IPTL6111
Student Number: St10283080
Programme Code: BEI1
Module Lecturer: FELIX ZENOBIA
Module Code: IPTL6111
Date of Submission: 02-04-2025
I hereby declare that I did not plagiarise the content of this assignment and that this is
my own work.
Assignment submitted via Turnitin: (Tick the Box)
Type your Student Number
Table of Contents
1 Task 1 ................................................................................................................. 1
2 task 2 .................................................................................................................. 6
3 task 3 .................................................................................................................. 9
4 Reference List ................................................................................................... 11
i
Type your Student Number
1 TASK 1
Page 1 of 14
Type your Student Number
Page 2 of 14
Type your Student Number
Page 3 of 14
Type your Student Number
Page 4 of 14
Type your Student Number
Page 5 of 14
Type your Student Number
2 TASK 2
Examining the Grade 4 Natural Sciences and Technology Lesson Plan
1. How Cognitive and Social Constructivist Approaches Come into Play
Page 6 of 14
Type your Student Number
Constructivism, in its cognitive and social forms, puts the spotlight on active learning.
Students build what they know through their experiences. Piaget’s ideas on cognitive
constructivism suggest that learners create knowledge by interacting with what’s
around them. Vygotsky’s take on social constructivism stresses how important social
interactions and support are to learning (Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky 1978).
The lesson plan might show cognitive constructivist methods if it pushes students to
explore scientific ideas through hands-on activities, experiments, or question-based
learning. We’d see social constructivist techniques if the lesson includes group talks,
teamwork among peers, or questions guided by the teacher. If these approaches
aren’t used, the lesson might follow a more old-school direct teaching model. In that
case, a behaviorist approach, as Skinner (1953) suggested, might take center stage
focusing on memorization instead of asking questions and making discoveries. To
boost constructivism, adding project-based learning and group experiments would
help.
2. Surface and Deep Understanding
Biggs and Tang (2011) make a distinction between surface and deep learning.
Surface learning happens when students memorize facts without grasping
underlying concepts, while deep learning involves critical thinking and application. To
help students move beyond surface learning and gain a deeper understanding,
lesson activities should push them to ask questions, analyze concepts , and use their
knowledge in real-life situations.
When a lesson only gives factual information without pushing students to explore
“why” and “how” questions, it stays at the surface level. To boost deep learning, the
lesson could include problem-solving activities where students need to investigate
scientific phenomena, make predictions, and back up their reasoning. Getting
students to connect new concepts to everyday experiences would also lead to a
deeper understanding.
3. Connecting New Information to Existing Concepts
New information is learned easily when connected to existing knowledge, as
according to Ausubel’s (1968) theory of meaningful learning. Learning is effective if
new knowledge is connected to the existing knowledge the students possess. The
lesson should include activities to make the students recall existing lessons and
connect them to the new lesson.
If this connection is not obvious, one thing that can be done to improve is to begin
each lesson with a quick review, inquiring about past ideas before introducing new
ones. Concept maps and brainstorming activities can also serve as effective ways of
bridging old and new information.
Page 7 of 14
Type your Student Number
4. Effective Teaching Skills
In order to effectively teach this lesson, teachers will have to employ skills such as:
Facilitation: Encouraging active participation rather than simply transmitting
information (Bruner, 1966).
Questioning Strategies: Using open-ended questions to promote critical thinking
(Bloom, 1956).
Flexibility: Adjusting teaching approaches based on students’ responses and levels
of participation.
Classroom Management: Sustaining a well-organized yet adaptive classroom setting
in which students can examine ideas openly.
Assessment for Learning: Utilizing formative measures such as quizzes, peer
discussions, and reflection activities to assess understanding (Black & Wiliam,
1998).
5. Creating a Quality Learning Environment
A meaningful learning environment is one where students feel safe, motivated, and
engaged. According to Bandura (1986), students’ motivation and self-efficacy
significantly impact their learning outcomes. To achieve this, the lesson should
incorporate interactive and inquiry-based learning strategies. Providing hands-on
experiences, encouraging curiosity, and using real-life examples can make learning
more meaningful. Additionally, integrating technology, such as videos and
simulations, could further enhance engagement.
