ISC Paper Template in A4 (V1)


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

1 

 
Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning is licensed under  

A Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. 

 

NATURAL SCIENCES TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON THE QUALITY OF 

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN GAUTENG SCHOOLS 

Cynthia B Malinga1), Loyiso C Jita2), Abiodun Adekunle Bada3) 

1) The University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa  

E-mail: cynthia.malinga@sasol.com  
2) The University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa  

E-mail: JitaLC@ufs.ac.za  
3) The University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa  

E-mail: Bada.AA@ufs.ac.za   

 

 

Abstract. With the increase in demand for school-based tasks, teachers, especially natural sciences (NS) teachers, are 

increasingly in need of professional support and leadership that will improve their subject instruction. This paper 

investigates NS teachers’ perspectives on the type and quality of instructional leadership provided for NS teaching and 

how this leadership is adapted to implement the curriculum successfully. This study adopted a mixed methods research 

approach to investigate the quality of instructional leadership for NS teaching. We used a dataset of NS teachers from 

243 schools. Of these, 112 teachers completed the questionnaire and 10 were interviewed and observed from six schools 

in the Gauteng province of South Africa. The data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics for the quantitative 

strands, while the qualitative strands were coded and interpreted into themes. The findings revealed that some of the 

participants were novices in the teaching of some sections of NS and thus tended to seek help from their peers because of 

the less than expected and inaccessible leadership provided by heads of department (HODs). This paper argues for the 

distribution of leadership by recognizing the contributions made by senior, leader, or master teachers to the professional 

development of NS teachers in general and the differential allocation of science HODs along junior and senior secondary 

school subjects. This paper contributes to an understanding of the function of subject leadership beyond formal positions 

in the South African context. 

Keywords: Head of department; instructional leadership; natural sciences; senior teachers 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Natural Sciences (NS) is a junior secondary subject that 

belongs to a group of science subjects (Ng et al., 2015) 

constituting the science department in secondary schools. In 

the South African context, NS lays the foundation for at least 

four high school subjects, namely physical sciences (PS), life 

sciences (LS), geography, and agricultural sciences. The 

curriculum in South Africa has been revised and the 

sequence and progression of topics within NS have been 

reorganized. One of the key prescriptions of the new 

curriculum in South Africa is the need for school-based 

assessment tasks (SBATs) for each science discipline of NS 

(Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2011). This is 

because the importance and adequate teaching and learning 

of NS cannot be overemphasized in the development of any 

nation (Bantwini & Feze, 2017; Christensen & Rasmussen, 

2017). 

Teachers and other stakeholders, such as heads of 

department (HODs), can play a major role in achieving set 

goals and objectives and the multi-disciplinary and complex 

roles played by the HOD can make or mar the achievement 

of these goals. Since most NS teachers and HODs specialize 

in a maximum of two subjects, it might be difficult to have 

an HOD who can successfully provide leadership for 

teachers in all the subjects. The kind of support provided for 

teaching NS in the context of it being a junior secondary 

school subject competes with the main gateway subjects 

such as mathematics and PS within the structural 

arrangement of science departments in schools (Naicker et 

al., 2013). This support might be quite different from the 

support given in the senior phase. Spillane and Hopkins 

(2013) called this structural arrangement of departments in 

schools “a system and organizational infrastructure” (p. 2). 

This arrangement of departments in most secondary schools 

brings together a group of subjects, such as mathematics, 

mathematical literacy and life, natural, and physical sciences, 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
mailto:cynthia.malinga@sasol.com
mailto:JitaLC@ufs.ac.za
mailto:Bada.AA@ufs.ac.za


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

2 

and is headed by an HOD. The HOD, who is a subject 

specialist (Angelle & DeHart, 2011; Wanzare, 2013) in one 

or two of these subjects, is responsible for establishing and 

ensuring high standards of teaching and learning in the 

subjects. Considering a conglomerate subject such as NS, 

and with its particular demands, culture and philosophies, we 

focus on the support that NS teachers need and receive in 

order to improve their instructional practices. 

Instructional leadership refers to actions that are related to 

teaching and learning, such as conducting classroom 

observations (Ng, 2019). Instructional leadership implies all 

the activities that should be done in order to guarantee the 

realization of classroom goals and objectives. Ng (2019) 

opined that instructional leadership includes all leadership 

activities that indirectly affect student learning, such as 

school culture and timetabling procedures. Most of these 

activities are usually carried out by the principal or the HOD 

(Vogel, 2018). Even though the activities might not be 

officially documented, they are strong enough to guarantee 

the realization of school goals and objectives.   

Studies on teacher leadership in South Africa have 

focused on the context and culture of schools where such 

leadership is practiced (Naicker et al., 2013; Smith et al., 

2013). Most studies have focused on principals as 

instructional leaders (Bush, 2013; Ismail, Don et al., 2018; 

Ismail, Mansor et al., 2018; Winn, 2016; Vogel, 2018) and, 

more recently, on deputy principals (Chitamba, 2019). Those 

that targeted HODs investigated all HODs in the schools and 

focused on senior secondary work (Bambi, 2013). This study 

investigates subject-specific instructional leadership 

(Spillane, 2005) because subjects have different cultures and 

philosophies and some subjects, such as NS, are 

conglomerate subjects. The phase where the subject is 

offered and the status of the subject in the schooling system 

influence how the subject is taught and how resources are 

allocated for teaching the subject (Turner, 2003). HODs see 

themselves as subject experts, while the school leadership 

expects HODs to provide whole-school leadership at grade 

or phase level (Bennett et al., 2003). Changes in the 

curriculum necessitate that teachers be prepared and receive 

instructional support and guidance to implement the changes 

successfully. HODs have better expertise than principals to 

provide this support and guidance in schools (York-Barr & 

Duke, 2004). 

Instructional leadership involves sharing the vision with 

followers, monitoring the instruction and assessment 

standards, allocating resources, and reflecting on the 

outcome of the instruction (Koh et al., 2011; Harris et al., 

2011). York-Barr and Duke (2004), however, explained 

instructional leadership as having shifted from these 

functions to a process whereby teachers, individually or 

collectively, influence each other in order to improve their 

instructional practice. This influence over colleagues is 

regarded as a key component of leadership practice (Melville 

et al., 2014). It is teachers’ views about being influenced by 

peers in professional matters that are therefore considered as 

indicators of leadership success. The leadership process 

requires the leaders to have the ability to involve their 

colleagues collaboratively in mutual development and 

learning, with the aim of improving teaching and learning. 

Lai and Cheung (2013) defined instructional leadership as a 

collective undertaking that is constituted by collaboration of 

leaders and followers to perform leadership tasks at various 

contexts and levels in order to focus on changing and 

improving the culture, teaching practices, and student 

learning. It includes key aspects of teachers’ professional 

lives, such as curriculum and staff development, the 

planning and assessment of learning, and organizational and 

institutional evaluation. In this paper, instructional 

leadership will refer to all processes and practices by anyone 

in the school and the education district that positively 

influence professional matters relating to the teaching and 

learning of NS.  

The South African Department of Education (DoE, 2000) 

identified specific areas of instructional leadership as related 

to whole-school evaluation. These are: setting up staff 

development programs, conducting classroom and follow-up 

visits, monitoring learners’ work, assisting teachers with 

lesson plans, discussing learner progress, moderating tests 

and examinations, and inducting new teachers. Teachers 

know the kind of support, leadership, and development that 

they need, and they know the people within and outside the 

school who are likely to provide this support. It is in 

understanding this need and appreciation of their colleagues 

that teachers exercise their agency and look for help or take 

up leadership opportunities in and around the school (Sherer, 

2008).  

The South African DBE introduced a new Curriculum and 

Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) with the aim of raising 

the standards of education outcomes in the country (DBE, 

2011). In addition to CAPS, SBATs have been introduced 

for each subject. Teachers are expected to create their own 

assessment tasks. Because teachers are the agents who 

implement the curriculum in the classroom, curriculum 

change can only be implemented successfully if teachers are 

adequately prepared for change. Although SBATs are 

important for the development of teacher professionalism 

(DBE, 2011), it has been observed that NS teachers are not 

fully equipped with the skills and knowledge demanded by 

the subject (Umalusi, 2008). Umalusi evaluators suggested 

that teachers lack resources to prepare for practical work; 

subject expertise, knowledge, and skills to develop SBATs; 

and time to plan and reflect on the curriculum (Umalusi, 

2008). In the same context, Kriek and Basson (2008) argued 

that the challenges identified regarding training, professional 

support, lack of resources, and teachers’ poor subject content 

knowledge cannot be fixed by changing the curriculum. The 

recognition of these challenges by school leaders has marked 

an increasing shift of responsibility to HODs in particular as 

curriculum leaders to support teachers in the development of 

SBATs and the implementation of the new curriculum. The 

role of HODs as instructional leaders has become invaluable 

in schools. However, the ability of the HODs to meet this 

demand could be limited for a number of reasons, ranging 

from role overload (Feeney, 2009), to role conflict and 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

3 

ambiguity (Kruskamp & Zepeda, 2007), to lack of release 

time (Glickman et al., 2011) and own specialization.  

The HOD, as a formal instructional leader, is identified 

and appointed from among experienced teachers who are 

either lead or master teachers, or consultants who have been 

brought in as mentors or action research facilitators 

(Melville et al., 2014). In South Africa, the HOD position 

has a statutory delegated authority because it is officially 

recognized in the school setting (Mbatha et al., 2006). As 

part of the role, HODs are expected to set subject goals and 

expectations for achievement, monitor achievement levels 

(for both teachers and learners), evaluate instructional 

practices and learning, maximize the effort of the 

instructional organization, and conduct staff recruitment and 

appraisal (DoE, 1999). The HOD’s role is characterized by 

complexity and contingency (Hallinger & Heck, 2011) and 

this is compounded by conflicting expectations of principals 

and teachers. HODs have a dual role – they are expected to 

be teachers and administrators (Siskin, 1994) and managers 

and leaders. Wise (2000) maintained that the legitimation of 

the HOD’s role emanates from acknowledgement by 

members of the subject department that the HOD is 

generally knowledgeable about the subject and the 

development of all relevant instructional materials. 

Furthermore, HODs are expected to conduct class visits, 

model best practices, provide templates and guidelines, and 

provide teachers with feedback to improve their teaching 

(Wanzare, 2013).  

Literature has revealed that HODs’ time is consumed by 

administrative work and that they do not often receive 

release time (Brown et al., 2000) to focus on instructional 

leadership issues. The Personnel Administrative Measures 

(PAM) document (DoE, 1999), which guides HOD functions 

and mandates in South Africa, expects HODs to teach 85% 

of the time and to dedicate only 15% of their time to HOD 

duties. HODs have extremely limited opportunity to lead by 

example, identify and model good practices, and share this 

with the teachers they lead. This lack of time and sometimes 

expertise in the subject suggests that HODs extend 

leadership (Spillane, 2006) to teachers with expertise and 

experience in their departments. 

Leadership need not be located in the principal only, as 

some studies have reported (Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood & 

Jantzi, 2000; Vogel, 2018), but can be “stretched” over 

multiple leaders (Bendikson et al., 2012; Timperley, 2005), 

including HODs and even teachers. Leadership has ceased to 

focus on certain strong leaders with exceptional powers and 

is now described in terms of “activities and interactions that 

are distributed across multiple people and situations” 

(Timperley, 2005, p. 395). Even then, subject leadership 

need not be located in HODs only because they have formal 

positions. Spreading leadership responsibilities over multiple 

leaders becomes even more relevant in light of the fact that 

science HODs have to lead a federal department, where their 

expertise might not cover all science disciplines. Spillane 

(2006) warned that instructional leadership should move 

beyond the principal or head teacher to include other 

potential leaders too. This change shifts the focus of 

leadership to the relationships of actors (both leaders and 

followers) and on their situations. Spillane (2006) concurred 

that the distribution of leadership among both positional and 

informal leaders and the actual division of labor in the 

workplace strengthen the effectiveness thereof.  

The conceptual framework used in this paper shows how 

the instructional leader’s characteristics and his/her 

knowledge of the content and context and its problems can 

be integrated to provide leadership through effective 

interactions with department members and influence their 

teaching choices (Robinson, 2010). Six major components of 

leadership instruction have been identified in the literature 

and are discussed briefly.  

The first component of the framework is the leader’s 

personal attributes, such as subject proficiency, professional 

credibility (Angelle & DeHart, 2011; Wanzare, 2013), and 

agency in resourcing the department. The second component 

is leadership practices, which include vision setting, building 

collegiality, developing teachers, and the way in which 

leadership is distributed among the department’s members 

(Koh et al., 2011). The third component involves the way 

HODs negotiate their influence through the school’s social, 

political, economic, cultural, and other contextual problems 

(Robinson, 2010).  

The fourth component investigates the way HODs 

influence teaching choices through setting instructional 

objectives, planning instruction, and developing reflective 

practice using mentoring, coaching, professional 

development, classroom observation feedback sessions, 

subject meetings, and action research (York-Barr & Duke, 

2004). The fifth component encompasses management and 

administration, which overarch the role of managing people 

and resources (see Fig. 1). The sixth and final component 

introduces the feedback loop and evaluation of the 

effectiveness of leadership. This paper focuses on only one 

component (4th component), the means of influence adopted 

by those who provide instructional leadership, whether 

formally or informally, to improve NS instruction.  

Using the conceptual framework developed in this study, 

we examine the kind of instructional support that teachers 

receive and identify people who provide such leadership and 

support, by asking the following questions: 

1. What are NS teachers’ views regarding the kind of 
instructional leadership and support they need and 

receive to improve teaching and learning? 

2. Who are the key role players who provide 
instructional leadership in NS teaching and learning?  

  

 

 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

4 

 

Fig. 1  Abridged version of the conceptual framework for leading 

instruction (adapted from York-Barr & Duke, 2004) 

II. METHODS 

This paper adopted a mixed methods research approach to 

investigate NS teachers’ perspectives on the quality of 

instructional leadership provided by HODs. The justification 

for adopting a mixed methods approach is because it allows 

for the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. 

Creswell (2014) opined that a mixed methods approach 

allows the integration of numerical and qualitative 

information gathered in several ways. This will allow the 

achievement of a deeper and broader understanding of the 

research questions. We adopted the mixed methods approach 

because it was important to match the research methodology 

with the objectives and content of the research in order to 

generate an understanding of what NS teachers think about 

the instructional leadership, the support they receive, and the 

kinds of steps they take to meet their professional needs 

(Cohen et al., 2011).  

A. Mixed Methods Sampling 

A total number of 243 schools from the Gauteng 

provincial districts were invited to participate in this study. 

Only 112 of these schools accepted invitation to participate 

in the study, which comprised a subset of the sample. 

Another subset was further selected for in-depth 

investigation. The quantitative strands of the data were 

collected from 112 NS teachers who responded to the 

questionnaire and the qualitative strands of the data were 

collected from 10 NS teachers who were interviewed and 

observed. Creswell (2014) opined that the use of semi-

structured interviews, meeting observation, and documentary 

analysis allows for a deeper understanding of facts. 

B. Description of Instruments 

Data were collected using self-report techniques 

(questionnaire and semi-structured interview), observational 

methods (participant observation), and secondary data 

analysis from artefacts and school documents (Teddlie & 

Tashakkori, 2012). The quantitative study used full-group 

data from 112 secondary schools (all the schools with 

Grades 8 and 9) in four of the fifteen districts in the Gauteng 

province. The questionnaire targeted respondents and 

explored their perspective on science HODs’ instructional 

leadership practices and the frequency thereof, and who else 

they found useful in meeting their professional needs. The 

last section of the questionnaire collected biographic data of 

the respondents.  

C. Procedure for Data Collection 

In this paper, we first focused on the biographic data of 

the respondents from all the schools participating in the 

study, because this informed the needs and expectations of 

the respondents regarding HODs’ professional capacities. 

Teachers’ needs are likely to challenge the HODs’ ability to 

build relationships and collegiality (Ghamrawi, 2010) and 

develop teachers, as well as the agency of the HODs or other 

teachers regarding equipping and resourcing their 

department (Angelle & DeHart, 2011; York-Barr & Duke, 

2004). The biographic data include profiles of the 

respondents, information on their subject proficiency, and 

their experience in teaching the subject. The extent to which 

the HODs negotiated, distributed, and shared leadership with 

members of their department was also investigated. Second, 

we investigated the means of influence that HODs used to 

maintain focus on the core of the curriculum, namely 

teaching and learning (Spillane & Hopkins, 2013), as the 

vision of the department. Some of the means of influence 

included informal interactions (Printy, 2008) or formal 

means (such as subject meetings) and co-creating and using 

routines and artefacts (Halverson, 2003; Naicker et al., 2013). 

The third focus was on the professional development of NS 

teachers. Since the change in curriculum, NS teachers need 

more support to develop and score practical assessment tasks, 

among other tasks that are now prescribed by the new 

curriculum (DBE, 2011). This support could involve 

mentoring (Koh et al., 2011; Naicker et al., 2013) and 

demonstrations, which some teachers prefer because they 

would rather learn from one another’s classroom practice 

than from formal programs offered at universities. Such 

professional development support should be based on the 

teachers’ own contexts, goals, and knowledge and learner 

needs (Vercio et al., 2008) as well as reflective and 

collaborative work expected at the schools (Glickman et al., 

2011; Wanzare, 2013).  

We also observed five cluster meetings that had been 

arranged by the two district subject advisors. The teachers 

who attended the cluster meetings taught Grades 7–9. The 

venues were packed, even overflowing. No register was 

taken; some teachers came late, some left early, as they 

travelled in groups. The meeting agendas were the same for 

each cluster in the district but differed for each district. The 

cluster meetings of the two districts that we observed 

differed in the kind of instructional support that was 

provided. One district provided an outline of the upcoming 

term’s content. The subject advisor used the “chalk and talk” 

approach and missed many opportunities to share 

information with teachers about misconceptions that she had 

identified in the content. She merely read the content of her 

presentation, outlining the content for the term. Even when 

the teachers displayed doubt and misconceptions in their 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

5 

understanding at the meeting, for example about the 

definition of certain concepts, the subject advisor did not 

take the opportunity to address and correct those 

misconceptions. The second subject advisor only explained 

the structure of the common examination that would be 

written and made announcements about upcoming science 

competitions. These announcements could have been sent to 

each school with the examination guidelines. 

This is a mixed methods study of six schools in two 

Gauteng school districts to examine how teachers view NS 

instructional leadership at their schools. We specifically 

examined how different schools provided support in the 

form of professional development, classroom observation, 

mentoring, and coaching, whether by the HOD, senior 

teacher, or peers. In this paper, we identify different modes 

of instructional leadership and explore opportunities for and 

practices of HODs or teachers to support instruction, 

because leadership is enacted within the practical constraints 

of a local context (Hallinger & Heck, 2011). Spillane (2006) 

argued for distributed leadership, and we explore whether 

the distribution is formalized or whether teachers use their 

agency, as suggested by Sherer (2008), to take up leadership 

opportunities. 

D. Mixed Methods Analysis  

Mixed methods data analysis involves the use of both 

quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze data. It 

also involves the combining of the two forms of data. The 

quantitative strands of data were analyzed using descriptive 

statistics such as frequency counts and percentages, while 

the qualitative strands derived from the investigation were 

recorded and transcribed. The data were coded and 

interpreted into themes using literature on instructional 

leadership and the conceptual framework. We ensured the 

anonymity and confidentiality of the participants by 

adopting the use of codes for the 10 participants who were 

interviewed and observed, such as Teacher 1, Teacher 2, … 

Teacher 10. 

III. FINDINGS 

As part of the results for this investigation, we present the 

profiles of the NS teachers involved in the study. In addition, 

the findings emanating from this investigation are reported 

according to the themes that were highlighted in literature. 

A. Profile of the Respondents in the Study  

Participating teachers were asked to indicate their 

qualifications and specify the areas of their specialization. 

Although most respondents were qualified as teachers with 

either secondary education diplomas or degrees, 9.7% of 

them were not qualified to teach at secondary school level at 

all – they possessed matric or primary teachers’ certificates 

or diplomas (PTC/D), as shown in Table I. Table I shows 

that the majority of the respondents in this study were female 

(59.2%), while the male respondents who took part in the 

study made up 40.8% of the sample. 

 

TABLE I 

QUALIFICATIONS AND GENDER OF RESPONDENTS 

 

TABLE II 

INSTITUTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION AND AGE RANGE OF RESPONDENTS 

Institution 

 <25 

years % 

25–29 

years % 

30–39 

years %  

40–49 

years % 

50–59 

years % 

60+ 

years % 

College  0 0 0 0 8 30.8  31 67.4 8 66.7 1 50.0 

University  8 100 4 100 18 69.2  14 30.4 4 33.3 0 0 

Unqualified  0 0 0 0 0 0  1 2.2 0 0 1 50.0 

Total   8 100 4 100 26 100  46 100 12 100 2 100 

 

Table II displays the ages of respondents and the types of 

institutions where they had qualified. Age and type of 

institution were combined because older teachers in 

township schools anecdotally had attended teacher colleges. 

The institutions of initial teacher training were formerly just 

as segregated as the schools. 

Most of the respondents (66.7%) were 40 years and older 

and 66.7% of those older than 40 years had qualified from 

teacher colleges and not from universities. This meant that 

they had three-year qualifications, as opposed to those who 

had qualified at universities with four-year qualifications. 

About 13.3% of the respondents were younger than 30 years 

and all of these respondents had qualified from universities.  

There were no unqualified respondents younger than 40 

years of age. Table III shows that 52.4% and 49.4% of the 

respondents had less than five years of experience teaching 

Qualification Number % Male % Female % 

Matric 5 4.9 1 2.3 4 6.6 

Primary teachers’ certificate or diploma 5 4.9 3 7.1 2 3.3 

Secondary teachers’ diploma  17 16.5 7 16.7 10 16.4 

Advanced certificate in education 20 19.4 7 16.7 13 21.3 

B degree 24 23.3 11 26.2 13 21.3 

Postgraduate qualification 32 31.0 13 31.0 19 31.1 

Total 103 100.0 42 100.0 61 100.0 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

6 

Grades 8 and 9 NS, respectively. Approximately half (47.6% 

of Grade 8 and 50.6% of Grade 9) of the respondents had 

more than five years NS teaching experience. More than a 

third of the respondents (41.9%) taught Grade 10 PS, over a 

quarter (26.8%) taught Grade 11 PS and 16.1% taught Grade 

12 PS, irrespective of experience.  

Fig. 2 indicates the areas in which respondents had 

specialized. Just over half of the respondents in the study 

(53.6%) had specialized in LS, which covers a quarter of the 

NS syllabus (life and living). 

 
Fig. 2  Respondent specialization 

About 45.5% of the respondents had specialized in PS, 

which covers half the syllabus (matter, materials, and 

energy). Almost two thirds (57%) of the respondents had 

specialization that enabled them to teach all the NS 

disciplines. A small percentage of the respondents (16.9%) 

were not qualified to teach any of the NS disciplines. 

 

TABLE III 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS 

Experience 

teaching subject 

Grade 8 natural 

sciences 

Grade 9 

natural 

sciences 

Grade 10 

physical 

science (%) 

Grade 11 

physical science 

(%) 

Grade 12 physical 

science (%) 

N % N % N % N % N % 

1–2 years 23 28.1 18 23.4 15 32.0 9 30.0 5 27.8 

3–5 years 20 24.4 20 26.0 14 30.3 10 33.3 5 27.8 

6–10 years 22 26.8 22 28.6 6 13.0 4 13.3 4 22.2 

>10 years 17 20.7 17 22.0 12 25.0 7 23.4 4 22.2 

Total 82 100 77 100 47 100 30 100 18 100 

 

TABLE IV 

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA OF TEACHERS INTERVIEWED 

Participant Gender 
Age range 

(years) 

Institution of 

qualification 
Qualification School 

Experience 

teaching NS 

(years) 

Teacher 1 F <25 University B degree Promise 3 

Teacher 2 F 40–49 University B degree Sheba 1 

Teacher 3 M 40–49 Teachers’ college 
Secondary teacher’s 

diploma 
Knowledge >10 

Teacher 4 F 40–49 Teachers’ college 
Secondary teacher’s 

diploma 
Knowledge <1 

Teacher 5 M 40–49 University 
Advanced certificate in 

education (Afrikaans) 
Fhutura 2 

Teacher 6 F 40–49 University 
Advanced certificate in 

education  
Willowdale >25 

Teacher 7 F 30–39 Unqualified Hospitality – unqualified Willowdale <1 

Teacher 8 F 30–39 University IT – unqualified Alpha 5 

Teacher 9 F 40–49 University B degree Knowledge 6 

Teacher 10 F 40–49 Teachers’ college 
Secondary teacher’s 

diploma 
Sheba >10 

 

 

 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

7 

We interviewed 10 of the teachers who had responded to 

the questionnaire and agreed to be interviewed. These 

teachers were selected because: 1) their HODs also 

responded to the questionnaire, 2) their schools were 

representative of the diversity of schools in Gauteng, and 

3) the location of their schools was convenient for us in 

terms of travelling distance. Table IV provides biographical 

information of the sample of teachers we interviewed. Some 

of these teachers were teaching NS for the first time. Three 

of these teachers, each from a different school, had the 

following to say about the experience of teaching NS:  

I can’t really say it’s four years because this is my 

first year in natural sciences. (Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

No, it is my first year I am doing NS. (Teacher 7, 

Willowdale) 

I am not sure because I am new this year in NS. 

(Teacher 2, Sheba) 

B.   Main Research Findings  

We present the findings of the study according to the six 

themes that were significant in the literature. 

1. Help with practical work 
2. Specialization effect 
3. Role players providing instructional support 
4. Subject advisor support from the district 
5. Professional development at schools 
6. Compliance practices 

1. Help with Practical Work and Resources/Apparatus: 

The participants were asked about the kind of support that 

they needed urgently and how they were being supported. 

Some of their top priorities were assistance with experiments, 

developing assessment tasks, and securing apparatus for 

experiments and other consumables and resources such as 

textbooks. We collected data during the third term at one 

school and one participant had not even had the NS textbook 

at the time:  

[We do not have the] natural sciences textbook. It has 

been ordered. (Teacher 10, Sheba) 

A participant from another school also lamented the lack 

of apparatus needed to do the experiments or practical 

assessment tasks, saying:  

The challenges that we have is not that the practicals 

that we are doing are difficult; no, umm, the 

apparatus is the problem that we struggle looking for 

the apparatus because we don’t have a laboratory here 

and since we came to Gauteng, we have never been 

given the apparatus. (Teacher 9, Knowledge) 

Other participants from this and other schools shared the 

experience. 

There is no challenge as such, but when it comes to 

the apparatus and the science lab there and that’s 

where you get the challenge. (Teacher 3, Knowledge) 

And another one, we don’t do practicals. We must do 

practical for Grade 8 and 9. We don’t have those 

[apparatus] things. (Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

I said, “Sir, please help me here before I can do it 

[experiment] with the learners.” So, he supports you 

with material, I get material – anything that I need I 

have been able to get from him. (Teacher 1, Promise) 

In one case, the school did not have enough laboratories 

and the HOD supported the participant by permitting her to 

use the HOD’s laboratory. 

She would provide me with material because I didn’t 

have a lab; if I needed to do practicals, I would 

always use her class, her lab … There were more 

science teachers than the labs. So, if you wanted to do 

a practical, you had to ask a teacher who is occupying 

a lab so that you use their class. (Teacher 1, Promise) 

The HOD also provided support by demonstrating how 

the experiment should be done. 

I didn’t know how to use that (ticker timer), I have 

never used it, I have only read [about] it. I had to ask 

him to demonstrate for me. (Teacher 1, Promise) 

The lack of equipment for practical work is one of the key 

contextual school conditions that HODs in most South 

African schools have to manage and address and provide 

effective leadership in to improve the teaching and learning 

of NS. 

2. Specialization Effect: Because NS is a multidisciplinary 

subject, some teachers struggle with certain topics within the 

subject. Both participants from Sheba School were LS 

specialists and were comfortable teaching a quarter of the 

NS syllabus. This caused a need in the school to develop and 

equip the teachers for the other science disciplines. The 

HOD had a big role to play in identifying and correcting this 

situation.  

I am good in the field of botany and zoology, but 

coming to the physics part of it, I am struggling. 

(Teacher 10, Sheba) 

The other participant from this school had a similar 

problem. 

As I am saying, it is a challenge, because much of the 

work in there [NS] needs a physical sciences teacher. 

No, there isn’t much; as a life sciences teacher, 

there’s only one part, so also much of my time has to 

be spent revisiting, like, the periodic tables, the 

reactions, all those equations ... It is time consuming 

and it is like now I am also studying on my own. 

(Teacher 2, Sheba) 

In contrast, Teacher 4, from another school, was 

challenged by a different section of the subject: 

It (teaching NS) is comfortable, but the biology part 

is more demanding and maybe because I am more of 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

8 

the area of physics and chemistry, you will find that 

the biology part, there is lots of things which you 

have to teach. [It could be] because biology is not my 

real area [of specialization]. (Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

Teacher 6, a senior teacher, concurred that teachers were 

usually only comfortable with certain sections of the 

syllabus. 

They are very eager to do the life sciences but not 

eager to do the physical sciences. (Teacher 6, 

Willowdale) 

She expressed the opinion that teachers were not 

adequately prepared for all the subject disciplines. 

So, basically, you are going to get a teacher that is not 

fully rounded off in NS. So, the physical sciences is, 

how would I say, the part that they are not 

comfortable with. The life sciences is fine; they are 

not prepared to do the experiments, and this is where 

the subject becomes less and less, how could I say, 

developed. (Teacher 6, Willowdale) 

A participant from another school struggled with a 

different quarter of the syllabus, the earth sciences section. 

Yah, the problem is earth and beyond. Yah, I think 

it’s geographic. Especially when you go underground, 

coming to mining and bla bla, you see I get lost that 

side. I don’t know what to teach learners, to be honest. 

(Teacher 5, Fhutura)  

A teacher from Alpha School affirmed this.  

Last year, I was struggling with earth and beyond 

because I do not know geography myself. I told the 

HOD and he said he does not have a geography 

qualification, only maths. I asked the geography 

teacher to help me. (Teacher 8, Alpha) 

Participants struggled with different sections of the four 

strands of NS, depending on their area of specialization. The 

effects of specialization were not impacting only teachers, 

but the HODs as well because they have to develop the 

content and pedagogical knowledge of the teachers. We 

wanted to find out which colleagues or other individuals 

provided subject leadership to teachers if the HOD could not, 

as was the case at Alpha.  

3. Role Players Providing Instructional Support: 

Responses from all the respondents in the study showed that 

HODs were taking responsibility for the quality of science 

teaching and learning. We asked respondents to rank the 

HODs’ responsibilities in order of importance using a scale 

of 1–5 where 1 represented strong disagreement and 5 

represented strong agreement. The highest ranking 

responsibility was taking responsibility for the quality of 

science teaching and learning (Table V). The next highest 

ranking responsibility was the setting of common exams, 

followed by making common decisions, and the setting of 

goals and priorities, as revealed in Table V.  

Other responsibilities involved standards and goal setting, 

and these were not necessarily contributing to improving 

instruction directly, except setting the goalpost. The last four 

responsibilities, however, provided a better picture of the 

instructional leadership practices of the HODs. HODs took 

moderate responsibility in familiarizing themselves with the 

Grades 8 and 9 subject goals (ranked 7th) and developing 

their understanding of what was expected of the learners in 

each grade (ranked 10th with a mean score of 2.69). 

The mean score for providing opportunities to learn, 

coordinating professional development, and helping teachers 

do well was 3.55. Providing classroom observation feedback 

received a mean score of 3.51. These ratings were at the 

border of agreeing and being neutral. These responsibilities 

were ranked very low, 8th and 9th out of ten activities, 

respectively. It can be concluded that the HODs did not 

consider these instructional leadership practices very 

important in improving instruction. 

 

TABLE V 

RANKING OF HODS’ RESPONSIBILITIES (N = 112) 

HOD responsibility Mean Ranking 

The HOD takes responsibility for quality of science teaching and learning 4.01 1 

The teachers in my department work together to develop common exams/tests for particular subjects 3.95 2 

There is a great cooperative effort among my department’s members in making decisions 3.93 3 

The HOD sets clear goals, priorities, makes plans, and sees that they are carried out 3.92 4 

The HOD sets high standards of science teaching and learning 3.82 5 

The HOD coordinates the content of my subjects and rotates assignments 3.73 6 

The HOD is familiar with the content and specific goals of the subjects taught by teachers in our 

department 

3.64 7 

The HOD provides opportunity to learn, coordinates professional development, and helps teachers do 

well 

3.55 8 

The HOD provides classroom observation feedback 3.51 9 
The HOD understands what learners do and are expected to do in each grade 2.69 10 

 

Though the HODs were taking responsibility for the 

quality of teaching and learning, it was not evident from the 

questionnaire data how they were doing this, except by 

doing some management and administrative work for the 

teachers and submitting departmental reports to senior 

management. We followed up by conducting interviews with 

the participants. The participants were asked how their 

HODs supported them. One of them responded:  



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

9 

She observes our lessons, the learners’ books, checks 

with the work schedule and how you have been 

moving with the work schedule, and then, if there are 

any problems, she highlights them and if you also 

have problems, you also highlight them to her. 

(Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

The participant from Fhutura was not satisfied with the 

kind of support she received from the HOD. She expressed 

her expectations of the HOD:  

He checks ... We are not satisfied in such a way … 

Yes, [we expect him] to go deeper or to support 

more …, we’ve got problems on 1, 2, and 3, but 

delegates (senior teachers) would help us. They will 

go deeper in researching those things. (Teacher 5, 

Fhutura) 

We probed to find out who else provided instructional 

support. We investigated if there were any senior/master or 

lead teachers at the schools. This school did not have a 

senior teacher who assisted with NS. 

Coming to natural sciences, we don’t have. Yes, 

there’s an HOD. (Teacher 5, Fhutura)  

In the questionnaire responses, respondents rated the 

senior teacher as the most helpful person, slightly more 

helpful than the HOD and the subject advisor (Fig. 3). 

Because some respondents had indicated that they were 

senior teachers, we explored other examples of teacher 

leadership. The respondents were very aware of their 

subject-expertise shortcomings, but they also knew who 

could provide the instructional leadership and support that 

they needed.   

 

  
Fig. 3 The most helpful person according to respondents’ view 

 
In high-performing schools (Naicker et al., 2013), the 

principal ensures that experienced teachers assist novice 

teachers in the classroom. For the schools in the study, it was 

not a matter of teaching experience of NS teachers. Rather, 

what mattered was expertise and insufficient content and 

pedagogical knowledge to teach certain sections of the 

subject for which these teachers would seek help from other 

teachers or the HOD. In these schools, support was not 

planned by school leaders, but happened sporadically. The 

participants quoted below provided instructional leadership 

and freely shared their expertise, thereby complementing 

each other without involving the school leadership. 

The other lady came for the physics part of NS. She 

came to consult with me on something that she didn’t 

understand and we are sharing material. It was the 

one of calculating weight on the moon. She said she 

didn’t know how to do calculate weight, I don’t know, 

because she also teaches isiZulu. (Teacher 1, Promise)  

One participant from Knowledge School provided 

instructional support in another strand of the subject. 

Last time, I even helped Mrs Kim with the part of the 

cells. She’s fully in physics, so when she comes to 

using the microscopes, it was not easy with the 

objective etc. (Teacher 9, Knowledge) 

This same participant received help from her colleagues 

in the section of the syllabus in which she was not 

specialized.  

I’m usually being helped by Mr Sand and Mr Max. 

(Teacher 9, Knowledge) 

The participant from Fhutura indicated that he frequently 

needed help from colleagues, rather than from the HOD. 

I’m always relying on other teachers; they just show 

me that now we are doing 1, 2, and 3, because we’re 

sharing (teaching the same grade) and they help me. 

They just assist me. (Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

It is evident that the participants were very open to 

helping each other and showing some teamwork and 

collegiality. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

10 

I think it’s a good spirit now because we are working 

as a team, as a family. (Teacher 3, Knowledge) 

4. Subject Advisor Support: We wanted to find out if 

teachers received support from subject advisors from the 

local district office or the province, in addition to support 

from the HOD and other teachers in the school. We observed 

cluster meetings organized by the subject advisors, regarding 

which participants responded as follows:  

I can say they (cluster meetings) are useful, 

depending on the active participation of every 

member. I like being a listener. (Teacher 10, Sheba) 

Participants from other schools confirmed their 

attendance of the cluster meeting, but stated that it was only 

for CAPS training.  

[We do attend workshops] from outside. Yes, we go 

outside … [called by] the district, the facilitator. 

Since from the beginning of the year, we attended 

once, Saturday, it was once. [It was for] CAPS 

training. (Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

Not lately, no. When we did, it was CAPS. 

(Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

Alpha School seemed to benefit extensively from the 

subject advisory services. The fact that their HOD was a 

mathematics specialist could be a contributing factor to their 

reliance on the NS subject advisor for instructional support. 

The participant from Alpha affirmed: 

We attend cluster meetings once a quarter. When we 

attend, we can ask questions like how to treat certain 

topics. (Teacher 8, Alpha)  

The HOD from Alpha School indicated that when he did 

classroom observations and picked up challenges, he 

referred teachers to the subject advisor. 

When I see shortcomings, I refer the teachers to the 

facilitator (subject advisor). (Teacher 8, Alpha) 

This HOD also mentioned that he received materials from 

the subject advisor and relied on these colleagues for subject 

support. 

We receive material from the subject advisor, but 

only on the FET side, not GET. I only saw the 

specialist once at the school. Otherwise, we go to 

them when we need assistance. (Teacher 8, Alpha) 

A participant from another school confirmed the visits by 

subject advisors. 

Where the subject advisor usually comes to our 

school, then after that it’s when we sit down and 

check the matter that we have discussed there and 

how we are going to deal with it. (Teacher 9, 

Knowledge) 

Subject advisors also visit the schools, mainly to monitor 

the implementation of SBATs. 

Subject advisors will visit schools, depending on their 

schedules. (Teacher 10, Sheba) 

Not all participants, however, saw the need for support 

from district officials. The participant quoted below is a 

senior teacher and probably feels competent to teach NS 

without the help of the subject advisor. She was a very 

experienced teacher, with more than 25 years teaching 

experience. 

I have nothing to do with them (district officials). 

(Teacher 6, Willowdale) 

The findings suggest that subject advisors did provide 

instructional support to most schools in the form of school 

visits and cluster meetings. Teachers seemed to benefit more 

when they approached the subject advisors for specific help 

than from generic help that was provided at cluster meetings, 

given that these meetings lasted about 90 minutes only, took 

place once a term, and each was attended by the teachers of 

more than 50 schools. Almost all schools in the study 

demonstrated the need for organized professional 

development of most NS teachers. This is because teachers 

were usually qualified to teach only certain sections of the 

syllabus and always needed instructional support from 

colleagues to help them teach those sections that they were 

not qualified to teach. We probed to find out if the schools 

provided any professional development. 

5. Professional Development at School: Table VI shows 

that less than half of the respondents (43.75%) had received 

either less than six hours or no professional development at 

all. Approximately 20% of the respondents indicated that 

they had received more than 15 hours of professional 

development in the last 12 months, which was about two 

days of training or development. 

TABLE VI 

NUMBER OF HOURS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

No. of hours No. of respondents % 

None 15 13.4 

<6 hours 34 30.4 

6–15 hours 26 23.2 

>15 hours 22 19.6 

No response 15 13.4 

 

It was later established during interviews that the only 

professional development that the participating teachers had 

ever attended and that they reported on was CAPS training. 

Some respondents (13.4%) indicated that they had not 

attended any development sessions in the last 12 months. 

The participants who were interviewed concurred that they 

had not received any professional development.  

No, we didn’t have. (Teacher 1, Promise)  

A participant from Sheba School was very frank, saying 

that there was no organized professional development at her 

school.  

No informal teacher development. (Teacher 10, 

Sheba) 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

11 

Another participant from this school concurred and said 

she had not even attended the CAPS training. 

No, I never attended. Another difficulty, truly 

speaking, I never attended the CAPS training for NS. 

No, [because] I was not teaching NS. I need it, 

because as teachers, learning is lifelong. (Teacher 2, 

Sheba) 

A participant from Knowledge School concurred: 

Umm, not really, so far not [no professional 

development] really. (Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

Participants were then asked about the frequency with 

which HODs provided this support, using a scale of 0 to 4, 

where 0 was “never did that activity” and 4 was “always 

practiced”. Table VII shows the mean frequencies of the 

instructional leadership practices from the respondents’ 

perspectives. The findings on the frequency of instructional 

leadership practices showed that the most frequent practices 

involved monitoring and controlling learners’ books, 

tracking their academic progress with means equal or above 

3.00, and using this information to provide feedback to the 

teachers. These practices were compliance activities that 

HODs used to monitor content coverage. They collected 

learners’ books and went through them, comparing the 

number of activities in the books with what is expected by 

that time in the year plan. They would then stamp and sign 

the books. Feedback would involve informing the teacher 

whether he/she was on track.  

The responses of respondents in the study showed that 

HODs occasionally or never developed and prepared 

material with the teachers (mean = 2.32), and occasionally 

discussed how to teach particular concepts or lead 

professional development (mean = 2.29). These practices 

were ranked 11th and 12th in the questionnaire. About 17.9% 

of respondents indicated frequent provision of professional 

development, despite receiving less than 15 hours of 

professional development, as indicated in Table VI. 

Evidently, HODs did not lead the professional development 

(ranked last in Table VII). This correlated with the 

qualitative data, that the professional development the 

participating teachers reported on was mostly CAPS training. 

 

TABLE VII 

FREQUENCY OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 

Instructional leadership practices 
Frequency of IL practices 

Mean Ranking 

Monitors and controls learners’ activity and assessment books 3.22 1 

Carefully tracks learners’ academic progress 3.00 2 

Provides regular and useful feedback/suggestions on my teaching 2.98 3 

Actively monitors quality of science instruction 2.83 4 

Monitors subject content coverage 2.71 5 

Does classroom observations 2.68 6 

Works directly with teachers who are struggling to improve instruction 2.61 7 

Knows what is going on in science classrooms 2.61 7 

Visits other teachers’ classrooms to observe their teaching 2.42 9 

Allows informal observations in his/her own classroom  2.37 10 

Works with my department to prepare teaching material 2.32 11 

Discusses teaching of a particular concept with the staff 2.29 12 

Leads professional development sessions in which you participate 2.20 13 

 

 

 
Fig. 4 Content of professional development sessions 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

12 

However, the questionnaire responses painted a positive 

picture regarding teachers receiving professional 

development. Fig. 4 shows the areas in which respondents 

had received training in their schools. The questionnaire did 

not specify who provided development and what type of 

development was provided. Most respondents indicated that 

they were professionally developed on subject content (71%), 

assessment (69%), problem-solving (59%), and practical 

work (66%). A little more than half of the respondents (52%) 

indicated that they were developed in pedagogy.  

The interviews revealed that some HODs did lead some 

professional development activities.  

Yes, at the end of the year we had something like that 

where she was interacting with us. [She showed us] 

how to tackle the topic of matter and material but 

under the banner of atoms. (Teacher 3, Knowledge) 

The participant from Fhutura indicated that they received 

some corrective training after doing something wrong, 

particularly regarding experiments and assessment. 

No, at school we don’t have. We only have if maybe 

we set something wrong, maybe we want to set a test 

or maybe a practical, since this now starts with CAPS. 

He (HOD) calls three of us and when we’re there he 

shows us this one and this one to correct us. 

(Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

Just over half (56%) of the respondents indicated that 

their HODs frequently did classroom observations. In 

contrast, almost a quarter said they were only occasionally or 

never observed in class. We followed up with participants 

through interviews to establish whether they were actually 

observed in the classrooms and whether they had received 

feedback. When we probed further regarding classroom 

observation, it became apparent that the classroom 

observation that they mentioned was compulsory 

observation for the integrated quality measurement system 

(IQMS), which is a compliance activity.  

It was confirmed that only the HOD from Knowledge 

School did classroom observations that were outside the 

IQMS and they were unannounced. 

The natural sciences, she is doing class visits … She 

just comes, so at any time she can walk into the class. 

(Teacher 3, Knowledge) 

Another participant from this school confirmed this 

practice. 

She observes our lessons, observes the learners’ 

books, checks with the work schedule, and how you 

have been moving with the work schedule, and then, 

if there are any problems, she highlights them and if 

you also have problems, you also highlight them to 

her and then finding a way forward. (Teacher 4, 

Knowledge) 

The participant from Fhutura confirmed that classroom 

observations were done at her school and she had received 

feedback. 

Yes, they do classroom observations. It’s useful, yeah. 

I always get feedback. He’s always telling me that I 

must fix my classroom. (Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

In Sheba School, curriculum management meetings were 

conducted every second week, where the HOD would 

monitor the work of teachers and learners’ progress. There 

was no mention of classroom observation feedback being 

provided at this school. 

Ja, we do, that is during this curriculum management 

meeting’s time, when he must just come. (Teacher 10, 

Sheba)  

Professional development and classroom observations are 

effective modes of instructional leadership. The findings 

suggest that these instructional leadership practices were not 

enacted in the schools despite the great need and opportunity 

presented by teachers who struggled to teach certain sections 

of the syllabus. The school leadership seemed to shy away 

from proactively leading professional development of their 

teachers, whether by doing it themselves or by inviting 

external help, except in a few cases, such as in Alpha School, 

where the HOD frequently referred NS teachers to the 

subject advisor. 

6. Focus on Compliance: In a study by Brown et al. 

(2000), HODs did not receive release time to carry out their 

HOD duties, but spent most of their time doing 

administrative work. In a study by Malinga and Jita (2015), 

it was established that HODs only did compliance activities 

and did not necessarily provide effective instructional 

leadership. Some of the compliance activities involved 

conducting IQMS classroom observations, holding subject 

or departmental meetings, and monitoring learners’ books 

for content coverage. The quality and effectiveness of these 

activities were questionable and were reduced to merely 

ticking the checklist. We probed for compliance activities 

that HODs engaged in at the schools where we followed up 

with semi-structured interviews. 

One of the participants from Sheba School described how 

the curriculum was monitored at his school. 

You submit to the HOD, and the HOD gives it to the 

deputy, and then they count the number of exercises 

you are doing and look at the work – if it is of 

standard or not. They check the books and then they 

stamp and then they recommend. (Teacher 10, Sheba) 

The other participant from this school confirmed this, 

though she believed that not everything that was done was 

beneficial, but was merely being done to comply with policy.  

No, certain things, you know, sometimes we just do 

them because, I mean, that is the policy, though 

sometimes they are not beneficial. (Teacher 2, Sheba) 

She went on to describe what was done simply to comply 

with policy, in her view: 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

13 

The management plan, when to submit, all those 

things, of which, as I am saying, most of the things 

are repeated at meetings. (Teacher 2, Sheba) 

A participant from another school also described what 

was done for compliance. 

Monitoring of the learners’ books, but that 

monitoring of the class books is intertwined to the 

class visits. So, when she visits a class randomly, she 

picks up the books from the learners. (Teacher 3, 

Knowledge) 

Another major compliance issue was frequent subject or 

departmental meetings. This role is prescribed in the job 

description of HODs (DoE, 1999). In one study, HODs 

reported that they held these meetings at least once a school 

term (Malinga & Jita, 2015), although, in some schools, 

these meetings were sometimes skipped due to other 

pressing demands on HODs’ time. We asked respondents 

about the frequency of certain topics or activities being 

raised at the meetings (Fig. 5).  

Some respondents (59.3%) agreed that HODs always or 

frequently called meetings and discussed staff problems in 

meetings (50.5%) (Fig. 5). Other respondents (39.8%) 

confirmed that their HODs occasionally or seldom called 

meetings.  

We analyzed the subject meetings to determine if any 

instructional support and leadership were provided at these 

meetings to teachers as a group. The participants were asked 

what was discussed at subject or departmental meetings and 

they responded in the following manner. 

We discuss if there are any problems, how far we are with 

the syllabus, if there are any problems in the assessment 

tasks, how we moderate each other’s work, who is going to 

prepare the preparation or the exam or the test or things like 

that. (Teacher 1, Willowdale). 

 
Fig. 5 The frequency of subject meetings 

 

A participant from another school mentioned that they 

discussed important pedagogical issues at their meeting. 

If the learners are failing, they want to know what 

support we are giving the learners. (Teacher 1, 

Promise)  

They also occasionally discussed particular subject 

concepts or jointly prepared teacher material in these 

meetings.  

Fig. 6 displays the topics that are discussed at the subject 

meetings. There was no evidence of discussion at meetings 

of teachers’ performance; neither was there evidence of a 

review of learner achievement data or a schedule of class 

visits or observation. More than a third of the respondents 

(38.5%) expressed neutrality about discussions on 

professional development in subject meetings. It has been 

gathered that professional development was rarely done in 

schools, as discussed earlier. Almost two thirds of the 

respondents (63.9%) rated content coverage as a frequently 

discussed item. This was also ranked as one of the most 

frequent practices of HODs, in Table VII, namely 

monitoring content coverage through checking learners’ 

books. Teacher 9 mentioned that they monitored curriculum 

coverage based on the examination question paper that had 

already been set. They used the question paper as the 

benchmark and target to teach towards. 

We usually sit down and share the [question] paper 

and see how far we are on the paper setup and she 

will usually call us and say we have to see how far we 

are so that we can speed up the situation so we can 

cover the syllabus. (Teacher 9, Knowledge) 

Approximately half (47.7%) of the respondents in the 

study rated assessment as a topic that was frequently 

discussed in subject meetings. The assessment matters they 

discussed related mostly to who would set the examination, 

deadlines for submission of marks, and learner progression 

schedules. Interview data from participant transcripts 

confirmed this. The participant below revealed that they met 

to plan the term ahead or allocate roles for setting 

examination papers and the exam schedule. 

It’s actually depending what are the circumstances 

leading to the meeting. Like at the beginning of each 

term, we divulge the route for the learners and then, 

during the course of the term which are setting of the 

exams, so we have to be briefed on how we should 

set the exams and the due dates and everything. 

(Teacher 4, Knowledge) 

Another participant from this school confirmed that they 

focused on administrative work and the schedule for 

assessment tasks. 

And in those meetings, we decide who is going to 

make some copies, the date of those formal activities. 

(Teacher 3, Knowledge) 

A participant from another school confirmed that their 

meetings were also about assessment roles and the schedule. 

Yes, towards the setting and for moderation. We have 

meetings in case when we’re going to find out who is 

going to set the test. (Teacher 5, Fhutura) 

 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

14 

 

 
  Fig. 6 Topics discussed in meetings 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The findings from this study clearly revealed the 

challenges involved in leading NS instruction in the current 

context of South African schools. Even experienced NS 

teachers may have been teaching only the theory of the 

subject for a long time. The new curriculum now specifies 

an experiment a term for each science discipline of the 

subject. This requirement has created a number of challenges 

for and inadequacies in NS teachers. In the past, school visits 

by district officials focused on Grade 12 subjects, but now, 

the DoE has increased the monitoring of the implementation 

of SBATs. From the data presented, it is evident that 

participants needed different types of support and 

instructional leadership. In cases where participants did not 

have access to this support formally, they identified their 

own leaders (support system) who could provide them with 

the support they needed. This finding is consistent with the 

argument by Spillane et al. (2003) that teachers construct 

their own leadership. 

Being appointed to a leadership position should not only 

be based on seniority or position, but on the expertise and 

experience of the teachers (Ghamrawi, 2010; Guthrie & 

Schuermann, 2010). HODs teach and are also class (register) 

teachers; therefore, they have little time to do HOD work. 

Teachers, like all other followers, need instructional leaders 

who are available when the need arises for guidance and 

support. Participants expected their instructional leaders to 

have sufficient expertise, experience, and subject knowledge 

to meet their needs. They also expected the leader or HOD to 

be available to provide support, in the form of 

demonstrations, mentoring, and coaching, as often as 

possible. In the study, a number of participants reported 

needing their HODs for assistance, but the HODs were “too 

busy” and did not have release time to do HOD duties. The 

findings showed many reasons why participants required 

assistance.  

The new CAPS curriculum, among other educational 

changes, arranges and allocates a term to each NS strand or 

science discipline. With this arrangement, one SBAT was 

introduced per term. This means that teachers have had to set 

a practical assessment task for each science discipline, even 

the science disciplines in which they had no expertise. 

Consequently, they were likely to need assistance in this 

regard. Science education in South Africa has been 

characterized by plenty of theory and less practical 

application. Even teachers might not have been exposed to 

practical work (Makgato & Mji, 2006) during their own 

schooldays or during their training, largely due to the lack of 

laboratory equipment. The findings revealed that schools do 

not have big enough laboratories to accommodate over 500 

learners a week; neither is there enough equipment at these 

laboratories. Where there are laboratories, there is usually 

only one or two laboratories and Grades 11 and 12 learners 

are prioritized for experiments because of the national focus 

on these senior grades. NS teachers need guidance and 

support from HODs to, firstly, source apparatus so that they 

could do the experiments – which could sometimes involve 

borrowing from other schools. Secondly, NS teachers 

require assistance to schedule NS classes for experiments at 

the existing laboratories, ensuring that laboratories are 

available for the teachers to prepare and conduct 

experiments.  

The challenge that participants had to design experiments 

for learners and assess these practical tasks was compounded 

by their lack of specialization in some science disciplines. 

Some schools allocated the development of these tasks to 

either senior teachers or teachers who possessed the 

necessary specialization. In some schools, the HODs set 

these assessment tasks themselves, even though 

development of these tasks could serve as an opportunity for 

professional development of teachers. The school conditions 

as described in the conceptual framework played a big role 

in the type of instructional leadership that HODs in the study 

displayed. The conditions required that HODs used the right 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

15 

attributes and means of influence to secure apparatus and to 

ensure that the little equipment they had was not reserved for 

senior classes only. Leadership involved drawing from the 

management and administrative components to utilize 

schedules, routines, and artefacts for designing a timetable 

for sharing the laboratories. 

Secondly, more than a third of the participants in the 

study were either teaching NS for the first time or it was 

their second year of teaching. Rivkin et al. (2005) argued 

that learners taught by an experienced teacher achieved 

better results than those taught by an inexperienced teacher. 

Even if a teacher was an experienced teacher, NS brings 

with it new challenges. The fact that some participants were 

inexperienced is no different from a study done by Rollnick 

and Brodie (2011), where teachers indicated that there were 

areas where they were not confident to teach in their work. 

The fact that HODs themselves do not teach NS could also 

render them incapable of supporting teachers in the subject. 

The new curriculum has brought changes that someone not 

teaching the subject might not know about. The fact that NS 

drew from at least three science disciplines (life, physical, 

and earth sciences) alone was a huge challenge. Very few 

teachers have qualifications in all three disciplines. The 

findings of this study indicated that just over two thirds of 

the participants stated that they could teach NS with 

confidence. These findings were made from self-reported 

data and were not tested in this study.  

Some of the participants who were teaching NS for the 

first time had not even attended the CAPS training. This led 

us to the third reason why NS teachers would need strong 

instructional leadership. The HODs did not attend the 

training or the cluster meetings, except for the HOD from 

Sheba School. The fact that HODs did not attend meetings 

or sessions organized by the subject advisors could 

contribute to their lack of knowledge regarding the subject 

demands. Therefore, they could not provide the assistance 

that the teachers required in NS. It was at the CAPS training 

that the new approaches and all subject demands and 

expectations were outlined. In their allocation of subjects 

every year, the school leadership did not consider teachers’ 

preparation for the subject. A new teacher in the subject 

would need more guidance from specifically the subject 

leader in order to implement the new curriculum. At the 

beginning of each year, it is the duty of the HOD to 

recognize and consider that some of the teachers in the team 

would not have attended new curriculum training, because 

they would be teaching the subject for the first time. This 

would open up an ideal opportunity for the HOD to 

coordinate professional development for the department’s 

teachers. There was no evidence that HODs in this study 

took advantage of this opportunity. The importance of the 

role of the HOD or the senior teacher in this regard cannot 

be overemphasized. 

The fourth reason why teachers would need strong 

instructional leadership relates to the teachers’ area of 

specialization, across all ranks. Secondary school teaching 

requires teachers to specialize in certain subjects. The level 

of specialization of participants informed the kind of 

professional leadership and support that they would require 

and expect their institutions to provide. HODs might have 

specialized in one subject, but they had to supervise others in 

subjects they themselves were not specialized in. Some 

participants in the study had not specialized in any of the 

sciences at all. Those that had specialized in one discipline 

needed help in the other disciplines. Very few participants 

had specialized in both LS and PS and a few (often older) 

participants may have done an advanced certificate in NS. 

Although NS is a subject that is designed to expose learners 

to all science disciplines, it still required enough in-depth 

knowledge of each discipline to adequately prepare learners 

who wish to follow that discipline in senior secondary and 

tertiary studies. It is the school’s responsibility to ensure that 

the teachers they allocate to teach this subject are adequately 

qualified, or to put systems in place, such as appointing 

senior teachers, to be available to provide much-needed 

assistance to NS teachers. 

A. Professional Development 

To implement the changes in the curriculum, the DoE had 

been providing piecemeal, workshop-type professional 

development that was not effective (Kriek & Basson, 2008). 

Lai and Cheung (2013) argued that promoting professional 

development is the most influential instructional leadership 

mode for sustained improvement of teaching and learning. 

The development can take various forms, including but not 

limited to short meetings, half-day sessions, a few days 

training, weeklong conferences, seminars, and continuous 

professional development, supervision, and evaluation of 

teachers with feedback and follow-up. Development plans 

drive the needs of teachers (Vercio et al., 2008) and involve 

critical reflection and follow-up, mentorship, and dialogues 

about the effectiveness of instructional practices on learners’ 

work (Koh et al., 2011). Glickman et al. (2011) maintained 

that professional development fosters pedagogical, 

emotional, social, ethical, and cognitive development.  

According to the findings, the biggest need seems to 

relate to practical work, especially designing experiments for 

the SBAT in areas in which teachers were not specialized. In 

some cases, the problem is a lack of resources and trying to 

find the apparatus needed for particular experiments. The 

teachers rely on the HOD to make those resources available 

for them to do the experiments. In Sheba School, the HOD 

had to borrow equipment from the neighboring schools in 

order to do the experiments. In Promise School, the 

interviewed participant, although a qualified PS teacher, had 

never used a certain piece of equipment and confessed to 

having only read about it in textbooks. She relied on the 

HOD to show her how to use the equipment. The advantage 

in this school was that they had the equipment and the HOD 

had specialized in the area in which the participant required 

assistance. A study by Malinga and Jita (2015) established 

that one of the reasons why HODs do not provide NS 

professional development was that they were not science 

specialists themselves. Furthermore, the HODs do not teach 

NS and do not have enough time for their HOD duties 

because they spend most of their time teaching senior classes. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

16 

Although this was the case in most schools, there was an 

opportunity for distributing leadership to senior or lead 

teachers in the subject, which schools were yet to use to their 

advantage.  

In light of the challenge at hand, the HODs might not 

have been trained in CAPS, and the district office subject 

advisory service was an important resource for this 

development. In the context of the HOD who was not trained 

on the new curriculum, his/her duty became more of 

coordination than actual facilitation of training. In the study, 

39% of participants indicated that the HOD coordinated 

professional development and 59.8% reported that the HOD 

arranged training when they needed help. The shortcomings 

of the HOD could be mitigated by a good partnership with 

the subject advisory services, as in Alpha School, or the 

senior teacher in the school. The interview data revealed that 

most participants did not receive any development from their 

HODs or schools. There was no evidence of any planned 

professional development strategies at the schools in this 

study. Only the HOD at Knowledge School was reported to 

have provided development based on teachers’ needs. 

Professional development is provided only when the 

teachers of some schools need it for a particular topic. The 

interview responses revealed this, despite the fact that in the 

quantitative responses, participants indicated an average of 

15 hours of professional development over the last 12 

months. This happened to be CAPS training that was 

provided by the provincial office and not necessarily by the 

school. It was evident that participants needed professional 

development that focused on both subject matter and 

pedagogical content knowledge. It is clear that providing 

continuous teacher professional development is an important 

area and one in which HODs could make a difference to the 

quality of NS instruction. 

B. Subject Advisor Support 

In exploring the support provided by subject advisory 

services, we realized that some schools were benefitting 

from the services but others were not. Some HODs relied on 

the district subject advisor, and in Alpha School, the HOD 

referred teachers to the subject advisor because he himself 

was not a science specialist. Subject advisors would visit the 

schools to monitor the implementation of SBATs, which was 

a compliance activity. During the visit, subject advisors 

interacted with HODs, even though they did not interact with 

the HODs at their cluster meetings. The subject advisors 

work directly with teachers and not through the HODs. 

Subject advisors did not even have special meetings where 

they worked with the HODs separately, building capacity or 

monitoring the curriculum and providing instructional 

leadership. This kind of meeting between subject advisors 

and HODs would minimize the number of teachers who 

attended cluster meetings and improve the content and 

effectiveness of the meetings. At the time of study, there 

were at least four NS teachers per school, but there was only 

one science HOD per school. If the districts and circuits 

could revisit the operations of this layer in the hierarchy, not 

only would subject advisor meetings be better organized and 

more effective, but school-based subject instructional 

leadership would also be enhanced. The HODs who are not 

specialists in the particular subjects that they lead could be 

equipped with strategies for influencing instruction and 

providing effective feedback to teachers. Subject advisors as 

specialists would provide expertise and professional 

knowledge on the subject and anything else they may have 

learnt from other clusters or schools.  

Subject advisors arranged cluster meetings at least once a 

term. At these meetings, they met with teachers to discuss 

areas of difficulty or to plan for the term ahead. In some 

schools, such as Willowdale, only one teacher per subject 

attended cluster meetings, and shared what had been 

discussed at the meeting with the rest of the subject teachers 

at the school. In a number of cases, this was the only 

professional development some teachers received. In certain 

districts, the subject advisors provide necessary individual 

support to teachers, especially in schools where the HOD 

had not specialized in any of the science disciplines. The 

subject advisors that we observed seemed to perform 

compliance activities and just ticked on the checklist that 

they had met with teachers. There was nothing beneficial 

(subject content or pedagogical content knowledge) that 

teachers could take with them from these cluster meetings.  

C. Senior/Master Teacher Support 

Considering the multidisciplinary nature of NS, HODs are 

likely to feel inadequate and doubt whether they add value 

for the teachers that they lead. They could also be conscious 

that some of the teachers they supervise know more than 

they do about some subjects or areas of the subject. There is 

a great need to institutionalize the concept of master, senior, 

or lead teachers. Senior teachers are experienced teachers 

with a good knowledge of the learning/subject phase and 

who are committed to high-quality teaching and ongoing 

professional development. They play an important role in 

providing teaching, which includes academic, administrative, 

educational, and disciplinary aspects, and organizing extra 

and co-curricular activities to ensure that education of 

learners is promoted in a proper manner. They also provide 

guidance and counselling, act as mentors and coaches to less 

experienced teachers, and participate in and facilitate 

professional development activities (master teacher). 

Furthermore, senior teachers assist the HOD to identify 

aspects that require special attention and assist in addressing 

them, and, when required, act as head of a subject, phase, or 

grade in support of the relevant HOD (Education Labour 

Relations Council [ELRC], 2008). The senior teacher 

resource would ensure that the expertise of different teachers 

is recognized and deserving teachers are given the 

opportunity and support to lead in their subjects. In this way, 

leadership would be distributed across the followers, 

although it would vary from context to context. Sharing 

leadership would also afford HODs time to attend to their 

leadership duties. When functioning well, senior teachers 

would provide teachers with the subject support that they 

require and they will only have to approach the HOD for 

other administrative and supervisory requirements. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

17 

This senior or master teacher resource is available to 

schools and it is now an official position in South African 

public schools. Only 12.5% of participants in the study 

indicated that they were senior teachers. The challenge is 

finding a way to identify these teachers in schools (Lai & 

Cheung, 2013). The findings suggested that the participants 

in the study identified teachers who could assist them 

themselves, whether they were senior teachers or not. They 

reverted to these colleagues for assistance. These teachers 

showed agency, took responsibility for their own 

development, and approached other teachers (whom could 

be identified as senior or lead teachers) whom they trusted to 

assist them. This act of agency shows that teachers learn best 

through interaction with other teachers and with experts 

acting as “critical friends”, provided there was mutual trust 

(Rollnick & Brodie, 2011). The teachers approached to 

provide assistance demonstrated agency, as defined by 

Sherer (2008), as they saw the need or the gap and provided 

leadership. These teachers in these schools showed a strong 

sense of collegiality and provided professional support and 

guidance without the need to have a formal title of HOD or 

senior teacher. 

D. Classroom Observation 

Classroom observation, whether planned or in the form of 

a walk-in, is a useful tool for identifying shortcomings or 

best practices, especially when it is purposeful (Kruskamp & 

Zepeda, 2007) and initiated by teachers. Most participants 

(56%) indicated that their HODs conducted classroom 

observations, but that the HODs rarely provided feedback 

after the observations. Similar to professional development, 

it was established that the classroom observations that were 

done in schools were only for IQMS purposes. This 

compliance activity was mostly a facade. No follow-up was 

ever done concerning the findings of the IQMS. Classroom 

observations without constructive feedback are not 

beneficial and could therefore be interpreted as being done 

for compliance reasons only. There was a strong compliance 

component at all levels of the instructional hierarchy in the 

schools of this study. The participants did some activities 

simply to comply, even though they did not benefit from it. 

Participants also prepared and presented lessons for the 

IQMS purely for compliance reasons, but they did not see it 

as beneficial. They mentioned that some members of the 

SBATs who conducted the IQMS were not specialists in any 

of the science disciplines and therefore were unlikely to 

provide any useful feedback to the lesson that was presented 

anyway. 

The HODs conducted IQMS classroom observations, had 

subject meetings, and monitored subject content coverage 

for compliance purposes. Furthermore, HODs had been 

trained in the “what” and not the “how” of the job; therefore, 

they found it difficult to supervise. They only stamped and 

signed the learners’ books or teachers’ files as evidence that 

monitoring had been done, but no follow-up was done to 

raise concerns or acknowledge the teachers’ good work.  

V. CONCLUSION 

Participants in the study had very clear views about the 

extent and quality of instructional leadership that were 

provided at their schools. The findings revealed that the way 

school leadership currently allocates NS teachers and 

science HODs in South Africa is rather shortsighted and 

likely to have contributed to the poor performance of 

learners in senior secondary school science. The findings 

also revealed that teachers approached their colleagues, not 

necessarily the HOD, for help with subject matter or 

pedagogical content knowledge. Very little coordinated 

professional development is taking place at the schools, 

except that which is organized by the provincial or district 

offices. Where development is provided, it is in response to 

the teachers’ request and is generally individual support. 

Managing assessment seemed to dominate all areas of 

HOD-teacher interaction. Subject advisors provided limited 

instructional support, which could be improved with better 

organization.  

