Social constructivists view science knowledge as a personal and social construction that takes place within a social and cultural environment (Loyens, 2007; Stears, 2009). Therefore, both the context in which learning occurs and the learning experiences that learners bring to their learning environment are crucial (Gredler, 1997). However, Cochran-Smith (1997) presents science classrooms as culturally and socially constructed
not value-neutral, and its theories as bounded by context, which is influenced by the values of the individual culture in which it was generated (Calabrese-Barton & Osborne, 2001). In addition to being tentative, scientific knowledge is therefore both symbolic in nature and socially negotiated (McComas, 1998).
The proponents of social constructivism posit that learners bring to the science classroom established worldviews that were formed due to previous years of experience and learning. These learners’ worldviews can change with time as new experiences are acquired. Duit (1996) believes that learners’ existing knowledge, that is, learners’ prior conceptions, may affect interpretations of observations in such a way that acquisition of new concepts can be promoted or impeded. Similarly, Vygotsky (1978) postulates that there are two types of experiences that a learner acquires which are spontaneous or everyday concepts formed from experience and independent thinking, and nonspontaneous or scientific concepts taught at school (Moll, 1990). There is an important connection and interaction between the two in that what is learnt at school influences the development of concepts acquired through everyday life experience and vice versa (Cakir, 2008).
In line with the above, Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer and Scott (1994) define learning as the development of knowledge as individual learners construct meaning in terms of prior knowledge in a social context. Consequently, science teachers need to explore, challenge, revise and restructure learners’ worldviews during teaching as social constructivists assert that learners are attached to their prior conceptions and may hold on to them tenaciously. Science teaching should be linked to everyday real-life situations to which those scientific concepts are related. Therefore, the social constructivist view is a particular way of knowledge conceptualisation and acquisition and thus a unique process of learning.
On the same note, Ausubel in Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian (1978, p. iv) state that:
If l had to reduce all educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him or her accordingly.
Social constructivism uses socio-cultural approaches to learning which make teachers understand the capabilities of diverse learners, particularly the disadvantaged, and at the same time makes them realise how their pedagogy often constrains the learners’ capabilities (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) also contend that teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the culturally-conditioned knowledge learners bring to the classroom can facilitate effective teaching. In support of the above, researchers like Heath (1983) found out that some of the causes of school failure include discontinuities between home culture (values, attitudes and beliefs) and the school; mismatch in communication practices; and the internalisation of negative stereotypes, where minority or disadvantaged groups view school as an institution filled with opposition and resistance due to previous marginalisation. Therefore, teachers’ pedagogy should support learners by taking into consideration learners’ worldviews to prevent learners dropping out of school because of failure to cope.
2.2.2.2 Social constructivist view of science teaching and learning
Considering the nature of scientific knowledge as being socially constructed and changeable brings important implications for science teaching and learning. Firstly, it calls for science teachers to foster a critical perspective on scientific culture among learners which emphasises the limitation of scientific knowledge and its application as social products (Lee, 2006). Secondly, social constructivism proposes that teaching for understanding is critical as the most basic goal of education is to prepare learners for further learning and make them more effective, useful and relevant in their communities (Perkins, 1993). Therefore, emphasis on acquisition of knowledge and skills through content coverage does not guarantee understanding (Fraser, Tobin & Kahle, 1992) but rather understanding results from constructing and modifying knowledge in learners’ mental schemes (Perkins, 1993). This is why social constructivists view meaning-making as originating from social interactions between individuals and interactions between those individuals with cultural products that are made available to them in books or other sources (Leach & Scott, 2003). Making meaning is thus a dialogic process involving persons in conversations (Lee, 2006). In addition, science learning is considered as a process of constructing, interpreting and modifying learners’ own representations of reality based on
their experiences (Kearney, 2004). Closely linked to that, Vygotsky considered the role of culture and society, language and interaction as critically important in the learning process.
