This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]

On: 11 August 2014, At: 13:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Education as Change
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/redc20

Science curriculum reform

in South Africa: Lessons for
professional development from
research on argumentation in
science education
a b
Sibel Erduran & Audrey Msimanga
a
University of Limerick
b
University of the Witwatersrand
Published online: 18 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Sibel Erduran & Audrey Msimanga (2014) Science curriculum
reform in South Africa: Lessons for professional development from research on
argumentation in science education, Education as Change, 18:sup1, S33-S46, DOI:
10.1080/16823206.2014.882266

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.882266

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the
opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014
 Education As Change, Volume 18, No. S1, 2014, pp. S33–S46

Science curriculum reform in South Africa: Lessons for

professional development from research on argumentation in
science education
Sibel Erduran
University of Limerick
Audrey Msimanga
University of the Witwatersrand
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Abstract
In South Africa, the national curriculum has undergone several revisions in the past decade. Within the
science curriculum, engagement of students in scientific inquiry has emerged as a significant
educational goal. Related to this goal, the articulation of argumentation in teaching and learning has
gained attention. Argumentation involves the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute
an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction. Other features of the recent curricular changes involve
the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Nature of Science (NoS), both themes with
relevance for argumentation due to their reference to how science works. We present a review of the
recent curriculum developments in South Africa and trace the coverage of argumentation, IKS and
NoS, the emphasis being on argumentation with the latter themes traced for context. Our review
suggests that there is reduced visibility of argumentation in the recent curriculum reform, pointing to
the need for careful articulation through teacher education. We draw on evidence from research on
professional development on argumentation to suggest some recommendations for effective imple-
mentation of the curriculum content.

Keywords: science education, argumentation, professional development

Introduction
After the 1994 democratic elections, the South African government introduced a new curriculum to
address educational imbalances created during the apartheid era. The introduction of Curriculum 2005
(C2005) in 1997 signalled a turning point in the socio-political history of South Africa with the new
curriculum representing a shift to ‘a hybrid ideology that values the academic, utilitarian and social-
reconstructionist purpose of science’ (Green & Naidoo 2006:79). The national curriculum document has
undergone several revisions from C2005 through the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS), the
National Curriculum Statement (NCS) and lately the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
(CAPS) (Department of Education [DoE] 1997, 2003; DBE 2011). Where C2005 was founded on the
principle of Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) specifying outcomes and leaving it to the teacher to decide
what content to use to develop those skills in learners, the revisions have gradually shifted towards
emphasis on content, and particularly so in the physical sciences. There is, however, a continued emphasis
on inquiry and learner engagement in practical work in the science curriculum, both of which lend
themselves to argumentation, a topic that has been advocated as an educational aim in many science
curricula across the world. Argumentation – the coordination of theory and evidence through justification –
has received worldwide attention in education policy (e.g., National Research Council 2000) and research

ISSN: Print 1682-3206, Online 1947-9417

© 2014 The University of Johannesburg
DOI:10.1080/16823206.2014.882266
S33
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

communities (e.g., Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Buggalo-Rodriguez &

Duschl 2000; Kaya, Erduran & Cetin 2012; Zohar & Nemet 2002). The significance of argumentation for
science education stems from the observation that it is an aspect of science where the epistemic, social,
cognitive and communication aims of science learning can be orchestrated (Jimenez-Aleixandre &
Erduran 2008). Argumentation is also conceived to be an important aspect of Nature of Science (NoS) as it
embodies epistemic practices of science, prioritising evidence and justifications (Duschl 2008), and thus
communicates to teachers and learners how science works from a meta-perspective in terms of how
knowledge construction and evaluation occurs in science.
The South African curriculum context is unique in its positioning of argumentation and NoS alongside
other themes such as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). Ogunniyi (2007:963) states that ‘IKS
reflects the wisdom about the environment developed over centuries by the inhabitants of South Africa,
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

