online support, promoting public understanding through annual conferences such as that on Human Evolution run at UWC in October 2009, as well as major workshops to improve access to scientific information and teaching. Academics and other individuals involved in TBP at AEGI and UWC respectively continue to contribute substantively in their own right to the deepening of knowledge and wider understanding of evolution, genetics and the biological sciences and the teaching thereof in the country, and internationally, through their engagement in this SEEDS project.
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
SAILI received R6.5m or 7.6% of SEEDS funding in Focus Area 1.
SAILLI’s overarching goal is to “equip disadvantaged youth with strong capabilities in maths and science so that they can participate fully in the disciplines that make up the knowledge economy.” SAILI’s unique flexible action-research based approach linked to rigorous independent programme evaluation has been widely acknowledged for its creative approach to providing black students with talent opportunities and access to the schools of Cape Town. Its dynamic approach has resulted in great project innovation since SAILI’s establishment in 1996 as a project of the Deputy Vice-chancellors of the five tertiary institutions in the Western Cape. SAILI’s SEEDS project in 2011 is undergoing a similar extended learning process.
The 2008 SEEDS proposal proposed a shift away from their interventions which emphasised support of systemic institutional improvement towards selection of promising individuals in disadvantaged schools and placing them in high-quality learning environments at the start of their secondary school careers supported by an array of learner-directed programmes including:
A ‘Catch Up Programme’ in Mathematics for 70 promising Grade 7’s
‘Comet’s Programme’, an interactive Science and Technology intervention run at the MTN Science Centre for 60 Grades 8 and 9
‘Learner Placement Programme’, a partnership programme placing for 130 achieving Grade 8 to 12 students in participating public schools of excellence
The ‘FET Teaching Programme’ at CPUT, a enrichment programme at CPUT for 110 Grade 10 to 12 students
The ‘Guidance counselling support & Life Orientation Programme
As SAILI explained it:
“Through its Learner Placement Programme, undertaken in partnership with selected public schools, SAILI unlocks students’ potential and fast-tracks their performance in Maths and Science. SAILI supports these individuals through counselling, focused curriculum-based coaching and tuition, Maths and Science enrichment programmes, as well as other activities such as work shadow opportunities, winter school and holiday camps. SAILI further facilitates access to tertiary study through appropriate career placement and helps mobilise financial support.”
The numbers of SALLI learners benefitting from the Learner Placement Programme between Grades 9 to 12 are 65, with 45 supported from SEEDS funding. The SAILLI model is based on a cost of about R10,000 per learner, per year in a cohort of 30, over 5 years, that is, R1,5m per cohort
In 2009, based on a review of the programme which questioned the results obtained from the initiatives above SAILI initiated far-ranging discussions as to the direction of the programme and support for the enrichment programme “to see that everyone was getting the best benefits for resources spent”.
The results were sobering:
“There were big difficulties in identifying and nurturing talent at primary school level and provide enrichment and support to learners who grapple with moving between their township neighbourhoods and well-equipped middle-class school learners who have all the comforts of middle-class households”
“The 'finger in every pie' comprehensive intervention approach wasn’t working; additional tuition, student camps, teacher training, whole school development, language support and further study support - all these things failed to add-up. We were still left with problems in attendance, learner commitment, and parents who were uninvolved and disinterested”
“We inputted high quality tuition to these 80 kids over 18 weeks. 4 hours per week, over the year. 80 hours in total, with progressive testing throughout. Our logic was that for candidates from less capable schools, we control for that with high quality teaching and testing. This process was considered to be good, kind, sound. But we found that those 25 to 30 who succeeded tended to match up to 25 to 30 of the initial test anyway. 1 or 2 do benefit but actually, given the input and the level of input it is not efficient and doesn't actually change the game sufficiently. It is not an effective use of resources. The allocation would be rather used to get more places for individuals.”
With rising school fees and increased competition for placement in such schools the Learner Placement Programme was also becoming unaffordable. The evaluation recognised that the Learner Placement Programme reliance on placing talent in excellent – but expensive - ‘high-end’ schools was not sustainable – nor necessary.