6. Contextual Factors and Challenges
Several contextual factors may impact the effectiveness of this lesson, including:
Classroom Resources: Limited access to science equipment may hinder hands-on
experiments. Solutions include using readily available materials or virtual
simulations.
Student Diversity: Learners have different backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles.
Differentiated instruction can address these differences by incorporating varied
teaching methods (Tomlinson, 2001).
Language Barriers: If students are not proficient in the language of instruction, they
may struggle with comprehension. Providing visuals, translated key terms, and peer
support can help overcome this challenge.
Page 8 of 14
Type your Student Number
Teacher Readiness: Teachers must be well-trained in constructivist approaches to
implement them effectively. Continuous professional development and collaboration
among educators can support this (Shulman, 1987).
Conclusion
In the critique of the lesson plan, it is essential to ensure that there is application of
constructivist approaches, deep learning is supported, and new knowledge is
correctly linked to prior knowledge. Teachers must utilize good teaching skills and
render the learning process vibrant while resolving potential contextual problems.
With these changes, the learning quality in Natural Sciences and Technology can be
significantly enhanced.
3 TASK 3
The Shift from Curriculum 2005 (C2005) to CAPS: A Critical Analysis
Education systems shift to optimize teaching efficiency and maximize learning
achievement. In South Africa, the shift from Curriculum 2005 (C2005) to the
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) was a significant shift in the
teaching, learning, and assessment strategy. This essay analyzes the difference
between the two curricula and analyzes how this shift affected knowledge
dissemination and assessment methods.
Differences Between C2005 and CAPS
Curriculum 2005 arrived as an outcomes-based education (OBE) system, with
emphasis on learner-centered teaching, thinking, and problem-solving. It aimed to
increase flexibility in content presentation and encouraged teachers to enable learning
rather than dictate it. However, C2005 was plagued by ambiguity in teacher guidelines,
a congested curriculum, and issues with the assessment implementation (Chisholm,
2005).
The Introduction of CAPS in 2012 sought to address these shortcomings by offering a
more content-driven and organized curriculum. Unlike C2005, CAPS provides detailed
lesson plans, clear learning outcomes, and standard assessment criteria (Department
of Basic Education, 2011). CAPS dictates to teachers particular content to teach,
enhancing consistency among schools and reducing lesson planning uncertainty.
Page 9 of 14
Type your Student Number
Shifts in Knowledge and Assessment
One of the most notable shifts from C2005 to CAPS is the knowledge acquisition
strategy. While C2005 emphasized constructivist learning, in which students were able
to explore topics with minimal content prescription, CAPS emphasizes content
mastery with clearly defined subject matter. This shift ensures that students receive a
more standardized and structured education, with less disparity in knowledge
acquisition among schools (Taylor, 2019).
As far as assessment goes, C2005’s OBE model drew heavily on continuous
assessment with an emphasis on competencies and skills and not content knowledge.
This often led to inconsistencies in assessment since teachers interpreted the
assessment criteria differently (Jansen, 2004). CAPS introduced a more systematic
approach, which involved standard tests, formal exams, and clear-cut assessment
rubrics, which made the process of assessment more objective and reliable.
Conclusion
The shift from C2005 to CAPS is from a flexible, learner-centered approach to a
controlled, content-directed approach. While C2005 tried to foster critical thinking
through open-ended learning, its openness was troublesome to learners and teachers.
CAPS rectified these by providing exact specifications, structured lesson plans, and a
standardized system of measurement. This change has ensured a more consistent
learning outcome in South African schools so that learners have the required
knowledge and skills.
Page 10 of 14
Type your Student Number
4 REFERENCE LIST
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open
University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive
domain. David McKay.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press Chisholm, L. (2005). The politics of curriculum
review and revision in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25(2), 79-92.
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
(CAPS). Pretoria: Government Printers.
Jansen, J. (2004). Curriculum reform in South Africa: A critical analysis of outcomes-
based education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 137-146.
Taylor, N. (2019). The state of curriculum reform in South Africa: Challenges and
opportunities. Johannesburg: Centre for Development and Enterprise..
Page 11 of 14
Type your Student Number
Page 12 of 14