According to social constructivists, one of the most important aspects in science teaching and learning is to provide learners with a learning environment that promotes their understanding of science by way of co-constructing and negotiating ideas through meaningful peer and teacher interactions (Solomon, 1987). In this regard, Singer, Marx and Krajcik (2000) assert that when science teaching incorporates real-life situations the learners become motivated and easily transfer knowledge through application to new situations. As a result, the learners realise the utility value of their academic work.
It can be concluded that if the ways in which learners acquire knowledge outside school and the experiences they encounter at home or in communities do not match the way they are taught at school, then school learning becomes irrelevant. Inclusion of learners’ personal circumstances and socio-cultural experiences is important in the teaching of science so that the learners see relevance of the concepts at hand. The scientific concepts and skills learnt should have value to the learners’ day-to-day living. Failure in that respect will result in what Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) found in their study on the utility value of science in Australian high schools. They noted that the high level of disengagement of Australian learners in high school science was associated with the lack of relevance of the science taught. Hewitt (2004) also lamented the worldwide decline in numbers of students who undertake Physics at senior secondary and introductory university courses for the same reason.
Social constructivism proposes instructional models that stress the need for collaboration among learners and with teachers and society at large (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McMahon, 1997).
2.2.2.3 Role of the teacher and learner in a social constructivist science classroom In explaining the basis of the social constructivist view of science teaching and learning, Wandersee, Mintzes and Novak (1994) point out that learners harbour a variety of alternative conceptions about objects and events when they enter formal instruction in
lie in learners’ diverse personal experiences, which are acquired through observation, perception, culture, language, prior teachers’ explanations and prior instructional materials. Unfortunately, learners cling onto these alternative conceptions particularly if teachers employ traditional formal instruction (Cakir, 2008).
In a social constructivist classroom, learners should be active participants in the process of learning (Li & Lam, 2013; O’Neill and McMahon, 2005). The strength of social constructivism lies in taking the learners’ beliefs and conceptions seriously, thereby allowing interpretation of their learning difficulties. The focus of teaching is thus not only to assist learners to acquire science concepts but also to help them to understand the significance of this knowledge in their lives and society in general.
Duit (1996) outlined the teacher’s role as that of always evaluating learners’ prior knowledge at the beginning of the lesson, guiding learners in restructuring their existing ideas and giving the learners opportunities to apply the ideas. The most important role of the teacher in the science classroom is to control the ‘flow of discourse’ as the teacher mediates learner construction of scientific knowledge (Mortimer & Scott, 2000). In addition, teachers need to provide helpful interventions to promote thought and reflection to the learners by provoking and initiating quality comments and contributions during discussions (Duckworth, 1987). In this way, teachers promote shared meanings among learners and at the same time assess learners’ understanding of newly introduced concepts. Therefore, through dialogical interaction teachers provide support or scaffolds for learners in their construction of new meanings (Schunk, 2012). Teachers facilitate the active involvement of learners by allowing them to make reflections during the learning process (Mwamwenda, 2006).
2.2.2.4 Social constructivist teaching and learning strategies
According to the social constructivist perspective, analogical reasoning is crucial as a key process in knowledge construction and it involves scanning for similarities between already existing conceptions with the newly presented ones (Duit, 1991). In exploring teachers’ conceptions of the social constructivist model of science teaching and student learning, Shumba (2011) found that the only way to replace a conception held by a learner is by
constructing a new concept that more appropriately explains the learner’s experiences. However, it should be noted that the aim of science instruction is not to erase learners’ pre- instructional conceptions, but to work out the contexts in which these conceptions are limited and in which the science conceptions are more valuable (Shumba, 2011). The only way such instruction is achieved is through social constructivist teaching strategies that involve more learner-centred active learning experiences, more learner-learner and learner- teacher interactions and more work with concrete materials and solving realistic problems (Bernstein, 1996; Brousseau, 1997). In this way, science teachers present scientific concepts from the learner’s point of view rather than from their (or a scientist’s) point of view, as this allows the learners to consider their pre-instructional, socio-cultural or indigenous experiences during the science knowledge construction process (Shumba, 2011).
