Hastening slowly: insights about teacher

development from an evaluation of courses

at the WCED’s Cape Teaching and

Leadership Institute 

Susan Meyer and Lydia Abel

Abstract

In the area of teacher professional development, South African education administrators
face the challenge of reconciling two imperatives that have entirely different implications
for programme time frames and budgets. On the one hand, there is an urgent need to
improve the pedagogic content knowledge of many teachers to improve the overall standard
of teaching and learning in the public school system. Considering the scale and urgency of
the matter, centralised course-based in-service training seems to be the only affordable
alternative. On the other hand, researchers have long warned that once-off course-based
training on its own has limited impact on teachers’ practice, and has to be accompanied by
further professional support in the school and classroom, or be abandoned in favour of more
enduring professional learning communities. The Western Cape Education Department
(WCED) has grappled with this dilemma in the Department’s various professional
development initiatives for teachers, a mainstay of which is the training offered by the Cape
Teaching and Leadership Institute (CTLI). This paper presents some of the data and
findings from an external evaluation that ORT SA CAPE conducted in 2011–2012 of
courses offered by the WCED at the CTLI. The hierarchy of INSET outcomes proposed by
Harland and Kinder (1997) was applied to record changes in the practice of 18 teachers at
eight schools. The progress of five of the teachers is discussed to illustrate the interplay
between school-level factors and the experiences of individual teachers which influenced
the impact of CTLI training on their teaching.

Introduction

This article presents insights gained from an external evaluation by ORT SA
CAPE of teacher training courses at the Cape Teaching and Leadership
Institute (CTLI) The evaluation was commissioned by the Western Cape



116        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

The authors gratefully acknowledge the WCED for permission to publish the data which is1

reported in this article.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be attributed to2

the WCED, nor ORT SA CAPE.

Education Department (WCED).  Here we discuss findings from the1

evaluation (Meyer and Abel, 2013) which followed a sample of teachers over
a two-year period (2011–2012). We present vignettes of five teachers that
illustrate some of the personal and contextual factors associated with
teachers’ successful take-up of training, as well as factors associated with
poor take-up. Our research found that CTLI training had a positive impact on
the practice of some participants, but made no significant or lasting difference
to the practice of most.2

Scope of the research 

The original brief from WCED required evaluation of CTLI’s delivery model
which changed in a number of respects in 2011, through specific evaluation of
six courses in Language, Mathematics and School Management. To create
scope for multi-level analysis, ORT SA CAPE opted to focus on individual
teachers within their school context as unit of analysis.

The evaluation covered a number of research strands. The following are
relevant for the purposes of this discussion:

1. A pre- and post-test written by one cohort of teachers attending each
course in 2011 and in 2012, i.e. ±300 teachers per year.

2. Case studies tracking 18 teachers from 2011 course cohorts in eight
schools – one school per district (2011–2012).

3. Analysis of results the schools achieved in the WCED diagnostic tests
(2002–2011).

CTLI’s delivery model

Alongside various provincial and district-level in-service training initiatives,
CTLI’s offerings could be considered their mainstay of continuous



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       117

professional teacher development (CPTD). Annually, CTLI offers extensive
programmes of short courses and conferences for teachers. The courses are
1–3 weeks in duration, and run during school terms. Teachers from
underperforming schools are the primary target group, but teachers from all
public schools may apply. The target subjects for curriculum courses are
Language (Home Language and First Additional Language), Mathematics and
Natural Sciences. A range of management courses are offered for principals,
deputy principals, HODs, aspiring principals and entire SMTs of select
schools. Until 2010, CTLI courses included a follow-up support component
which entailed two classroom visits by a trainer to each teacher after the
training to provide the teacher with feedback on implementation. In 2012, this
follow-up support was replaced by an assignment which participants
completed back at school as proof of implementation.

Context of the evaluation 

It is worth mentioning two features of the broader policy and institutional
context in which the research was conducted:

! At the time (2011–2012) the Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement (CAPS) was being implemented in the Foundation Phase
(FP), but was still due to be introduced into most grades in the
Intermediate (IP) and Senior Phases (SP). An important implication for
interpreting the data is that the Revised National Curriculum Statement
requirements for coverage of the various content areas were far less
structured than in the current context of CAPS.

! Standardised assessment of learners had become a prominent feature of
the education policy context in the Western Cape. Grade 3 and 6
learners have written the annual WCED systemic tests in Language and
Mathematics since 2002 and Grade 9 learners since 2010. These tests
are administered and marked by external service providers and each
school receives a report early in the following year, which gives a
breakdown of the results by grade level, content area etc. 



118        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Literature review

To locate our research within recent and current debates about CPTD, we give
a brief overview of South African and international studies that have informed
our thinking.

Insights from international research

International research on in-service education of teachers (INSET) and – in
recent years – continuous professional development of teachers (CPTD)
shows that teachers’ take-up of new knowledge and skills from training has
been a long-standing concern (e.g. Adler, Slonimsky and Reed, 2002; Avalos,
2011). Since the 1980s, CPTD practitioners and researchers have moved away
from conventional INSET models of once-off workshops or course-based
training towards more multi-faceted professional development models to
avoid the deficiencies of ‘single-design’ training, such as the following:

! INSET has often taken a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and lacked depth.

! Training has been disconnected from teachers’ practical experience. 

! The ‘cascade’ model whereby teachers are expected to pass on INSET
outcomes to colleagues at school was not effective, mostly because new
learning was diluted beyond significance. 

The INSET model proposed by Joyce and Showers (first in 1980 and updated
in 1995 and 2002) addressed these concerns. It was very influential in South
Africa (SA) and internationally. Based on extensive empirical research on
different INSET programmes in the USA, the authors suggested five
components required for training to effect a positive difference in teachers’
practice:

! Presentation of theory and content

! Demonstration (modelling new methods and techniques)

! Repeated opportunities for practice during training

! Structured feedback and reflection

! Coaching during the implementation period.



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       119

They documented the impact of these five INSET elements across different
studies to substantiate their argument that longer-term, in-depth teacher
development is more cost-effective than short, course-based interventions.
Their research had shown that 10–15 opportunities to practice a specific skill
or teaching strategy, with feedback, are needed to enable teachers to use this
strategy effectively. While their INSET model informed the design of many
teacher development programmes since the 1990s, it must be remembered that
the model was based entirely on research conducted in the USA. Many
differences noted between SA and the USA, suggest Joyce and Showers’
model cannot be applied indiscriminately in South African contexts. 

