5.5 Findings from the content analysis
5.5.1 What are the domains of teacher knowledge privileged in the module?
The table below presents the units of analysis or the contents analysed in each of the units or chapters by highlighting the major topics covered and the type and quantities of text, to help calculate the regularities and occurrences of the domains of teacher knowledge in the module.
120
Table 5.9: Units of analysis per unit in the Module Unit coverage Unit of analysis:
(Type of text)
Units of analysis (Numbers)
%
Unit 1
Children’s literacy development &
principles of emergent literacy
Paragraphs of texts (PT) Icon: Activities (Act) Icon: Key points (Key) Icon: Academic skills (AL)
79 25 7 6
68 21 6 5
Total 117 100
Unit 2
Theories of learning, reading and writing
Paragraphs of texts (PT) Icon: Activities (Act) Icon: Key points (Key) Icon: Academic skills (AL)
75 18 1 1
79 19 1 1
Total 95 100
Unit 3:
Strategies of teaching reading and writing
Paragraphs of texts (PT) Icon: Activities (Act) Icon: Key points (Key) Icon: Academic skills (AL)
52 10 4 0
79 15 6 0
Total 66 100
Unit 4
Creating and managing a literacy environment
Paragraphs of texts (PT) Icon: Activities (Act) Icon: Key points (Key) Icon: Academic skills (AL)
62 10 4 2
79 13 5 3
Total 78 100
The specific text analysed, or the total units of analysis were counted and percentages calculated for easy comparison and graphical presentation. Below are the analysed paragraphs of text and icons in table 5.9 presented in a percentage bar graph in figure 5.4 for better interpretation and understanding of the text analysed.
121
Figure 5.4: A percentage bar graph showing the division of the content analysed
Overview findings drawn from Table 5.9 and graphically presented in Figure 5.4 show that 68% of Unit 1 text, and 79% of Units 2, 3 and 4 analysed text is presented in the form of paragraphs of text. According to this graph, the academic skills icons as a unit of analysis, have the lowest representation. Such findings reflect a typical design of distance materials for a specific discipline module.
Presentation of domains of teacher knowledge per module’s units (chapters) to enable a comparison of domains of knowledge privileged in each of the four units was also done. The findings of the four units - 1, 2, 3, and 4 - are shown on table 5.10 where the findings of the seven domains of knowledge espoused in Unit 1 are presented. The findings on the domains of knowledge presented from the paragraphs of texts and Key points icons are the only units of analysis shown on the pie chart in Figure 5.5below. This selection was done for convenient purposes – to have limited number of graphic presentation in this chapter.
68%
79%
79%
79%
21%
19%
15%
13%
6%
1%
6%
5%
5%
1%
0%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
Percentage
Type of text
Academic skills (AS) Key points (Key) Activities (Act)
Paragraphs of texts (PT)
122
Figure 5.5: Teacher knowledge domains in Unit 1- Paragraphs of text and Key points icons
The pie chart shows that the subject knowledge domain dominated in the paragraphs of text and ‘Key points’ icon in Unit 1, while there is a moderate representation of pedagogic knowledge, learners’ knowledge, contextual knowledge and self-knowledge domains, which all represent 16 – 17% of the text. The lowest presentation was knowledge of the curriculum and academic skills knowledge domains.
Figure 5.6 presents the domains of teacher knowledge in the activity (Act) icons and academic skills (AS) icons in Unit 1. The pie chart shows a blend of self- knowledge, pedagogic and subject knowledge domains highly privileged (above 20%), knowledge of the curriculum is moderate, while learners’ knowledge and academic skills were the least represented (less than 10%) in the Activities (Act) and Academic domain (AL) icons of Unit 1, as compared to the teacher knowledge representations in figure 5.5 above on Paragraphs of texts and Key points icons representation.
Figure 5.6: Teacher knowledge domains in Unit 1- Activities and Academic skills Icons 29%
16%
6% 17%
16%
16%
1%
SK PK LK CURRK CONTK SELFK AL
123
This pie chart (Fig 5.6) shows that self-knowledge (25%), pedagogic knowledge (22%) and subject knowledge (20%) domains dominated in the Activities and Academic Skills icon in Unit 1, while there is a moderate representation of knowledge of the curriculum with 12% of the text. The lowest representation was contextual knowledge, learners’ knowledge and academic skills knowledge domains with a range of 9 - 5% of the text. The trend in the Activity (Act) and Academic skills (AL) icons, implies that most of the teachers’ tasks were designed with a strong focus on the practical (pedagogical) knowledge and personal (self) knowledge.
Drawing from Reed’s conceptual framework, the findings shown in the two pie charts show that all the seven domains are present in LG 4, but a dominance of pedagogic knowledge, subject knowledge and self-knowledge domains in Unit 1.
Table 5.10 shows the findings regarding the domains of teacher knowledge in the entire module, which enabled a comparison of the units of analysis in the module Units: 1, 2, 3 and 4. These data are then presented graphically in a comparative bar graph in figure 5.7.
124
Table 5.10: Domains of teacher knowledge privileged in Module 4
Table 5.10 above, gives an overview of the domains of the teacher knowledge variations as coded in unit 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the module. The percentage given for each of the domains add up
Content selected for analysis in Module 4
Total number domains of teacher knowledge coded in the learning guide
Unit Page Units of analysis
Units of analysis
SK PK LK CURRK CONT’K SELF’K AL
Unit 1 Children’s literacy development &
principles of emergent literacy Pg.1 -28
Paragraphs of text, including Activity Key points and Academic skills icons
117 74
(63%) 51 (44%)
42 (36%)
21 (18%)
38 (32%)
51 (44%)
6 (5%)
Unit 2 Strategies &
theories of reading and writing Pg. 42-58
Paragraphs of text, including Activity, key points and Academic skills icons
95 73
(77%) 49 (52%)
58 (61%)
8 (8%)
32 (34%)
47 (49%)
26 (27%)
Unit 3 Reading process Pg.72-85
Paragraphs of text, including Activity, key points and Academic skills icons
66 58
(88%) 41 (62%)
24 (36%)
2 (3%)
12 (18%)
17 (26%)
16 (24%)
Unit4 Creating &
managing literacy environment Pg. 92-110
Paragraphs of text, including Activity, key points and Academic skills icons
78 67
(86%) 41 (53%)
29 (37%)
7 (9%)
29 (37%)
39 (50%)
15 (19%)
125
to more than 100% since some texts were coded more than once due to the overlaps of the domains of teacher knowledge. I also decided to present the teacher knowledge domains graphically to enable a quick comparison of findings from the different dimensions - similarities and differences of the teacher knowledge per units (chapters of the module), texts of all the units of analysis and an overview of the entire document analysed.
Figure 5.7: A comparison of the domains of teacher knowledge privileged in Module 4
The findings from the comparative bar graph indicate that most of the text relates to the subject knowledge domain, followed by the pedagogic knowledge and learners’ knowledge domains.
There is moderate representation of the self-knowledge and contextual knowledge domains.
Lastly, the knowledge of the curriculum and academic skills knowledge domains had the least representation of Reed’s conceptual framework.
Interestingly, although Table 5.10 and Figure 5.7 shows that much of the text focused on the subject knowledge domain, the other six domains of knowledge together have a strong practical knowledge focus. For instance, the subject knowledge domains in Units 1 to 4 is above 63%, while the other domains had lower percentages in all the units, despite all of them having a practical focus. Thus, overall, there was a strong focus on how knowledge, rather than what knowledge, the theoretical knowledge.
This finding relates to the works of Shulman, the founder of domains of teacher knowledge, who specifically endorsed PCK domains as the most important domain of teacher knowledge
63%
44%
36%
18%
32%
44%
5%
77%
52%
61%
8%
34%
49%
27%
88%
62%
36%
3%
18%
26% 24%
86%
53%
37%
9%
37%
50%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SK PK Unit 1LK Unit 2CURRKUnit3 Unit4CONTK SELFK AL
126
(Shulman, 1986). This knowledge enables teachers to use their personal understanding of the subject (literacy), learners and context and to reflect on the self to enable effective teaching opportunities(Selmer, Bernstein, & Bolyard, 2016).
The findings echo the current debates about the complexity of teacher learning which suggests research-based professional development as focusing not only on deep knowledge of the subject, but rather a blend of propositional, practical and personal knowledge for the purpose of effective teaching (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013; Stürmer, Könings, & Seidel, 2013). Since it is clear from the above analysis that the main focus of the module was on practical knowledge, the next section aims to engage deeper with the propositional knowledge privileged in the module. It answers the question: What kind of reading approaches are espoused in the module?
5.5.2 What theories and principles of literacy are privileged within the content