The six teachers who took part in Interview 3 all described using a number of different approaches in their teaching, see Table 5.6 above. However, over the course of all their interviews, the six teachers described one or two main approaches to their teaching. This section examines the teachers‟ individual approaches.
Teacher 1 – role of practical work
An earlier section of this Chapter gave examples of Teacher 1‟s rationale for and approach to practical work. Teacher 1 used practical work to give the pupils some responsibility for their own learning and to help the pupils to develop their thinking by challenging what they thought they had already learned. In order to give pupils this freedom, Teacher 1 ensured that the pupils knew what was expected of them in terms of organising their use of equipment:
… but you get the idea of how you want the equipment setup, how they can set up this equipment up and how you want it put away. And then if you've got those things, it's like, this is what I want you to do today.
and let them go for it and let them play around with the stuff as long as it's done: this is where you need eyes in the back of your head.
[T1.3.3a]
As well as giving the pupils freedom to “play around with the stuff”, Teacher 1 also provided the pupils with appropriate support by guiding their thinking at the
beginning of the lesson and then carefully monitoring all the pupils while they were working, using “eyes in the back of your head”.
Teacher 2 – the pragmatic use of analogies
Teacher 2 made the most systematic and thoughtful use of analogies when teaching. A range of different analogies were used. As Teacher 2 gained experience, different analogies were used with different class, depending on the age and ability of the pupils. During the Probationary Year, when discussing combing resistors in parallel with a Standard Grade class Teacher 2 described using analogies where 100 people walking down a road slowed down when they reached a narrow part of the road. However, this was immediately adapted to the effect of using one and then two turnstiles to allow a crowd of people to pass, T1.3.4c. However, in Interview 4, Teacher 2 initially discussed limitations and nuances of using analogies:
I use more analogies actually I don‟t tend to stick to a single one, they change level to level as well as we get up towards the higher and advanced higher some of the things I might use with my Intermediate 1 class go out the window they are not accurate enough. Some of the analogies‟ start to fall apart when you start taking them any further.
[T2.4.8b]
This quotation showed that Teacher 2 discussed the range and limitations of
analogies with pupils, as suggested by Harrison & Coll (2008). However, Teacher 2 seemed to have evolved this way of dealing with analogies rather than drawing on an
external knowledge base. Teacher 2 did not use analogies with able examination classes, preferring that the pupils learned the rules:
… I tend to go straight with - this is how it works and go down the rules line for Standard Grade and the same for Higher. I do
sometimes use water analogies for Higher because they're more able
to visualise it. [T2.3.4a]
I think it is the variety of analogies for the different kids I don‟t teach a single analogy with the possible exception of current in Intermediate 1 after that it becomes I try and teach the electrical theory as true to original as I can and use analogies to explain why that works.
[T2.4.6a]
Learning the rules was preferred because that contributed more to the pupils‟ understanding in the long run than relying on the analogies. Teacher 2 did use analogies with an Intermediate 1 class (considered to be of lower ability), but only with current and not voltage because the analogy being used probably broke down when used with voltage. The analogy used was people standing on hosepipes, [T2.1.3b].
In Interview 3, Teacher 2 preferred the use of anthropomorphic, or people, analogies, such as the “smelly road” [T2.3.3b] which was rarely travelled. According to Teacher 2, anthropomorphic analogies worked well for “people people” [T2.3.8] because these pupils found it easy to relate to this type of analogy.
Teacher 3 – pragmatic use of mathematics
As well as training to teach physics, Teacher 3 trained to teach mathematics, in common with Teachers 2 and 6. However, Teacher 3 tended to take a more pragmatic and mathematical approach to teaching physics than the other teachers.
