Análisis de Acabado para placa Corazón

PracK Table 2 was used in the pilot case study described in Chapter Five. I will now reflect on the usefulness of the table in the development of this case study.

6.3.1 Usability of the table

During the development of PracK Table 2, a set of criteria was established to judge the usefulness of the table. When reflecting on the use of this table in the case study, all the criteria were met, namely, (i) all the main categories of knowledge and most of the sub- categories were used, (ii) there were no statements or observations which could not be captured by the categories and sub-categories, (iii) there was a good balance among the sub-categories, and (iv) the categories were unambiguous, and with the help of the codebook, the sub-categories were also relatively easily recognizable.

Identifying the main categories of knowledge which were evident, provided a good starting point for the first round of analysis. The eight categories, although not mutually exclusive, were relatively easily distinguishable, but, as noted in Chapter Four, care should be taken when deciding if the data suggests ‘knowledge and beliefs about the education purposes of practical work’ or ‘knowledge of curriculum’ or both. The teacher’s knowledge was adequately captured in these eight categories and affirms that these are the cornerstones of the knowledge base needed, not only for teaching in general, but for practical work as well. The sub-categories allowed for the fairly detailed exploration at the next level of analysis. This level of analysis required a deep understanding of the different sub-categories. Despite

having developed the table myself, I still on occasion had to refer to the codebook to be sure of the categorization. Some understanding of teacher knowledge, and the clear descriptions in the codebook, are essential for raters who are not experienced in using the table. This detailed analysis, not only made it possible to identify and describe the teacher’s knowledge, but also made it possible to make some judgments about the depth of certain types of knowledge.

A variety of data sources can be analysed using the PracK Table, which facilitates data triangulation. It seems to be particularly useful in the analysis of data sources such as interviews and lesson observations, which provide rich data, but can also be used to analyse learners’ work and worksheets developed by the teacher.

However, of greater importance here are the insights gained on the teacher knowledge base required for effective practical work. Has the use of the PracK Table provided an understanding of teacher knowledge that could be useful in addressing the problem of limited effective practical work? I attempt to answer this by discussing:

6.3.2 Insights gained about teacher knowledge

Batandwa is an experienced teacher with a good understanding of the science concepts linked to this topic, he is familiar with the formal science curriculum from Grade 8 to Grade 12, and has used a range of approaches to practical work. This allowed him to select those activities he felt were most appropriate for his learners, given his particular objectives. His teaching was thus not constrained by limited understanding of the topic, as is often found (Toerien, 2013; Rollnick et al., 2008). Furthermore, his knowledge of the school and its procedures, the resources and equipment required, and familiarity with the practical procedures involved, allowed him to conduct the observed lessons, with confidence. So he chose to do a demonstration rather than a hands-on activity, because it was a large class of unruly learners, resources were limited, and he was concerned about their safety. He used models, being fully aware of their limitations, because he knows that learners generally find it difficult to conceive the microscopic changes taking place during a chemical reaction.

One can only comment on the effectiveness of a particular practical task if the objectives of the task are known (Abrahams & Millar, 2008). The effectiveness of Batandwa’s practicals were measured against his intended objectives which were mainly to:

• improve or develop the understanding of science concepts

The other objectives included:

• to learn the scientific method • to develop laboratory skills

• to stimulate interest and enjoyment • to facilitate the recall of science concepts

There is no doubt that the demonstration, especially the test for hydrogen, generated excitement, and that most learners were fully engaged when doing the combustion practical and, therefore, the selected activities were successful in that regard.

But did learners actually learn what he intended through these activities? The absence of meaningful learner-talk during the lesson, the fact that only a few learners were able to complete the worksheets accompanying the activities, and the poor results obtained in the examination, suggested that no significant shifts in learners’ conceptual understanding, or in the knowledge and skills required for scientific investigations, were made. This was so despite these being the teacher’s main learning objectives. Learners’ responses in the interview conducted with them a few days after this series of lessons, confirmed that they had not grasped the targeted concepts. Learners remembered mainly what they had observed and what they had done. As is often the case, the learners did not learn what he expected them to learn (Abrahams & Millar, 2008).

So what was missing? Were there gaps in his knowledge, was it that he was unable to transform his knowledge and experience into effective teaching, given the teaching context, or was it his general understanding and assumptions about how students learn?

The answer to these questions may lie in a combination of factors. Firstly, the teacher’s focus seemed to be on the activity rather than on the learning intended through the activity. The focus was on the doing and he did not spend enough lesson time helping learners use the ideas associated with the activity, as suggested by Abrahams and Millar (2008). Despite being able to articulate the learning objectives for the practicals, these were not always made explicit to the learners, nor did the teacher’s assessment of the tasks, or the classroom discussions before, during or after the activities, hone in on these objectives. Learners’ awareness of the objectives is a pre-requisite for effective practical work (Abrahams & Millar, 2008; Gomes, Borges & Justi, 2008). With a mindset shift from teaching to learning, these same activities may have produced a more positive outcome in terms of learner understanding.