The problem according to SAILI was that they were overlooking opportunities in “moderately priced, quality local schools”: “If you go to the Rondebosch High School you pay R25,000 a head, but if we find adequate, equivalent, academic output at R1000, R10,000, R15,000, should we not rather use these schools?” There were numbers of locally clustered primary schools which afforded places to learners who were talented at fees that poorer parents could pay afford. The challenge lay in linking such poor but talented learners to a locally performing high school – if such schools could be identified or existed in the neighbourhood – where their talent could be nurtured. The challenge would be in selection of talent – which SAILI had years of experience in – and in identification of moderately priced local, performing high schools which SAILI could partner with and place talented but genuinely needy students graduating from nearby primary schools in who under normal circumstances would not afford (or be offered) a place in such schools:
“The challenge is to identify those who had the talent to make that jump, but not the resources. And we need to look for a geographical clustering of 4 or 5 primary schools under R2000 per year that can act as feeder schools. Couple of main areas include – Grassy Park, Retreat, Parkwood, Fairview; Bridgetown, Gatesville, Hanover Park etc.. And we need provide these kids with affordable scholarships to attend moderately priced but high performing local [high] schools.”
“It’s not so hard for kids to stay in, when they are in.”
A new approach and model was needed:
“These kids are in primary schools that cost R1500 to R2000 per year: we are asking where do they go? South Peninsula High costs R5000 to R6000, which is three times the cost of primary school. For R2000 therefore you can get a very good primary education, but you can't get a good high school education for that so the kids drop-out, except for one or two exceptions. We will look for these modestly priced feeder schools and see which kids we can take off this dysfunctional conveyor belt, what gems we can pick out, and at what point do we put them into the functioning part of the system in performing high schools but at the lowest price.”
This action-research based approach, supplemented by thorough evaluation, has led to a new focus in 2010: “We have evolved from an education intervention into a a systemically minded scholarship programme. We used to do piano lessons, trips to the museum etc, but refocusing on what is the intent of the programme … we have arrived at ‘scholarships’ because we found that after all our tutoring and teaching it was not an effective intervention. So we need to make scholarships more effective.”
SAILI continues to provide bursaries to learners already on the programme but in 2010 in response to the debate outlined above suspended recruitment pending launch of the new programme in 2012.
SAILI sees its current challenges as establishing a methodology for identifying which schools are “genuine high performers” and establishing grounds for working with these schools as a “high value, effective and responsive partner”.
SAILI has made significant progress in identifying key analytical elements and data necessary in identifying high performing schools beyond Grade 12 performance data which would benefit other SEEDS partners and could be developed into a major resource with additional input and discussion.
In terms of evolving partnerships, there is potential for these to become more successful as a result of SAILI’s learner placement programme. SAILI’s new scholarship programme offers potential systemic impact on the schooling system on behalf of its students – black, African, poor, township, vernacular-speaking in ways not initially anticipated by SAILI or school partners. There are also spaces opening up in Coloured schools which black African students can take advantage of:
“Coloured kids have more choice now. A school like South Peninsula drew only from Grassy Park. Now these schools are threatened by an exodus of talent to Wynberg, Rondebosch etc.”
“If I have two kids in Pinelands High and one in Wynberg what is our effect on the system? Answer is minimal effect. These schools are grateful for the kids to give them and for which we will pay to provide coaching, support, monitoring and generally occupy the parental space. But at South Pen High I can take my extra-mural budget and can pump it into the school in a more focused way. Suddenly, I have three or more kids and I can say, look, your 2 hour extramural programme, can you make a 5 hour programme? I can have a knock-on effect in that school. This is most profoundly obvious in our Grade 10 class in that school. We have 10 or 11 kids there, nearly all in the top 20 academically, out of 200 in that grade. So in that grade we hold the strongest kids. It's an injection of talent year-on-year into their system. At this scale, the knock-on effect is huge: it can be transformative and that's good because we put a lot of kids in, and I can put a lot of kids into that school because it’s cheap. That's where we are heading, maximising our impact.”
“The school administration and SAILLI’s administration also benefits. I pay one invoice, purchase one uniform, there is one fax number to dial, and one HOD to make friends with etc”
Black kids in coloured schools (like South Pen): “They don’t offer Xhosa First Additional Language but if I can give you 10 Xhosa first language kids, then that school may appoint a teacher.”
