3.2 INQUIRY–BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION
3.3.1 Teachers’ Knowledge
92 planning and preparation, before they enact or execute their decisions in the classroom (Crawford, 2007).
93 (a) Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK)
According to Grossman (1989) knowledge of subject matter is the basis of a discipline which includes factual information, organizing principles, and central concepts. As indicted in section 1.3, teachers’ knowledge constitutes the ‘intellectual tools’ of the Life Sciences teacher. Part of the ‘intellectual tools’ is subject matter knowledge.
Teachers need to have subject matter knowledge that may be different in some respects to other Life Sciences specialists, for example horticulturists, medical biologists and other academics. In order to teach effectively teachers need to be in possession of good subject knowledge (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010). Rogan (2004) indicates that the majority of Grade 11 and 12 teachers do not have adequate post-school qualifications in the subject that they teach. At the most they have between 1 to 2 years of post-school studies. Rogan (2004) therefore contends that this limited content knowledge of teachers has led to teachers’ over-reliance of a transmission mode of teaching and superficial use of content. Hence, there is a need for the attention of SMK for the development of PCK (Rollnick, Bennett, Rhemtula, Dharsey, & Ndlovu, 2008).
People who are specialists in a discipline may be distinguished from others in at least three ways. Firstly, they know a great deal of specific content, that is, facts and ideas.
Secondly, they would have formed a variety of complex relationships among these pieces of content. Thirdly, they understand how to solve new problems and how to produce new ideas within the subject. In other words such persons would have acquired habits, perspectives, and a host of other intellectual and personal dispositions that could be regarded as part of their SMK (Kennedy, 1998). SMK within the context of this study constitutes the content, the organisation and structure of the content and the methods of inquiry.
The content refers to the facts, principles or laws that have been generated over many years of inquiry into the subject.
The organisation and structure of the content refers to the numerous relationships among facts and ideas which students of the discipline have developed. While a subject may contain numerous specific facts or ideas, these are not meaningful in their disconnected, inert forms. Instead, they are judged to be important through the patterns
94 of relationships that are created among them. It is the patterns, and the networks, among these facts and ideas that form a body of knowledge. Understanding of fundamental concepts and how the concepts are related and organised that enables teachers to use their subject matter knowledge for teaching (Bertram, 2011).
The methods of inquiry include a set of assumptions, rules of evidence, or forms of argument that are or can be used by those who contribute to the development of the discipline (Kennedy, 1998). Within the context of this study the methods of inquiry relate to ‘the scientific method’ or methods of investigation or procedure.
This construct of subject matter knowledge (SMK) refers to Life Sciences content, concepts and the various laws and principles as well as the methods of inquiry. Life Sciences teachers acquire a foundation of subject-specific knowledge in different ways, for example, through formal academic studies, work-related experiences, and informal, everyday experiences (Crawford, 2007). In addition, it must be noted that science knowledge is not static but is tentative in nature. It is therefore imperative for teachers of science to keep abreast of the latest developments with respect to their discipline knowledge especially those aspects which are relatively new in the Life Sciences curriculum. This however, becomes fairly difficult for teachers of Life Sciences in the South African context who are still trying to cope with the many curricula changes.
This therefore becomes an added workload on their part.
For the purposes of this study, the first two sub-categories of SMK have been combined and referred to as ‘content or conceptual knowledge’ while the remaining sub-category will be referred to as ‘procedural knowledge or knowledge of inquiry’.
(i) Content or Conceptual knowledge
When knowledge is based on concepts that drive factual pieces of information from the world around us, it is called conceptual knowledge and focuses on regrouping big understandings and corresponding relationships among them. Conceptual knowledge highlights connections between the concepts themselves. This type of knowledge can only be acquired through purposeful and reflective learning (Deng, 2007).
Possessing in-depth content or conceptual knowledge is imperative not only for teaching itself but also for the critiquing, evaluation and selection of learning and
95 teaching study materials, such as, text books, laboratory equipment, teaching aids and computer software. Having in-depth knowledge of content and concepts provides teachers with the necessary confidence to plan prepare and teach in a variety of ways to facilitate understanding by learners. Such knowledge and understanding helps to clarify alternative conceptions and misconceptions confidently. Palmer (2006) and Posnanski (2002) maintain that science teachers’ content knowledge plays an important role in their beliefs about science teaching and learning. Accordingly, in-depth science content knowledge coupled with teaching methods creates a foundation for effective science teaching. Possession of such a high knowledge base helps to increase the level of teacher effectiveness by reducing the level of anxiety about science and science teaching (Bryan, 2012; Palmer, 2006; Posnanski, 2002).
