C. Assessment as learning
3.7.6 Lecturers’ character when teaching the content using Moodle
3.7.6.3 Lecture as the assessor (physics)
Moreover, Hoadley and Jansen (2013), Berkvens et al. (2014), Behari-Leak (2017), Khoza (2015d), and Govender and Khoza (2017), argue that lecturers as assessors are influenced by formal reflection where they are driven by objectives (goals) to offer the lecture in teaching the content, and their teaching only addresses the content of module which can be assessed. This suggests that lecturers are teaching the content only for assessment sake which shows that lecturers use formal reflection to meet module needs in terms of meeting module objectives. As a result, Khoza (2015d) outlines that lecturers as facilitators in teaching the module content simple indicates that their teaching is driven by learning outcomes in order to address the students’ needs (societal needs). Lecturers are also influenced by informal reflection in order to actively engage students in
175
all teaching activities. As a result, Spiller (2012), and Spiller and Ferguson (2011), outline that lecturers as assessors in teaching a module are influenced by formal reflection which is driven by the cognitive approach whereby lecturers are expected to stimulate each learner to construct his or her mental thinking and also connect new thinking with existing schema. In other words, lecturers as assessors use content-centred approach which is based more on Stenhouse (1975) process approach where the process of teaching and learning (attainment of content module-objectives) matters more than the end product (attainment of learning outcomes) (Khoza, 2015). This suggests that lecturers are concerned with the formal reflections on the ways and means of how the content should be clearly addressed to students in order to meet the module objectives (module needs).
In addition to the above, studies done on the teaching of science modules in higher education outline that lecture become assessors when teaching physics as they use relevant theories based on proven facts to find solution towards given physics’ problems (Antunes et al., 2012; Eilks & Byers, 2009; Fry' et al., 2008; Giancoli, 2005; Roberts & Bybee, 2014; Waight & Abd-El-Khalick, 2012).
These studies suggest some possible content that can be covered in Physical Science which includes: motions, sound, light, vectors, force, laws, energy, work, power, and momentum. This suggests that teaching of the content in physics in influenced by formal reflection on the principles of physics such as Newton’s law of motion, work-energy theorem and others (Asikainen &
Hirvonen, 2010). In other words, the teaching of physics requires mastering formulas, equations, and theories, and lecturers are expected to use them to unpack the content (Asikainen & Hirvonen, 2010). Moreover, both Becher (1990) and Huibregtse, Korthagen, and Wubbels (1994) assert that lecturers as assessors are only keen to achieve module objectives via formal reflections.
In addition to the above, see a qualitative case study conducted by Borondo, Benito, and Losada (2014) at one of the universities in Spain. The aim of this study was to explore the lecturers’
reflection on the use of Moodle to teach physics content. The study revealed that the physics content was displayed on Moodle with relevant activities with specific dues dates for submission.
Further to this various ways of interaction with the content was enhanced through Assisted exercises (sets of problems and exercises for each content), Self-evaluating test (question bank with possible answers), and Online lab (experimental practise). The study concluded that Moodle
176
platform assisted lecturers to set mandatory examination where student were compelled to write them based on the content covered. The study suggests that the lecturers’ character as assessors influenced them to use formal reflection in addressing the content of the module through setting compulsory examinations, self-exercises with due dates in order to address the module need (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Khoza, 2015). This is in line with the Bernstein (1999) view of vertical or performance approach in teaching the curriculum where lecturers are expected to access only what is prescribed in the curriculum within the specified period of time.
According to Berkvens et al. (2014), and Khoza (2015d), lecturers are termed to be instructors because they are influenced by personal reflection in order to address their needs. Personal reflection helps lecturers to use aims to drives their lectures, and those lectures were influenced by behaviourism teaching and learning theory which promoted lecturer-centred activities (Biggs', 2011; Hoadley & Jansen, 2013). This then suggests that lecturers’ only transmit information to learners as empty vessels without engaging them in any discussion. That is why Hoadley and Jansen (2013, p. 68) aver to when they claim that lecturers are instructors, “the learning consist of a set of instructions issued by the teacher. The learners follow these instructions”. Moreover, this character does not address student or module needs, and it addresses the personal need (Khoza*, 2016b). This suggests that it is up to the lecturers to decide which content to cover according to their needs, and what teaching approach to use; whether it should be content-centred or student- centred.
3.8 Concluding statement of the chapter
Moving from Chapter One, which explored the concepts of lecturers reflections and the use of resources (Moodle), Chapter Three presented a critical discussion on the definition of curriculum which outlined formal, informal, and personal curriculum activities that have levels of curriculum (intended, implemented, enacted, and produced). The chapter stipulated that all curriculum level are influenced by informal, formal, and personal reflections including curriculum development beliefs and approaches (Tylerian approach, Stenhousian approach, Freireian approach,
177
instrumental approach, communicative approach, pragmatic approach). Moreover, this chapter also presented the curriculum signals on Moodle such as Moodle permission, Justice to Moodle, Content in Moodle, Moodle activities, Lecturers’ character, Moodle platform, Time scheduled for Moodle, and Assessment in Moodle. All these curriculum signals were framed around lecturers’
informal, formal, and personal reflection on the use of Moodle during teaching and learning of Science Modules.
178