African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1028-8457 (Print) 1811-7295 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20

The Development and Use of an Instrument to

Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous
Knowledge

Annelize Cronje, Josef de Beer & Piet Ankiewicz

To cite this article: Annelize Cronje, Josef de Beer & Piet Ankiewicz (2015) The Development
and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge,
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19:3, 319-332,
DOI: 10.1080/10288457.2015.1108567

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1108567

Published online: 30 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmse20

Download by: [Gazi University] Date: 29 March 2016, At: 19:12

 African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2015
Vol. 19, No. 3, 319–332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1108567
© 2015 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE)

The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate

Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge

Annelize Cronje, Josef de Beer* and Piet Ankiewicz

University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

*Corresponding author. Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520 Email: josef.debeer@nwu.ac.za
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

Science teachers in South Africa and globally experience difficulties with the integration of indigenous
knowledge into their science lessons—a requirement of many science curricula. One of the reasons for
this may relate to the views teachers hold about indigenous knowledge. Such views can form a barrier
against successful inclusion of indigenous knowledge in the science classroom. It was, therefore,
deemed useful to investigate teachers’ views on indigenous knowledge. This article reports on the
development of a theoretical framework, and a questionnaire derived from it, to investigate teachers’
views on indigenous knowledge. The researchers were informed by the framework developed by
Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Schwartz regarding the nature of science (NOS) and their views-on-
the-NOS questionnaire. A qualitative study was done to develop and validate the views-on-the-nature-of-
indigenous-knowledge instrument (VNOIK). The findings indicate that the VNOIK instrument is suitable
to determine a wide range of views of science teachers on the nature of indigenous knowledge. We
found that South African science teachers held mainly a partially informed view on the nature of
indigenous knowledge. The new instrument can be used to measure the effect of a short learning
programme and to identify further development needs of science teachers in addressing the tenets of
science and indigenous knowledge effectively in the classroom.

Keywords: Science education; indigenous knowledge; teacher perceptions; indigenous knowledge questionnaire

Indigenous Knowledge Revived in Science Education

Although indigenous knowledge has been with us for centuries, it has been neglected and omitted from
science curricula for many years (Kibirige & van Rooyen, 2006). Odora Hoppers (2004) calls this
phenomenon ‘knowledge apartheid’. Globally there is increasing interest in revisiting indigenous
knowledge where traditional ‘Western knowledge’ has failed to solve problems such as hunger,
poverty, sustainable development and certain illnesses (Senanayake, 2006; Odora Hoppers, 2004).
In addition, the introduction or integration of indigenous knowledge into the science classroom might
make science more relevant to students in culturally diverse classrooms (de Beer & Whitlock, 2009)
since it will reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds of the learners and enhance their knowledge con-
struction (Botha, 2012). Indigenous knowledge holds affordances for conceptual development of lear-
ners in the science classroom, since this cultural knowledge often serves the formal curriculum
concepts well. Learners from indigenous backgrounds may experience a conflict between the
‘Western science’ they learn at school and their existing indigenous knowledge (Kibirige & van
Rooyen, 2006). By including indigenous knowledge in the science classroom, the social identities of
such learners can be acknowledged, learning might be turned into a positive experience and the atti-
tude of learners towards science might change (de Beer & Whitlock, 2009).

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education is co-published by Unisa Press and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
 320 Cronje et al

The Relevance of Science Education project researched science learning in 40 different countries
and recommends that science curricula be localised by including indigenous knowledge in the class-
room in order to reflect the cultural traditions of the learners (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). In South
Africa the newly implemented Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) also specifically
states that indigenous knowledge be incorporated into the curriculum (Department of Basic Education,
2012). The authors of the CAPS document state that science teachers have a social responsibility to
sensitise learners regarding the importance and practical value of indigenous knowledge. In order to
support teachers with this responsibility, we need to map what the teachers’ views are of the nature
of indigenous knowledge. Therefore this study explores the following research questions:
. How could teachers’ views on indigenous knowledge be determined?
. What are the views of science teachers on the nature of indigenous knowledge?
The term ‘indigenous knowledge’ is used in this article to refer specifically to African indigenous
knowledge, but some of the aspects can also refer to, or be applied to, indigenous knowledge in
general.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

