Facilitation of practical work in Natural Sciences: experiences and approaches of junior teachers

The nature of practical work

There are various kinds of practical work that are prescribed in the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). These include observations, scientific investigation, scientific enquiry, illustration, demonstration, experiments, projects, models, problem solving, case study, fieldwork, drawings, paintings, constructions, interviews, laboratory work, assignments (DBE, 2015; Stoffels, 2005). These types of practical work enable the teacher to involve learners in teaching and learning process where they also get an opportunity to work in pairs or in groups while the teacher plays a role of being a complete observer or silent observer (Monteiro et al., 2021). Teachers are guided by the CAPS document which stipulates clearly the type of practical work that must be done per grade and per term in Natural Sciences subject in the senior phase (DBE, 2015). According to DBE (2011), demonstrations, observations, models, investigations, assignments, projects, and illustrations were the most commonly prescribed strategies for facilitating practical work in grade 7. However, from one of the researchers experience as a Natural Sciences teacher, it was evident that demonstrations were the most preferred type of practical work and which were also highly favoured by most Natural Sciences teachers. Furthermore, they preferred to perform practical work while learners are observing and listening, reason being that they are not good in facilitation, so they rather demonstrate than facilitating the activity.

The purpose of practical work

The goals of Natural Sciences education through effective practical work bring into perspective the scarcity of skills that are associated predominantly with the Natural Sciences in which secondary school education plays a crucial role as a preparation and initiation phase into the fields (Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], 2014). Shortages of critical skills in the fields of science and engineering are common in most developing countries, including South Africa. Education is one of key drivers of the economy as it enables accomplishment of national curriculum goals (Nyoka et al., 2014). Accordingly, inquiry-based practical work is aimed at improving learner engagement and learner-centeredness which involves investigations conducted by learners in contextualised and relevant experiences (Aubusson, 2011). Hence, learners are given opportunities to conduct investigations in ways that are scaffolded to meet the levels of their skills and knowledge (Allchin, 2014). This shows that practical work does provide learners with insights into scientific practice and increases their interests in science field and studies (Millar, 2011). It also develops learners’ understanding of the logic of scientific inquiry and the nature of scientific knowledge as a curriculum which can be used as a tool for teaching about experimental design.

Situating practical work in the context of South African Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS)

Practical work in the context of South African CAPS document gives practical expression to the knowledge, skills and values worth learning in South African schools (DBE, 2011). The Natural Sciences CAPS document is aimed at ensuring that learners acquire and apply knowledge and skills in ways that are meaningful to their own lives. Therefore, Natural Sciences teachers are expected to demonstrate adequate pedagogical content knowledge. Hence, the CAPS document promotes knowledge development in local contexts, while being sensitive to global imperatives (DBE, 2015). The CAPS document prescribed practical work as part of final promotional assessment which Natural Sciences teachers are compelled to implement in accordance with the three specific aims of Natural Sciences in grade 7 such as: (1) Doing science, (2) Knowing the subject content and making connections, and (3) Understanding the uses of Science (DBE, 2015).

Problem statement

The researchers observed that there are enormous challenges experienced by grade 7 junior teachers when in preparing, designing and conducting practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning. These challenges are the key hindrances towards the accomplishment of national curriculum goals (Nyoka et al., 2014). This paper was also influenced by the anecdotal statistics taken during the Natural Sciences briefing workshops that occurred in the beginning of each year, in which junior and experienced Natural Sciences teachers participated. These experiences prompted the researchers to explore how grade 7 junior teachers facilitated practical work in Natural Sciences subject during teaching and learning.

Research questions

Our main research question is ‘How do grade 7 junior teachers facilitate practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning?’. The following research sub-questions guided this paper: 1) What are the experiences of grade 7 junior teachers when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning? 2) What pedagogical approaches are adopted by the grade 7 junior teachers when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning?

In addition, the following objectives guided the study: To document grade 7 junior teachers’ experiences of facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning. To identify pedagogical approaches adopted by grade 7 junior teachers when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning.

