FatimaMRKCH
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
The notion of instructional capacity
Instructional capacity is prominently featured in the contemporary conversation about education reform. This capacity is widely regarded as critical to good teaching and learning. Though reformers have frequently aimed to improve what students learn, most efforts to increase learning have concentrated on the following factors: improving curriculum materials, training teachers in new methods, or adding new technology (Cohen & Ball, 2006). Following this logic, reformers seem to have assumed that increasing the instructional capacity of schools depends on increasing the capacity of either teachers or the materials they use. There is increasing evidence that such efforts rest on very partial conceptions of instructional capacity (Cohen & Ball, 2006).
Individual teachers
Teachers constitute an important dimension of a school‟s instructional capacity. In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the role of the teacher as the key to school improvement (Nelson & Sassi, 2007; Wiliam, 2008). To a large extent, this transition is grounded in the realisation that any significant improvement in schools and in student learning must have the teacher as the centre-piece (Van Tassel-Baska, 2005). It is the “intellectual ability, knowledge and skills” of the individuals involved in the teaching and learning tasks that impact on job performance and effectiveness in the classroom (Heck, 2007). It is thus not only the presence or absence of teachers that makes a difference, but also the teachers who are competent in content, pedagogy and assessment of their subject area (Stronge, 2007:38).
Instructional culture in schools
Mathematics teachers and the school management team do not work alone with a group of students in their classrooms. Rather, they work with other teachers and professionals collectively within a big organisation, namely the school, in the interest of effective teaching and meaningful learning of mathematics. Most of the human, financial and material resources available for instruction are made available by schools. The school is also the physical and social context within which teachers and students routinely interact. In the opinion of Stronge (2007), most teachers view teaching and learning as a reciprocal process and an equal partnership, in which teachers, the school management team and students all shape the environment and support the learning endeavour through their thoughts and behaviours.
Instructional leadership at the school
It is increasingly recognised that managing teaching and learning is one of the most important activities for principals (if not the most important), departmental heads and other school leaders (Bush & Glover, 2009). Thus, the core purpose of a principal is to provide leadership and management in all areas of the school, to enable the creation and support of conditions under which quality teaching and learning takes place and which promote the highest possible standard of student achievement (Bush & Glover, 2009). The international literature refers mainly to “leadership” of teaching and learning, or “instructional leadership” (e.g. Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins, 2006); but the term “management” is widely used in South Africa (Bush et al., 2008). The concepts of management and leadership are often used interchangeably – management and leadership are the major functions of the school principal (Bush, 2003).
The quality and quantity of technical or material resources
The quality and quantity of materials or physical resources available for teaching and learning is also critical in the framework of instructional capacity. Resources such as staffing levels, instruction time, class size, manipulatives and other (scientific) equipment are critical material resources that impact on the teaching of mathematics at a school (Heck, 2007). This approach of focusing on the resources for instruction and the related interactions is informed by the work of Cohen and Ball (1999:3), whose framework provides the necessary links between capacity and classroom instruction. The central argument in Cohen and Ball (1999) is that instruction begins with and involves interactions among three components or instructional units: the teacher, students and materials (both physical and intellectual materials). In this view, each of the three elements is essential, but instruction requires all three.
Rationale for choosing OBE to renew education in South Africa
OBE, to a large extent underpinned by constructivism, was introduced as a “new” educational philosophy in 1996 in an attempt to rid the South African education system of the disparity and lack of equity that prevailed during the apartheid years. The general consensus in the post-apartheid government and wider public was that CNE did not adequately address the needs of all South Africans, especially those who had been disadvantaged by what was then referred to as “gutter education”. Students who completed 12 years of CNE were generally unskilled and not trained to be absorbed directly into the workforce. Botha (2002:365) provides some support for this view in his argument that research “has consistently shown that South African students lack substantial problem-solving and creative abilities”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS :
- Dedication
- Acknowledgements
- Declaration
- Acronyms
- List of tables
- List of figures
- Summary
- CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
- 1.1 Background to the study
- 1.2 Problem statement
- 1.3 Research questions
- 1.4 Significance of study
- 1.5 Explanation of key terms
- 1.5.1 Instruction
- 1.5.2 Outcomes-based education
- 1.5.3 Instructional culture in schools
- 1.5.4 Instructional programmes
- 1.5.5 Instructional leadership
- 1.5.6 Instructional unit
- 1.5.7 Quality instruction
- 1.5.8 Instructional capacity
- 1.5.9 The school‟s capacity
- 1.6 Structure of thesis
- CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 Instructional capacity
- 2.2.1 The notion of instructional capacity
- 2.2.2 The dimensions of instructional capacity
- 2.2.2.1 The individual teachers
- 2.2.2.2 Instructional culture in schools
- 2.2.2.3 Instructional programmes
- 2.2.2.4 Instructional leadership at the school
- 2.2.2.5 The quality and quantity of technical or material resources
- 2.3 An overview of the NCS
- 2.3.1 Outcomes-based education
- 2.3.1.1 Rationale for choosing OBE to renew education in South Africa
- 2.3.1.2 Constructivism
- 2.3.1.3 Facilitation theory (as a humanist approach)
- 2.4 Conclusion
- CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 A qualitative research approach
- 3.2.1 A brief overview
- 3.2.2 Site selection and sampling
- 3.2.2.1 Site selection
- 3.2.2.2 Purposeful sampling
- 3.3 Instruments
- 3.3.1 Document analysis
- 3.3.2 Observation (passive participation)
- 3.3.3 Interviews
- 3.4 Credibility and acceptability of research
- 3.4.1 Reliability in qualitative research
- 3.4.2 Validity in qualitative research
- 3.4.2.1 The lens used by the researcher
- 3.4.2.2 Paradigm assumptions
- 3.4.2.3 Validity within lens and paradigm assumption
- 3.4.3 Validity in data collection instruments
- 3.4.4 Concluding remarks on reliability and validity
- CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
- 4.1 Introduction
- 4.2 Problems encountered in data collection
- 4.3 Data processing
- 4.3.1 Classroom observation data
- 4.3.1.1 Observed teacher‟s knowledge while teaching
- 4.3.1.2 Results
- 4.3.1.3 Reflecting on observational data
- 4.3.2 Data from written documents
- 4.3.2.1 School‟s vision and mission statement
- 4.3.2.2 Mathematics work schedules and the annual assessment programme
- 4.3.2.3 Lesson attendance register
- CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONSOF RESEARCH FINDINGS
- CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM STATEMENT: HOW IS INSTRUCTIONAL CAPACITY IN THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF MATHEMATICS CONSTRUCTED, ORGANISED AND REPLENISHED IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS?