Worldwide, researchers have grappled further with the challenges of
producing models and/or suggesting research methodologies to do justice to
the complexity of CPTD. Harland and Kinder (1997, previously cited by
Webb, Boltt, Austin, Cloete, England, Feza, Ilsey, Kurup, Peires, and
Wessels,1999) mapped three of their nine ‘outcome types’ onto the INSET
components proposed by Joyce and Showers. However, evidence from
empirical research in the UK did not support some assumptions that
underpinned Joyce and Showers’ model. They concluded that a more
multi-dimensional model was needed to accommodate the complex range of
variables and outcomes involved in teacher development, and added six
further ‘outcome types’ to their proposed hierarchy. To emphasise the
non-linearity of their model, they clarified that individual teachers followed
unique pathways through the different outcomes, while progressing through
the three orders of change. Although they did not claim that teachers must
achieve all nine outcomes to demonstrate significant impact on their practice,
“it was generally the case that the larger the number of outcomes met the
greater the probability of a change in teaching behaviour” (p.80). Harland and
Kinder clarified that categories in their typology might need to be expanded
or refined, depending on the purpose for which the training is designed. For
example, knowledge and skills could be elaborated to reflect the specific
types of knowledge such as procedural, situational, propositional and
practical knowledge. 

In 2002, Joyce and Showers published a revised version of their original
INSET model, based on more recent empirical research studies in the USA.
They proposed school-based peer coaching as an effective alternative to
mentoring and coaching by external specialists, a very costly option.
Structured feedback was omitted from their revised model, as research
showed that it led peer coaches to slip into a supervisory/monitoring role



120        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

rather than a mentoring role. In peer coaching, teachers would alternate the
roles of both the subject (the teacher whose lesson is observed) and the coach
to develop a collegial CPTD culture in schools. The authors reviewed the
effectiveness of the remaining four training components – theory,
demonstration, practice and peer coaching – and concluded that complex
CPTD designs which include all four of these training components are much
more successful than ‘single’ training designs or even those which include the
first three components but exclude peer coaching. A major challenge is that
schools with traditional school management structures and cultures need to
adopt far-reaching innovations to accommodate co-operative planning and
collective learning – hard to achieve in South African conditions.

Anderson (2004) noted that a standards-based curriculum demands complete
transformation in teachers’ lesson planning. Whereas teachers traditionally
focused on classroom activities aimed at teaching select curriculum content as
their starting point in planning lessons, a standards-based curriculum requires
them to plan ‘backwards’ from the specified assessment standards and create
opportunities for learners to achieve the expected outcomes. A standards-
based curriculum demands that teachers have a clear understanding of the
prescribed standards in terms of concepts and skills to be taught, as well as
knowledge of their learners’ current levels of knowledge and skills, so that
teaching can start from the familiar and challenge learners to engage with
more advanced knowledge and skills. This implies intermittent diagnostic
assessment of learners’ work to inform teachers’ planning, whereas
assessment was traditionally used primarily to determine learner achievement
to qualify for progression to the next grade or phase. 

Opfer and Pedder’s (2011) review offers insight into the challenges that affect
the development and evaluation of CPTD projects and programme. They
explain why and how the process-product logic, that dominated CPTD for 20
years, has had limited explanatory value. This tended to disaggregate
information about the teacher, the school and the learning activities. They
argue that teacher development should be conceptualised as the
“concatenation of practices, learning orientations, and individual and
collective learning contexts that must occur for teacher learning to take place”
(Opfer and Pedder, p.394). To do this complexity justice, they propose that
CPTD programmes should be designed and researched as ‘complex adaptive
systems’, within which the teacher, the school and the learning activities exert
reciprocal influence on each other in the course of the developmental process. 



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       121

From the above review, the following insights and ideas appear to have
particular value for CPTD in SA:

! Teacher training and development are complex, contextually situated
processes.

! Course-based training has proven ineffective in the absence of follow-up
support (coaching and mentoring).

! Peer coaching has become a preferred form of follow-up support, but
requires fundamental change in bureaucratic school cultures and the
conventional individualistic nature of teachers’ work.

! The role of assessment as the driver of teachers’ planning is critical and
often neglected in favour of serving learner progression or promotion.

Findings from South African research over the last twenty years

On the basis of empirical studies in SA over the last two decades, researchers
and CPTD practitioners employed a number of concepts and conceptual
frameworks for designing and studying CPTD programmes. Abel (1997)
described the structure of teacher development as a spiral and indicated that
teachers must master both the skills of deconstruction and reconstruction of
knowledge for the process of professional development to make a positive
difference to their practice. 

In their overview of 35 education research projects undertaken in the 1990s
for the President’s Education Initiative (PEI), Taylor and Vinjevold (1999)
commented on the lack of empirical studies and impact evaluations in many
CPTD and school improvement projects. In 2003, these researchers proposed
a multi-level intervention model to improve quality through systemic
interventions (Taylor, Muller and Vinjevold, 2003). Effective curriculum
delivery was placed at the centre of the model, with the emphasis on
conceptual learning and a set of 42 indicators was proposed for monitoring
and supporting development in four areas: social organisation of the school,
language learning and proficiency, curriculum and pedagogy, and assessment.

The Rural Education Project (REP, 2007–2008) targeted teachers in 38
Western Cape schools, combining two years’ part-time study towards an



122        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) with classroom support by a
specialist coach. Following Lerman (1998), Gamble and Kühne (2010)
applied the analytic device of a series of conceptual lenses to examine the
project’s outcomes. The researchers applied five lenses in their analysis:
internal accountability in schools, interpretation of diagnostic test results,
“instructional practice as a shared public good”, knowledge-based teaching
and “systemic synchronicity” (pp.17–18). They the authors adopted the term
“proceduralised process”, also applied by Taylor et al. (2003), to describe
superficial or administrative ways in which many teachers interpreted and
applied new knowledge. In our subsequent CPTD work, including the study
on which we report here, we have found the concept of ‘proceduralised
process’ valuable for distinguishing between teaching and curriculum
management practices creating meaningful learning opportunities for learners
from those demonstrating compliance with minimum departmental
requirements, monitored by district officials and school management.

Adler and Reed’s (2002) findings from teachers’ take-up of CPTD are
informative for CPTD initiatives in SA. Between 1996 and 1999, they
conducted a three-year longitudinal study of 25 teachers participating in the
University of the Witwatersrand’s Further Diploma in Education (FDE)
programme. Participants were from 25 schools in Gauteng and the former
Northern Province and taught Mathematics, Science or English. It was
striking that their main findings pertained to the effects of language on
teachers’ efforts to incorporate new knowledge, into their practice. They
found increased use of code-switching by teachers and learners in most
classrooms. More code-switching by Mathematics and Science teachers than
English Language teachers, was seen. Adler and Reed attributed this to
greater focus on modelling correct English use in primary Language classes.
Teachers’ use of codeswitching was “intentional but dilemma-filled” (p.50)
When Outcomes-Based Education (Curriculum 2005) was introduced there
was widespread take-up of cooperative learning techniques such as group
work creating more opportunities for “learning from talk” (p.50), i.e. learners
talking about the work in their everyday language. However, most teachers
did not facilitate the shift to “learning to talk” (p.50) i.e. challenging learners
to express their learning in formal, subject-specific language. Although the
above-mentioned patterns were common to all teachers, there were significant
differences between teachers working in different contexts, at different levels
(grades and phases) and subjects.



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       123

The authors avoided making strong claims about the project’s effectiveness due to3

limitations in the research design.

Concerning methodology, the researchers endorsed the value of “fuzzy
generalisations” (p.48) proposed by Bassey (1999), as a cost-effective
approach to documenting findings from qualitative studies of CPTD
programmes. Bassey was trying to address the context-bound nature of CPTD.
He observed that findings from CPTD studies are often too specific to be
applied in different contexts and proposed the term “fuzzy generalisations”
for qualified statements about findings, which acknowledge uncertainties in
the research. By extrapolating series of “fuzzy generalisations” from research
about CPTD, it is possible to build an increasingly informed and coherent
picture of what works and what doesn’t. 

The Gauteng Primary Language and Mathematics Strategy (GPLMS) was
designed as a large-scale multi-dimensional intervention which would provide
extended in-depth CPTD to primary school teachers. Between 2011 and 2014,
it supported teachers in about 830 schools in 15 districts in Gauteng. The
model focused on three overlapping components: pre-designed daily lesson
plans for teachers, high-quality learning and teaching materials and individual
instructional coaching of teachers. The National Education Evaluation and
Development Unit (NEEDU, 2013a) identified the GPLMS as one of only two
large-scale CPTD projects in the country that promised to bring about
significant, lasting improvement in schooling. Fleisch and Schöer (2014)
reported tentative findings that the project had demonstrated modest impact in
learner achievement.  Despite these positive findings, the GPLMS was3

terminated midway in 2014, reportedly because it had proven unaffordable. 

The WCED’s Literacy and Numeracy Intervention was planned as an
eight-year CPTD project, targeting Language and Mathematics teachers in all
primary schools in the province. The Intervention, introduced in 2009,
provided block training and school-focused follow-up support to teachers in
successive cohorts of approximately 250 schools in two-year phases. This
project also received a positive review by NEEDU (2013a). The WCED
terminated the Intervention in 2015, reportedly because its activities were no
longer aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives.

Findings from recent large-scale empirical research projects have confirmed
the range and scope of challenges facing those aiming to improve the quality
of teaching and learning in SA’s schools (NEEDU, 2013 a and 2013b; Taylor



124        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Gauteng was omitted from the study as the research time-frames conflicted with dates4

allocated for administration of provincial tests.

et al., 2012; Venkat and Spaull, 2015). They underscored the importance and
urgency of effective, targeted CPTD programmes. NEEDU (2013b) identified
a shortage of subject advisors (SAs) able to bring all teachers’ practice up to
the necessary standard for effective CAPS implementation. The authors argue
that school-based CPTD is the most promising alternative, but acknowledge a
problem – that teachers ‘don’t know what they don’t know’, which places a
question mark over how and by whom teachers’ development needs would be
identified.

The National School Effectiveness Study followed the academic progress of a
cohort of 8 383 learners in 268 schools in eight provinces  from 2007 to 20094

(Taylor, Van der Berg and Mabogoane, 2012). The researchers found that
teachers’ and learners’ proficiency in the language of learning and teaching
(LoLT) was a determining influence on teaching and learning and they
reaffirmed that teachers’ subject knowledge remains a key priority for CPTD
in SA. They granted that training which focuses on teaching methods could
bring about short-term efficiency gains, but predicted a low ceiling on these
effects. Investment in in-depth subject-focused professional development was
identified as critical. The authors cited CTLI block release courses as some of
“the few programmes that have been shown to impact significantly on teacher
knowledge and learner performance” (Taylor et al., 2012, p.24). Two
consecutive external evaluations of CTLI courses had shown substantial
improvement in the subject knowledge of teachers who attended training (De
Chaisemartin, 2010; Meyer and Abel, 2013).

The National Education Collaboration Trust (NECT, 2013) is a large-scale
public-private partnership initiative which has been designed as a multi-year
intervention, targeting specific districts in five rural provinces of SA. The
programme will consist of various components, including CPTD in target
subjects such as Language and Mathematics, school development, district
support and parent/community involvement. 

Spaull (2015) argues that there is an urgent need for “developing a
comprehensive plan for meaningful teacher development”. Deciding what
should comprise such a plan is the biggest challenge. The very different
approaches taken in recent projects such as the GPMLS, the WCED’s LitNum 



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       125

intervention and the NECT initiative, show there is no consensus on the most
effective form of CPTD to improve the quality of education in SA’s schools.

The Department of Basic Education’s  Action plan to 2019 (DBE, 2015)
constitutes a comprehensive education development plan within the
government’s National Development Plan. Alongside related areas such as
improving functionality of underperforming schools, the plan identifies CPTD
as a high priority for state investment and intervention over the next five
years, with a particular focus on four aspects:

! Standardising and strengthening curriculum messages to teachers

! Creating a stronger enabling framework for teacher-initiated
professional development activities, particularly professional learning
communities.

! Promoting more opportunities for teachers to attend external in-service
training of good quality, focusing on subject knowledge and teaching
methodology

! Increasing teachers’ access and educational use of digital resources. 

The following insights from the above-mentioned SA literature are valuable
for further work in the CPTD field:

! “Fuzzy generalisations” (Adler and Reed, 2002) are a useful
methodology to develop our collective understanding of CPTD through
qualitative research such as case studies.

! “Proceduralised process” (Gamble and Kühne, 2010) is a helpful
concept for understanding superficial take-up of CPTD by teachers and
schools.