In the same vein, Yager (1991) describes learning as an active process occurring within the learner and as influenced by the learner, and equally by the teacher and by the school. As a result, learning outcomes are not dependent on the teacher’s presentation but rather on the interaction of the taught information with the learner and how the learner processes it, based on perceived knowledge. Such processes can only be achieved through the use of inquiry-based approaches where both teachers and learners are co-inquirers (Engle & Conant, 2002; Magnusson & Palincsar, 2005).
Social constructivist strategies derive their strengths from knowledge of and use of the learners’ socio-cultural background. Leach and Scott (2003) underscore the need for teachers to understand learners’ pre-instructional knowledge, that is, the knowledge learners bring to a given teaching context, as this enables them to understand learners’ response to science teaching. As such, teachers should use such insights in their instructional designs. For instance, the teachers should first provide instructional activities that stimulate elicitation of learners’ pre-instructional knowledge which then helps learners in identifying common alternative conceptions and in turn design subsequent episodes in order to cause cognitive conflicts in the learners (Lee, 2006). If learners experience cognitive conflicts they are motivated to develop new knowledge (Krajcik et al., 1998; Roth, 1994). On that note, Perkins (1993) contends that learner engagement in thought-
demanding activities promotes deep understanding as they try to explain, master evidence, find examples, generalise and apply concepts, analogise and represent knowledge in a new way that builds on their prior knowledge.
In line with social constructivism, science teachers should promote social interaction in the classroom by providing real-life scenarios that connect science with learners’ lives, which Lee (2006) argues has two benefits, motivation of learners and transfer of knowledge by applying it in new situations. Because learning in the science classroom should be a social and dialogic activity, social constructivists advocate for collaboration among learners as conversation among them in a classroom forms a learning community (Lee, 2006). Therefore, effective learning is thought to occur through interaction, negotiation and collaboration. Such interaction allows learners to reflect on the viability of their conceptions and negotiate shared meanings to reformulate their ideas at the end (Kearney, 2004). Hence small and large-group activities should be planned for in a science classroom.
In probing learners’ prior knowledge, inquiry-based learning and the Predict, Observe and Explain (POE) strategy are effective (Lee, 2006; White & Gunstone, 1992). In both processes learners are forced to explore, articulate and clarify their prior knowledge or ideas as they formulate hypotheses in inquiry and make predictions. In this regard, Singer, Marx and Krajcik (2000) insist that teachers need to immerse learners in a scientific culture through extended inquiry as this helps learners acquire skills, debate ideas, design and conduct investigations, reason logically, use evidence to support claims, and propose interpretations of findings. In this way performance has been found to improve when instruction is designed to deal with specific difficulties revealed in studies of learners’ pre- instructional knowledge (Savinainen & Scott, 2002).
Social constructivists emphasise the importance of collaboration in science classrooms as already mentioned. Collaborative learning is defined as an instruction method in which learners at various performance levels work together in small groups towards a common goal (Gokhale, 1995). This is important since conversation between classmates forms a learning community where learners share information and learn each other’s insights until they reach consensus decisions. The importance of the strategy is shown in a qualitative
study on peer interactions in classrooms where Kearney (2004) found that learners experienced many instances of conflicts and co-construction that were conducive to the development of understanding. These conversations allowed social interactions that motivated learners in articulating and justifying their own science conceptions. In this way the learners clarified and critically reflected on their peers’ views, and negotiated new shared meanings. Learners in that scenario acquired important scientific language and enhanced their becoming members of a classroom scientific community (Kearney,
2004). Group discussions therefore form the core of social constructivists’ pedagogical practices(Lee, 2006).