SAILI continues to provide coaching, mentoring and academic support to parents, schools, and learners on its present bursaries as well as monitoring learner performance in a five-step programme together with the school: “Our logic is to have this conversation with the school if possible… we perform a general kind of parental role, counselling role.. ask kids what they are thinking about etc... Then we track them and try to link each child with some kind of academic support.”
SAILI’s new approach is highly pragmatic and involves necessary tradeoffs. For example the Learner Placement will have little benefit for talented students in Cape Town’s black township schools until high performing local high schools emerge to partner with. SAILI explains:
“Our last intake was in 2009; right now we have secured funds to recruit a cohort of kids for 2011 in areas where we can realistically place them from. We are saying, if we find kids in Khayelitsha Primary Schools what are we going to do with them? Let’s look in these other areas, for example, the high concentration in Grassy Park, feeding to South Peninsula. Lets also look in the northern suburbs around Bellville, Kuils River, Bishop Lavis, going into Parow and Bellville schools where there is a concentration of feeder primary schools and good high school]. Another area is Milnerton, Rugby, Brooklyn, Ysterplaats area and Koeberg Primary but here we have the difficulty in finding schools to put them in. Also we can look at Bridgetown, Gatesville area: there are some strong schools there, like Rylands High, Livingstone High. The schools are easily accessible, the fees are low, and their performance good.”
SAILI has experienced many challenges the most pressing of which is financial: “We need to raise cash to recruit new kids for the new programme.” In turn scholarships are key to incentivising schools to partner with SAILI: “We need to be able to turn on the pipeline again as soon as possible. Principals are asking at what point the cash will come in.” An issue related to finance is SAILI’s responsibilities in the event they are thrown a curved ball by one of their learners: “How do we respond if the kid goes off the rails and has psycho-social needs? Quite hard to create processes can handle these kind of exceptions. We have established a relationship with the Institute for Applied Psychology, use interns as life coaches. Then suddenly, we need psycho/ psychiatric support. At that point, you take out your wallet. What is our mandate? Where do you draw the line?”
SAILI is acutely aware of the limits to its resources and the positive impact it can nevertheless have on behalf of talented black students. A fact that continues to urge the organisation forward is the dysfunctionality of the Cape Town’s township schools:
“If you are in Khayelitsha, and you attend a previously black school, you have a less than one in ten chance of achieving more than 50% in maths or physics. There were 28 higher grade maths passes in black schools in the Western Cape in 2001. There is no historical capacity to teach maths at both the higher or even standard grade level…. It is not simply a case of saying to standard grade teachers ‘work harder’, because they were ineffective in the first place.”
SCIFEST AFRICA
SciFest Africa is the only partner in the initiative specialising in the promotion of Science awareness. SciFest Africa is funded to the amount of R6m (7.1% of Focus Area 1).
Launched in 1997 on the model of the Edinburgh International Science Festival by the Grahamstown Foundation, SciFest Africa (then Sasol SciFest) was “the first of its kind on the African continent and today is one of South Africa’s leaders in promoting public engagement with Science.”
In close co-operation with Department of Science and Technology, Science Centre’s and like-minded public and private sector partners, SciFest’s goal is “fun-filled, challenging and stimulating” Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) public awareness promotion: “more informed mindsets”, “breaking popular misconceptions”, “debunking myths”, “accessible” scientists and science, “the every-day role of STEM” - in education, business and the lives of South Africans.
SciFest Africa’s project activities include “the biggest science festival in sub-Saharan Africa”, the flagship seven-day National Festival of Science held each March in Grahamstown. This year’s conference, under the “Science across cultures” theme, “highlighted what makes us human, what makes us different, the contribution of different cultures to science and science education, and science practiced across cultures. The festival offered over 600 events and activities and attracted 65,000 visitors.