! Teachers’ and learners’ competence in the LoLT – particularly English -
require priority intervention to ensure teacher take-up of CPTD.

! School-focused CPTD interventions seem to hold most promise in the
SA context.

! Coaching by specialists is not an affordable teacher development
strategy for the public school system.



126        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

There are insufficient SAs in the system to provide CPTD on the scale!
and at the depth required in SA schools. Peer coaching is the most viable
option, but identifying teachers’ development needs would be a
challenge, as teachers and principals “don’t know what they don’t
know” (NEEDU, 2013b).

! To address the CPTD challenges that research has identified in the SA
school system, investment in in-depth subject-focused professional
development will be critical.

It is evident that the DBE action plan has been informed by several of these
research insights, e.g. the emphases on teachers’ subject knowledge, the
quality of external training and promotion of school-based teacher
development. However, the plan specifies only priorities and indicators for
monitoring implementation by provinces. By implication, the various
provinces will have the freedom to design their own CPTD interventions
within these broad guidelines. At this stage, it is not clear whether the DBE
will prescribe or recommend that specific approaches adopted in teacher
development programmes should take research findings such as those listed
above into account to improve prospects for sustained impact.

Research design

The data that is presented here was obtained through case study research
which drew upon multiple data sources. The analysis was framed by the
hierarchy of INSET outcomes proposed by Harland and Kinder (1997).
 

Sample and methodology

We report on the take-up of CTLI training by five of 18 teachers working in
four of the eight schools. The case studies (2011–2012), were designed to
document teachers’ take-up of new knowledge and skills from CTLI courses.
The research covered teachers’ immediate knowledge gains assessed by pre-
and post-tests, implementation following teachers’ return to school after
training, as well as evidence of sustained take-up after one year. We also
wanted to explore the relationship between dynamics in schools and the
impact of CTLI training in more depth. Although the CTLI data presented



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       127

here was collected three years ago, the findings we report here are still
relevant, as we grapple with the same issues today.

Apart from selecting one school from each district, the eight schools were
broadly representative of different types of schools in terms of their size, the
communities they serve (e.g. location, socio-economic status), the language
profile of the learners and how frequently their teachers had attended CTLI
courses over the years. Additional data was collected about the overall
functioning of the school, curriculum management, teachers’ professional
development and district support. In both 2011 and 2012, the researchers
observed a lesson taught by each of the 18 teachers and analysed all written
work completed by two learners in each teacher’s class during the first two
terms of each year. Each teacher completed a questionnaire. A structured
interview was conducted with the principals in both years. During the two
research visits, the researchers conducted school observations, using
structured observation schedules and analysed the School Improvement Plan
(SIP), LTSM inventories, teacher registers and timetables. In 2011,
semi-structured interviews were conducted with one or two members of the
circuit team responsible for each school.

Theoretical framework

The hierarchy of INSET outcomes, put forward by Harland and Kinder
(1997), was applied to analyse the data from 18 teachers who worked in eight
case study schools. This hierarchy is represented in Figure 1, with one
adaptation: the impact of INSET programmes is considered at the level of
observable classroom practice and as measured learner achievement. The
Harland and Kinder framework proved useful in previous research projects,
because it provided unambiguous criteria for assessing impact of training and
other professional development on teachers’ work. Its key strength is its
hierarchical nature that allows for impact of teacher training to be assessed
incrementally. It makes specific reference to the institutional context of the
teacher, whereas other frameworks focus mainly on the individual teacher.
Nearly all items in the diagram (Figure 1) are self-explanatory, but ‘value
congruence’ and ‘individuated code of practice’ require some clarification.
These refer to teachers’ personalised versions of the curriculum and teaching
methods that correspond to the INSET providers’ messages about ‘good
practice’. Harland and Kinder (1997) differentiated between three orders of



128        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

impact of teacher development programmes which teachers go through during
their professional development. They noted that the more outcomes teachers
attain, the greater the likelihood of impact on teaching and learning quality. 

Figure 1: A hierarchy of INSET outcomes, adapted from Harland and Kinder (1997)

The following criteria were used to rate the professional development of 18
teachers in eight case study schools according to Harland and Kinder’s
hierarchy of INSET outcomes (the criteria are marked with asterisks to
indicate their weighting in rating teachers’ progress):

! Immediate knowledge gains, indicated by post-test score compared to
group average*

! Volume of work in learners’books in 2012, compared to 2011*



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       129

! Increased coverage of curriculum content areas that were not
covered/inadequately covered in 2011***

Evidence of improved teaching of concepts and skills, and/or!
implementation of teaching methods****

! Quality of teachers’marking, and written feedback to learners***

! Evidence of differentiation in feedback to strong and weak learners, and
its frequency**

! New knowledge or teaching methods shared with colleagues in the
grade/phase/school**

! Evidence of mentoring and/or coaching of colleagues at school or in the
district***

Analysis of the data about teachers’ progress

Table 1 below gives a summary of the outcome levels the 18 teachers attained
according to our analysis, having applied the above-mentioned criteria and
weightings.



130        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Table 1: Levels of professional development attained by teachers in case
study schools, following Harland and Kinder (1997)

LEVELS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ATTAINED BY TEACHERS
IN CASE STUDY SCHOOLS

Following Harland and Kinder (1997) 

1  order outcomes 2  order outcomes 3  order outcomesst nd rd

Placement of
teachers 

G16 A38

A39

C40

E13

F37

F41

G42

A4

B15

B28

B46

D10

D17

E21

E31

H22 

H45

Total number of
teachers 

1 7 10

Vignettes of five teachers

For the purposes of this paper, vignettes of five teachers are presented: the
teacher who was judged to have achieved first order outcomes, two teachers
who achieved second order outcomes and two teachers who achieved third
order outcomes. These teachers were selected because they represented
particular types in terms of diverse training needs, different responses to
training and the influence of different school contexts

The teacher who achieved first order outcomes 

Teacher G16 was the only teacher of the 18 rated as having achieved first
order outcomes in terms of implementing knowledge she had learnt at CTLI.
The data indicated that she was a dedicated and fairly competent teacher, and



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       131

‘Class teaching’ involves a teacher taking one class for all subjects – general practice in the5

FP, ‘subject teaching’ refers to teachers teaching certain subjects to several classes in a
grade or phase, typically in the IP and SP.

the CTLI IP English Home Language course helped her to improve her
practice further. In 2012, she made adjustments to ensure more balanced
coverage of the curriculum, emphasising comprehension and writing
exercises. She applied methods and techniques learnt on the course and used a
range of LTSM and scaffolding techniques to support learning. Some choral
answers were observed in her lesson in 2012, but her questioning techniques
were sophisticated. She challenged learners to explain answers and allowed
time to absorb new concepts before moving on. Her most persistent weakness
was inconsistency in the quality of marking. Less than half of weak learners’
written work was marked with little or no comment, whereas most of the
strong learners’ books were marked with regular, positive comments. 

Although relatively isolated in a rural district, School G was a relatively
well-functioning school where curriculum management was prioritised by
SMT. Apart from regular monitoring, which was the order of the day in all
case study schools, the school had taken some significant steps to implement
its literacy and numeracy strategy. In 2012 the time-table was adjusted to
effect a shift from class teaching to subject teaching  in Languages and5

Mathematics from Grade 4, and in the same year the school library was
established. The school was also experiencing some of the challenges
observed in other schools, but these difficulties did not did appear to affect
the work of Teacher G16 negatively. In particular, there was a mismatch
between the mother tongue of Xhosa-speaking learners and the LoLT of the
school (Afrikaans); however the 6% of affected learners were mostly in the
FP, so the problem did not (yet) affect the classes of this teacher, who was
teaching in the IP.

The principal indicated that Teacher G16 returned from the training full of
enthusiasm for teaching and for sharing benefits from the CTLI course with
her colleagues. Having done a presentation – in English - during the course,
she presented a demonstration lesson at the school, based on CAPS. Some of
her achievements attracted recognition from the subject head and in general,
strong collegial and managerial support was evident in the school. Two
teachers in other districts had kept in touch since the CTLI training and
shared methods and ideas. In 2011, the school received six visits from the FP
and IP SAs, who met teachers, supported them in class and checked files and



132        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

documents. However, Teacher G16 did not mention having received
classroom support from a subject advisor (SA). The principal reported that
SA’s visits mostly focused on monitoring – checking teachers’ files and other
documents. In an interview, the relevant SA also mentioned long distances
and a lack of staff as challenges facing this rural circuit. 

Two teachers who achieved second order outcomes 

Teacher C40 attended the IP Mathematics course in 2011. Her post-test score
showed a marked increase, almost doubling from 27.3% in the pre-test (the
class average was 40.2%) to 63.6% (the class average increased to 55.8%) –
evidence of substantial knowledge gains on the course. She reported that the
practical approach to measurement and the division/multiplication methods
helped her build a strong knowledge base. She noted some content areas were
less well covered than others; and that her peers had contributed significantly
to her learning. When she returned to school, she shared worksheets she had
received with IP colleagues. She had regular contact with a fellow participant
at another school, with whom she shared ideas on lessons and assessment
tasks.

In her Grade 5 lesson (2011), this teacher did not use any planned resources.
Learners were not allowed any discussion and the researcher reported that
little teaching and learning took place. Choral answers were prevalent.
However, in 2012 the teacher modelled correct answers, and used textbooks
which were systematically referenced in lesson plans. Assessment activities in
lesson plans met the expected outcomes of lessons. In 2011 DBE workbooks
were only for homework, which was given fairly regularly, but unmarked; in
2012 minimal, controlled homework was given and DBE workbooks were
used more effectively. The volume of work in learners’ books more than
doubled in 2012. There was a shift from numerous half-page exercises to
more full pages of written work. Curriculum coverage was more balanced
with more than twice as many numbers, operations and relationships exercises
compared to 2011. However, fractions and some of the basic operations,
particularly division, were still poorly covered.

There was a marked improvement in teacher-learner interaction with more
learners answering questions and giving explanations. Although learners still
often answered in unison, there were many more instances of learners asking



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       133

questions about the lesson and actively participating. The teacher encouraged
learners to respond and modeled correct responses. Her method of teaching
mental mathematics had improved and covered a more extensive range. In
2011, the teacher asked learners to illustrate quick operations on the
chalkboard using only her methods. In 2012, she allowed learners more
creativity in the lesson. The teacher marked all work and gave questions for
follow-up. Informal corrective feedback was given to learners as well as
comments to encourage struggling learners.

Teacher E13, the FP HOD, rated the Roles and Responsibilities of HODs
course as excellent and said it had specifically benefitted her curriculum
planning and time management. The teacher’s school management portfolios
had changed very little over the two years of the study. In 2011, it was IQMS,
LitNum, netball and music. In 2012, it included IQMS, head of FP,
non-teaching staff, netball and the HIV programme. This relative continuity in
her work allocation allowed her to develop her knowledge and skills in
certain areas of school and curriculum management over time. As IQMS
coordinator, she was also potentially in an influential position and had the
opportunity to direct teacher development at the school.

On her return to school, she shared her learnings with the other FP teachers,
focusing on lesson plans, class diversity, class visits, lesson observations and
control of work. However, one year after the training, she had not yet
conducted any lesson observations. In her own teaching, she referred to the
CTLI training materials and found them very useful. Initially, she kept in
contact and shared ideas with others from the course, but this was not
sustained. She reported that the focus at quarterly FP department meetings
was on improving learner results. The school’s part-time LSEN teacher
provided input and extra lessons were offered on weekends and school
holidays. Although recent documentary evidence showed improvements in
meeting structure and minute-taking, agenda items were of a general nature
with little reference to curriculum. The teacher reported on a new curriculum
management system such as a year plan for the phase and checklists. However
teachers who were interviewed were not familiar with these documents, e.g.
they had seen no year planner by September 2012. As phase head, the HOD
moderated exam papers and gave feedback. Files were checked at the start of
each term and demonstration lessons given. This was done in a helpful and
supportive manner. Control of teachers’ work was still a concern. Teachers’
late submission of work remained a problem and a culture of non-compliance
persisted, despite reports that she was an excellent manager and easy to get



134        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

along with. Although there had been no support or encouragement from the
district, she reported a strong interest in attending further workshops and
courses.

Several second order changes were evident in this teacher’s work, one year
after she attended the CTLI HOD course: her enduring motivation and
confidence, as well as her efforts to bring about institutional changes in
administration and management of the FP department.

Two teachers who achieved third order outcomes

Teacher B28 attended the FP English Home Language course. She taught
Grade 1 for the first time in 2011 and she appeared to be lacking in
confidence. Class size (39), language barriers and disparity in the ability
levels of learners were noted as difficulties. She found the course valuable,
but only achieved small immediate gains in subject knowledge (her pre-test
score was below average, and only slightly above the score she achieved in
the post-test). 

The teacher used course notes regularly to guide her teaching of reading.
Lesson planning and structure had improved, but learner interaction and
involvement remained poor. There was little mediation or explanation during
the observations and weaker learners were not supported. Discipline was poor
and the lesson that was observed in 2012 was unstructured. Learner
engagement in the content had decreased since 2011 and monosyllabic and
choral answers increased. Quality and variety of LTSM declined with
worksheets, readers and story books dominating. The observations suggested
that the teacher’s post-CTLI enthusiasm had declined by 2012 and teaching
was becoming increasingly procedural. In the 2012 interview she stated that
she felt powerless and lacking in support despite having mentioned that she
had received support from teachers and parents, as well as management.

The volume of written work completed by this teacher’s class was well above
the group average in both 2011 and 2012. In Language, curriculum coverage
leaned more towards phonics and words (71% of learners’ written work), with
coverage of writing still inadequate at 29%. The teacher marked work
regularly, with minimal comment and input, and no differentiation in the
feedback provided to strong and weak learners. DBE workbooks were used



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       135

for homework and checked by parents, but were not marked or signed by the
teacher.

Third order outcomes evident in this teacher’s work were regular reference to
the CTLI course materials and better lesson plans. However, she had lost the
renewed enthusiasm she had gained from the training and she had failed to
implement new methods to manage her class more effectively and to create
opportunities for learners to participate actively in lessons.

IP Mathematics Teacher E31 was impressed with the knowledge and
competence of the CTLI presenters and rated the course highly. She achieved
13.6% in the pre-test (the group average was 32.1%) and her post-test score of
22.7% showed some knowledge gain, but lower than the class average of
49.1%. She reported that the course enabled her to improve her content
knowledge, but that she needed further support with fractions. After the
course she gave feedback to colleagues in her phase, specifically on 2D
shapes and 3D figures. She kept in contact with others who completed the
course to share ideas and methods. She had not received district support since
attending the course.
 
She tried to involve the parents in the supervision of homework, using the
DBE workbook about once a month. This was not very successful as most
parents were uncooperative. Learners’ books showed that less work was done
in 2012 than 2011, although the percentage of written exercises covering
different content areas remained constant. Numbers, operations and
relationships made up 80% of the work covered in the first half of the year, as
in 2011. The other content areas received little attention. In 2012, learners
used textbooks more than half of the time, but not effectively. Assessment
appeared unplanned, and the lesson was inconclusive and not recorded in any
form. There was evidence of control marking and there were some remarks in
the stronger learner’s book, but none for weaker learner’s. In 2011 both the
stronger and weaker learners’ books contained teacher’s comments.

Discussion of findings

Analysis of the five vignettes cast some light on individual and institutional
factors that hindered or promoted the teachers’ professional development.



136        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Different levels of outcomes achieved by teachers

It is striking that Teacher G16 achieved the distinction of having been rated
most successful out of the sample of 18 teachers, despite having performed
very poorly on both the pre-and post-tests. There is no straightforward
explanation for this paradox. She demonstrated poor subject knowledge prior
to the course and no immediate knowledge gains by the end of it, but aspects
of her teaching practice improved markedly over the subsequent year. One
possibility is that she needed time to assimilate the new knowledge she had
learnt on the course; her limited proficiency in English could be another.
Although she wrote both the pre- and post-tests in Afrikaans, the course was
aimed at English Home Language teachers and was presented entirely in
English, and she teaches Afrikaans Home Language. 

All teachers rated as achieving second order outcomes, demonstrated
‘affective outcomes’, such as renewed motivation and improved confidence.
These self-reported outcomes were largely confirmed in the empirical data
collected from other sources such as perusal of learners’ written work and
lesson observations. Teachers in this group were implementing new
knowledge and teaching methods they had learnt on the courses and most had
made adjustments ensuring more balanced coverage of the curriculum. These
improvements were sustained for at least a year after training, suggesting they
would maintain these good practices in future. However, after the two-year
study, it was still too early to have certainty about their future performance. 

Teachers who attained third order outcomes also returned to school with
renewed enthusiasm and increased confidence in teaching their subjects.
However, these claims of increased professional competence and confidence
could not be substantiated. Lesson observations and perusal of learners’
books in 2012 showed serious shortcomings in teaching and/or their learners’
written work. In some cases no improvement was seen since 2011 and in
others, teachers’ practice had deteriorated. A limited curriculum, geared to the
lowest common denominator rather than the grade level required, and a lack
of cohesion or progression in lessons pointed towards poor planning which
was not identified through the school-level or district-level monitoring
processes.

Teacher E31 attended the IP Mathematics course, which the evaluation team
rated as outstanding, and the best of the five CTLI curriculum courses that



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       137

were evaluated, she achieved only third order outcomes. One possible con-
ributing factor seems to have been her own limited prior subject knowledge.
Although she reported increased confidence, she avoided teaching most
content areas (apart from Number, operations and relationships), as she had
done before.

The relationship between teacher development and school

management 

The research identified several links between school functioning and teachers’
practice that appeared to support or undermine CPTD. For example,
school-level factors may have contributed to Teacher G16’s progress. Despite
some problems, School G appeared to be a well-managed school: curriculum
management was efficient with a strong culture of collegial and managerial
support. On the other hand, the efforts of some of teachers rated as having
attained second and third order outcomes, appeared to be hamstrung by
conditions in the schools in which they work. The evidence showed that the
efforts of some, such as HOD E13, were hindered by sub-standard
performance by others at school. 

Links between teachers’ knowledge and their work allocation

School managers differed in the extent to which they allowed or encouraged
teachers to develop specialised knowledge in the subjects they teach. School
G was one of two schools in the study that changed from class teaching to
subject teaching in the IP and SP in 2011–2012, acting on the advice of
district officials. The intention was to make better use of teachers’ specialist
knowledge (and enthusiasm) – especially in challenging subjects like
Mathematics and Natural Science. 

The disjuncture between the LoLT and learners’ mother tongue 

At several of the schools, many learners do not speak the LoLT as their
mother tongue. This presents formidable barriers to reading and learning.
School B was the most striking example, but this problem was also present in
School G. At School B there had been a gradual demographic shift in the
learner population, so 30% of learners – 50% of Grade 1s, the grade taught by
Teacher B28 – were Xhosa speakers learning through the medium of English



138        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Home Language. Despite this growing problem, the school had not developed
any useful measures to help learners address this barrier. Halfway through
2012, the SMT started to discuss possible solutions, such as introducing a
Xhosa stream in the FP. 

Schools’ approaches to professional development of teachers 

In most case study schools, CTLI courses constituted the main or only teacher
development strategy. Some principals, like at School G, recognised that
teachers returned with new enthusiasm and ideas for improvement, but they
were not sure that CTLI training was making a real difference. On the other
hand, the principals of Schools B and E seemed to assume that increased
motivation on the part of teachers after CTLI was evidence that their teaching
practice would improve. The evidence did not support this assumption. In
three of the four schools, the data collected indicated that CTLI training had
little or no impact on most teachers’ practice. 

Of the five teachers in this study, only Teacher G16 participated in
substantive school-based INSET activities. In addition to reporting back at
meetings and sharing new knowledge with colleagues, she presented a
demonstration lesson, based on CAPS to other teachers in the phase at school.
The other teachers reported back at subject meetings and Teachers C40 and
E31 passed on some specific ideas and worksheets to colleagues. In Schools
B, C and E, it was unlikely that new knowledge would be embedded
systematically in the practice of teachers across subjects and phases. The
knowledge base in the institution would not grow, even if individual teachers
benefited from training.

Links between resource management and teaching

Availability of appropriate and sufficient resources for teaching and learning
might contribute to teachers’ ability to implement new knowledge learnt in
their classrooms. The teachers in the study, rated as achieving second order
outcomes, all had access to LTSM and made effective use of these in their
lessons. It is noteworthy that the leadership of School G, where the two
teachers in the study attained second and first order outcomes respectively,
demonstrated significant commitment to provision of resources to support
strategies to improve literacy and numeracy. In 2011, the establishment of a
school library was prioritised in the SIP and teachers undertook the



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       139

preparatory work to qualify for WCED allocations of infrastructure and
reading materials. 

Conversely, several teachers who attained third order outcomes reported that
their teaching was hampered by a lack of sufficient LTSM. For example, there
was evidence of mismanagement of resources at School E: unopened boxes of
textbooks were seen in a classroom in the third quarter of the year, in spite of
obvious textbook shortages. 

Effective management of classroom resources is a related but separate aspect
and can impact significantly on the quality of teaching and learning. Instances
were noted where sufficient and appropriate LTSM were available, but
teachers lacked the knowledge and/or experience to utilise these effectively.
For example, Teacher E31 had sufficient Mathematics textbooks available for
use in class, but they were not used effectively to explain the concept being
taught nor were learners given an opportunity to engage meaningfully with
the concept in order to attain the outcomes set for the lesson.

District support

Apart from the complaint about declining district support for the FP at School
B, the principals and teachers at all the schools reported adequate support
from district officials. However, the main purpose of SA’s visits was
monitoring (checking teachers’ files and documentation) rather than training,
supporting or mentoring. None of the 18 teachers received follow-up support
from district officials after they had completed their CTLI courses. A partial
exception was Teacher C40, who reported the valuable support from the
Mathematics SA in 2012. He gave her and her colleagues some guidance in
the design of formal assessment tasks and provided standardised Mathematics
question papers for all IP and SP teachers in the circuit for the June
examinations. The same teacher also reported having attended a Mathematics
course in the district earlier in 2012.



140        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

The systemic test results and external accountability pressures on

teachers and schools

None of the five teachers indicated that they had personally engaged with the
results their schools’ learners had achieved in WCED systemic tests.
However, Schools C, E and G were implementing stricter monitoring of
teachers’ work in response to pressures associated with these tests. At Schools
B and E, teachers offered extra lessons for Grade 3 and Grade 6 learners after
school or on Saturdays in 2012 to prepare for the tests, written every
November. 

Concluding remarks

The analysis of data from the five teacher vignettes led to some sobering
insights, which resonate with findings from other South African studies cited
earlier (Adler and Reed, 2002; NEEDU, 2013a and 2013b; Taylor et al.,
2012). The five teachers, all from underprivileged schools, clearly benefitted
from the CTLI training, although to varying degrees. Two of the five teachers
(Teachers G16 and C40) left training energised by new and deeper
understanding of concepts and skills in their subjects. By 2012, these teachers
had succeeded in many of their efforts to move away proceduralised practice,
e.g. eradicating choral responses in their classes and restricting learners to
prescribed methods for solving problems in Mathematics. Both were able to
implement a range of new scaffolding methods and techniques to create
opportunities for learners to ‘learn to talk’ about the concepts taught. There
was also a significant improvement in Teacher C40’s design of assessment
tasks and the quality and frequency of corrective feedback given to learners. 

By contrast, Teachers B28 and E31 whose prior knowledge in the
subject/phase was poor, benefitted little from training. These teachers
achieved third order outcomes only, and training made little difference to their
practice. They could not translate what they had learned on the courses into
well-structured lessons, they continued to demand limited written work from
their learners and they gave little corrective feedback, especially to struggling
learners. Teacher E31 was one of several teachers in the full sample whose
post-test scores in Mathematics remained low, suggesting their prior subject
knowledge did not provide an adequate basis for engaging with new concepts
on the course. Particularly in Mathematics, there appears to be a need for



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       141

differentiated courses, for example, a foundational course in each of the
phases to cater for teachers without any formal training or inadequate
pre-service training, in teaching the subject.

In different ways, the teacher vignettes highlighted the importance of
follow-up support after training to help teachers embed new knowledge and
practice in their practice. Notably, the three teachers who had been rated as
having achieved first or second order outcomes found or sought out further
sources of professional support to help them consolidate and extend their
knowledge. They kept contact with teachers who attended the CTLI course
with them (even teachers in other districts) or worked with colleagues in their
own schools and/or neighbouring schools. Only one of the five teachers
(Teacher C40) specifically mentioned that she had received support from a
SA after the training, which she found valuable. The SA responsible for
School G, acknowledged that she visits schools in the circuit infrequently,
mainly due to the distances she has to travel. One teacher who achieved third
order outcomes (Teacher B28) complained that she felt unsupported, despite
support from the school management and parents and the other (Teacher E31)
mentioned that she had received no support from the district. These findings
appear consistent with NEEDU’s observation (NEEDU, 2013b) that the
numbers of SAs in the system are insufficient to provide the support at the
levels and frequency needed by teachers. 