In addition, McNamara (1991) states that teachers with a high level of conceptual knowledge may teach in more creative and unusual ways whilst those with little or low level conceptual knowledge may be cautious to venture into unusual approaches and may stick to what they are comfortable with. To be dynamic in the classroom, it is therefore imperative for teachers to constantly upgrade their subject matter knowledge to keep abreast with changes in a subject area (Nicholson & Duckett, 1997). Keeping abreast of conceptual knowledge may be achieved in various ways. For example, there are different views on how teaching experience affects conceptual knowledge. While Leach and Moon (1999) argue that conceptual knowledge changes or enhances through teaching practice and more particularly, by the resources that may be used during classroom practice, Prestage and Perks (2000), on the other hand maintain that conceptual knowledge is only advanced if teachers reflect on their teaching practice beyond a consideration of simple classroom events. Hence, teachers need to consider their own understanding of the subject matter if practice is to affect conceptual knowledge. A study by Rollnick et al., (2008) of one of their subjects lends support to this assertion. Thus the important aspect in changing conceptual knowledge appears to be how a teacher internally reflects on a teaching experience rather than just the experience itself. There is a lack of research into whether teachers who are confident in their conceptual knowledge bring particular attributes to their classroom practice (Leach
& Moon, 1999; McNamara, 1991) Medwell, Wray, Poulson, & Fox (1998) found that effective teachers of literacy had extensive knowledge about the subject. Askew, Brown, Rhodes, Wiliam and Johnson (1997) in their study of effective teachers of
96 Mathematics found that the teachers did not necessarily have high qualifications in Mathematics but they were more likely involved in mathematics-specific professional development over a prolonged period. The results of these two studies may not be necessarily contradictory. It is perhaps the in-depth and appropriate understanding of the relevant content or conceptual knowledge that makes the teachers effective practitioners (Askew et al., 1997). There is agreement amongst researchers that teachers’ conceptual knowledge is important for the development of PCK and for effective teaching and learning (e.g. Rollnick et al., 2008; Alexander 2003; Hay McBer, 2000 & McNamara (1991). Shulman (1987) contends that conceptual knowledge is an integral part of teaching since it affects all aspects of the act of teaching and learning such as, planning and preparation. As indicated earlier, one of the hallmarks of an effective teacher is being well prepared for the classroom enactment (Erdamar & Alpan, 2013).
(ii) Procedural knowledge or Knowledge of inquiry
Knowledge that shows how a task may be accomplished by following certain rules and by being performed through a process of following step-by-step instructions is referred to as procedural knowledge (Star, 2002). Various researchers have demonstrated that both procedural and conceptual knowledge are interrelated and that one can be derived from the other (e.g. Sahdra & Thagard, 2003; Thagard, 2005; Hao, Li & Wenyin, 2007;
Rittle-Johnson, Siegler & Alibali, 2001). According to Sahdra and Thagard (2003) procedural knowledge is about how to think. Furthermore, it has been shown to be linked to changes in knowledge, skills and tasks (LeFevre, Smith-Chant, Fast, Skwarchuk, Sargla, Arnup, Penner-Wilger, Binsanz, & Kamawar, 2006). Both procedural knowledge as well as conceptual knowledge forms can be developed through different methods and techniques; or they contribute to the development of different methods and techniques (Howe, Tolmie, Tanner, & Rattray, 2000; Johnson &
Star, 2007; Kırkhart, 2001). Understanding procedural knowledge is accomplished when connections are established between the sequence of stages in ‘the scientific method’ such as, proposing the question, generating hypotheses, and the collection and interpretation of data (Harlen, 2000; Traianou, 2006). This also entails knowing how to control the relevant factors for examining some phenomenon, performing a certain task or completing an activity (Traianou, 2006).
97 Dealing with questions and queries from learners require an excellent grasp of SMK.
For teachers to recognise good questions, for example, about a biological process like photosynthesis, how to generate a hypothesis, relevant variables, issues about reliability and validity, or to help their learners gain the background knowledge necessary to develop good inquiries they need to possess a good understanding of SMK (Carlsen, 1993). Lin and Chen (2002) found that teachers who regard science as an accumulation of a body of facts tended to teach by following the textbook and emphasised getting
‘right answers’ that is, answers from the text book. Hence, teachers’ views and understanding of subject matter can influence their conceptions of inquiry, and the subsequent use of inquiry in the classroom.
(b) General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK)
The definition and what constitutes pedagogy is somewhat obscure, not easily defined and is complex. Watkins and Mortimer (1999) define it as ‘any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance the learning of another’ (p3).
Alexander (2003) believes that pedagogy involves classroom interactions as well as its associated deliberations and considerations. It involves the knowledge, skills and values, which teachers must possess in order to justify the variety of decisions that are taken in this dynamic process.
Leach and Moon (1999) define pedagogy by describing a pedagogical setting.
According to them a pedagogical setting is created by the practice, interaction and experiences of a teacher and a specific group of learners.
Shulman (1987) considers general pedagogical knowledge as the styles of classroom management and organisation that go beyond subject matter. This therefore, implies that pedagogy is a dual activity in which the learner is an active participant and therefore creates a social interaction between teachers and learners.
According to Everston and Weinstein (2006) classroom management seeks to ensure that the learning environment is orderly and conducive for meaningful engagement by the learners. Marzano and Marzano (2003) also argue that learner achievement and learning is dependent on the teachers’ management strategies in the classroom.
98 Classroom management strategies are based on two theories namely, constructivist or behaviourist theories (Brannon, 2010). Behaviourist strategies allows for the teacher to have greater control and display of authority in the classroom. Hence, in order to maintain and sustain an orderly environment, teachers would engage in lessons that are structured in ways to ensure that they have control of what goes on in the classroom.
The constructivist approaches on the other hand allow for the surrendering of control by the teachers (Yasar, 2008) and thereby allowing for a greater and more productive engagement in the science classroom. The teaching and learning of ‘higher order thinking skills’ is regarded as GPK since GPK addresses aspects such as, knowledge about how to ask questions about ‘higher order thinking skills’ or about how to assess inquiry learning. Metacognitive knowledge of specific thinking skills, including generalisations about them is normally part of what constitutes GPK (Brant, 2006;
Turner-Bisset, 2001). Since GPK deals with classroom organisation and management, instructional models and strategies, and classroom communication and discourse, understanding the processes involved in IPW as being examples of higher order thinking skills would help teachers prepare and act appropriately for the efficient implementation of IPW.
Rollnick et al., 2008 describes GPK as:
“Understanding what counts as good teaching, the best teaching approaches in a given context, informed by knowledge of applicable learning theories” (p19).
According to Richards and Farrell (2005) GPK empowers prospective teachers with self-awareness of the educational system as a whole together with an understanding of learners supported by studies in psychology and pedagogy. Furthermore, this type of knowledge paves the way to build pedagogical expertise as well as an understanding of curriculum and materials which do not necessarily derive from Life Sciences. It also allows teachers to have a better understanding of their educational context which transcends the Life Sciences classroom. Researchers such as Loveless (2002) have acknowledged that teaching is a complex activity and that there are many factors which affect classroom practice. Teachers of Life Sciences may have only specialised in the Sciences and it is therefore imperative for them to be aware of the dynamics of the educational system as a whole. Teachers therefore have to have a greater knowledge and
99 thinking than what they would have gathered from their teacher education courses on teaching practice. Understanding learners and how learning occurs, understanding of curriculum, curriculum change and instruction, teacher’s position in the school, previous teaching experience, teacher training and a teacher’s own experience of learning are some of the factors that affect teaching practice.
Brant (2006) along with Turner-Bisset (2001) and Schon (1983) maintain that GPK is often learned from practice and with interaction with others (Johnson 2006; Borg, 2009). However, classroom practices may lead to adaptations and modification and improvement to GPK, which the teacher may come to bear as a student teacher, if s/he engages in the process of monitoring and adjustment. Nonetheless, if it is plausible that GPK is often learned from practice it is feasible to therefore assume that the teacher participants in this study would have developed a great sense of GPK which should allow them to practice or implement investigative practical work (IPW) fairly successfully in their respective classrooms.
(c) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Shulman (1987) referred to pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as knowledge of how to teach a particular topic in a subject area so that it makes learning easier for learners. This Shulman (1987) argued may be achieved through the use of various strategies such as, clear explanations, concept maps, appropriate analogies and presenting learning in interesting, motivating and even entertaining and unusual ways.