Ethics

The Unisa College of Education, South Africa, Ethics Review Committee approved this study (approval number 2017/06/14/31144187/5/MC) (Sikhosana & Mogale, 2023d). Written informed consent was obtained from participants prior to data collection. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, the participants were assured that all the personal information they provided will be protected. As a result, pseudonyms were used when signing the confidentiality forms and throughout the study.

Research design

A qualitative interpretative case study was used to explore grade 7 junior teachers experiences and approaches when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning. An interpretative research paradigm enabled us to understand and interpret lived experiences, views and perceptions of grade 7 junior teachers in their social context (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). In our endeavour to understand how grade 7 junior Natural Sciences teachers conducted practical work, we focused on the following 2 themes:

Participants

Three junior grade 7 teachers who taught Natural Sciences subject were sampled purposefully based on the purpose of this paper with the belief that each participant will provide rich and unique data (Suen et al., 2014). These teachers were classified as junior teachers as they had a teaching experience of less than 1 year. However, they were all qualified to teach Natural Sciences subject. Table 1 describes the demographic profile of each junior grade 7 teacher. For the purposes of this research analysis, a first year teacher will refer to an individual who entered the field of education and is teaching for the very first time in their career. As such the inexperience of a first-year teacher leads to high level of stress (Dias-Lacy & Guirguis, 2017).

Research setting

The setting of this study was in three primary schools in Lebopo circuit, situated around a rural area in Molepo villages, in Polokwane, Limpopo province within the Republic of South Africa. The community’s socioeconomic status is precarious, as most residents are unemployed. These primary schools are classified as quintile 1 schools, which means they are a fee-free paying schools with limited infrastructure and resources. The Lebopo circuit is one of the five circuits in Mankweng clusters with 33 schools in Lebopo circuit of which 19 of them are primary schools. This locality has enabled the researchers to collect data easily without any difficulty because the schools were in the same vicinity and there was a viable public transport between them.

Data collection tools

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, lessons observations and document analysis for the purpose of triangulation.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data whereby more open questions were asked which enabled discussions with the participants rather than straightforward questions and answer (Foley et al., 2021). We sought consent from the three teachers to make use of a voice recorder during the interview process to ensure that we present accurate data and word-for-word to ensure that we do not misquote them (Sikhosana, 2022). Our interviews were conducted in two stages namely; pre-lesson observation and post-lesson observation to triangulate what was observed with what the teachers had said.

Lesson observations

A lesson observation schedule was used to record all observational data as an essential data gathering technique in this paper. The classroom lesson observation provided us with an opportunity to have an insider perspective of how grade 7 junior teachers conducted the practical work within their settings (Maree, 2013). The lesson observations were used to triangulate the data obtained from other techniques used such as semi-structured interviews and document analysis. With the consent from the teachers, we made used of a voice recorder during lesson observations and our lesson observation schedule to record our findings and ensure the accuracy of collected data.

Document analysis

The CAPS was used as a document to be analysed for the nature of this paper. The CAPS document was chosen as it provides valuable information that could assist grade 7 junior Natural Sciences teachers to understand how to conduct practical work, which practical work is applicable to grade 7 learners and how many times should the practical work be conducted (DBE, 2011).

Rigour

We ensured that the paper has internal validity by making sure that the findings of the paper are based on data collected for this paper only (Sikhosana, 2022). To ensure that the study is credible and trustworthy, direct quotations from the participants were used when presenting all data collected (Tawanda & Mudau, 2023). Triangulation was used to increase validity and credibility of our research findings (Mudau & Netshivhumbe, 2022) wherein semi-structured interviews, lesson observations and document analysis were used. Pilot study conducted with one grade 7 junior Natural Sciences teacher who was not part of the main paper where both semi-structured interview, lesson observational schedules and document analysis were tested to ensure they were valid (Ntuli et al., 2022).