Secondly, assessment, which of course is closely linked to a teacher’s knowledge of learning and understanding, has been highlighted as a problem. The level of questioning, his habit of answering his questions himself, providing the model answers and a lack of constructive feedback, point to a deficit in the skills required to scaffold learners’ thinking and skills. He also avoided more learner-centred activities, but this could have been as a result of his negative perceptions of learners’ ability and behaviour. A similar relationship between

practical work and teachers’ perceptions of learners was found by Hattingh et al.(2007).

6.3.3 The relationship between knowledge and practice

This study assumes some relationship between teacher knowledge and the quantity and quality of practical work, and, therefore, between teacher knowledge and teacher actions. In Chapter Two, based on the work of Clark and Markson (1986) and Ritchie (1999), it was argued that teacher action is influenced by teachers’ personal theories of teaching, and I would here also add learning. A similar view is implied in the PCK summit consensus model (Gess –Newsome & Carlson, 2013), in that classroom actions are filtered or amplified by teachers’ beliefs and orientations.

What this case study suggests is that the actions of well-qualified, experienced teachers with a good knowledge base across the different types of knowledge and who are teaching in well-resourced schools, are mainly influenced by their personal theories about teaching and learning. For Batandwa, who adopted a didactic approach, it was thus not surprising that the PracK Table identified gaps in his knowledge of learner understanding, since the sub- categories are associated with a constructivist approach to learning. This approach may also explain why he did not engage his learners in more open-ended, learner-driven practical activities. Teachers like Batandwa, may well include a number of different practicals in their teaching repertoire, but these are likely to be ineffective.

Teaching context influences teacher actions (Clark & Markson, 1986; Ritchie, 1999; Gess – Newsome & Carlson, 2013), teachers’ knowledge or perceptions of their learners, particularly so, as seen in this case study, as well the study by Hattingh et al. (2007). A negative perception of learners’ ability not only restricts the number of practical activities, but also the nature of the activities learners are exposed to. What I suspect, although it needs further exploration, is that this phenomenon is exacerbated if a teacher adopts a didactic approach. A good teacher, adopting a constructivist approach, should be able to set realistic targets for their learners, no matter what their abilities, and must execute the practical lesson in such a way as to make the targeted concepts understandable to the learners, or to improve the targeted skills.

A broad knowledge base is necessary to conduct effective practical work, but this is not sufficient. What Teachers’ beliefs and theories of teaching and learning are often recognized, but not foregrounded as an important influence on what happens in the classroom. These theories and beliefs thus have to be constantly examined, and even challenged, in teacher professional learning programmes, including those aimed at improving practical work.

6.3.4 Towards a teacher development plan

One of the benefits of identifying and describing teachers’ beliefs and knowledge for practical work, is that such insight could inform decisions around the interventions and support required, as part of context-specific in-service teacher development for effective practical work. But on a broader level, common trends found, using this analysis tool, could also inform the design of structured pre-service and in-service professional learning programmes. According to Timperley (2008, p.8) "professional learning experiences that focus on the link between particular teaching activities and valued student outcomes are associated with positive impacts on those outcomes.” A professional learning plan for Batandwa would thus, firstly, include a focus on learner-centred teaching, that would not only impact on his practical work, but also his teaching in general. This shift is not easy and teachers often dismiss suggested strategies as being inappropriate for their learners. The teacher’s existing understanding of teaching and learning has to be overtly challenged and the alternative approach must be shown to be effective within that teacher’s context (ibid.). The link between an activity and the desired learning objective must be made explicit to teachers, and modelling of learner-centred teaching in the teacher’s own classroom, including practical activities, may prove useful.

A second focus should be on effective formative assessment strategies, especially the importance of the feedback given to learners, and linked to this, having clear ideas about the best way to scaffold the development of ideas and skills. It is hoped that the teacher would see small positive shifts in learner outcomes through these activities, and as a result, gain confidence in his learners’ abilities.

Finally, Batandwa did not engage his learners in any ‘authentic science’ learner-driven investigations, such as the Science Expo, and he has not engaged in this type of activity himself. Giving him the opportunity to do so, together with greater confidence in his learners’ abilities, may well encourage him to let go of the reigns, and allow the learners to engage, explore and learn from such an activity.

By shifting his focus to the desired learner outcomes, rather than focusing on the teaching strategies per se, and modelling these practices in his own context, I believed that his good knowledge base could be transformed into effective teaching.

The strengths and weaknesses in the teacher’s planning, enactment and assessment of practical work were elucidated quite clearly, by identifying and describing the teacher’s beliefs and knowledge using the PracK Table. This in turn facilitated the design of a possible context-specific professional learning programme for the teacher. A closer examination of the relationship between his existing beliefs and knowledge, and some of the strengths in his practice, which was revealed using this tool, could also be useful in the design of learning opportunities for novice teachers.

The detailed analysis facilitated by the use of the table made it possible for me to identify the key components needed in a professional learning plan tailored for this teacher. And, although one is aware of the risks of generalization based on the findings of a single case study, and given the personal nature of teacher theories of teaching, if case studies are done in similar contexts, those findings have the potential to inform more structured programmes, designed to improve the quantity and quality of practical work in schools.