The use of such strategies during teaching helps learners understand concepts better, helping to identify possible misunderstandings and difficulties (Loughran, Berry, &
Mulhall, 2012). In this way the teacher will be able to provide the necessary support and scaffolding to bring about conceptual change.
Shulman’s (1987) notion of PCK therefore distinguishes between the different domains of knowledge for teaching. PCK does not only represent the blending of content and pedagogy in order to present a topic. Instead its utility is based on the teachers’
knowledge and understanding of how the various aspects of specific topics is organised, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and then presented to learners.
100 The implication therefore is that teachers’ require a good understanding of SMK, knowledge of the curriculum, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical context knowledge in order to develop PCK as teachers’ …
“Own special form of professional understanding” (Shulman, 1987, p.8).
The notion of PCK as espoused by Shulman (1986; 1987) above, shows that it goes beyond just knowledge of subject matter, but rather into the realm of subject matter knowledge for teaching. That is, as a form of teachers’ (professional) practical knowledge (Van Driel, Verloop & De Vos, 1998).
Adler and Reed (2002) also concurs that content knowledge alone is not sufficient for teaching. Instead the further acquisition of knowledge for teaching a particular subject or topic, that is, PCK is necessary to make the learning process more accessible for the learner. Furthermore, it is not just the possession of good content knowledge that will develop a teachers’ PCK, but teachers need to possess good conceptual understanding of the subject matter. That is, understanding the facts, ideas and the interconnectedness of these. GPK the teaching knowledge is fundamentally related to content knowledge (Alexander, 2003; McNamara, 1991; Brown & McIntyre, 1993). Loughran et al., (2006) argue that PCK does not merely involve the application of a teaching strategy because it works but it is about integrating knowledge of pedagogy and content so that the content is better understood by learners. In developing PCK teachers also need to understand such aspects as the learners’ preconceptions or naive knowledge that they bring to the classroom and what makes the teaching of a particular topic easy and/ or challenging (Shulman, 1987).
There is however, much debate as to what these links are and how PCK is formed. It also requires an understanding of what happens at their junction before this is manifested in practice for example, curriculum saliency, and representations of concepts (Rollnick, et al., 2008). McNamara (1991) similarly suggests that it is not the case that content knowledge is simply added to GPK but that a teacher reflecting on classroom practice may create his or her own PCK. In this regard for example, Rollnick et al., (2008) found that one of the teachers was able to address some difficulties inherent in the teaching of a Chemistry concept in his classroom practice, despite his not having read such issues in academic papers. The authors were able to put this down to experience the teacher gained over the years. However, the potential of teachers
101 themselves to create their own PCK raises further debate on the relationship between the experiential knowledge and the theoretical knowledge of teachers. Goodson and Hargreaves (1996) suggest that teachers develop their skills from the interaction between experience and theory.
If this is the case then it implies that beginning or novice teachers can hardly learn PCK from a textbook, or a short course only. To develop PCK teachers need to explore instructional strategies with respect to teaching specific topics in practice. Also, they need to gain an understanding of learners’ conceptions and learning difficulties concerning these topics (Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994).
Literature conceptualised PCK as consisting of five components, namely, orientations towards science teaching; knowledge of the curriculum; knowledge of science assessment; knowledge of science learners; and knowledge of instructional strategies (Abell, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). While teachers may possess these kinds of knowledge for teaching and knowledge of various teaching strategies, it is assumed that the introduction of the NCS and CAPS should therefore stimulate them into adjusting, adapting or changing their repertoire of strategies in order to make it relevant for the implementation of the new curriculum.
While knowledge of the curriculum is a constituent of PCK, within the context of this study it has been elevated to a category on its own in order to understand teachers’
knowledge of the new curriculum and its impact on their practice. PCK also incorporates knowledge of learners’ understanding of subject matter and knowledge of instructional strategies as conceptions for the purposes of teaching subject matter.
Hence, this study concentrated on these three aspects for the following reasons:
Knowledge of the curriculum will enable the teacher to determine what goals, content, skills and values need to be taught.
Knowledge of science learners concerns understanding their abilities and interests about IPW.
Knowledge of instructional strategies includes knowledge of representations such as models, and especially activities such as experiments or investigative practical work (IPW) for teaching a specific topic. The nature of IPW that will be designed