SciFest Africa also presents a range of outreach programmes, including SciFest Africa-on-the-Road an annual 14-day tour with a top scientist or educational theatre production through one or more provinces reaching some 6 000 learners; SciFest Africa Deep Rural Programme which takes interactive Science programmes to historically disadvantaged schools; SciFest Africa Science Shows; National Science Week in the Eastern Cape annually has as a major component hands-on workshops and Science shows presented by a SciFest Africa team; and SciFest Africa Regional Festivals:three-day tours of workshops for primary school learners in the Eastern Province, Limpopo, Western Cape and the Northern Cape, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.
With the SEEDS project SciFest Africa’s programmes are available in the Western Cape in collaboration with the consortium. Annual activities are with audiences ranging from primary and secondary school learners to university students and adults and include twelve week-long tours of lectures, educational theatre, workshops and Science shows.
To ensure the sustainability of Science awareness promotion programmes in the Western Cape per se, i.e. to add to the services provided locally by the South African Astronomical Observatory, MTN Science Centre, iThemba Labs and other organisations, SciFest Africa looks to repeat at UCT, UWC, Stellenbosch University and CPUT the special training programme in Science awareness promotion it presently runs for Science students at Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
One of SciFest Africa’s primary assumptions with its SEEDS project was that “the specialist Science and Mathematics partners in the initiative will see the value of using SciFest Africa in their educational programmes.” This has proven to be the case with the three organisations that have worked with SciFest Africa:
“We feel that we can feed into the partners like SAILI, IMSTUS, EMEP”
“With SAILI, IMSTUS, EMEP we have established real grounds for collaboration in area of need. What we do is we develop the programme, pull in the partners, and basically project manage it - like 'science awareness day.'
Through involvement in a specific focussed initiative such as SEEDS’ maths and science education projects, SciFest Africa has become much more demand-driven and targeted in its approach:
“SEEDS partners have been useful in helping SciFest meet a specific need.”
“We rely on the SEEDS partners in the WC since first, because we not based in WC, we don’t partner with the schools that SEEDS works in. To SEEDS partners we are saying: ‘OK this is what we bringing you , if you are in interested in this programme item, tell us where we must go, where do you need us to go, and that’s how its working with IMSTUS, SAILLI and EMEP.. “OK we are bringing you an astronaut how can you use him? We have something on how to use maths in your everyday life, so that’s EMEP … 5 days wherever EMEP wants us to go.
“Our resource development side has blossomed from our involvement, with the SEEDS partners asking for and identifying specific needs so for e.g. EMEP, if it’s doing, a maths thing, they ask and we have these mainstream support resources, and we say ‘use them’. We have this workshop called Science Debacle - 101 science demonstrations if you don’t have a lab - where we work with UP and East Anglia on 'kitchen chemistry'. We pull these things together.”
“Before SEEDS, SciFest was not in the business of recognising where the needs are. The SEEDS partners have been useful in identifying what the needs are. EMEP will say: it’s Maths; IMSTUS will say it’s this part of that curriculum. For example, the SEEDS tour we did in May 2011 on West Coast was working with IMSTUS. They asked so OK we agreed to focus on the West Coast. They really need some help to teach chemistry. We brought Stephen Ashworth from UEA School of Chemistry who does Science Outreach and has this textbook on it... that was the Science show. Then we brought him out again to show teachers how to teach that in the classroom, where the teachers needs, learning needs are. For SAILI we responded to their need for making budgets go further. They say ‘I really need to take my learners on this holiday programme and my budget is not going to go far enough. Can you work with me, and take so much from my budget.”
SciFest Africa’s involvement with the SEEDS partners working with schools has impacted its methodology which has become more focussed and targeted on specific schools as well as on issues and difficulties of school-based learning of science in specific districts or areas:
“We decided that if we are to work with all 600 schools in the Western Cape we are not going to get anywhere so we now use limited number of schools in SEEDS consortium such as the 15 schools in EMEP or IMSTUS schools…”
“Before, we had no criteria for targeting: now we very much work with Grade 7 to Grade 9, Grade 10 to 12. We would like to go younger, but the requirements and the curriculum are very different” [opportunity here for SEEDS]
These elements confirm SciFest’s determination to reposition itself from a science awareness and science engagement public interest organisation, to supporting educators and learners in the classroom:
“Needs are changing to supporting educators in their environment because they just can’t teach science. There are huge needs supporting learners who are excited about science to take that excitement further. What you will have is all these people gaining exposure to real science for the first ever, seeing something like a telescope or meeting an astronaut and getting super excited and then they get back to Lusikisiki and now what? No education, no math teacher, no science teacher, no resources, no support... Every time we go out and do an outreach programme we get hounded by educators saying ‘we really like that, could really use than in my classroom but we need more ... more resources, how do we teach, how do we get our learners interested, how do we teach chemistry’. With an initiative like SEEDS we could begin to link these things up.”
