Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technology education in South Africa since the new dispensation in 1994: An analysis of curriculum documents and a meta-synthesis of scholarly work

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology education was introduced as a successor to various forms of craft or technical education in some parts of the world in the 1980s. In South Africa (SA) the implementation of technology education was in more than one sense unique. Not only was it a new subject within the South African educational context, but it coincided with the dawn of a new political dispensation in which the new government favoured outcomes-based education (OBE). This has resulted in a series of curriculum documents over the past two decades which made certain demands on and held challenges for the teachers who were responsible for the implementation of technology. The purpose of this conceptual article is to investigate the demands and challenges that various curriculum documents have made on the technology teachers concerned. The research question that underpinned the research was: What were the demands and the challenges various curriculum documents had on technology teachers? The research methodology was desktop research in the form of a critical analysis of various intended or specified curriculum documents. The research also included a qualitative meta-synthesis of other scholarly work on the challenges posed by the implementation of curricula both in SA and other international contexts. The South African experience may hold important insights for ministries of education, curriculum developers and technology teachers that form part of the broader international technology fraternity. It was found that the underlying political ideology of a new government impacts and steers the country’s education in a particular direction. Soon after the dawn of the new political dispensation in SA in 1994 there was a move away from a content-based curriculum (CBC) towards an OBE curriculum. However, it was mainly contextual and practical factors at chalk level that placed major demands on and posed challenges to the implementation of a new education system, aligned with a new ideology. Due to these challenges the country now finds itself moving back towards content-based education just more than ten years later. In a developing context, in particular with insufficient logistical resources and where teachers are inadequately trained (and therefore have less competence) a more specified and fixed CBC rather than an open, flexible OBE curriculum seems more feasible. Subsequently, the effects of a CBC as opposed to an OBE curriculum in technology education need to be researched in future, specifically which approach would be conducive to a general design-driven subject or a fragmented vocationally-oriented technology subject.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ankiewicz, P. (1995). The planning of technology education for South African schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2003). Technology education at school: Illusion or reality? Inaugural address. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P.J. (2013a). The alignment of the CAPS for technology in the senior phase with the philosophy of technology: A critical analysis. Conference proceedings of the STE International Conference on mathematics, science and technology education: Towards effective teaching and meaningful learning in mathematics, science and technology, Mopani camp, Kruger National Park, 21–24 October 2013, 13–25.

  • Ankiewicz, P. J. (2013b). ’n Teoretiese besinning oor die implikasies van die filosofie van tegnologie vir klaskamerpraktyk / A theoretical reflection on the implications of the philosophy of technology for classroom pedagogy. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 32(1), Art.#386, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/satnt.v32i1.386.

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2018a). Perceptions and attitudes of pupils toward technology. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education, Springer International Handbooks of Education. Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2018b). Alignment of the traditional approach to perceptions and attitudes with Mitcham’s philosophical framework of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9443-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2019). Andrew Feenberg: Implications of critical theory for technology education. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners: Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (1999). “No one forgets a good teacher!”—What do ‘good’ technology teachers know? Journal of Design & Technology Education, 4(3), 223–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D. (2018). Design and technology in England: An ambitious vision thwarted by unintended consequences. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of Technology Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education. Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, L., Volmink, J., Ndhlovu, T., Potenza, E., Mahomed, H., Muller, J., Lubisi, C., Vinjevold, P., Ngozi, L., Malan, B. & Mphahlele, L. (2000). A South African curriculum for the twenty first century. Report of the Review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Pretoria, South Africa.

  • Dakers, J. R. (2005). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011a). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Grades R–9 (Schools): Technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011b). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Further Education and Training Phase Grades 10–12: Engineering graphics and design. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011c). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Further Education and Training Phase Grades 10–12: Civil technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011d). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Further Education and Training Phase Grades 10–12: Electrical technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011e). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Further Education and Training Phase Grades 10–12: Mechanical technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2014a). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement Grades 10–12: Civil technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2014b). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement Grades 10–12: Electrical technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2014c). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement Grades 10–12: Mechanical technology. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2014d). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement Grades 10–12: Technical Mathematics. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2014e). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement Grades 10–12: Technical Sciences. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and Culture (DEC) (1990). The evaluation and promotion of career education in South Africa. Main report of the committee chaired by Dr S.W.Walters. Pretoria: Government Printer.

  • Department of Education (DOE). (1997). Policy Document. Senior Phase (Grades 7 to 9). October 1997.

  • Department of Education (DOE). (2002). National Curriculum Statement Grades R–9 (Schools): Technology. Pretoria: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education (DOE). (2005a). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12 (General): Engineering graphics and design. Pretoria: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education (DOE). (2005b). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12 (General): Civil technology. Pretoria: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education (DOE). (2005c). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12 (General): Electrical technology. Pretoria: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education (DOE). (2005d). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12 (General): Mechanical technology. Pretoria: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of National Education (DNE). (1991). A curriculum model for education in South Africa. Discussion document.

  • Department of National Education (DNE). (1992). Education renewal strategy: Management solutions for education in South Africa.

  • De Swardt, A.E., Ankiewicz, P.J., & Engelbrecht, W. (2005). Technology education in South Africa since 1998: A shift from traditional teaching to outcomes-based education. Conference proceedings of the PATT 15 conference, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 18–22 April 2005, https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=86630&v=4dc66db2, 1–23.

  • Doyle, A., Seery, N., Canty, D., & Buckley, J. (2019). Agendas, influences, and capability: Perspectives on practice in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht, W. (2016). Learning and teacher support material to promote 21st Century skills for junior secondary school students. Conference proceedings of the PATT 32 conference, Utrecht, Netherlands, 158–169.

  • Engelbrecht, W., & Ankiewicz, P. (2016). Criteria for continuing professional development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht, W., Ankiewicz, P., & De Swardt, E. (2007). An industry-sponsored, school-focused model for continuing professional development of technology teachers. South African Journal of Education, 27, 579–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) and Gauteng Institute of Curriculum Development (GICD). (1999). Technology Draft Progress Map. Pretoria: Norwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM). (1996). Technology 2005 project: Draft national framework for curriculum development. 24 May 1996.

  • Houben, J.W.M.A. (1991). Opening speech: Fifth international conference. Pupil's Attitude Towards Technology. Conference proceedings of the PATT 5 conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 11–14.

  • Jones, A., Buntting, C., & De Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. T., & De Vries, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khulisa Management Services. (1999). Evaluation of OBE/C2005 in Gauteng Province: Presentation of final results. (Unpublished Report). Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education/Gauteng Institute of Curriculum Development. Johannesburg: Global Print.

  • Khulisa Management Services. (2001a). Evaluation of OBE/C2005 in Gauteng Province—Year 3 (2000) Volume I: Classroom observations, culture audit and stakeholder perceptions. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education/Gauteng Institute of Curriculum Development. Johannesburg: Global Print.

  • Khulisa Management Services. (2001b). Evaluation of OBE/C2005 in Gauteng Province—Year 3 (2000) Volume II: Training evaluations, district support analysis, evaluation of learner support materials and policy. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education/Gauteng Institute of Curriculum Development. Johannesburg: Global Print.

  • Killen, R. (2000). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education. Landsdowne: Juta and Company Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kőycű, Ü., & De Vries, M. J. (2016). What preconceptions and attitudes about engineering are prevalent amongst upper secondary school pupils? An international study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraak, A. (2002). Discursive shifts and structural continuities in South African vocational education and training: 1981–1999. In P. Kallaway (Ed.), The history of education under apartheid, 1948–1994 (pp. 74–93). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, K., & Phelan, P. (2014). A review of technology education in Ireland; a changing technological environment promoting design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(4), 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond the Design Process: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2017). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019). How technology makes us human: Cultural historical roots for design and technology education. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittell, I., & Penny, A. (1997). Teacher perceptions of design and technology: A study of disjunction between policy and practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Planning Commission (NPC). (2012). National Development Plan 2030: Our future–make it work. Pretoria: Presidency of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkosi, D. F. (2005). The technological process as framework for the improvement of instruction of technology: A case study (Master’s minor dissertation, University of Johannesburg).

  • Nordlof, C., & Engstrom, S. (2019). How teachers value skills and content in Technology teaching in Swedish compulsory school—A “climate” change. In S. Pulé & M.J. de Vries (Eds.), Developing a knowledge economy through technology and engineering education. Proceedings of the PATT37 Conference (pp. 335–345). Malta.

  • Potgieter, C. (2004). The impact of the implementation of technology education on in-service teacher education in South Africa (impact of technology education in the RSA). International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher, W. J. (2012). Die verband tussen wetenskap en tegnologie: 'n Tegnologieonderwysperspektief. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 31(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4102/satnt.v31i1.27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics (Vol. 2). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seery, N., Lynch, R., & Dunbar, R. (2011). A review of the nature, provision, and progression of graphical education in Ireland. In Norman, E.W.L. & Seery, N, (Eds.), IDATER Online conference: Graphicacy and modelling 2010. Loughborough: Design Education Research Group, Loughborough Design School.

  • South Africa (SA) (Republic). Government Gazette No.18051, 6 June 1997. Pretoria: Government Printer. 87–111.

  • Stevens, A. (2006). Technology teacher education in South Africa. In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 515–532). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2009). The introduction and development of technology education in South Africa. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 131–140). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van As, F. (2015). Developing civil technology teachers’ professional knowledge through communities of practice. Conference proceedings of the Pupils’ Attitudes towards Technology (PATT) 29th International Conference, Marseille, France, 7–10 April, 2015, 420–426.

  • Van As, F. (2018). Communities of practice as a tool for continuing professional development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The article was inspired by an invitation to deliver a keynote address at the annual “Rockelstad-seminariet” (research seminar) in Sweden in June 2018, hosted jointly by the Technology and Science Education Research Unit (TESER), in the Department of Social and Welfare Studies at the Linköping University (LU) and the Swedish National Centre for School Technology Education (CETIS). The address focused on a brief overview of technology education in South Africa since 1994. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof Jonas Hallström (TESER) and Dr Claes Classander (CETIS) for the invitation. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr Francois van As for his assistance with some of the content and graphics in the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education (APK Campus), University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

    Piet Ankiewicz

Authors
  1. Piet Ankiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piet Ankiewicz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ankiewicz, P. Technology education in South Africa since the new dispensation in 1994: An analysis of curriculum documents and a meta-synthesis of scholarly work. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 939–963 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09589-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09589-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation