##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

South Africa consistently lags behind other nations on international benchmarking tests of literacy, mathematics and, especially, science as illustrated in the low achievement outcomes on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) tests. Research in the 21st century has shown that learning science at an early age is a predictor of scientific literacy later in life. The low science achievement in South Africa is impacted by several variables, however, one important aspect of students’ failure to acquire science reasoning skills lies in how they are taught science. Drawing on the work of Vygotsky, Hedegaard, Freire, and Feuerstein, this paper reports on an intervention using a novel pedagogical model to teach science in grade two classrooms. A comparative case study is presented where one teacher is trained in the novel pedagogical model and one is not trained to use this model. Both teachers teach in the same school and the demographics of the children in the two separate classes studied are similar. Findings indicate that where the novel pedagogical model is used, the teacher uses more scientific, abstract concepts in her lesson; she links the abstract to the children’s everyday concepts and, perhaps most significantly, she illustrates to students why they must learn the content she is teaching them.

References

  1. Egan, K. (2002). Getting it wrong from the beginning: our progressive inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     Google Scholar
  2. Farr T., April 13, In: An introduction to using Vygotsky scaffolding in the classroom, 2014, Retrieved from https://blog.udemy.com/vygotsky-scaffolding/.
     Google Scholar
  3. Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., Rand, Y. A., Mintzker, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981). Cognitive modifiability in adolescence: Cognitive structure and the effects of intervention. The journal of special education, 15(2), 269-287.
     Google Scholar
  4. Fragkiadaki, G., Fleer, M. & Rai, P. Science Concept Formation During Infancy, Toddlerhood, and Early Childhood: Developing a Scientific Motive Over Time. Res Sci Educ (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10053-x.
     Google Scholar
  5. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.
     Google Scholar
  6. Hardman, J. (2019). Towards a pedagogical model of teaching with ICTs for mathematics attainment in primary school: A review of studies 2008–2018. Heliyon. 1-6.
     Google Scholar
  7. Hardman, J. (2021). Vygotsky’s decolonial pedagogical legacy in the 21st century: back to the future. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(3), 219-233.. DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2021.1941116.
     Google Scholar
  8. Hedegaard, M. (2020). Ascending from the Abstract to the Concrete in School Teaching: The double Move between Theoretical Concepts and Children's Concepts. Psychological Science and Education, 25(5), 44-57.
     Google Scholar
  9. Hedegaard, M. (1998). Situated learning and cognition: Theoretical learning and cognition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(2), 114-126.
     Google Scholar
  10. Haynes, J. and Murris, K. (2012). Picturebook, pedagogy and philosophy. New York: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  11. Howie, S. (2012). High-stakes testing in South Africa: friend or foe? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 81-98.
     Google Scholar
  12. Janks, H. (2011). Making sense of the PIRLS 2006 results for South Africa. Reading & Writing, 2(1), 27–39.
     Google Scholar
  13. Kyriacou, C. (2010). Effective teaching in schools theory and practice. Oxford University Press-Children.
     Google Scholar
  14. MacDonald, A., Huser, C., Sikder, S., & Danaia, L. (2020). Effective early childhood STEM education: Findings from the Little Scientists evaluation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3), 353-363.
     Google Scholar
  15. Matusov, E. (2021). The relationship between education and learning and its consequences for dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 9, E1-E19.
     Google Scholar
  16. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  17. Morris, A., Hardman, J., & Jacklin, H. (2016). School science for six-year-olds: a neo Vygotskian approach to curriculum analysis. Journal of Education, 64.
     Google Scholar
  18. Morris, C. W. (1992). Academic press dictionary of science and technology (Vol. 10). Gulf Professional Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  19. Piaget, J. (1976). Need and significance of cross-cultural studies in genetic psychology. In Piaget and His School (pp. 259-268). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
     Google Scholar
  20. Presseisen, B. Z., & Kozulin, A. (1992). Mediated Learning--The Contributions of Vygotsky and Feuerstein in Theory and Practice.
     Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, V. (2005). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In Constructivist teacher education (pp. 13-24). Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  22. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992) “Towards an analysis of discourse.” In Coulthard, M. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1-34.
     Google Scholar
  23. Spaull, N. (2015). Schooling in South Africa: How low-quality education becomes a poverty trap. South African child gauge, 12(1), 34-41.
     Google Scholar
  24. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (Eds). Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
     Google Scholar
  25. Wink, J. & Putney, L. G. (2002). A Vision of Vygotsky. In J. Wink & L. G. Putney (Eds), Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
     Google Scholar
  26. Winkler-Rhoades, N., Carey, S.C. and Spelke, E.S. (2013). Two-year-old children interpret abstract, purely geometric maps. Developmental Science, 16(3): pp.365–376.
     Google Scholar
  27. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
     Google Scholar