The Problem of Integrating Indigenous Knowledge into the Science Classroom

Although most teachers do recognise the value of indigenous knowledge and the need to integrate
indigenous knowledge into the science classroom (Ogunniyi, 2007b), many science teachers struggle
to actually incorporate indigenous knowledge into their classrooms. The literature suggests several
reasons for this failure to integrate indigenous knowledge, the main reasons being: teachers have
not been exposed to this type of training themselves since they were trained in so-called ‘Western
science’ (Ogunniyi, 2007a); there is a lack of instructional methods and pedagogical content knowl-
edge (Mothwa, 2011); and the curriculum was implemented in a top-down approach with little accom-
panying training (Ogunniyi, 2007a; Onwu & Stoffels, 2005). Some science teachers fear that they will
be teaching pseudoscience when integrating indigenous knowledge into Western science as indigen-
ous knowledge has not been proven scientifically or is not based on scientific methods (De Beer &
Whitlock, 2009; Regmi & Fleming, 2012). De Beer and van Wyk (2011) also mention the lack of litera-
ture and books on indigenous knowledge and the ‘lived conflict’ between indigenous knowledge and
mainstream religion as possible reasons for lack of integration: several teachers indicated that the
practice of traditional healers of making contact with the ancestors conflicts with their Christian or
Muslim religious beliefs.
Less obvious reasons that could contribute to the lack of integration are the perceived conflict that
exists between the worldviews of indigenous science and Western science (Botha, 2012); lack of
understanding of the nature of science and the nature of indigenous knowledge (Easton, 2011; Ogun-
niyi, 2007a, b); and teachers having to cross cultural borders in order to implement indigenous knowl-
edge in a science classroom (Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999). Botha (2012) argues that these reasons,
and the perceived conflict between indigenous knowledge and Western science, are rooted in the
basic ontological and epistemological frameworks underpinning the two knowledge systems. Contrast-
ingly, Regmi and Fleming (2012) argue that the frameworks underpinning the two knowledge systems
should be seen as connecting and complementary to each other.
Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Lederman (1998) mention the assumed relationship that exists between
teachers’ views on certain concepts and how they teach. A series of studies describing the relationship
between teachers’ views on the nature of science and their classroom practices report that teachers’
views on the nature of science could form a barrier during the implementation of new curricula (Saad &
BouJaoude, 2012). Taking this into consideration, there is an urgent need to determine how science
teachers view the nature of indigenous knowledge and the nature of science.
In order to determine the views of science teachers on the nature of indigenous knowledge, a suit-
able questionnaire is required. In our search for a suitable questionnaire to determine these views, only
two instruments were located. Ogunniyi (2007b) refers to a qualitative questionnaire consisting of six
items that ask teachers to rate statements on the characteristics of indigenous knowledge and provide
 The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge 321

explanations for their rating. Unfortunately the theoretical underpinning of the questionnaire was not
evident. Webb (2013) also reports on a questionnaire administered to teachers to determine their
awareness of indigenous knowledge and views on integration into their science classroom. This
open-ended questionnaire consists of four items and does not focus entirely on how teachers view
the nature of indigenous knowledge, but rather on the importance and relation of indigenous knowl-
edge to science education. The lack of a suitable instrument based on a sound theoretical framework
to determine the views of science teachers on the nature of indigenous knowledge poses a serious
problem. The aim of this article is to report on the research that was done to address this problem.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Western Science vs Indigenous Knowledge

Modern science originated in Europe and then spread to the rest of the Western world and other non-
Western countries, still keeping European culture as a framework, and is therefore known as Euro-
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

centric or Western science (Jegede, 1997). According to Jegede (1997, p. 4), Western culture
deems modern science as ‘the only path to knowledge acquisition’ and separates scientific Western
thinking from ‘primitive’ or non-Western thought. Indigenous knowledge is viewed by Hewson and
Ogunniyi (2011, p. 680) as knowledge that has existed in the ‘non-Western world before the advent
of colonialism’ and can be defined as: ‘the common sense knowledge and ideas of local peoples
about the everyday realities of living’ (Dei, 1993, p. 105). Although there are initiatives to review and
incorporate indigenous knowledge into school science, Western science is today still viewed as
superior to indigenous knowledge as it is seen as universal and objective or ‘culture free’ (Le
Grange, 2007). Research by De Beer and van Wyk (2012) revealed that almost two out of three
science teachers in two provinces of South Africa are of the opinion that indigenous knowledge and
science are in conflict with each other. Another finding from this study is that most of these teachers
integrated indigenous knowledge into the science classroom by using it as an add-on, referring to
only one or two examples.
Despite indigenous knowledge being included in the intended science curriculum and recognised
worldwide as a knowledge system, recognition and validation of indigenous knowledge is still
causing tension amongst learners, teachers and scientists (Onwu & Mosimege, 2004; Odora
Hoppers, 2004). Some researchers see Western science and indigenous knowledge systems as
having similarities and that they can thus complement each other in the science classroom, while
others focus on the differences and feel that they will compete with each other (Bohensky & Maru,
2011; Vhurumuku & Mokeleche, 2009). These tensions make it difficult for science teachers to
implement indigenous knowledge in the classroom and for students with a different worldview to
learn Western science (Botha, 2012; Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999). It is therefore essential to provide
science teachers with the necessary skills to facilitate border crossing between the two different
epistemologies.

The Nature of Science

Science curricula taught globally and in South Africa are based mainly on Western or modern science
(Botha, 2012; Breidlid, 2003). Modern science taught in schools today focuses on developing scientific
literacy in science students rather than on the memorisation of facts or theories (Khishfe & Lederman,
2006; Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun & Hanuscin, 2012). The nature of science perspective acknowledges
that science not only consists of facts, laws and theories, but also includes human activities such as
investigations, processes, attitudes and beliefs (Vhurumuku, 2010). Literature on the nature of
science makes it clear that, owing to the complexity of what the ‘nature of science’ means, there is
no single understanding of what the nature of science entails, but certain common characteristics
do emerge consistently. We adopt the tenets or principles of the nature of science suggested by Leder-
man, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Schwartz (2002) for this study. These tenets include the following:
science is empirically based; there is a difference between scientific theories and scientific laws; scien-
tific knowledge is creative and theory-laden; science is socially and culturally embedded; scientific
 322 Cronje et al

knowledge is tentative; and there is no one scientific method (the myth of the scientific method). Vhur-
umuku (2010) adds to these tenets that there is a difference between observation and inference, and
that scientific knowledge, although being theory-laden, is also partly subjective.

The Nature-of-Indigenous-Knowledge Framework

Dekkers and Mnisi (2003) explain that science teachers need to be equipped with the underpinnings and
values of a knowledge system if teachers have to teach different knowledge systems ‘side by side’. In
order to assist curriculum developers and science teachers with successful border crossing in the inte-
gration of indigenous knowledge systems into the science curriculum and classroom teaching, a philo-
sophical framework is suggested that can fit both science indigenous knowledge and Western science. It
must be clearly stated that the aim of such a philosophical framework is not to compare indigenous and
Western science or to determine if one is superior to the other. The philosophical framework of the nature
of indigenous knowledge includes aspects, as explained by Ankiewicz (2013), such as the ontology
(what is indigenous knowledge?), the epistemology (ways of knowing), the methodology (methods of
wisdom in action) and the volition (the will to—linked to values, beliefs and attitudes) of indigenous
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

knowledge. Although one can distinguish between the four components, they are not readily separable
as they are intertwined. Ankiewicz (2013) argues that teachers’ understanding and knowledge of such a
philosophical underpinning can assist them with the choice of teaching strategies as well as the pro-
cedural and conceptual knowledge to teach. The framework was developed using the nature-of-
science framework by Lederman et al. (2002) and Vhurumuku (2010), as a guideline.
There are multiple perspectives on the nature of indigenous knowledge as explained by Aikenhead
and Ogawa (2007), but certain general characteristics or perspectives on indigenous knowledge con-
stantly emerge in the literature. The tenets or principles of indigenous knowledge suggested in the
nature-of-indigenous-knowledge (NOIK) framework correspond to these general characteristics and
are not seen as the fixed characteristics of indigenous knowledge, but are deemed important by the
authors when integrating indigenous knowledge into the science classroom and curricula. The
tenets for the NOIK framework were derived from various authors, as indicated in Table 1. These
tenets state that indigenous knowledge is: (1) empirical and metaphysical in nature; (2) resilient yet
tentative; (3) inferential yet intuitive; (4) creative and mythical; (5) subjective; (6) social, collaborative
and cultural; (7) wisdom in action; (8) functional application and (9) a holistic approach. The tenets
of the NOIK framework were developed to relate to and complement the framework of the nature of
science, but simultaneously not compromising the important ways of knowing of indigenous knowl-
edge. Table 1 explains the main tenets of the NOIK framework and how it relates to the nature-of-
science (NOS) framework.
We believe that, although two distinct knowledge systems, each with its own ontology, epistemology,
methodology and volition, there is dovetailing between them. Our perspective of indigenous knowledge
and how it should be taught in the science classroom could be summarised by the following principles:
. science teachers should acknowledge the holistic and contextualised nature of indigenous
knowledge;
. the metaphysical component, although not subjected to physical causal laws that characterise the
natural sciences, is prominent in indigenous knowledge and science should respect this;
. the creative dimensions of both science and indigenous knowledge need to be fore-grounded.