Probably electricity is quite a nasty concept to try and think of in a purist way about what's actually physically happening. The logic and maths for solving the circuits are actually not as difficult as the basic concept – things either add up – you‟ve always got constant voltages and currents flowing through things in series and parallel, so you can always break things down into series and parallel circuits and build
everything up from there … [T3.2.6 a]
Teacher 3 tended to adopt this pragmatic mathematical approach throughout the three interviews he gave, even with respect to problem solving. In problem solving, the pupils wrote down what they knew and then followed a series of four steps:
you‟ve now got the information for that resistor and then the equation, substitution, answer plus units – it was the four steps….
I think I would still use the four steps because it gets them into the
habit of showing their working [T6.3.4a]
Teacher 4 – this what you need to know
Teacher 4 initially felt somewhat insecure about teaching electricity as a result of the perceived lack of electrical content studied as an undergraduate. This was reflected in Interview 1 when Teacher 4 could not recall some of the salient information immediately, but did work out what pupils would need to know and a suitable approach by thinking through the question. Teacher 4 did not take part in Interview 2, but did take part in Interviews 3 and 4. By the time of these later interviews, Teacher 4 knew exactly what the pupils had to know at the different levels and how this content would be taught. This approach was reflected in the length of the interviews with Teacher 4 which tended to be the shortest interviews with Teachers 1-6.
find this difficult initially because electricity had not played a big part in undergraduate study, “I didn‟t do a lot of Electricity, or anything to do with Electronics really.” [T4.3.6]
If the resistance goes down the voltage goes up, then the resistance… So I would get them to think about V=IR… so how as the voltage varies… So I would get them to think about V=IR, just like I‟m thinking of it!
Then so if V=IR, V must be proportional to the resistance, so the resistance, because I‟s staying constant, so if the resistance goes down, the voltage must therefore go… I‟m not sure.
So I‟d have to think it through first and maybe give them numbers so that they thought about it themselves. So if that‟s maybe ten [long pause] So, if the resistance goes down, the voltage goes down.
I had my doubts about that! [T4.1.5d]
However, in Interviews 3 and 4 the response to this question was straightforward and to the point and showed clear understanding of the syllabus and the underlying physics and an approach to teaching physics which involved asking the pupils questions to guide their thinking:
What happens when you put it in the dark – is the light going up or is the light going down? And get them to think about what happens when the light....well it‟s been in the light, it‟s going in the dark so the light must be going down. So you know that light up resistance down, so if there‟s light down, resistance must go up. [T4.3.5d] This confirmed Teacher 4‟s statement early in Interview 3, where it was stated that:
I definitely feel more confident now than I did before. I feel my knowledge of the Standard Grade course has improved. [T4.3.8]
Teacher 5 – predict, observe, explain
In Interviews 2 and 3, Teacher 5 developed an approach to teaching which could be described as a version of “Predict – Observe – Explain” or of dialogic teaching. This approach is discussed in more detail in section 5.2.4. Teacher 5 did not carry this approach on into Interview 4 when instead of working with pupils in mainstream schools, he was working with pupils in a residential school. However, this was a deliberate pedagogical decision, because the pupils in the residential school would not have responded well to this form of repeated questioning.
Teacher 6 – Know the rules
Teacher 6 had originally trained in Mechanical Engineering and did not like electricity when he was a pupil:
T6.1.6c Electricity‟s probably going to be my second least favourite subject.
Interviewer And what‟s your least favourite?
T6.1.6c It‟s going to be electronics.
However, he realised that he needed to teach electricity and to prepare to teach it:
I think it will be good to teach a subject which I didn‟t enjoy myself, to try and make it more enjoyable over the next couple of years.
[T6.2.6c]
Teacher 6‟s solution to teaching electricity was to concentrate on the rules that the pupils needed to know to be able to solve problems. He discussed the rules for current and voltage in series and parallel in all three of his interviews and summed them up at the end of Interview 3:
I would maybe just say what I said at the beginning – it's all about getting a clear circuit, or a clear set of rules and always apply that to
all your teaching– always going back to them, rule 1, rule 2, rule 3,
rule 4. [T6.3.6a]
Using the set of rules gave a structure to his teaching and to the pupils‟ learning by reinforcing the importance of knowing the rules for current and voltage.