SciFest Africa’s acknowledges that its “core business of ‘science awareness’ is very different from the others who do education.” Yet SciFest Africa’s services are the most commonly utilised of all consortium partners’ – SciFest African clearly provides a service that no other SEEDS organisation offers, or has the expertise to provide.
In 2010 SciFest Africa faced a challenge to 'the core business' – the national festival itself - which “almost didn’t happen” as no funder was available. Amongst other actions, SciFest Africa contacted the SEEDS management who saw the value of the festival to both science education and the consortium itself, and through the EKN, approved the use of SciFest’s unutilised funds of this purpose and agreed to approach the DST on its behalf. In the event, both SciFest Africa and SEEDS were able to leverage a distinctly challenging circumstance into an opportunity to promote science education and work more closely with the DST to extend its involvement in the Science Festival and public awareness of science more generally. The DST has provided ‘unprecedented support’ to SciFest from this point, including extensively utilising SciFest Africa’s services. For SciFest this incident demonstrates one of the key advantages of working in a large consortium with significant resources and a large network.
Nonetheless, project co-operation and collaboration within SEEDS has by no means been extensive or easy. SciFest Africa notes that some of the challenges that have hampered collaboration from the outset might have been avoided if specific collaborations had been planned and budgeted for up-front, between partners who could “see a common need, where there is overlap, or where we complement each other.”
SciFest Africa believes that this can still happen: “We could do that now, all 9 partners sit down and say this is the problem, lets naturally group ourselves, and so on.”
However at this midpoint in the programme and even within specific focus areas, SciFest Africa believes there are still major if not fundamental issues that would hamper such an initiative including:
Lack of a common problem statement: “Problem is we don’t have a common problem statement! Mine is we don’t have enough scientists so we need more science at schools and better public awareness of science”
Duplication of effort: “Do we all need our own maths programme? Or peer programme? Can’t we come some agreement and work together on this? In SEEDS I now know what the others do. I know I can really give others a platform for their programme if they can work with me to deliver the programme but they are not using me. They will say ‘let my consultant contact you’ but what they seem to be saying is: we will get onto it but we have own needs.”
Lack of urgency in response to need: “Let’s be realistic: what incentives would get partners to take part? The money in the pot?”
“We don’t talk to each other”
“We don’t even know each other”
“Our project feedback in the Steering Committee is perfunctory: it’s like ‘I don’t need to consult any of you, this is what we have done.’”
“We need to change the way and spirit in which we give feedback to the SC – what’s important is that we tell the partners what we think it is that SEEDS requires; not formal feedback, reporting on accountabilities. That’s just singing for our money and avoiding exploring what strategic things we can and should be doing to grow SEEDS and make a big meaningful difference!”
SC needs dynamic and action-oriented sub-committees
“We are really good in our areas but we seem to think that that means we own ‘best practices’ – but how it be a best practice when it’s limited to what one of us is doing on our own little patch?” Shouldn’t we be exploring systemic-support best practice?”
“We are all doing our own M&E but nobody doing a 4 year SEEDS M&E”
We need to write papers together with our partners…
“What worries me is that when we are done we will be told: Oh but that’s already been done! We just don’t interact with those hundreds of NGOs out there – even our partners!
The future?
“I think we have overcome our initial inertia, but we need to look at what do we do now to go faster and make a real impact. I think if we go on doing the same thing, we can’t make an impact so we got to take stock and go in a different direction. I think we need to think out the box and bring in some new resources to assist Mike: like a dynamic project manager communication type who push us out of our comfort zones and can make things happen over the next 18 months, a dynamic facilitator type.”
SECTION 2: FOCUS AREA 1
A two-page questionnaire was designed and customised for participants in each component project of SEEDS (Systemic Innovation for Education Development and Support). The questionnaire was customised for educators and learners (where relevant) in each programme. The questions included self-assessments of levels of satisfaction with different aspects of the specific project, including ways in which it might be enhanced. The instrument also checked for awareness of each of the various distinct components of SEEDS. A systematic random sample of participants in each SEEDS project was then selected to complete the questionnaire. The realised sample size Focus Area 1 was 301, comprising 177 learners and 134 educators. For the MSEP, , both learners and educators were surveyed. For ELRU, IMSTUS SMILES and TBP, the respondents were all educators. For IMSTUS SCIMATHUS and SAILI, they were all learners. SCIFEST was excluded owing to the different nature of its operating methodology. The number of respondents from each component is listed in Table 1.
SEEDS PROGRAMMES
Educators
Learners
Total
Mathematics & Science Programmes
ELRU
39
39
MSEP
16
49
65
SAILI
17
17
SCIMATHUS
109
109
SMILES
48
48
TBP
21
21
134
177
301
Table : Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
Some interesting variations in the characteristics of participants in the different maths and science programmes emerged.9 Females are in the majority in each programme, with the exception of the MSEP educators and the TBP, where the gender ratio is 1:1. SAILI learners are in the narrowest age range owing to their particular placement in secondary schools, while TBP educators tend to be, on average, younger than those in other programmes. Generally, educators are more likely to play sport or be involved in music or cultural, religious or other activities than are learners. Educators are also much likelier than are learners to be satisfied with their study progress and with their lives as a whole.
Table : Characteristics of participants in the Maths and Science interventions
EDUCATORS
LEARNERS
ELRU
MSEP
SMILES
TBP
MSEP
SAILI
SCIMATHUS
Number of respondents
39
16
48
21
49
17
109
Male : Female ratio
0:100
53:47
42:58
50:50
47:53
41:59
44:56
Age range
20-69
23-57
24-65
22-52
16-20
17-18
17-21
Plays Sport
100%
71%
89%
75%
65%
65%
49%
Music/cultural activity
100%
58%
68%
40%
51%
41%
62%
Religious group
97%
77%
74%
100%
60%
82%
55%
Other club
100%
44%
64%
17%
39%
47%
17%
Very satisfied or satisfied with study progress
100%
100%
92%
85%
65%
59%
50%
Very satisfied or satisfied with life as a whole
97%
93%
85%
95%
75%
71%
62%
Programme assessments
Very few participants in the various Mathematics and Science interventions did not agree that they have enjoyed participation in the programmes. Strong agreement about enjoyment was most frequent amongst participants in TBP (90%), ELRU (85%) and SAILI (82%). Disagreement or uncertainty about the programmes was highest amongst MSEP Educators (13%) and SCIMATHUS Learners (12%).
Table : “I have enjoyed participation in the programme” (% in each Maths & Science programme)
Programme
Strongly agree
Agree
Not sure or Disagree
ELRU
Educators
85
15
0
MSEP
Educators
31
56
13
Learners
69
31
0
SAILI
Learners
82
18
0
SCIMATHUS
Learners
35
53
12
SMILES
Educators
61
39
0
TBP
Educators
90
5
5
Similarly, most learners indicated that participation the programme had increased their subject content knowledge (MSEP 96%; SAILI 100%; SCIMATHUS 95%) as did the majority of educators (ELRU 87%; MSEP 73%; SMILES 96%; TBP 100%). The lowest agreement that participation had increased subject content knowledge came from educators in the MSEP programme, although even this was high at 73%.
Confidence in teaching had also increased in the view of almost all educators who participated (ELRU 95%; MSEP 73%; SMILES 96%; TBP 90%); as had confidence in their studies, amongst learner participants in the programmes (MSEP 96%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS 81%). In terms of the syllabus content covered in the programmes, most educators (ELRU 92%; MSEP 93%; SMILES 98%; TBP 100%) said that it was relevant to the curriculum. A similar view emerged amongst the learner participants (MSEP 88%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS 90%).