and much of this valuable wisdom believed to have been lost in the past 300 years of colonization now
needs to be rediscovered and utilized to improve the quality of life of all South Africans’. Other
curriculum documents promoting the teaching and learning of argumentation around the world (e.g.,
Achieve, Inc. 2013; National Research Council 2000) do not conjointly promote the acquisition of IKS or
IKS-like objectives and content within the science curriculum, given that some of the objectives as well
as claims propagated through IKS can be in direct opposition to the spirit of the evidence-based
approach captured in scientific argumentation. This conjoining, at times, presents tensions and
incoherences with the scientific worldview (Brock-Utne 2002; Jegede 1994; Kawagley, Norris-Tull &
Norris-Tull 1998). For example, explanations about the causes of lightning from a scientific worldview
(i.e., electrical discharge) versus cultural values (i.e., curses) are in conflict with each other. South
African curriculum reform efforts have aimed to simultaneously incorporate indigenous knowledge,
cultures and norms through the inclusion of IKS, while also promoting the evidence-based reasoning
that underlies science as a rational epistemic enterprise through NoS frameworks in general and
argumentation in particular.
Alongside these tensions, concerns have been raised about the professional development of teachers to
ensure that curricular goals can be effectively enacted at the level of the classroom (Ogunniyi 2007). In
the case of South Africa, both the initial versions of the reform curriculum and its latest revisions do not
explicitly link argumentation, NoS and IKS to specific content. The ability to decide on the appropriate
content to use to develop these concepts requires a high level of teacher subject matter knowledge and
confidence. However, the extent to which most science teachers in South Africa are prepared to perform
such a task is questionable. If IKS and argumentation are not explicitly linked to specific content in the
curriculum document, it may not be possible for teachers to address them. Furthermore, argumentation
is viewed as a higher-order thinking skill – also referred to as critical thinking by some researchers (see
discussion in Erduran & Garcia Mila, in press) – that places significant demands on teachers to
coordinate a complex set of skills in their teaching (Zohar 2008). Likewise, insofar as NoS targets meta-
level understanding of science – for instance understanding the nature of laws, explanations and models
in science – it too is demanding for teachers (Lakin & Wellington 2007).
In this paper, we address the coverage of argumentation in the South African science curriculum and
draw out some lessons for the professional development of science teachers. We also refer to IKS and
NoS as they are aspects of the curriculum related to argumentation. By investigating the coverage of
IKS, NoS and argumentation in the curriculum, we are not suggesting that they necessarily pertain to
similar features of science or goals of science education. We are cognisant of the fact that each of these
themes has different historical routes not only in curriculum development but also in the research
literature in science education. For example, argumentation studies have emerged since the 1990s as a
legitimate area of research in science education (Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre 2012), whereas NoS has
been a preoccupation for researchers since the 1960s at least (e.g., Kimball 1968; Klopfer 1969). NoS as
a broader context of argumentation is relevant for our investigation because argumentation is an

S34
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

instance through which knowledge construction and evaluation can take place illustrating an aspect of
how science works. IKS is also relevant for our purposes because of the tensions it presents for
argumentation and some of the central tenets of the scientific enterprise as represented in NoS
perspectives (e.g., objectivity of science). It is beyond the scope of this paper to articulate the details of
the relationships between the content on argumentation and NoS and/or IKS. Rather, the purpose of
our inclusion of NoS and IKS in the curriculum analysis is to provide a broader context for
argumentation with related themes.
We begin by reviewing the role of argumentation in science teaching and learning as well as professional
development. We then present an analysis of the curriculum documents focusing on NoS and IKS.
These documentary analyses provide a base for anticipating how argumentation is likely to be
implemented in everyday classrooms. We conclude the paper by summarising what our analysis suggests
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

in terms of curriculum-level support for argumentation-focused pedagogies in the South African science
curriculum and teacher professional development.

Argumentation in teaching and learning of science

In recent years, the teaching of argumentation has emerged as a significant educational goal (e.g.,
Driver, Newton & Osborne 2000; Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008). Argumentation involves the
coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction
(Toulmin 1958). Arguments are critical for development of epistemological knowledge of the discipline
in that they facilitate knowledge construction and participation in a dialectical process of criticism and
warranting of others’ claims. Argumentation is thus cited in development of learner scientific reasoning
and conceptual understanding (e.g., Erduran 2007; Zohar & Nemet 2002). Argumentation is also
perceived to facilitate the appropriation of community practices that provide the structure, commun-
ication and motivation required to sustain scientific inquiry (Erduran 2012). Thus, argumentation has
been investigated as a teaching strategy to stimulate learner participation in structured discussion and
as a tool for science knowledge construction in science classrooms (Erduran, Simon & Osborne 2004;
Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre 2012). Apart from a wide range of research studies on argumentation in
the context of science education (e.g., Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008), there have been policy-level
initiatives across the world highlighting the significance of argumentation in science and in science
education (e.g., the drafts of the new Next Generation Science Education Standards in the USA
[Achieve, Inc. 2013]). A brief historical overview of the science curriculum in South Africa situates the
instantiation of argumentation in recent policy developments.
In South Africa the policy statement of the post-apartheid national Department of Education was first
introduced as Curriculum 2005 (C2005) in 1997. The document went through a public process of
revision in 2002 to become the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) for implementation at
the lower grades (Grades R–9). In 2006 the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) was implemented at
Grade 10–12 levels, the Further Education and Training (FET) phase (DoE 1997, 2003). In the NCS
subjects were defined by Learning Outcomes (LOs) as well as a body of content. ‘A Learning Outcome
(LO) is a statement of an intended result of learning and teaching. It describes knowledge, skills and
values that learners should acquire by the end of the Further Education and Training band’ (DoE
2003:7). The prescribed content was to be covered so as to assist learners in achieving the Learning
Outcomes. This requirement was one of the main differences from previous curricula, which primarily
emphasised the acquisition of content (Chisholm 2005). In 2011 a new document, the Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), was produced. While the basic philosophy and content of the
curriculum remained unchanged, the fundamental principles of outcomes-based teaching and
assessment were dropped. CAPS therefore became more content-based and inclined towards traditional

S35
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

school science (DBE 2011). There is, however, a continued emphasis on inquiry and learner practical
work, both of which lend themselves well to argumentation.
Like any novel pedagogical strategy promoted in a curriculum, a new theme such as ‘argumentation’
will pose challenges for teachers and teacher educators. For effective adoption of curriculum
recommendations at the level of teaching and learning, appropriate professional development of
teachers is essential. There is existing research literature on teachers’ professional development in the
context of argumentation (e.g., Ozdem et al. 2013; Simon, Erduran & Osborne 2006; Zembal-Saul 2009;
Zohar 2008). The evidence base provided allows previous lessons to be shared and potential problems to
be anticipated and resolved.

Argumentation in professional development of science teachers

Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Despite the wealth of research on argumentation in science education in general, the focus on the
professional development aspects has been relatively scarce (Erduran 2006; Erduran, Ardac & Yakmaci-
Guzel 2006; Zohar 2008). A significant line of work relies on models of professional development based
on Lee Shulman’s notion of teachers’ ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (e.g., Shulman 1987; van Driel,
Jong & Verloop 2002). Other approaches to teacher education have extended the work of educational
psychologists such as Diane Kuhn in application to science education (e.g., Zohar 2004). In the context
of argumentation, advocates for effective professional development have argued that the teaching of
argumentation requires a model of pedagogy that is based on knowledge construction as opposed to
knowlege transmission (Simon & Maloney 2006; Zohar 2008).
Research evidence suggests that teachers’ acquisition of new models of pedagogy to support
argumentation requires systematic and long-term professional development. Simon et al. (2006)
identified a range of strategies that science teachers who are effective in promoting argumentation
exhibit in their lessons. These authors state that ‘… to help teachers progress in their teaching of
argumentation, our data would suggest that the focus of professional development should be on
teachers’ existing understanding of the importance of evidence and argument in science and on their
implicit goals of teaching and learning science. To this end, the research has helped to identify a
tentative hierarchy of student argumentation processes, reflected within teachers’ argumentation goals’
(2006:256). This is illustrated in Table 1. The implementation of the pedagogical strategies would enable
students to learn to listen, talk, justify claims and engage in higher-order skills such as counter-arguing
and reflection.
Erduran and Dagher (2007) studied the development of two middle-school science teachers who
participated, over five years, in various school-based research projects on argumentation ranging from
basic research in teaching and learning to the development of professional development programmes for
training teachers in argumentation (Osborne, Erduran & Simon 2004a, 2004b). The teachers were asked
to reflect as a pair on various aspects of the teaching and learning of argumentation. The results address
the teachers’ views and knowledge of argumentation, their perceptions of the goals, constraints and
successes in their teaching of argumentation, their perceptions of themselves as learners and teachers
and their reflections on the professional development they received. In Erduran and Dagher’s analysis,
both teachers displayed sophisticated understanding of argument as well as its teaching and learning.
Their recommendations centred around effective professional development to take into account a
holistic presentation of teaching scenarios and a range of student abilities.
Professional development in argumentation in science education has been part of some recent European
Union-funded projects, such as the S-TEAM (www.apisa.co.uk) and Mind the Gap Projects (Erduran & Yan
2010). ‘Mind the Gap: Learning, Teaching and Research in Inquiry-Based Science Teaching’ infuses ideas
about argumentation into professional development of science teachers, and the project team has used an

S36
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

Table 1: Codes and categories for argumentation processes arranged in a tentative hierarchy (from Simon, Erduran
& Osborne 2006)

Codes for teacher utterances that reflect goals for Categories of argumentation processes as reflected
argumentation in teacher utterances
Encourages discussion Talking and listening
Encourages listening

Defines argument Knowing meaning of argument

Exemplifies argument

Encourages ideas Positioning

Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Encourages positioning

Values different positions

Checks evidence Justifying with evidence

Provides evidence
Prompts justification

Emphasises justification

Encourages further justification

Plays devil’s advocate

Uses writing frame or written work/prepares Constructing arguments
presentations/gives roles

Encourages evaluation Evaluating arguments

Evaluates arguments
Process – using evidence

Content – nature of evidence

Encourages anticipating counter-argument Counter-arguing/debating

Encourages debate (through role play)

Encourages reflection Reflecting on argument process

Asks about mind-change

evidence-based approach applying some of the key outcomes of research on teacher education. For
example, the work of Supovitz and Turner (2000) guided a model of professional development that
engaged participants in inquiry, questioning and experimentation in a collaborative manner. Further-
more, the project relied on the principles of teachers’ collaborative exchanges with peers and reflective
inquiries into their own teaching. The workshops promoted the teachers’ sharing of lesson resources,
debate and discussion, and reflection on their own design and implementation of argumentation-based
activities. The professional development aspects of the project are summarised in a DVD (Erduran & Yan 2010),

S37
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

where clips focus on how teachers addressed the curriculum policy context and strategies used to support
professional development such as evaluating and reflecting on peer teaching.
We next turn to our study of some of the curricular developments to highlight the key issues that the
South African context presents for the teaching, learning and professional development of argumen-
tation. We present the methodology that underpinned the analysis of several science curriculum
documents and report on the results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Methodology
We investigated the curricula in more depth in order to specify the content primarily on argumentation
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

but also NoS and IKS for context. The main data sources are the curriculum documents that have been
advanced in South Africa in recent years. We investigated the Revised National Curriculum Statement
(RNCS – Grades R–9) (DoE 2002), the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) (DoE 2003) and the
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), the latest curriculum document. The first two
documents specified Learning Outcomes (LOs) and Assessment Standards (ASs). Learning Outcomes 1
and 3 emphasised the teaching of the Nature of Science (NoS) and the integration of Indigenous
Knowledge Systems (IKS), both of which had potential for the use of argumentation. As illustrated later
in the data analysis some of the ASs for Learning Outcome 3 explicitly specified argumentation as a
scientific skill to be learned.
Drawing from aspects of the content analysis methodology (Weimer & Vining 2005), we extracted both
qualitative and quantitative data (Hatch 2002). However, since we only wanted to determine the trend in
explicit mention of the three concepts that we were interested in – argumentation, IKS and NoS – ours
was not thematic analysis in its true sense. We counted the number of occurrences of the three concepts
and their derivatives to determine changes in their explicit mention as the curriculum shifted from that
which combined content specification with pedagogical rhetoric (the RNCS and NCS) to one that is
stripped of all extras beyond content (CAPS). Studies that have analysed the South African curriculum
have focused on analyses of the knowledge forms, e.g., Bertram’s (2006) analysis of the FET history
curriculum and Green and Naidoo’s (2006) analysis of the FET physical science curriculum. Both
studies were framed around Bernstein’s notion of instructional and regulative discourse and involved
thematic analysis of the content of the curriculum documents.
Like these authors, our coding of data was guided by our theoretical understanding of the key concepts
such as ‘argumentation’, ‘nature of science’ and ‘indigenous knowledge systems’, as specified in the
research literature. Hence, as part of our analysis we used our review of literature around these main
concepts (e.g., Duschl & Osborne 2002; Ogunniyi 2007). For example, the ‘argumentation’ code
included derivatives of the word ‘argue’ and was characterised by excerpts such as the following: ‘The
science knowledge we teach at school is not in doubt as most of it has been tested and has become
generally accepted but a good teacher will tell the learners something of the debates, the arguments and
confusion among the people who were the first to investigate such phenomena’ (Department of Basic
Education [DBE] 2011:12). Unlike these studies, however, we did not seek to determine knowledge
representations, but to determine the implications of changes in the wording of curriculum intentions
for science teaching and for teacher education. Our approach is characterised by a mixed quantitative
and qualitative methodology. First we took a quantitative approach to data analysis in that we counted
the incidents of reference to IKS, NoS and argumentation in the old and new curriculum documents.
We considered both the general sections of the document that refer to the South African curriculum in
general as well as the sections specific to the physical sciences as a subject. For the qualitative document
analysis we conducted thematic categorisation of data around the key theoretical issues that we were
interested in.

S38
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

Results
Our analysis has led to numerous observations. First, there was a shift in emphasis (as indicated in Table 2)
in terms of how the curriculum treated content. In the NCS the focus was primarily on learning outcomes
achieved through coverage of the content as specified in the curriculum document at the teacher’s
discretion, while in CAPS there is now reference to learning objectives and the content as well as the pace
at which it is to be covered is more highly specified. The question that this observation raises is whether or
not NoS, argumentation and IKS would be better covered in NCS because they were foregrounded in the
Learning Outcomes even if not linked explicitly to any content.
In analysing the curriculum for references to argumentation, we looked for terms related to argumentation
in the literature – process, practical work, inquiry and critical thinking among them. In searching for
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