According to Cakir (2008) the reason why constructivism has gained momentum as the epistemological commitment and instructional model could be that it includes aspects of Piagetian, Ausubelian and Vygotskian learning theories. These include the importance of teachers ascertaining learners’ prior knowledge or existing cognitive frameworks, as well as the teachers’ use of authentic scenarios to drive conceptual change (Cakir, 2008). Cakir further suggests that science teaching could be more effective if teachers understood the barriers to conceptual learning, especially the effects of prior misconceptions and the resistance to conventional instruction. Teachers should familiarise themselves with strategies that deal with learners’ misconceptions to allow evolution of learners’ conceptual knowledge (Hewson, 1992; Hewson & Hewson, 1988).
Teachers should recognise therefore that meaningful teaching and learning of science is not achieved by coverage of more science facts and principles or by increasing learners’ laboratory activities. Instead, learning for understanding in classrooms requires well designed hands-on and minds-on activities that challenge learners’ existing conceptions, leading them to reconstruct their personal theories. Emphasis should be on the quality of the learners’ understanding rather than just surface learning or their test scores (Cakir, 2008). Science teachers’ attention should therefore be on the process of science rather than just the content, as learners who understand the process are better prepared to acquire science content on their own (Basili & Sanford, 1991). Thus social constructivists recommend scaffolding as one of the instructional strategies. Scaffolding refers to the
Scaffolding is done through collaborative interaction between teacher and learner. This is implied in Vygotsky’s ZPD, where tasks which are too difficult for learners to master alone can be learnt with guidance and assistance from adults through scaffolding. Deficiency in proper guided learning experiences and social interaction obstructs learning and development in learners (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000).
Scaffolding instructional strategies promote a deeper level of learning which enables learners to achieve their learning goals (Sawyer, 2006), hence making learners understand science concepts meaningfully. These include teachers’ use of different resources such as graphics and handouts when introducing new concepts, modelling an activity, activating learners’ prior knowledge through prompting, questioning learners’ approaches, providing constructive feedback and involving learners in concept mapping (Brush & Saye, 2001). All these strategies involve teachers supporting learners in problem solving.
In view of the above exposition, social constructivism is the appropriate theoretical framework for the current study. In addition, the South African education science curriculum recommends a social constructivist learning approach where learners are supposed to be active participants in the science classroom, and it emphasises inclusivity and teachers’ recognition and ability to plan for diversity in learners (NCS Grades R-12: CAPS for NS, 2011). Sadly, South African science teachers appear to continuously hold a traditional view of teaching and learning science, and teach accordingly (Stears, 2009), as they operate in the expository mode which is characterised by limited learner-teacher interaction. This therefore calls for intervention strategies that would enable teachers to implement teaching approaches that are in line with the social constructivist relevant classroom practice.
This study attempts to investigate how teachers construct and present knowledge for science teaching (PCK) in order to accommodate township learners’ socio-cultural background. It should be noted that by taking the social constructivist view in teaching and learning science, this study does not disregard other important aspects of science learning such as practical knowledge of child psychology and of the process of learning, and as well as modern methods and techniques of science teaching. Rather, social constructivism is not a method but a theory of knowledge and learning that should inform practice and not
prescribe practice. By its very nature, the theory emphasises the importance of the teaching context, learner prior knowledge and active interaction between the learner and the content to be learnt as already mentioned. There is no teaching technique that should be prescribed or forbidden based solely on its constructivist suitability. The key is to promote and assist learners to be active participants in the learning process to achieve a deeper understanding of science concepts. Gess-Newsome (1999) recommends pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as the important knowledge teachers should possess during classroom instruction for the purpose of making learners understand specific scientific concepts.
The following section discusses PCK and how it fosters meaningful understanding of science concepts by learners. From the previous sections, it can be argued that the major curriculum challenge for teachers is to focus on student learning with an emphasis on understanding, rather than stressing content coverage only (Fraser, Tobin & Kahle, 1992). Essentially, teachers’ PCK has proved to be the key factor in new teaching and learning approaches under a social constructivist perspective (Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994). This is because PCK is the teachers’ understanding of how to organise, represent and adapt particular topics, problems or issues for diverse learner interests and abilities during instruction (Shulman, 1986, 1987).
2.3 Science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge