39
the key areas of learning (Wayne, 2014). South Africa implemented another revised school curriculum (CAPS) in 2012, adopting the contingent approaches but also strictly guiding the teachers on what, how and when to teach. The aim was to cater for the diverse schools’ needs and to offset the learners’ continued poor performance.
If policy makers and researchers’ desire is to change the teachers’ practices at the FP and improve their teaching knowledge, there is a need to ground professional development activities on contingent constructivists’ approaches, which relate to the teachers’ contexts, local conditions, and the historical and technical challenges in South Africa. This means that teacher learning should be underpinned by contingent constructivist approaches which allow the use of flexible and wide range of pedagogical approaches in specific contexts (O' Sullivan, 2004;
Vavrus, 2009). Opposed to the normative models from the rich western education systems which are linked to advanced technology and learner centred environments. If PD programmes draw from the contextual and pragmatic approaches, teacher learning process would lead to teacher change or growth appropriate to meet the needs of diverse classroom practices in Africa.
After providing several theories of teacher learning and the domains of teacher knowledge, the next section offers a description of the key teacher learning theory which underpins this study.
40
further exploration of an appropriate analytical tool with the same theoretical underpinning (Guskey, 2002).
In this section, I present the complexity theory as one of the contemporary theories which assumes teacher learning as a multifaceted process. According to Opfer and Pedder (2011), teacher learning is a complex process of social behaviour with various dynamic processes or subsystems that are constantly interacting. This implies that teacher learning is a process with different active variables which are integrated and operate at a specific social setting. The theory consists of three subsystems that influence teacher learning, namely: the teacher, the school environment and the nature of the professional development activity (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).
Figure 2.1: The three subsystems of complexity theory generated from Opfer and Pedder, 2011
This conceptual framework suggests that the components of these three subsystems interact and combine in different ways and thus impact on teacher learning in diverse ways. The subsystems are usually structured within the larger socio-economic contexts, but the authors of this framework have not given the socio-economic dimension any attention or focus. This would be because developed countries place less emphasis on these socio-economic contexts than developing countries. This study also assumes that teacher learning from the ACT programme is a complex process for the group of practicing FP teachers who were the participants. To explore their learning and how it impacted on their beliefs and pedagogies, I used EFAL as the empirical field for the investigation, while the complexity theory provided a general internal language of description to guide the study. Next is the description of the subsystems of the complexity theory, to comprehend how these subsystems impact on the teachers’ learning.
41 2.4.1 Subsystem one: The individual teacher
The first subsystem of the complexity theory that influences teacher learning is that of the individual teacher. Empirical evidence shows that a combination of factors such as the teachers’ knowledge base, beliefs, norms and values, influence their classroom practice (Hoadley, 2012). There is a growing body of literature that foregrounds teachers’ biographies, dispositions and identities as key factors that influence both their classroom practices and their own ways of learning (Battey & Franke, 2008; Gangadeen, 2013).
There is a huge body of literature which aims to define the body of knowledge that all teachers need. There seems to be a general agreement that teachers do need a deep content knowledge, pedagogic knowledge, knowledge of context and curriculum, as well as pedagogic content knowledge, which is specialised pedagogic knowledge of how to teach the specific concepts and content of their disciplines (Bertram, 2011; Shulman, 1986; van der Merwe & Nel, 2012).
The depth and extent of teachers’ different kinds of knowledge domains and the ways in which these domains interact, also influence teachers’ learning processes and by implication, that of their learners.
Improving practice is not as simple as ‘just’ deepening teachers’ content knowledge, as research shows that there are complex interactions between teachers’ knowledge and practice.
For instance, in English literacy education, there is a strong argument that teachers need a specialised kind of knowledge (Moats, 2014; Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009). The same notion also applies to other disciplines.
2.4.2 Subsystem two: The professional Development activity
The second subsystem of this theory is the learning activity. As already noted in Chapter Two and previously in this chapter, there is a wide range of research that describes the types of learning activities that appear to enhance teacher learning. Some literature tends to focus on formal planned activities like workshops, while other studies acknowledge learning activities that are informal and job-embedded (Borko, 2004; E. Wilson & Demetriou, 2007).
Formal planned learning activities are mainly informed by the cognitive learning perspective, which is underpinned by the notion of teachers learning individually and predominantly engaged with the propositional knowledge (knowing what) within a specified period of time.
Context is not really taken into account, as the assumption is that the knowledge is
42
decontextualised and is applicable across a range of contexts (Kelly, 2006). However, research shows that this transfer across contexts is difficult and often does not happen (Adey et al., 2004). Research shows that once-off workshops seldom seem to support teacher learning, and studies support long-term, sustained and intensive activities. Research on professional development for teachers and teachers’ growth by (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) illustrate teacher learning and changes in a cyclic manner, where change may occur in one domain and not the other. The details of this model have been discussed earlier in this chapter.
In terms of pedagogy, research suggests that teachers learn more effectively when activities require them to engage materials of practice and when the activity is school-based and integrated into their daily teaching work (Adey et al., 2004). This implies that an effective learning activity should provide teachers with learning materials, which involves the active creation of new knowledge which is related to their practice contexts. For instance, teachers’
assignments and tasks should reflect their experiences, beliefs and daily professional routines.
The other body of literature tends to be located within the theories of situated learning and implies that teachers can learn from colleagues in school, in unplanned and planned ways.
My argument from this complexity view is that neither of these learning theories is sufficient on its own to explain the complexities of professional learning and in fact, teacher learning can and does emerge from both formal, externally-planned activities and workplace-based, collaborative activities. It is valuable and necessary to know what kind of professional development activities are more likely to support teacher learning, as their effectiveness would shift and change, depending on the individual teachers and the school system in which they teach.
2.4.3 Subsystem three: The school context
The third subsystem that Opfer and Pedder describe is the school. This encompasses the norms and the values of the school, its practices and structures which both enable and constrain the possibilities of teacher learning, teachers’ beliefs and practices. Some professional development activities seem to focus strongly on practical knowledge and assume that teachers would transfer their learning to the school context without any problem (Hill & Khuboni, 2013). Such professional programmes seems not to realise that schools have different geographical and historical contexts as well as resource accessibilities. The ACT programme seems to be silent on the role of the school management in teacher learning. Although the
43
school based tasks are strongly emphasised in the teacher’s workplace, follow up support and tangible monitoring from teacher development providers is not focused. According to (V. D.
Opfer, D. Pedder, & Z. Lavicza, 2011), effective teacher learning is greatly determined by the school context and how the professional development activity and the school support or constrain both teachers’ learning and their teaching.
Therefore to understand and explain why and how teachers learn, we must consider how the
“teacher’s individual learning orientation system interacts with the school’s learning orientation, and how both of these systems together affect the activities in which teachers participate and then are reciprocally affected by the changes that occur from participation in these activities” (Opfer & Pedder, 2011, p. 394).