reference to indigenous knowledge and the nature of science, we searched for the actual terms, IKS and
NOS, as well as their derivatives, which included terms like ‘predict’, ‘evaluate’ or ‘hypothesis’ for NoS and
‘traditional’ or ‘local’ for IKS.
We present the quantitative analysis of South Africa’s old NCS and RNCS and new CAPS curriculum
documents for IKS, NoS and argumentation. The actual page numbers where each aspect was identified
in the curriculum document are given in Tables 3–5. FET concerns Grades 10, 11 and 12 whereas GET
targets that we have selected concern Grades 8 and 9. We have chosen to report on all the high school
grades as there are implications for how teachers need to coordinate science teaching and what
knowledge teachers will need to develop to deal with learning outcomes across the curricular stages.
In the FET curriculum documents IKS was mentioned on 13 pages in the NCS and only in five pages in
the current CAPS document. In the GET curriculum documents IKS is mentioned on five pages in each
of the RNCS and CAPS documents.
NoS was referenced in five places in the NCS at FET level but is now referred to only twice in the CAPS
document. At GET level, on the other hand, the nature of science was not referred to in the RNCS and is
now referenced in two sections of the CAPS document.
Argumentation was mentioned in five sections of the NCS document and is now down to only two
sections in the current CAPS document at FET level. At the GET level it is only mentioned once in the
current CAPS document, down from three in the old document, the RNCS.

Table 2: Summary of changes in emphasis from the NCS to the current CAPS policy documents

Learning Outcome (LO) in NCS Focus in CAPS (Objectives)

LO1: Use process skills, critical thinking, scientific
reasoning and strategies to investigate and solve
problems in a variety of scientific, technological,
environmental and everyday contexts.
LO2: State, explain, interpret and evaluate
scientific and technological knowledge and apply it
in everyday contexts.
LO3: Identify and critically evaluate scientific
knowledge claims and the impact of this
knowledge on the quality of socio-economic,
environmental and human development.
Assessed practical work, a ‘skills section’ and
investigations. Activities not explicitly stated.
Bulk of the curriculum focuses on content.
Content to be covered is explicitly specified for
each grade.
Applications of some sections of content specified.
Some examples of content that could be used to
introduce IKS or argumentation.

S39
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

Table 3: Incidents of the mention of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in the NCS and CAPS (FET and GET).
Numbers refer to the page numbers

FET GET
NCS (2003) CAPS FET (2011) RNCS (2002) CAPS GET (2011)
(13) (5) (5) (5)

1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 28, 4, 5, 8, 110, 135 10, 11, 12, 46, 87 6, 15, 20, 59, 79
29, 35
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Table 4: Incidents of the mention of nature of science (NoS) in the NCS and CAPS (FET and GET)

FET GET
NCS (2003) CAPS FET (2011) RNCS (2002) CAPS GET (2011)
(5) (2) (0) (2)
11, 12, 28, 29, 31 8, 9 15, 20

Generally there is a decline in reference to IKS, NoS and argumentation in the most recent curriculum
documents at FET level. At GET level the only apparent decline is in the mention of argumentation.
Reference to IKS remained the same in the CAPS document as it was in the RNCS. The nature of
science, however, was not mentioned in the previous GET curriculum document, the RNCS, and has
been introduced to the CAPS document (in two instances).
Several trends can be observed from the qualitative analysis of curriculum documents. In the FET
curriculum documents only IKS is specified in the general introduction of the national curriculum
statements, both the NCS and CAPS documents. Both IKS and NoS are included in the definition and
articulation of purpose of the subject physical sciences, in both the NCS and CAPS. In the GET
curriculum documents the general introduction section placed much emphasis on IKS and NoS with
frequent reference to traditional technologies and varying worldviews. Similarly, the CAPS document
emphasises the valuing of IKS and an understanding of the history of science. In addition, the
introduction section of CAPS includes a specific aim of knowing natural sciences which targets some
argumentation skills such as analysis and evaluation of scientific knowledge.
Argumentation was not included in the definition and articulation of purpose of the subject physical
sciences in the NCS but has been incorporated into the definition of physical sciences in CAPS. In CAPS,
the definition of physical sciences includes the specific aims of the subject (specific aims in CAPS have

Table 5: Incidents of the mention of argumentation in the NCS and CAPS (FET and GET)

FET GET
NCS (2003) CAPS FET (2011) RNCS (2002) CAPS GET (2011)
(5) (2) (3) (1)

22, 23, 24, 31, 33 8, 9 7, 9, 10 17

S40
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

replaced the LOs of the NCS). Argumentation is implied in CAPS as a targeted skill – construction of
scientific arguments – during classroom assessment. The biggest difference between the FET
curriculum documents, NCS and CAPS, is the reduction in all three IKS, NoS and argumentation in
the content specification sections. In the NCS all three concepts were given as part of the LOs and not
specified in the content since content was to be used to achieve the LOs. With the shift from learning
outcomes in CAPS, IKS, NoS and argumentation would have to be linked explicitly to the specific
content areas where they are likely to be covered. However, that is not the case. Instead our observation
was that whereas in the old document, the NCS, all three were specified in two Learning Outcomes (LO1
and LO3), in CAPS only IKS and argumentation were mentioned in one topic each. In the NCS both
NoS and IKS were specified in LO1 and LO3 and argumentation was regarded as evidence of attainment
of LO1 and LO3.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

In the new document, CAPS, IKS is mentioned in relation to the Grade 11 physics topic, mechanics
under Newton’s laws of motion, where reference is made to friction in traditional fire making.
Argumentation is only mentioned in the Grade 12 CAPS content with respect to the chemistry topic of
chemical change, as a recommendation for the use of Le Chatelier’s principle to argue the shift in
equilibrium. There is no explicit mention of NoS with relation to content in CAPS, except where it is
implied in the requirement for practical work. The situation was reversed at GET. The RNCS document
did not specify any content in which the three aspects IKS, NoS and argumentation would be addressed,
yet the new document, the GET CAPS document, specifies IKS in two strands, one at Grade 8 and
another at Grade 9. Under the strand ‘matter and materials’ at Grade 8, brewing is listed as an example
of chemical reactions in IKS while the Grade 9 example is in the strand ‘life and living’ where the use of
traditional medicinal plants to support and improve health and to fight disease is cited.
In summary, our analysis of the curricula illustrate that there is (a) reduction in the coverage of
argumentation, IKS and NoS at FET, (b) varied trends in the coverage of argumentation, IKS and NoS at
GET, namely increase of NoS, decrease of argumentation and constant coverage of IKS at FET, and (c)
lack of contextualisation of argumentation, IKS and NoS in particular subject domains. We should
caution, however, that these observations are based on explicit references to these and related concepts
but that there may be implicit references that relate to them as well. However, the implicit nature of
coverage will be an issue to be tackled in teacher education when there are no clear targets for teaching
in terms of overarching theoretical constructs. In other words, while aspects of argumentation, NoS and
IKS might be contained in the curriculum, a lack of explicit specification of either with systematic
articulation at the level of the curriculum will mean that teacher educators will not have a
comprehensive model to guide training provision. If argumentation, as a central and fundamental
feature of science, is not effectively enacted in everyday classrooms, then can there even be a claim to
‘science’ teaching and learning?

Conclusions and implications

Our analysis indicates reduced visibility of argumentation in the most recent curriculum document,
CAPS. The implication of this observation is that if teacher education in South Africa considers
argumentation to be central to science teaching and learning, as the literature suggests, then
professional development has to work harder to foreground argumentation in science teacher education
without the explicit support of curriculum documents. A comparison of sections of both the NCS FET
and CAPS FET illustrates the opportunities and the challenges of using argumentation with and without
guidance from the curriculum documents, respectively. The content sections of the two documents
illustrate the difference in curriculum documents, with guidance provided in the NCS and none in the
CAPS document.

S41
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

While South Africa’s old curriculum, the NCS, specified the content to be covered at each grade level,
teachers were guided by learning objectives in addressing IKS, NoS and argumentation. They could
draw from various content/topics to achieve each outcome. The challenge is in teacher ability to find and
adapt materials and resources to do this for all outcomes equally and thus for IKS, NoS and
argumentation equally. This is one of the arguments against a curriculum that specifies outcomes and
leaves it up to the teacher to decide on how to use the specified content to develop those skills in
learners.
Our analysis of the curriculum revisions suggests that the new curriculum has moved to the other
extreme by taking a much more content-focused approach. A corresponding reduction in specification of
IKS, NoS and argumentation in the curriculum document may further undermine their implementa-
tion. Considering the substantial evidence that argumentative discourse enhances student use of
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

