The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Student teachers’ views: what is an interesting Life Sciences curriculum?
Open accessAbstract
In South Africa, the Grade 12 'classes of 2008 and 2009' were the first to write examinations under the revised Life Sciences (Biology) curriculum which focuses on outcomes-based education (OBE). This paper presents an exploration of what students (as learners) considered to be difficult and interesting in Grades 10-12 Life Sciences curricula in the Further Education and Training (FET) phase. A sample of 125 first year, pre-service Life Sciences and Natural Sciences teachers from a university responded to a questionnaire in regard to their experiences with the newly implemented FET Life Sciences curricula. The responses to the questions were analysed qualitatively and/or quantitatively. Friedman tests were used to compare the mean rankings of the four different content knowledge areas within each curriculum, and to make cross-curricular comparisons of the mean rankings of the same content knowledge area for all three curricula. All four content areas of Grade 12 were considered as being more interesting than the other two grades. In terms of difficulty, the students found the Grade 10 curriculum themes the most difficult, followed by the Grade 12 and the Grade 11 curricula. Most of the students found the themes under the content area Diversity, change and continuity (Grades 10-12) more difficult to learn than the other three content areas. It is recommended that more emphasis needs to be placed on what learners are interested in, and on having this incorporated into Life Sciences curricula.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Not only do these teachers need to adhere to the minimum outcomes required from a very extensive and fast-paced curriculum (in its third iteration in 10 years: Carl 2008; De Villiers 2011)”
From Knowledge of Child Development in the Interface of Theory and Practice in Foundation Phase Teacher Education. (2017) · cites this paper as De Villiers 2011
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ragpot, L. (2017) · South African Journal of Childhood Education · doi:10.4102/sajce.v7i1.501 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- de Villiers, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Pretoria (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- de Villiers, Rian
- Venue
- South African Journal of Education
- Published
- 2011-11-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 535-548
- ISSN
- 0256-0100 (ISSN-L)
- 2076-3433
- OpenAlex
- W2152561769
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 4.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- South African Journal of Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Science and Education Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies
- Keywords
- life science curriculum, student perceptions, pre-service teachers, outcome-based education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review