In this paper, we recommend, firstly, that the allocation of 

science HODs be differentiated into junior and senior 

secondary phase HODs. This does not necessarily mean that 

a new position must be created, but that the existing 

structure should be reorganized to optimize the quality of 

instructional leadership. HODs who teach the subject, 

understand grade expectations, and do not have senior 

secondary pressures should be appointed for the junior 

secondary phase. Secondly, we recommend that school 

leadership recognize senior/master teachers as having proper 

expertise and the ability to provide instructional leadership, 

and to afford them the kind of support that they deserve. 

Acknowledging these senior teachers could ease the 

overload from HODs and could provide subject-specific 

instructional support to NS teachers. If principals and deputy 

principals were proactive in monitoring the work of HODs 

and listening to the views of teachers regarding instructional 

support, as in this study, they would be able to plan 

interventions and provide effective leadership. 

This study only reports findings from a small sample of 

teachers and cannot be generalized to a larger population of 

NS teachers. Further research needs to be done on the extent 

to which schools use senior teachers for NS and the role that 

they play in South African schools generally. We also 

recommend that the relationship between senior teachers and 

HODs be explored further with a view to clarifying their 

respective roles and to avoid duplication and overlapping. 

REFERENCES 

Angelle, P. S., & DeHart, C.A. (2011). Teacher perceptions 

of teacher leadership: Examining differences by 

experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin, 

95, 141-160. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636511415397 

Bambi, A. (2013). The role of head of departments as an 

instructional leader in secondary schools: 

Implications for teaching and learning. 

(Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of 

Johannesburg, South Africa. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

18 

https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10210/

8384/Bambi.pdf?sequence=1  

Bantwini, B. D., & Feze, N. N. (2017). Left behind in a 

democratic society: A case of some farm school 

primary school teachers of natural science in South 

Africa. International Journal of Leadership in 

Education, 20(3), 312-327. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1124927 

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). 

Distributed leadership. Nottingham: National 

College of School Leadership. 

Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal 

instructional leadership and secondary school 

performance. Set: Research Information for 

Teachers, 2012(1), 2-8. 

Brown, M., Rutherford, D., & Boyle, B. (2000). Leadership 

for school improvement: The role of the head of 

department in UK secondary schools. School 

effectiveness and school improvement: An 

international journal of research, policy and 

practice, 11(2), 237-258. 

Bush, T. (2013). Instructional leadership and leadership for 

learning: Global and South African perspectives. 

Education as Change, 17(Sup1), S5-S20. 

https://dx.doi/10.1080/16823206.2014.865986 

Chitamba, N. (2019). The roles and experiences of deputy 

principals with instructional leadership in 

Zimbabwe (Doctoral thesis). University of the Free 

State, Bloemfontein. 

Christensen, H. R., & Rasmussen, A. (2017). Writing to 

learn in the natural sciences: Does source material 

matter? Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(1), 

57-65. 

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research 

methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge 

Falmer. 

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, 

quantitative and mixed methods approaches 

(4th ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. 

Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). National 

curriculum and assessment policy statements. 

Pretoria: Government Printer. 

Department of Education (DoE). (1999). Personnel 

administrative measures. Pretoria: Government 

Printer. 

Department of Education (DoE). (2000). Whole school 

evaluation: Evaluation guidelines and criteria. 

Pretoria: Government Printer. 

Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC). (2008). 

Collective agreement number 1: Framework for the 

establishment of an occupation specific 

dispensation (OSD) for educators in public 

education. 

http://www.elrc.org.za/collectiveagreements/nation

al  

Feeney, E. J. (2009). Taking a look at a school’s leadership 

capacity: The role and function of high school 

department chairs. Clearing House, 82(5), 212-219. 

Ghamrawi, N. (2010). No teacher left behind: Subject 

leadership that promotes teacher leadership. 

Educational Management Administration & 

Leadership, 38, 304-320.  

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. 

(2011). Supervision and instructional leadership: A 

developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & 

Bacon. 

Guthrie, J. W., & Schuermann, P. J. (2010). Successful 

school leadership: Planning, politics, performance, 

and power. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school 

principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. 

Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239. 

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey 

of school improvement: Classifying and analysing 

patterns of change in school improvement processes 

and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and 

School Improvement, 22(1), 1-27. 

Halverson, R. R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders 

use artefacts to create professional community in 

schools. Education Policy and Analysis Archives, 

11(37), 1-34.  

Harris, A., Busher, H., & Wise, C. (2011). Effective training 

for subject leaders. Journal of In-service Education, 

27, 83-94. 

Ismail, S. N., Don, Y., Husin, F., & Khalid, R. (2018). 

Instructional leadership and teachers’ functional 

competency across the 21st century learning. 

International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 135-152. 

https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11310a 

Ismail, M. Z., Mansor, A. N., Iksan, Z., & Nor, M. Y. N. 

(2018). Influence of principals’ instructional 

leadership on science teaching competency. 

Creative Education, 9, 2234-2244. 

https://doi.10.4236/ce/2018.914164 

Koh, H. H. D., Gurr, L., Drysdale, L., & Ang, L. L. (2011). 

How school leaders perceive the leadership role of 

middle leaders in Singapore primary schools. Asia 

Pacific Education Review, 12(4), 609-620. 

Kriek, J., & Basson, I. (2008). Implementation of the new 

FET physical science curriculum: Teachers’ views. 

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, 

Science and Technology Education, 12, 65-76. 

Kruskamp, B., & Zepeda, S. (2007). High school department 

chairs: Perspectives on instructional supervision. 

The High School Journal, 90(4), 44-54. 

Lai, E., & Cheung D. (2013). Implementing a new senior 

secondary curriculum in Hong Kong: Instructional 

leadership practices and qualities of school 

principals. School Leadership and Management, 

33(4), 322-353.  

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of 

transformational leadership on organizational 

conditions and student engagement with school. 

Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 

112-129. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2022. Page 1-19 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

19 

Makgato, M., & Mji, A. (2006). Factors associated with high 

school learners’ poor performance: A spotlight on 

mathematics and physical science. South African 

Journal of Education, 26(2), 253-266. 

Malinga, C. B., & Jita, L. C. (2015). Science HODs’ 

capacity to lead instruction: An exploratory survey 

of Gauteng province districts in South Africa. 

(Unpublished manuscript). University of the Free 

State, Bloemfontein. 

Mbatha, L., Grobler, B., & Loock, C. (2006). Delegation of 

authority by school principals: An education law 

perspective. Education as Change, 10, 3-15. 

Melville, W., Jones, D., & Campbell, T. (2014). Distributed 

leadership with the aim of ‘reculturing’: A 

departmental case study. School Leadership & 

Management, 34(3), 237-254. 

Naicker, I., Chikoko, V., & Mthiyane, S. E. (2013). 

Instructional leadership practices in challenging 

school contexts. Education as Change, 17(S1), 

S137-S150. 

Ng, D. F. S. (2019). Instructional leadership. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33208770

3  

Ng, F. S. D., Nguyen, D., Wong, K. S. B., & Choy, K. W. W. 

(2015). Instructional leadership practices in 

Singapore. School Leadership & Management, 

35(4), 388-407. 

Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A 

community of practice perspective. Educational 

Administration Quarterly, 44, 187-226. 

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). 

Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. 

Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. 

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to 

leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and 

methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy 

in Schools, 9, 1-26. 

Rollnick, M., & Brodie, K. (2011). International best 

practice of specialist mathematics and science 

public school initiatives/programmes. Johannesburg: 

CDE. 

Sherer, J. Z. (2008). Power in distributed leadership: How 

teacher agency influences instructional leadership 

practice. In AERA Conference, Washington, DC, 

March 27, 2008. 

Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic 

departments in secondary schools. Washington, DC: 

Routledge & Falmer. 

Smith, C., Mestry, R., & Bambie, A. (2013). Role players’ 

experience and perceptions of heads of 

departments’ instructional leadership role in 

secondary schools. Education as Change, 17(Sup1), 

S163-S176. 

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: 

How the subject matters. School Leadership & 

Management, 25(4), 383-397. 

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms 

of capital and the construction of leadership: 

Instructional leadership in urban elementary 

schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17. 

Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for 

instruction in education systems and school 

organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721-747. 

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2012). Common core of 

mixed methods research: A review of critical issues 

and call for greater convergence. American 

Behavioral Scientist, 56(6): 774-788. 

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing 

theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 

37(4), 395-420.  

Turner, C. (2003). The distinctiveness of the subject being 

taught and the work of subject heads of department 

in managing the quality of classroom teaching and 

learning in secondary schools in Wales. School 

Leadership & Management, 23, 41-57. 

Umalusi. (2008). Learning from Africa: Science. A report of 

Umalusi’s research comparing science syllabuses 

and examinations in South Africa with those in 

Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. Pretoria: Umalusi. 

Vercio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of 

research on the impact of professional learning 

communities on teaching practice and student 

learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 

80-91. 

Vogel, L. R. (2018). Learning outside the classroom: How 

principals define and prepare to be instructional 

leaders. Education Research International, 2018, 

1-4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8034270 

Wanzare, Z. O. (2013). Skills and attributes of instructional 

supervisors: Experience from Kenya. Educational 

Research and Review, 8(24), 2270-2280. 

Winn, K. M. (2016). Instructional leadership in elementary 

science: How are school leaders positioned to lead 

in a next generation science standard era? 

(Doctoral thesis). University of Iowa, Iowa City. 

https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.2fwpqaku 

Wise, C. (2000). Being a curriculum leader: Helping 

colleagues to improve learning. In H. Busher & 

A. Harris (Eds.), Subject leadership and school 

improvement (pp. 59-71). London: Paul Chapman. 

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about 

teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of 

scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 

255-316.