scientific theory, data and evidence to oppose or confirm claims (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al. 2000), for
instance, it is quite unfortunate that the South African curricular revisions have resulted in the
reduction of goals towards achievement of argumentation at the level of the classroom. Students’ active
participation in argumentative discourse facilitates their construction and understanding of scientific
knowledge (Duschl & Osborne 2002). Therefore, argumentation as a part of science teachers’ learning
should be promoted and supported (Erduran 2006).
The lessons learned from research and development efforts from around the world reviewed earlier can
inform science teacher educators in South Africa in coordinating the curriculum reform efforts with
professional development agendas. Exchange and communication between science teachers is essential
for their learning and subsequent adoption of curriculum recommendations. In other words, it is not
sufficient for teachers to work in isolation to adopt new frameworks, particularly those that are
conventionally unfamiliar to them. Furthermore, teachers need to develop a sense of ownership of the
pedagogical strategies and lesson resources that would support argumentation in their classrooms.
Teachers’ knowledge of argumentation, its role in science as well as science teaching and learning will
be instrumental in adopting argumentation as a pedagogical strategy. Some aspects of argumentation
might be contrary to the social norms by which the teachers and students operate. For instance,
argumentation places a strong emphasis on the role of evidence and reason, irrespective of whose
evidence and reason. At times, it could be that the students might disagree with the teacher, which
could prove to be unconventional and contrary to social norms about respecting a teacher. Hence the
teachers will not only need to understand argumentation as a skill and strategy, but would need to be
supported in dealing with the cultural implications. The latter point is also relevant for the coordination
of the curricular objectives in relation to the teaching and learning of IKS. Considering the socio-
political history of IKS in South Africa, there is a likelihood of particular issues being sensitive for
discussion, and teachers might need support in coordinating the tensions and conflicting goals
embedded in IKS and argumentation (Ogunniyi 2007). For instance, on the one hand, IKS will have at
its core the goal of promoting inclusive education by capitalising on the cultural African practices and
norms that have been sidelined historically in South Africa (Ntuli 2002). On the other hand, some of
these practices and norms (e.g., explanations for particular natural phenomena like thunderstorms and
disease) might sit directly at odds with the scientific worldview. Hence the adoption of evidence-based
professional development provision will need careful tuning so as to make it relevant and effective in the
particular context of South Africa.
We recommend use of the research evidence on argumentation to raise awareness in both the practice
and policy contexts. Recent research in South Africa points to the potential for the use of argumentation
skills in implementation of a content-based curriculum such as CAPS. For example, findings from South
African classrooms indicate the use of argumentation not only for the understanding of the nature of
science but also for meaning-making and conceptual development during the teaching and learning of

S42
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

school science concepts (e.g., Braund et al. 2007; Msimanga & Lelliott 2012). Teacher professional
developers can draw from existing research in preparing teachers to implement the current CAPS
curriculum. Our review of some of the key components of professional development of science teachers
to adopt argumentation strategies suggests that much effort needs to be placed on the role of teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge of various aspects of science teaching. For example, teachers’ learning
goals should include (a) coordination of group discussions so as to ensure that students are given
sufficient space to talk, debate and evaluate arguments, (b) questioning to encourage student reasoning
with evidence and justification so that students can evaluate claims as well as compare them for their
plausability, and (c) formative assessment and feedback around students’ claims, evidence and
justifications relative to the instructional goals.
Overall, there is much scope for teacher education as well as research on teacher education in South
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Africa to use and adopt the evidence base on effective teaching and learning of argumentation. However,
the complexity of the curricular context in relation to other goals, particularly IKS and NoS, will
necessitate that particular instantiations of argumentation in South Africa will be unique. Challenges
of incorporation of research evidence in teacher education and teaching practice are well documented
(e.g. Schon 1987; Spillane 1999). There will be instances of argumentation in the context dominated by
the scientific worldview, for example argumentation about the causes of day and night. There will be
argumentation contexts where there are overlapping science subject matter content and IKS, for
instance explanations for the causes of lightning (e.g., Mahapa 2002). Research evidence on these
themes can be useful in guiding teacher educators and researchers in teacher education in South Africa
in designing professional development provision. Ultimately, however, the development of a national
context-specific research evidence base will be imperative to articulate the nuances that surround the
combination of content that is promoted. The development of the evidence pool on science teacher
education in South Africa will facilitate the attainment of curricular goals through supporting and
enhancing science teachers’ pedagogical practices.

References
Achieve, Inc. 2013. Next generation science standards (Appendix H. Nature of Science). Retrieved from
http://www.nextgenscience.org (accessed 1 June 2013).
Bertram, C. 2006. Knowledge, pedagogy and assessment in the old and new Further Education and
Training history curriculum documents. Education as Change 12(10):33–51.
Braund, M., Lubben, F., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M. & Hodges, M. 2007. Comparing the effect of scientific
and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: Lessons from South Africa. School Science Review 88
(324):67–76.
Brock-Utne, B. 2002. Stories of the hunt – Who is writing them? The importance of indigenous research
in Africa based on local experience. In C.A. Odora Hoppers (Ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the
integration of knowledge systems. Towards a philosophy of articulation, 237–256. Claremont:
New Africa Books (Pty) Ltd.
Chisholm, L. 2005. The making of South Africa’s National Curriculum Statement. Journal of
Curriculum Studies 37(2):198–208.
Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa. 2011. Curriculum and assessment policy
statement. Grade 4, 5, 6. Pretoria, South Africa: DBE.
Department of Education. 1997. Curriculum 2005: Lifelong learning for the 21st century. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Department of Education. 2002. Revised national curriculum statement grades R–9. Pretoria: Depart-
ment of Education.
Department of Education. 2003. The national curriculum statement grade 10–12 (general) physical
science. Pretoria: Department of Education.

S43
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education 84(3):287–312.
Duschl, R.A. 2008. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-
Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based
research, 159–175. Dordrecht: Springer.
Duschl, R.A. & Osborne, J. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science
education. Studies in Science Education 38:39–72.
Erduran, S. 2006. Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science
Review 87(321):45–50.
Erduran, S. 2007. Special editorial: Argument, discourse and interactivity. School Science Review 88
(324):29–30.
Erduran, S. 2012. The role of dialogue and argumentation. In John Oversby (Ed.), Guide to research in
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

science education, 106–116. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.

Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. 2006. Learning to teach srgumentation: Case studies of pre-
service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Techology
Education 2(2):1–14.
Erduran, S. & Dagher, Z. 2007. Exemplary teaching of argumentation: A case study of two science
teachers. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research, 403–415.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S. & Garcia-Mila, M. In press. Epistemic practices and thinking in science: Fostering teachers’
development in scientific argumentation. In R. Wegeriff, P. Kaufman & L. Li (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of research on teaching thinking.
Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J.M. 2012. Research on argumentation in science education in
Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe:
Retrospective and Prospective, 253–289. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., eds. 2008. Research in argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the
application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88
(6):915–933.
Erduran, S. & Yan, X. 2010. Salvar las brechas en la argumentacion: el desarrollo profesional en la
ensenanza de la indagacion scientifica. Alambique 63:76–87.
Green, W. & Naidoo, D. 2006. Knowledge contents reflected in post-apartheid South African physical
science curriculum documents. African Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education 10(1):71–80.
Hatch, J.A. 2002. Doing qualitative research in educational settings. New York: SUNY.
Jegede, O. 1994. African cultural perspectives and the teaching of science. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead
(Eds.), STS education: Perspectives on reform, 120–130. Columbia University, New York: Teachers
College Press.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Buggalo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. 2000. ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’:
Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84(6):757–792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. & Erduran, S. 2008. Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S.
Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Research in argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kawagley, A.O., Norris-Tull, D. & Norris-Tull, R.A. 1998. The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture:
Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 35(2):133–144.

S44
 Science curriculum reform in South Africa

Kaya, E., Erduran, S. & Cetin, P.S. 2012. Discourse, argumentation and science lessons: Match or
mismatch in high school students’ perceptions and understanding? Mevlana International Journal
of Education 2(3):1–32.
Kimball, M. 1968. Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 5:110–120.
Klopfer, L. 1969. The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 6:87–95.
Lakin, S. & Wellington, J. 2007. Who will teach the nature of science? Teachers’ views of science and
their implication for science education. International Journal of Science Education 16
(2):175–190.
Mahapa, S.S. 2002. Investigating high school learners’ lightning and electrostatic safety awareness in
the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Doctoral thesis, Curtin University of Technology.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

Msimanga, A. & Lelliott, A. 2012. Making sense of science: Argumentation for meaning-making in a
teacher-led whole class discussion. African Journal of Research in Mathematics Science and
Technology Education 16(2):192–206.
National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Ntuli, P.P. 2002. Indigenous knowledge systems and the African renaissance. In C.A. Odora Hoppers
(Ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems: Towards a philosophy of
articulation, 53–66. Claremont: New Africa Books (Pty) Ltd.
Ogunniyi, M.B. 2007. Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science-indigenous
knowledge curriculum: Part 1. International Journal of Science Education 29(18):963–986.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. 2004a. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10):994–1020.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. 2004b. Ideas, evidence and argument in science education. DVD
and Resource Pack. London: King’s College London.
Ozdem, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H. & Erduran, S. 2013. The nature of pre-service science teachers’
argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion 35(15):2559–2586.
Schon, D. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in
the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L.S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review 57(1):1–21.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development
in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3):235–260.
Simon, S. & Maloney, J. 2006. Learning to teach ‘ideas and evidence’ in science: A study of school
mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review 87(321):75–82.
Spillane, J.S. 1999. External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The
mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31(2):143–175.
Supovitz, J.A. & Turner, H.M. 2000. The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(9):963–980.
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Driel, J.H., Jong, O. de & Verloop, N. 2002. The development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK.
Science Education 86(4):572–590.
Weimer, D.L. & Vining, A.R. 2005. Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (4th edition). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zembal-Saul, C. 2009. Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education
93:687–719.

S45
 Sibel Erduran and Audrey Msimanga

Zohar, A. 2004. Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Atudents’ learning and teachers’
professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zohar, A. 2008. Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran
& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from
classroom-based research, 245–268. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. 2002. Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas
in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1):35–62.

Corresponding author
Sibel Erduran
Email: Sibel.Erduran@ul.ie
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 13:24 11 August 2014

S46