Data analysis

The data that was collected from three grade 7 junior Natural Sciences teachers was analysed and interpreted separately. Audio-recorded semi-structure interviews and lesson observation were transcribed verbatim by researchers to a word document (Mudau & Netsivhumbe, 2022). While the official CAPS document was used to as a guideline to indicate how practical work must be conducted in grade 7 Natural Sciences subject (DBE, 2015). The researchers did not correct participants’ grammatical errors to ensure that data collected from these teachers was presented accordingly and does not lose its original meaning. We analysed collected data interpretively by synthesizing, categorizing, and organizing data into themes (Nowell et al., 2017). Only data relevant to the themes were considered and assisted researchers in answering research questions and achieving the aim of this study. A typology approach was used for the process of data analysis. After collecting data, we organized the data into themes which were shaped by our research questions. We did this by immersing ourselves in the data reading to understand the whole set of data.

Experiences of grade 7 junior teachers when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning

Practical work is regarded as hands-on or minds on practical learning opportunities by learners (Mudau & Netshivhumbe, 2022). From the semi-structured interviews that we conducted, Teacher 1 indicated that practical work has to do with using apparatus and hands. This was evident in the statement below:

From the statement mentioned above, Teacher 1 indicated that practical work has to do with using apparatus and hands. However, during lesson observations, we noted that Teacher 1 did administer practical work and grouped learners in groups of five in preparation for a Natural Sciences practical activity. Sshana and Abulibdeh (2020) argued that practical work in school of science means laboratory-based experience where there are hands-on and minds-on practical learning opportunities. DBE (2011) substantiated that practical work must be integrated with theory to strengthen the concepts being taught, which was not the case with Teacher 1, as they had inadequate understanding of practical work. Wellington and Ireson (2012) indicated that practical work is recognised as an essential part of school of sciences teaching and learning. However, that was not the case with Teacher 2 as he defined practical work as:

From the lesson observations, we noted that Teacher 2 used the term ‘practical work’ to refer to as any teaching and learning activity which at some point involved the learners in observing or manipulating the objects and materials that they were studying. Said (2014) also attested to the fact that practical work is a learning experience in which learners interact with materials or secondary sources of data to observe and understand the natural world. Furthermore, practical work involves all kinds of learning activities in science which provokes learners to handle and observe real objects or materials (Sshana & Abulibdeh, 2020). The observation or manipulation of objects can take place in a school laboratory but could also occurred in an out-of-school setting, such as the learners’ home or in the field (Barendsen & Henze, 2019). This was a clear indication that Teacher 2 does not have an idea of what practical work is all about.

During the semi-structured interviews, Teacher 3 defined practical work as a teaching and learning tool of which assists learners to understand better the learning content as they are easily able to relate and put theory into practice. Teacher 3 further defined practical work as activities which involves the hands-on activities together with the minds of the learners. This was evident in the statement below

Constaninou and Fotou (2020) defined practical work as a teaching and learning transaction in which learners are given ample opportunities to practise the processes of investigation. This was similar to Teacher 3 who defined practical work as a powerful method of learning, observing and practicing hands-on activities in science. To put this in practice, Teacher 3 conducted a lesson which focused on energy and change as stipulated in the CAPS document. During this practical lesson, Teacher 3 rolled an apple across the floor and asked learners to feel the apple and also roll it on the floor; to gain a closer observation. Teacher 3 conducted this activity with an aim of developing observation skills of the learners as stated in the statement below:

The handling and using of materials is a key aspect to practical activities for students (Kibga et al., 2021). As Teacher 3 rolled an apple on the floor, learners were also given chance to roll it by themselves and observed the movement of an apple until it stopped. This practical activity was an essential part in the lesson that Teacher 3 taught, as it enabled practical work during teaching and learning (Wellington & Ireson, 2012). Agreeing to that, Teacher 3 displayed an adequate understanding of what practical work entailed.

Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) stated that teachers viewed practical work as illustrations and consolidations of understanding science concepts. From the lesson observations it was noted that Teacher 1 also viewed practical work as illustrations. Which focuses on developing learners’ understanding of the nature of science whereby learners are able to understand much of the concepts taught (Sshana & Abulibdeh, 2020). Furthermore, Teacher 1 viewed practical work as a holistic measure to incorporate theory into practice for a better understanding of the learning content knowledge. During lesson observations, it was noted that Teacher 1 focused much more on the content, rather than developing the process and scientific skills of the learners. These are often learner-centered, constructivist approaches that include analysis and discussion of social, technological, and environmental issues.

Motlhabane (2013) indicated that teachers doubt the usefulness of practical work in relation to content comprehension. Therefore, it will be futile exercise to attempt to assist teachers without first ascertaining their perceptions on practical work. Teacher 2 viewed practical work as a process approach which was used to develop procedural skills and substantive understanding of the learners. Even if learners were in small group, this was to say that in a group of five learners, when given a task to perform, there were still those to observe while others or a group leader is performing the practical work because they have different roles to play in a group. Teacher’s views of teaching and learning science often have a pervasive influence on their classroom practices (Bantwini, 2015). Teacher 1 liked to demonstrate first to the learners the practical work especially if the theme or the topic was new to the learners. From the semi-structured interviews, we can also infer that Teacher 2 also viewed practical work as a vehicle through which learners can ascertain their different types of skills which includes among others; the scientific inquiry skill, procedural understating skills, substantive understanding skills, creative and artistic skills, independent thinking skills, and investigative skills. This was evident in the statement below when he referred to the practical work as a teaching tool to enhance teaching and learning:

Teacher 2 viewed practical work as an important aspect in science development. They believed that practical work is the key way for students to learn, if done accurately and appropriately. Teacher 2 also believed in illustrations and consolidation through cooperative learning. This was evident during lesson observations when Teacher 2 grouped learners to use the information collected from the practical work and represent it in a graph on the record sheet provided. They viewed practical work as the investigation of the given problem in order to find answers or solution to the problem or question; this was evident in the statement below:

This is also emphasized by literature whereby it is indicated that practical work is perceived as a prominent and distinctive feature of science education by science teachers which enables learners to enrich their knowledge while developing a better understanding of science education (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020).

Teacher 3 viewed practical work in Natural Sciences as a way of making the subject enjoyable and as a way of developing learners’ experimental skill (Ramnarain, 2014). This was evident in the statement below:

Dudu and Vhurumuku (2012) also attested to the fact that teachers’ focus when teaching science was on the mastery of the subject matter than practical work. For many teachers, practical work provides the evidence for existing scientific knowledge and developing new knowledge (Ntuli et al., 2022). Traditionally, teachers viewed the use of practical work as illustrations and consolidations of the understanding of science concepts. Teacher 3 believed that learners must be involved in doing all the theory into practice because she believed learners learn more when they see, hear, touch, and they will never forget. Teacher 3 shown the urge that theory must be put into practice because learners learn easily and enjoy when they are doing things by themselves. From the lesson observations, we saw how they asked learners to throw the ball in the air and observe what was happening and why. The learners observed and reported back in the classroom. According to Maree (2013), observations plays an important role in collecting data as it provides researchers with an insider perspective of the participants behaviors in their natural setting. In this regard, lesson observations helped learners to develop observation skills during Teacher 3 lesson of the gravitational force. Teacher 3 also viewed practical work as integration of theory into practice to strengthen the concepts being taught (DBE, 2011). They believed that the learners needed:

Pedagogical approaches adopted by grade 7 junior teachers when facilitating practical work in Natural Sciences teaching and learning

Shulman (1986) argued that the focus of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is not only on the knowledge of a specific theme by a Natural Sciences teacher but also on their behaviours, reasons, and actions towards the subject content. Furthermore, Shulman (1986) stated that a presentation of PCK is simply a combination of the three facets which include: pedagogy; content; and the context. Therefore, the teacher should also know which parts of learning can be assessed and which assessment techniques should be applied (Monteiro et al., 2021). From the lesson observations, Teacher 1 conducted practical work activity which involved learners who took part in the demonstration and learners who simply observed when the demonstration was taking place. This activity gave learners an opportunity to answer questions which were posed by Teacher 1 as they were busy demonstrating and observing the procedures of cooking soup with an aim of understanding the input and output energy as stated below:

However, from the lesson observations, not all learners were able to identify the input and output energy when cooking a soup as not all of them were involved in the observation that occurred. As a result, learners were unable to recognise and note what was observed as they were only engaged through oral questioning to attract and arouse their interest in the practical work that was done (Neubauer et al., 2019).

Teacher 1 did practical work within the parameters of an explanatory model which it was explained and illustrated more during teaching. However, that was not effective as learners failed to answer the questions that Teacher 1 asked. This was evident in the statement below:

From the classroom observation, it was evident that Teacher 2 preferred conducting practical work as demonstrations. They presented various reasons for conducting practical work either as a group work or by demonstrating. Teacher 2 has a rich pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of which their understanding of the ways for the transformation of disciplinary content into forms that are comprehensible and accessible to students (Shulman, 1986). Amongst others, they indicated that the amount of equipment as well as the disciplinary issues influences whether if it will be group work or demonstration. However, besides all the reasons Teacher 2 gave, the data showed that they generally preferred conducting demonstrations. The teacher’s PCK helps the learners to develop knowledge of basic science procedures and utilise them to engage in the science content (Miller, 2011). This was the evident that from the interviews as mentioned by Teacher 2 in the statement below:

But during Teacher 2 lesson presentation, they did not make much of the learner involvement as stated from the interviews statement above. Only three learners used the apparatus and the rest observed and answered oral questions. This was evident in the statement below:

Teaching science successfully, teachers needed to have not only good content knowledge but also pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Teacher 2’s pedagogical strategy was demonstrative and investigative. This is because the student-centred pedagogy verified by the central government in China is important to learners compared to the teacher centred approach (Wang, 2011). From the interviews, Teacher 2 also stated that in subjects like Natural Sciences, theory must be put into practice, hence the involvement of the learners. Furthermore, Teacher 2’s PCK was a critical factor that influenced the teaching and learning (Karisan et al., 2013).

The findings from this study revealed that Teacher 2 is inclined towards a practical model of teaching. This was similar to Stoffels (2005) who indicated that some teachers preferred to conduct demonstrations than practical work during teaching and learning. The practical work conducted was affected by several factors. The large class size did not allow for the formation of groups of manageable sizes. Ten learners per group was too large a group for all learners to be directly involved with the practical work. Not all learners were therefore able to acquire skills as required from the practical work, but all learners were able to draw a bar graph representing the findings. Teacher 2 was satisfied by the availability of resources:

From the classroom we observed that the lack of adequate supply of equipment did not allow for groups to be made smaller. Instead, the shortage of equipment led Teacher 2 to teach using a teacher-centred approach because learners were not divided into small groups but into too large group of learners thus preventing each learner in the group from being fully involved in the practical investigation. Moreover, the PCK is a procedure offering learners specific methodology or principle with the focus on how the learners learn together with the “context and resources” forming part of learning (Starkey, 2012).

Teacher 3 was confined within the parameters of performance model and explanatory model (Setiadi & Irhasyuarna, 2017). They demonstrated the rolling movement to show how the transfer of chemical potential energy to kinetic energy took place. Teacher 3 also used an explanation of what happens to an object thrown in the sky but does not remain in the sky, reason being that the object would return on the earth of because of the gravitational force. Teacher 3 had adequate content knowledge and showed competency in teaching the subject matter. According to Setiadi and Irhasyuarna (2017) the explanatory model is described as a practical work that can be used to develop an understanding of the content that is being taught. According to Hurrell (2021) teachers’ procedural understanding and knowledge is the knowing how part of teaching the subject matter or a topic. This was also showcased by Teacher 3 when they explained understand why a soccer ball cannot stay in the atmosphere forever because of the gravitational force. Practical work is also used as an explanatory framework for the explanations in science.

From the classroom observation we can infer that Teacher 3 conducted the practical work as demonstration, and as illustrations. This was explicitly shown when Teacher 3 explained why the objects are attracted by the force of gravity when thrown in the sky. The learners were able to observe Teacher 3 throwing the apple in the sky, while doing so, Teacher 3 asked learners as to why the apple could not remain in the sky. Learners tried to answer by saying that the initial mass of every object is attracted by the earth’s gravitational force. What Teacher 3 was doing is attested by Shulman (1986) stating that the PCK of the teacher is their understanding of how to help learners to understand specific subject matter. Teacher 3 asked:

Teacher 3 used practical work in a variety of formats. These formats include among others, the recipes, open-ended investigations, skills training, teacher demonstrations to promote discussion about phenomena, to raise questions, and to solve problems.