Empirical Investigation

The aim of this investigation was to develop an instrument that could be used to determine the views of
science teachers on indigenous knowledge. A qualitative research design using a design-based strat-
egy guided the study. The instrument was piloted among teachers attending a short learning pro-
gramme on the incorporation of indigenous knowledge in the science classroom. The development
of such a short course used a design-based research methodology during which we distilled design
principles for improving such offerings. In response to the lack of a suitable instrument to determine
the views of science teachers on indigenous knowledge, we developed our own questionnaire,

Table 1. Tenets of the nature of indigenous knowledge (NOIK) framework in relation to the tenets of the nature of science (NOS) framework
Tenet
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016
no. NOIK
1 Empirical and metaphysical NOIK
Nature is real, partly or generally tested and observed. Needs-based
experimentation. The universe is orderly, metaphysical and partly
predictable (Agrawal, 1995; Bohensky & Maru, 2011; Le Grange,
2007, Ogunniyi, 2004).
2 Resilient yet tentative NOIK
Indigenous knowledge has withstood the test of time, but is constantly
changing as tradition; it is fluid and transformative—linked to people’s
experiences. The elders’ repository of ways of knowing is truth and not
to be challenged (Barnhardt, 2008; Bohensky & Maru, 2011;
Senanayake, 2006).
3 Inferential yet intuitive NOIK
Facts are both tested and experimental observations made. Events
have both natural and unnatural causes; metaphysical dimensions are
important (Le Grange, 2007; Ogunniyi, 2004; Senanayake, 2006).
4 Creative and mythical NOIK
Observations and experimenting are not the only sources of ways of
knowing. Human creativity, imagination, metaphors and myths also
play a role (Barnhardt, 2008; De Beer & van Wyk, 2011).
5 Subjectivity of NOIK
Indigenous ways of knowing are based on cosmology and interwoven
with culture and the spiritual. The elders can be influenced by prior
ways of knowing and beliefs (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Ogunniyi,
2004)
The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge
Tenet
no NOS
1 Empirical NOS
Nature is real, observable and testable. The universe is orderly and
predictable.
2 Tentative NOS
Science is subject to change and not absolute and certain. It is
challengeable by all.
3 Inferential NOS
There is a clear distinction between observations made of nature and
deductions or conclusions (inferences) made from observations to
explain the causes. All events have natural causes.
4 Creative NOS
Observations and experiments are not the only sources of scientific
knowledge. Human creativity and imagination also play a role.
5 Subjectivity (theory-laden) of NOS
Scientists strive to be objective and culture free, but as human
beings they are subjective and influenced by theoretical and
disciplinary commitments, prior knowledge and beliefs.
(Continued)
323

Table 1. Continued.
Tenet
no. NOIK
6 Social, collaborative and cultural NOIK
Indigenous knowledge is situated in cultural tradition and within a
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016
certain historical–political context. It is the consequence of activities
connected to everyday life in the natural environment of a group of
people. It does not focus on the individual, but on the group and
sharing. Indigenous knowledge is locally rooted and ecologically
based. It is generated at a specific place by people of that place.
Indigenous knowledge is orally transmitted Generalisations are relative
within a certain context and can be shared amongst communities and
beyond (Agrawal, 1995, Barnhardt, 2008; Bohensky & Maru, 2011).
7 Wisdom in action and NOIK
Indigenous knowledge is generated by practical engagement in
everyday life through trial and error experiences. Repetition, imitation
and ceremonies are methods to aid retention and reinforce ideas. New
ideas are rigorously tested in the ‘laboratory of survival’ (Senanayake,
2006, p. 87; Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Barnhardt, 2008; De Beer &
van Wyk, 2011).
8 Functional application and NOIK
Indigenous knowledge is concerned with what and why things happen
in nature, but also with what ought to happen. Emphasis is on
functional application and skills. Indigenous knowledge is concerned
with the everyday lives of people rather than facts, theories and laws
(Agrawal, 1995, Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007).
9 Holistic approach of indigenous knowledge
Indigenous knowledge is ‘a conglomeration of knowledge systems’
(Ogunniyi, 2007a, p. 965) including science, religion, psychology and
other fields. Problems are solved in a holistic manner addressing all the
smaller parts with no boundaries with the metaphysical world (Agrawal,
1995; Senanayake, 2006).
324
Tenet
no NOS
6 Social and cultural NOS
Scientists try to be objective, but science is a human endeavour and
is therefore affected by a social and cultural milieu. Scientists do
sometimes work individually. Science is generated at a specific place
and thus local, but generalised scientific laws and theories have
universal applications.
7 Methods and NOS
Science knowledge is not generated by a single step-by-step
universal method. Scientists use a variety of methods to solve
problems and test theories. These methods are usually done in
laboratories.
8 Theories and laws and NOS
Scientists use theories and laws to explain what, why and how things
happen in nature. A scientific law describes what happens, while a
theory explains why and how things happen. Scientific laws are
causal, rational and logic.
9 Reductionist approach of NOS
Complex phenomena can be broken down into small parts and
analysed. The part to whole method is used.
Cronje et al
 The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge 325

based on the views-on-the-nature-of-science (VNOS) Form C (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998) and

grounded in the nature-NOIK framework discussed in Table 1. The items in the instrument were devel-
oped based on a comprehensive literature study, including the CAPS documents, science textbooks,
the VNOS instrument and examples used by leading scholars in the field. The views-on-the-nature-of-
indigenous-knowledge questionnaire (VNOIK), described in Figure 1, consists of 10 open-ended ques-
tions aimed to probe respondents’ views on the nature of indigenous knowledge according to the NOIK
described in Table 1. Focus group interviews with similar open-ended questions were used for triangu-
lation purposes.

Sampling and Data Collection

Purposeful sampling was used in this research. For the first pilot the questionnaire was administered to
five secondary school science teachers who were also enrolled for a post-graduate qualification in
science education. This was a diverse group with 80% of the teachers being African and 20%
white. Adaptations were made in the way the questions were stated in order to eliminate confusion.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

The questionnaire was then administered to a total sample of 46 teachers in three separate interven-
tions. It was first administered to 26 science teachers (Life, Physical and Natural Science teachers)
from different schools in a metropolitan area in Gauteng attending a 3 day professional development
workshop on indigenous knowledge. This was followed by another two rounds of data collection: from a
group of 10 Life Science teachers attending a 3 day professional development workshop on indigen-
ous knowledge from different schools in a semi-rural area in the North-West Province, and lastly from a
group of 10 teachers in a township area in a very rural part of Mpumalanga. The participants involved
were 76% African and 24% white, Indian or coloured. The participants were able to complete the ques-
tionnaire within an hour.

Ethics and Trustworthiness

In order to ensure that ethical aspects were adhered to, permission was obtained from the university,
the provincial Department of Education as well as the participating teachers. The participants were
assured of the confidentiality of the responses. It was noted that the completion of the questionnaires
was not compulsory for participating in the short learning programme. To ensure validity of the ques-
tionnaire, a panel of experts consisting of two science educators, two indigenous knowledge special-
ists, a language expert and two science education specialists examined the initial questionnaire to
ensure content and face validity. The suggestions of the panel were implemented and the question-
naire was modified accordingly. The questionnaire was then administered to two pilot groups of
science teachers and the views of the teachers did correspond with what was found in focus group
interviews on the VNOIK. The focus group interviews and the triangulation of data resulted in a
more nuanced description of the VNOIK. All three trial runs did yield corresponding findings. After
each pilot round the questionnaire was adapted. The face validity of the questionnaire was ensured
by the theoretical framework that grounded the development. In order to ensure that all the tenets in
the NOIK framework were covered, the questions were evaluated and weighed against the tenets of
the nature of indigenous knowledge framework to ensure that respondents provided an informed
and comprehensive view on the nature of indigenous knowledge. Table 2 explains how the questions
in the VNOIK questionnaire are linked to the tenets of the NOIK framework and ensures that a com-
prehensive view is elicited from participants. The highlighted question numbers refer most specifically
to the corresponding tenet. The questions relate to the ontological aspects of indigenous knowledge.
Question one relates to all tenets owing to the open-ended nature of the question.

Data Analysis Method

In order to ensure consistency in coding and evaluating the responses of the respective participants, a
rubric was used as guideline, as explained in Table 3. According to this rubric the responses to each
 326 Cronje et al
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

Figure 1. Views-on-the-nature-of-indigenous-knowledge (VNOIK) questionnaire

 The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge 327
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

Figure 1. Continued.
 328 Cronje et al

Table 2. Linking VNOIK questions with the VNOIK framework

Tenet Related VNOIK

no. Explanation of tenet question Core components related to the tenet
1 That indigenous knowledge is 1, 2, 3, 5 Observing nature, doing experiments and
empirically and metaphysically explaining observations
based
2 That indigenous knowledge is resilient 1, 4, 10 Change over time, can be modified
yet tentative
3 That indigenous knowledge is 1, 2, 3, 5 Generating knowledge, explaining
inferential yet intuitive observation, including supernatural
causes
4 That indigenous knowledge is creative 1, 6, 8, 10 Alleviating problems, myths, rituals, creativity
and mythical and imagination
5 That indigenous knowledge is 1, 9, 10 Social and cultural values, contextual
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

subjective
6 That indigenous knowledge is social, 1, 8, 9, 10 Orally transmitted to new generations, social
collaborative and cultural and cultural values
7 That indigenous knowledge is wisdom 1, 5, 6 Trial and error, laboratory of survival
in action
8 That indigenous knowledge is 1, 5, 6, 7 Practical application, addressing needs
applicable and functional
9 That indigenous knowledge is holistic 1, 7 Psychomatic origin of disease, blurred
by nature boundaries with metaphysical, data
interpreter

question on the questionnaire were coded as an informed view, a partially informed view or an unin-
formed view on indigenous knowledge.
Each participant was allocated a weighting for their responses as follows: an uninformed view (UI)
scored 0 points, a partially informed view (PI) scored 1 point and an informed view (I) scored 2
points, as can be seen in Table 4. To obtain the predominant category for each teacher, the
average was calculated and rounded off. The average score indicates the perceived view of a partici-
pant on indigenous knowledge.

Results of the Use of the Instrument for a Pre–Post Intervention Study

The results summarised in Table 5 indicate that only a few (4%) of the 46 participants held initially an
uninformed view on indigenous knowledge; the majority (83%) held a partially informed view and a
smaller number (13%) an informed view. After the intervention there was a positive change in the
views of the participants on the NOIK as indicated in columns two and three of table 5.
The percentage of uninformed, partially informed and informed views for each question before the
intervention was also calculated and used to determine in which aspects of indigenous knowledge
the participants needed professional development. Some examples of these results are: none of the
participants had an informed view on what indigenous knowledge is (Q1; tenets 1–10); the majority
of the participants (76%) did not realise that indigenous knowledge was empirically based (Q2;
tenet 1), while only 28% realised that inferences were made by indigenous knowledge practitioners
(Q3; tenet 3). The holistic nature of indigenous knowledge was known to 11% (Q7; tenet 9) of the par-
ticipants, 28% understood the role that myths play in indigenous knowledge and (Q8; tenet 4), and 30%
realised that the elders could also be influenced and therefore indigenous knowledge could be subjec-
tive (Q10; tenet 5). These results helped to inform the design of our short learning programme. This
indication of how science teachers view indigenous knowledge also informed the type of interventions
needed in terms of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development.
 The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge 329

Table 3. Rubric for coding of participants’ responses to the VNOIK instrument

Question Informed view (I)
1 Mentions at least four of the
anticipated answers or other
tenets of indigenous knowledge
2 Answers yes, with an acceptable
reason or example
3 Can include supernatural to explain
causes. Gives examples of
possible unnatural causes
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016
Partially informed view (PI)
Mentions at least two of the
anticipated answers or other
tenets of indigenous
knowledge
Answers yes without explanation
or with reason that is not
acceptable
Answers no with acceptable
explanation
Can include supernatural to
explain causes. Does not give
examples of possible unnatural
Uninformed view (UI)
Mentions one or none of the
anticipated answers or
other tenets of
indigenous knowledge
Answers no or not sure
Answers no just natural
causes