Most educators indicated that they had used the teaching materials supplied by the programme in their teaching since participating in the programme (ELRU 85%; MSEP 80%; SMILES 100%; TBP 90%). Similarly, most learners (MSEP 92%; SAILI 88%; SCIMATHUS 92%) said that they had been exposed to better teaching materials since participating in the programme.
Educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 60%; SMILES 98%; TBP 95%) expressed the view that the teaching methodologies demonstrated had been extremely useful. Learners (MSEP 88%; SAILI 83%; SCIMATHUS 92%), in turn said that the way mathematics and science is taught in their programmes is helpful to them.
Relatively high proportions of educators had had contact with teachers at other schools in the project (ELRU 90%; MSEP 60%; SMILES 80%; TBP 55%); most learners indicated that they had regular contact with participants in their programme (MSEP 82%; SAILI 77%; SCIMATHUS 90%).
Both educators (ELRU 90%; MSEP 67%; SMILES 98%; TBP 50%) and learners (MSEP 92%; SAILI 83%; SCIMATHUS 85%) concurred that visits to their schools by programme facilitators were helpful.
The vast majority of educator participants in the programmes (ELRU 87%; MSEP 87%; SMILES 96%; TBP 85%) said that management at their school fully supports the programme. Learner participants generally perceived that the management at their institution were fully supportive of the programme (MSEP 94%; SAILI 82%).
There was a wide range of sentiment amongst teachers about whether colleagues at their schools who are not in the programme feel marginalised (ELRU 92%; MSEP 0%; SMILES 72%; TBP 55%). This emerged as an issue amongst less than half of learners (MSEP 45%; SAILI 6%; SCIMATHUS 19%) in the various programmes.
With the exception of MSEP participants, for most educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 67%; SMILES 87%; TBP 85%), the workshop and interaction times had been most suitable; as had been the workshop venues (ELRU 97%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 94%; TBP 85%). Again most (ELRU 95%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 96%; TBP 90%) expressed the view that they enjoy teaching more since participating in the programme.
Most learners (MSEP 84%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS 85%) said that non-participating learners at their school treat them fairly and in a friendly way, i.e. there was no form of discrimination against them for being involved in the programme.
Almost all educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 95%; TBP 90%) enjoy teaching more since starting with their programmes. Similarly, the vast majority (MSEP 94%; SAILI 100%; SCIMATHUS 87%) of learners enjoy their learning more since joining their different programmes.
The most positive consequences of participation in the various programmes for educators were seen to be the workshop sessions, networking with other teachers, the wealth of new knowledge gained and the skills developed. Some of the comments from ELRU educator participants were:
“wonderlike opleidingsprogram”;
“kort en vinning tot die punt”;
“lesse baie verykend”;
“baie geleer en ‘n plesier in werkswinkels”;
“wetenskap wat aangebied was is meer verstaanbaar en kan meer uitrig”.
MSEP educator participants said:
“helping in how to prepare the practicals for learners”;
“guided me favourably particularly with the new syllabus”;
“discussion that we usually have with MSEP representatives getting guidance and also making sure that we receive relevant information or current issues on education”;
“the fact that MSEP people come at our school to help us in our content and making sure we work as a team, helping us with anything we want”.
SMILES educator participants comments included:
“more learning visuals & contact with teaches from other schools”;
“demonstrations / outings”;
“It broadened content knowledge & interaction with teachers from other schools”;
“change to the learners because of approach”;
“the facilitators of SMILES project and the educators of our school work together, give advice, support and encouragement was extremely important having them”;
“since I was a teaching I was struggling teaching Science especially when I'm teaching a lesson with experiments, but because of SMILES everything is possible I have confidence in my teaching”.
And TBP educator participants said:
“more confident in teaching evolution”;
“being surrounded by all these experts has improved my love and understanding for teaching”;
“empowering”;
“learning all these new ways of making learning fun & enjoyable for the children”.
Similarly positive perspectives came from the learner participants, notably in respect of confidence in engaging with new knowledge, support given, and positive learning environments.
MSEP learners had comments such as:
the tuition is the most positive because I learn more when I am at MSEP tuition than at school”;
“the exposure to different styles of teaching which in turn assists in the ability to answer certain questions differently”;
“I feel that this programme has learnt me a lot”;
“my maths and science has improved ever since I joined MSEP”;
“it makes me feel like I am the one & I can achieve everything I want to”;
“to help us to get better education & to qualify to UCT”;
“I feel so good now because I have learnt to be patient and to have passion maths and science”;
“since I joined MSEP I have improved in my studies, also this programme gave me a good reason to focus on my studies because my future is in my hands”.
SAILI learners said:
“basically it allowed me to understand my schooling a lot better and to take my studies seriously’;
“the encouragement provided by the SAILI team is to do well and everything that is offered to us, especially exposing us to different careers and learning techniques that we won’t usually experience at school”;
“I got the opportunity to attend a good school instead of the schools in my area which helps keep me away from bad influences”;
“SAILI has given me a sense of achievement just by being a part of the programme and has made me want to achieve more”;
“being able to learn with different people who have the same background as you”.
Comments made by learner participants in SCIMATHUS included:
“helping me improve my marks”;
“die leerstyl en tipe wat die dosente gebruik”;
“die hoeveelheid kennis wat jy op ‘n daaglikse basis opdoen is my persoonlik baie verryklik”;
“the fact that you learn more with a better teaching method”;
“improving my learning and thinking skills for next year”;
“the exposure to student life, getting a better understanding of what university is and what it takes to succeed”;
“die feit dat dit nie net 'n herhaling is van graad 12 nie. Hul help regtig vir jou om vir jou eie te dink met ander te werk”;
“I not only work harder now, but smarter”;
“it is a vehicle to take me where I want to be”;
“that I get time to manage my time so well and I can see where I lack and learn also that whatever you put in is what you get”;
“marks increased”.
Suggestions for programme improvements
Asked about what could be changed to make the various programmes more helpful, large proportions of both educators and learners said that nothing needed to be changed. In cases where respondents made comments, their desire for more contact with the programme emerged strongly.
For ELRU, there was near unanimity that no changes to the programme are required:
“Hou als net so als fantasties”;
“Sal als net so los, werk goed”;
“dis ‘n wonderlike program en sal niks verander nie”.
MSEP educators had comments such as:
“time spent for participation, because they only come on Tuesdays and I believe that is not enough because I need them more”;
“more guidance and support with reference to subject matter”;
“involve the learners who are really struggling with the subject concerned, they only concentrate on the ones who are coping”;
“I think there must be time whereby we meet as educators, science and maths to discuss some of the challenges that we encounter as people who are involved in the programme, not to meet with presence of educators who are not in the programme”;
“help with creating slides for preparation for lessons”.
The SMILES educators who participated said:
“time is too short for workshops”;
“excursions for learners”;
“to increase the number of visits to schools”;
“More & more training & lesson presentation”;
“more workshops”.
Most TBP educators were highly satisfied, with only the wish for more regular exposure to the programme being expressed by some:
“must come regularly, not just once”.
MSEP learners focussed on the need for more lessons (and sometimes, food):
“MSEP must have extra tuitions every day after school, not only the weekends & holidays”;
I think the time spent on participation could be longer so that we can gain more that day we attending & have regular sessions”;
“more food and longer camp”;
“better food”;
“I think there should be revisions on Saturdays and lunch must be provided because we get hungry during Maths paper 3”;
“Saturday classes right now are in demand. As a learner I wish we can have them”;
SAILI learners expressed some similar sentiments:
“have Saturday regular classes for Science & Maths as they did before”;
“nothing really, SAILI is about helping us in Maths, Science and they have excellent tutors in both areas so for me that's what's important, if that hadn't been in place I would have probably commented for something to change”;
“bring back Saturday classes”;
“bring in Saturday classes for matrics and give classes to help with English as well”.
In the case of SCIMATHUS learners, although many said that no changes were necessary, a few of the other views expressed included:
“so we can have less homework and more study time”
“time spent on participation” (several learners made this comment);
“cost of participation”;
“tyd - sommige studente leer stadiger as ander en soms is die tyd te min om aan een spesifieke hoofstuk te spandeer”;
“doing statistics as a separate subject module”;
“minder huiswerk, sodat leerders meer tyd het om te studeer ens”.