The experiences of teachers from three of the four schools in the study
suggest school-based INSET is not practiced at most underperforming
schools. Arguably, a policy initiative to promote school-based INSET and
peer coaching as the mainstay of CPTD in South Africa, as NEEDU has
proposed (NEEDU, 2013a), would have to include school development
interventions of sufficient depth to shift schools from ‘minimalist’,
compliance-based curriculum management to more developmental and
professional cultures. 

As in other SA studies, we found the mismatch between the LoLT and
learners’ mother tongue to be a major impediment to effective teaching. In
this set of vignettes, the matter stood out as a challenge not only for
individual teachers, but for schools. If schools do not address demographic
shifts in the intake of learners speaking a home language other than the LoLT,
the problem can escalate over a few years, as was evident in School B where
teacher B28, expressed a sense of exasperation and hopelessness despite the
support she received from management and parents. 



142        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Teacher E13 tried to apply new knowledge she had learned on the HOD
course in her FP department, but with little success. This teacher’s experience
suggested that training in management skills, dissociated from
subject-focused CPTD (or strong subject content knowledge prior to training)
might achieve no more than minimal efficiency gains in curriculum
management. The resistance she faced from colleagues - despite their declared
respect and personal regard for her – also indicated that a culture of
compliance and minimalist attitudes are deeply ingrained in the culture of the
school. Unless uneven standards of professional commitment are addressed
by managers of schools such as School E, the persistent malaise would
undermine the enthusiasm and renewed professional commitment of returning
teachers after training. 

Although our findings were drawn from a limited sample, they underscore the
importance of taking the complexities of CPTD into account when designing
teacher development programmes. The experiences of the five teachers
discussed here suggest that block-release training without ongoing follow-up
support and targeted school development interventions, is inadequate to bring
about real and lasting improvements in teaching and learning. The least costly
option might not be the most cost-effective.

 

References

Abel, L. 1997. Teacher development mediation: a cognition-based
reconsideration. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Western Cape,
Bellville.

Adler, J., Slonimsky, L. and Reed, Y. 2002. Subject-focused INSET and
teachers’conceptual knowledge-in-practice. In Adler, J. and Reed, Y. (Eds),
Challenges of teacher development. An investigation of take-up in South
Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp.135–152.

Anderson, L.W. 2004. Increasing teacher effectiveness (2nd edition).
Fundamentals of Educational Planning series, No.79. Paris: International
Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).

Avalos, B. 2011. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher
education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1): pp.10–20.



Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       143

Bassey, M. 1999. Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham:
Open University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. and
Orphanos, S. (Eds). 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: a
status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. USA:
National Staff Development Council.

De Chaisemartin, T. 2010. Evaluation of the Cape Teaching and Leadership
Institute. Unpublished evaluation report. Johannesburg: JET Education
Services.

Department of Basic Education. 2015. Action plan to 2019: towards the
realisation of schooling 2030. Taking forward South Africa’s National
Development Plan 2030.
http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HHmKnb78Z7Q%3D
&tabid=54&mid=1167 [14 August 2015]

Fleisch, B. and Schöer, V. 2014. Large-scale instructional reform in the
Global South: insights from the mid-point evaluation of the Gauteng Primary
Language and Mathematics Strategy. South African Journal of Education,
34(3): pp.1–12.

Gamble, J. and Kühne, C. with others. 2010. Rural Education Project: a
school improvement initiative, 2006–2009. Unpublished research report,
SDU, University of Cape Town.

Harland, J. and Kinder, K. 1997. Teachers’ continuing professional
development: framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-Service
Education, 23(1): pp.71–83.

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. 1995. Student achievement through staff
development: fundamentals of school renewal (2nd edition). White Plains,
NY: Longman.

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. 2002. Student achievement through staff
development. Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.



144        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015

Lerman, S. 1998. A moment in the zoom of a lens: towards a discursive
psychology of mathematics teaching and learning. In Olivier, A. and
Newstead, K. (Eds), Proceedings of the conference on the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Stellenbosch, 12–17 July 1998.

Meyer, S. and Abel, L. 2013. External evaluation of courses offered by the
Cape Teaching and Leadership Institute: final impact report. Unpublished
evaluation report. Cape Town: ORT SA CAPE.

National Education Collaboration Trust. 2013. National Education
Collaboration Trust: concerted action for national education reform.
Pamphlet                                                               
http://jet.org.za/nect-pamphlet.pdf/view?searchterm=nect [24 August 2015]

National Education Evaluation and Development Unit, 2013a. National
Report 2012: The state of literacy teaching and learning in the Foundation
Phase. http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/papers/2013/needu.pdf  [7 August 2015]

National Education Evaluation and Development Unit, 2013b. National
Report 2013: teaching and learning in rural primary schools.

Opfer, V. D. and Pedder, D. 2011. Conceptualising teacher professional
learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3): pp.376–407.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230853100 [7 August 2015]

Spaull, N., 2015. “My opening remarks at the OR Tambo debate and an
afterword”. www.nicspaull.com [20 July 2015]

Taylor, N., Muller, J. and Vinjevold, P. 2003. Getting schools working. Cape
Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Taylor, N., Van der Berg, S. and Mabogoane, T. (Eds). 2012. What makes
schools effective? Report of South Africa’s national school effectiveness
study. Cape Town: Pearson Education.

Taylor, N. and Vinjevold, P. (Eds), 1999. Getting learning right: report of the
President’s Education Initiative Research project.  Johannesburg: Joint
Education Trust.

http://jet.org.za/nect-pamphlet.pdf/view?searchterm=nect
http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/papers/2013/needu.pdf
http://www.nicspaull.com


Meyer and Abel: Hastening slowly. . .       145

Venkat, H. and Spaull, N. 2015. What do we know about primary teachers’
mathematical content knowledge in South Africa? An analysis of SACMEQ
2007. International Journal of Educational Development, 41: pp.12–24. 

Webb, P., Boltt, G., Austin, P., Cloete, M., England, V., Feza, N., Ilsey, J.,
Kurup, R., Peires, M. L. and Wessels, K. 1999. The nature and impact of
accredited in-service education on under-qualified science and mathematics
teachers: which factors generate best practice in the classroom? In Taylor, N.
and Vinjevold, P. (Eds), Getting learning right: report of the President’s
Education Initiative Research project. Johannesburg: Joint Education Trust.

Susan Meyer
Lydia Abel
ORT SA CAPE

susan@ortsacape.org.za
lydia@ortsacape.org.za

mailto:susan@ortsacape.org.za
mailto:lydia@ortsacape.org.za


146        Journal of Education, No. 61, 2015