causes or gives irrelevant

4 Answers yes and no or yes, but,
and explains the resilience of
indigenous knowledge but that
indigenous knowledge can be
modified as needs of society
changes
5 Comprehensive suitable
explanation including at least two
examples relating to everyday
life needs or trial and error
methods
6 Yes with suitable explanation/
example
7 Provides one holistic method
including physical and spiritual
systems and treatment including
medicinal plants or rituals
8 Answers yes with explanation or
example
9 Yes it reflects social and cultural
values plus explanation/
example.
Believe it is universal/
transferrable/partially
transferrable with suitable
explanation/example
10 Yes it can change with suitable
explanation or it can be modified
with explanation and/or example
explanation
Answers just yes with correct Answers yes or not sure
explanation of why it stays the without any explanation
same or no with correct
explanation of why it changes
Short suitable explanation Not sure or unsuitable
including at least one example explanation
relating to everyday life needs
or trial and error methods
Yes with no explanation or Not sure or no
unsuitable explanation
Provides either method or Not sure or unsuitable
treatment suggested in column explanation
one of question 7 in this table
Answers yes without suitable Not sure or unsuitable
explanation or example explanation
Yes it reflects social and cultural No to both questions or
values plus explanation/ unsuitable explanations
example.
Does not believe it can be
transferred with no explanation
Yes or partially but explanation is Not sure or no
not suitable

Table 4. Examples of coded results on the VNOIK questionnaire

Participant Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Overall score

001 I PI I PI I I I I I PI
Weighting 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 (1.7)
002 UI UI PI PI I I I PI I UI
Weighting 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 (1.1)
Q = Question; N/A = not answered; UI = uninformed view (0) ; PI = partially informed view (1); I = informed view (2).
 330 Cronje et al

Table 5. Average percentage of participants’ VNOIK before and after interventions

VNOIK before VNOIK after Percentage points change

UI 4% 0% 4% <
PI 83% 59% 24% <
I 13% 41% 28% >
UI = Uninformed view; PI = partially informed view; I = informed view; < = decrease; > = increase.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study reports on the development of a qualitative instrument to determine the views of science
teachers on indigenous knowledge. It is very difficult to establish the validity or trustworthiness of a
qualitative instrument of this nature. The theoretical underpinning of the questionnaire together with
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

the subject specialists’ recommendations, the three pilot runs and the interviews do indicate a reason-
able efficacy of the views-on-indigenous-knowledge questionnaire. We envisage in the next phase of
this research to use Rasch modelling to determine construct validity (Bond & Fox, 2007). This psycho-
metric model is used to analyse categorical data and should be useful in identifying items that do not fit,
and so improve the instrument.
The aim of the questionnaire was to determine the general views of science teachers on indigenous
knowledge as well as their views on specific tenets of indigenous knowledge. This information did not
intend to ‘label’ the science teachers, but to utilise their views on indigenous knowledge in order to
inform possible professional development programmes for science teachers on the integration of indi-
genous knowledge into the science classroom. This questionnaire utilised examples of indigenous
knowledge local to South Arica, but the examples can be adjusted to include examples indigenous
to any country it will be administered in. The questionnaire can also be used as a pre- and post-inter-
vention questionnaire in order to determine the impact of a professional development programme on
the integration of indigenous knowledge. The instrument provides an important tool for professional
development practitioners of both pre-service and in-service science teachers concerned with the inte-
gration of indigenous knowledge into the science classroom. This instrument is currently being used in
several intervention programmes in four provinces (Gauteng, North-West Province, Mpumalanga and
Limpopo).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice; Making the
unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–437.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and
Change, 26, 413–439.
Aikenhead, G.S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 2, 539–620.
Ankiewicz, P. (2013). ‘n Teoretiese besinning oor die implikasies van die filosofie van tegnologie vir klaskamerprak-
tyk. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 32(1), 1–9.
Barnhardt, R. (2008). Creating a place for inidigenous knowledge in education: The Alaka Native Knowledge
Network. In D. Gruenewald and G. Smith (Eds.), Local diversity: Place-based education in the global age (pp.
113–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bohensky, E.L., & Maru, Y. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: What have we learned from a
decade of international literature on ‘integration’? Ecology and Society, 16(4), 6.
Bond, T.G., & Fox, C.M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 The Development and Use of an Instrument to Investigate Science Teachers’ Views on Indigenous Knowledge 331

Botha, L.R. (2012). Using expansive learning to include indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 16(1), 57–70.
Breidlid, A. (2003). Ideology, cultural values and education: The case of Curriculum 2005 in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 21(2), 83–103.
De Beer, J., & van Wyk, B. (2011). Doing an ethnobotanical survey in the life sciences classroom. The American
Biology Teacher, 73(2), 90–97.
De Beer, J., & van Wyk, B. (2012). Inheemsekennis in die lewenswetenskappe-klaskamer: Wetenskap, pseudo-
wetenskap, of versmisteskakel? Suid Afriaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 31(1), article 368.
De Beer, J., & Whitlock, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledge in the life sciences classroom: Put on your de Bono Hats!
The American Biology Teacher, 71(4), 209–216.
Dei, G. (1993). Sustainable development in the African context: Revisiting some theoretical and methodological
issues. African Development, 18(2), 97–110.
Department of Basic Education (2012). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS). Retrieved from http://
www.education.gpg.gpv.za
Dekkers, P., & Mnisi, E. (2003). The nature of science—Do teachers have the underpinnings they are expected to
teach? African Journal of Research in MST Education, 7, 21–34.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016

Easton, P.B. (2011). Hawks and baby chickens: Cultivating the sources of indigenous science education. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 705–717.
Hewson, M.G., & Ogunniyi, M.B. (2011). Argumentation-teaching as a method to introduce indigenous knowledge
into science classrooms: Opportunities and challenges. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 679–692.
Jegede, O.J. (1997). School science and the development of scientific culture: A review of contemporary science
education in Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 1–20
Jegede, O.J., & Aikenhead, G.S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 45–66.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-
integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kibirige, I., & van Rooyen, H. (2006). Enriching science teaching through the inclusion of indigenous knowledge.
Indigenous knowledge in the science classroom. In J. De Beer & H. van Rooyen (Eds.), Teaching science in
the OBE classroom (pp. 235–247). Johannesburg: Macmillan.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire:
Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Le Grange, L. (2007). Integrating western and indigenous knowledge systems: The basis for effective science edu-
cation in South Africa. International Review of Education, 53, 577–591.
Mothwa, M.M. (2011). Teachers’ experiences of incorporating indigenous knowledge in the life sciences classroom.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
Odora Hoppers, C.A. (2004, 8–12 March). Culture, indigenous knowledge and development. Paper presented at
conference on Development Priorities and the Role of Tertiary Education, Wilton Park, UK.
Ogunniyi, M.B, (2004). The challenge of preparing and equipping science teachers in higher education to integrate
scientific and indigenous knowledge systems for learners. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(3), 289–
304.
Ogunniyi, M.B. (2007a). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science indigenous knowledge cur-
riculum: Part 1. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 963–986.
Ogunniyi, M.B. (2007b). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science indigenous knowledge cur-
riculum: Part 2. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1189–1207.
Onwu, G., & Mosimege, M. (2004). Indigenous knowledge systems and science and technology education: A dia-
logue. African Journal of Research in MST Education, 8(1), 1–12.
Onwu, G., & Stoffels, N. (2005). Instructional functions in large under-resourced science classes: Perspectives of
South African teachers. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 79–91.
Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2012). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’
views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43(4),
1551–1570.
Regmi, J., & Fleming, M. (2012). Indigenous knowledge and science in a globalized age. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 7, 479–484.
Saad, R., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). The relationship between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about science and
inquiry and their classroom practices. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2),
113–128.
 332 Cronje et al

Senanayake, S. (2006). Indigenous knowledge as a key to sustainable development. The Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 2(1), 87–94.
Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: Overview and key findings. University of Oslo. Retrieved
from http://eacea.ec/europa.eu/educawtion/eurydice/
Vhurumuku, E. (2010). Using scientific investigations to explain the nature of science. In U. Ramnarain (Ed.),
Teaching scientific investigations. Johannesburg: Macmillan.
Vhurumuku, E., & Mokeleche, M. (2009). The nature of science and indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa,
2000–2007: A critical review of the research in science education. African Journal of Research in MST Education,
SI, 96–114.
Webb, P. (2013). Xhosa indigenous knowledge: Stakeholder awareness, value and choice. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 89–110.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 19:12 29 March 2016