Advertisement

Interchange

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Subject Advisers’ Perception of Curriculum Delivery in the Intermediate Phase in South Africa

  • Vincent Titos Smith
  • Bongani Thulani Gamede
  • Chinaza UleanyaEmail author
Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the perception of subject advisers on curriculum change and delivery in secondary schools. The survey design which adopts quantitative research approach was used. Random sampling procedure is used to select b samples of 300 respondents in the study who are subject advisers. Questionnaires were administered to all selected 300 subject advisers, however, only 217 were duly completed and analysed for the study. The findings indicate among others that curriculum delivery is dependent on teachers’ familiarization with the curriculum, planning of lessons and teaching through the use of the curriculum. The study recommends that teachers should be motivated to familiarize themselves with the curriculum, trained periodically on how to use the curriculum when planning their lessons and teaching. Also, continuous curriculum change should be checkmated.

Keywords

Curriculum Curriculum change Curriculum delivery Subject advisers 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this research; it was personally funded by authors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest among authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent form was duly completed by participants.

References

  1. Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106–107.Google Scholar
  2. Bantwini, B. D. (2012). Primary school science teachers’ perspectives regarding their professional development: Implications for school districts in South Africa. Professional Development in Education, 38(4), 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised ed.). New York, Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Delius, P., & Schirmer, S. (2001). Towards a workable rural development strategy. TIPS Working Paper 3, University of Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Education (Curriculum News). (2011). Improving the quality learning of teaching, strengthening curriculum delivery from 2010 and beyond. South Africa: Department of Education (Curriculum News).Google Scholar
  6. Du Plooy-Cilliers, F., Davis, C., & Bezuidenhout, R. (2014). Research matters. South Africa: JUTA.Google Scholar
  7. Hutt, L. E., & Tang, A. (2013). The new education malpractice litigation. Virginia Law Review, 99(3), 420–440.Google Scholar
  8. Khousa, G. (2013). Systemic school improvement interventions in South Africa: Some practical lessons from development practitioners. Johannesburg: African Minds for JET Education Services.Google Scholar
  9. Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Lizer, T. L. (2013). The impact of the curriculum change in the teaching and learning of science: A case study in under-resourced schools in Vhembe District. Pretoria: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
  11. Molapo, M. R. (2016). How educators implement curriculum changes. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  12. Nel, P., Nel, L., & du Plessis, A. (2011). Implications for human resources and employment relations practice with regards to the integration of corporate ethics programmes into the culture of organisations. International Employment Relations Review., 17(2), 121–132.Google Scholar
  13. Ornsteins, A. C., & Hunkins, P. F. (2009). Curriculum: foundations, principles and issues (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Rogan, M. J., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwartz, M. S., & Sadler, P. M. (2009). Depth versus breadth: How content coverage in high school science courses relate to later success in college science coursework. Science Education, 93(5), 798–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Snyder, R. R. (2017). Resistance to change among veteran teachers: Providing voice for more effective engagement international. Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 12(1), 2155–9635.Google Scholar
  17. Stears, M. (2009). How social and critical constructivism can inform science curriculum design: A study from South Africa. Education Research, 51(4), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tanja, C., & Hannum, S. E. (2009). Teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. SAGE Journals, 3(3), 312–325.Google Scholar
  19. Terhart, E. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: Reflecting an inconvenient truth. School Leadership and Management, 33(5), 486–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Uleanya, C., & Gamede, B. T. (2018). Correlates of pedagogic malpractices. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning (The IJTL), 13(2), 36–52.Google Scholar
  21. Uleanya, C., Rugbeer, Y., & Duma, M. A. N. (2018). Localizing educational curriculum of tertiary institutions: Approach to sustainable development. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(1), 100–121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Titos Smith
    • 2
  • Bongani Thulani Gamede
    • 2
  • Chinaza Uleanya
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Social Sciences EducationUniversity of ZululandKwazulu NatalSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Educational Management and LeadershipUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations