published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

Education / D.Ed. (Didactics)

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Science in Information Technology in Education

M.Ed. / The contents of curricula are necessarily exposed to dynamic changes. Development of curricula should be carried out at base level, that is, in the school and in the classroom. If all levels of education and the community are involved, each pupil as well as the community will reap the benefits of curricula and syllabi that keep abreast of the demands of our time. To be able to control reality implies greater control of the computer. Knowledge of the fast growing science of the computer could open many doors for those who are eager to learn, while the same doors will remain closed for those who do not adapt fast enough to the changing demands of the community. The high number of pupils that discontinue Computer Studies (as a 7th subject) and the proposals to combine Computer Studies with other subjects have necessitated an in-depth evaluation of the curricula. The evaluation models of Kruger, Stufflebeam, Pratt and Stake are focalised on the community's contribution to curriculum renewal. The contribution of the school, where the curriculum starts functioning, must not be underestimated. The curriculum becomes especially relevant and of interest to the community at school and classroom level. Contents of curricula must be revised regularly and scientifically on all levels. The revision and updating of contents must be preceded by periodic situation analyses in which all possible changes are monitored...

The purpose of the study was to determine the agreement between reported levels of emphasis of course content topics suitable for the junior high school and the optimum level of emphasis as it was recommended by Texas science supervisors and national science education specialists.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education. Johannesburg, 2016 / Argumentation is viewed as an important pedagogical tool that is central to the teaching and learning of science. Research has shown argumentation as one of the pedagogical practices that promote meaningful learner talk and engagement. In South Africa, most such research has been carried out in high schools and universities on tutored ability in argumentation. There is no research on untutored learner ability in argumentation in primary school science. This study sought to address this gap by determining untutored learner argumentation in science in a Gauteng primary school. I wanted to establish whether and how untutored learners argue and the nature of their arguments. I also wanted to examine the evidence that they give to support assertions. I observed learner interactions in my two Grade 7 science classes through small group discussions and whole class discussions. All the participants were from a public primary school in Gauteng. These learners were untutored (had not been taught) in argumentation, but as their teacher, I had been exposed to argumentation through participation in a masters course. I used qualitative research methodology and drew from Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) to determine the construction of arguments during the science lessons. I used an analytic frame work by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004) which helps to categorize the various components of an argument into different levels. My findings indicated that learners who are untutored in argumentation are able to formulate arguments. Literature has reported that untutored learners in high schools in South Africa present only level 2 arguments. In this study, Grade 7 learners who are untutored in argumentation were able to formulate level 3 arguments in some instances. The study further revealed that some of the learners were able to support their arguments using scientific evidence although most tended to be simple constructs consisting of only data and claims. The fact that they were taught by a teacher, who is tutored in argumentation, may have literature bearing on the learners’ argument ability. Current work in South Africa has shown how untutored teachers do not argue: how untutored learners do not argue: how tutored teachers learn to argue and how tutored learners can learn to argue. What we do not know is how untutored learners argue if they have a tutored teacher. Further research might inform teacher education and classroom argumentation in constrained environments where learners are generally untutored as is the case in many South African classrooms.

A research report submitted to the faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science by combination of coursework and research report. Johannesburg, 2016. / The merits of argumentation for science teaching and learning have been established not just for South Africa, but globally. However, little is known about what both students and teachers understand by argumentation for science learning and teaching. This study aimed to investigate what seventy nine students and two teachers understood about argumentation and to examine the nature of students written scientific arguments. A sample of 79 students from two high schools in the north of Johannesburg, South Africa, was selected to complete a questionnaire that included a single Multiple Choice Question task. Students’ respective teachers were interviewed for their understanding on argumentation. The interviews were inductively analysed to extract themes related on teachers’ perspectives on argumentation. The MCQ task item was analysed using Toulmins Argumentation Pattern as adapted by Erduran et al, to show levels of argumentation. The rest of the questions on the questionnaire were analysed according to my research questions to get students’ understanding on argumentation. Three main findings were found from the study. Firstly, students understand what a good scientific argument constitutes of. They mentioned debates and discussions as an opportunity to engage in an argument. Secondly, teachers demonstrated an understanding that argumentation requires facts and evidence to support claims. Meanwhile, findings also show that teachers value science arguments as they demand students to use evidence, rather than opinions to support their claims. Thirdly, most students struggled to construct levels at a higher level. This meant that most students wrote arguments that consisted of a claim, data/ evidence or a weak warrant. Hence, arguments were at levels 1, 2 and seldom at level 3. Students written scientific arguments revealed that only 24 out of 79 students were able select the correct scientific answer. The remaining fifty students selected the wrong answer and their arguments were based on the incorrect scientific justification that, when a solid substance is in a gaseous phase in a closed system it would have lesser mass, simply because gas weighs less than a solid. This was a common misconception that most students had. These outcomes imply that there is a need to train teachers how to help students write valid scientific arguments, the inclusion of more debates and consideration to ideas as to how students can construct written argument. Lastly, those argumentation practices should assist teachers on how to minimise students’ misconception on the law of the conservation of mass. As such, argumentation can serve as an instruction for learner-centred approach to teaching and learning of science. Keywords: argumentation, written argument, nature of an argument / LG2017

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries