Data analysis

The study adopted a combination of Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko’s (1999) model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in teaching science and Friedrichsen, Van Driel and Abell’s (2011) science teaching orientations as the theoretical framework for the data analysis. A detailed discussion of this model is in the theoretical framework, chapter three.

This section discusses the link between the theoretical framework and the methods used in collecting the data in order to answer the main research questions. It examines the type of data analysis undertaken and outlines some of the themes and codes obtained from the data.

Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model of PCK has five key components which are appropriate to the study. These components are i) science teachers’ views and beliefs/orientations on teaching science (STO); ii) knowledge of assessment in science; iii) knowledge of instructional strategies; iv) knowledge of students’ understanding of science, and v) knowledge of science curriculum. In order to examine science teachers’ classroom practice and their links to SCL, I used the first component, Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model of STOs, which comprised nine orientations. These nine orientations are further classified as teacher centred orientations and student centred orientations. A detailed explanation of this model is given under the theoretical framework, chapter three.

From the nine proposed orientations, two are closely associated to teacher centred methods, while the remaining are linked to student centred approaches. It is suitable

131

at this point to discuss these two main classes of orientations used to analyse the data obtained from the three methods.

4.6.1 Teacher-Centred Orientations

Magnusson et al. (1999, p. 100) states that a teacher with a didactic orientation has the goal to transmit the facts of science and that such instruction is mainly

characterised as the teacher presents information, generally through talk and chalk and questions posed to students to test and see if they can recall the scientific facts (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 100). In the analysis of the lesson observations and interview data gathered, the description that indicates the teacher as telling,

showing, explaining, teacher presenting content knowledge and focusing on student recall, is considered in this study as didactic orientation and thus is linked to teacher centred method. A lesson that lacks activity and rigidly follows a syllabus with a focus on content and vocabulary is regarded as a knowledge based lesson and is thus considered to be teacher centred method (Magnusson et al., 1999).

Furthermore, a teacher’s practice or orientation is considered as teacher centred if the description fits that of an academic rigor orientation where the goal of the teacher is to “represent a particular body of knowledge”, instructions of which are

characterised as “students are challenged with difficult problems and activities” (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 100).

4.6.2 Student- Centred Orientations

Student-centred orientation comprises process, activity-driven, discovery, conceptual change, project based science, inquiry and guided inquiry. Any of these seven

132

orientations practised by teachers were considered as student centred learning (Magnusson et al., 1999). The defining characteristics of each of these student centred orientations is now discussed.

Process orientation aims to develop students’ processing skills. Science processes include observing, classifying, measuring and predicting. These may be observable in practical or activity based lessons in a student centred classroom (Magnusson et al., 1999). For example, students may observe an increase in temperature on a thermometer during boiling water, classify objects as solid liquid and gas. They may use a measuring cylinder and measure a specific volume of liquid and predict what will happen if water is added to salt. Such information may be gathered during lesson observations in this study.

Activity-driven orientation is characterised when students are engaged in practical work / experiment. Here students have hands-on experiences by being active with materials (Magnusson et al., 1999). Hands-on activities could be observed in a student centred classroom, for example when a teacher provides enough resources or materials for students and sets them to conduct an experiment in a science lesson.

Discovery orientation provides the opportunities for students to discover science concepts on their own. Allowing students to discover their own concept will enable them to remember what they have learnt more easily rather than telling them

(Magnusson et al., 1999). This will involve the teacher posing conceptual questions and allowing students to investigate and respond to the questions (Magnusson et al., 1999). Thus learning opportunities offered to students by their teachers are

133

Conceptual change orientation is defined as the goal to “facilitate the development of scientific knowledge by confronting students with contexts to explain, that challenge their naïve conceptions” (Magnusson et al., 1999, p.100). This involves asking for students’ views and helping them to establish valid claims (Magnusson et al., 1999). This is considered student centred learning.

Project–based science is characterised when students are involved in “investigating solutions to authentic problems” (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 100). Any project based work would mean a student centred approach.

Inquiry orientation was defined as the goal to “represent science as an inquiry” where the nature of instruction requires students to investigate problems and assess knowledge (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 100). The discovery and inquiry orientation both involve students’ investigation.

The seventh is guided inquiry, which encourages students to participate in

“investigating, scaffolding, learning to achieve students’ independence; inventing and testing explanations, ability to use scientific materials” (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 101). Teacher orientation that involve students to investigate the process of learning science is considered as student centred learning.

In my data analysis the seven STOs discussed above were used as criteria to identify participating teachers’ use of student centred learning. I looked out for these criteria in the interview, focus groups and lesson observation data. Thus, teachers categorised under teacher centred orientation were ascribed to one orientation - didactic or academic rigor orientations, while teachers under student centred

orientation attributed to at least two orientations. This is because with SCL a teacher could use multiple methods within a topic. For example, if a teacher assigned

134

students an experiment to conduct in class, such practice could be regarded as activity–driven and at the same time an inquiry or discovery- based orientations.

However, the analysis of data related to RQ3, on teacher orientations and how they impact on their practice in the classroom, was different to the RQ1 and RQ2. In order to better understand teachers’ Pedagogic Content Knowledge (PCK), Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) modified science teaching orientations (STOs) was adopted, which explains that science teaching orientation is a “set of beliefs with the following dimensions: goals and purposes of science teaching, views of science and beliefs about science teaching and learning” (p. 358-359). I felt it was inappropriate to assign any of the nine STOs by Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model to a teacher if all the remaining four components are to be considered. For this reason, Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) STOs were drawn on to supplement Magnusson et al.’s (1999) criteria which were insufficient. Thus it was appropriate to use interviews to gather data on teachers’ views and beliefs based on the Friedrichsen et al. (2011) dimensions and use observation method on the remaining four components by Magnusson et al. (1999). These observable parts of the data are comprised of knowledge of assessment in science; knowledge of instructional strategies; knowledge of students' understanding of science and knowledge of the science curriculum. These were the remaining components that form part of my observation criteria and are discussed below:

4.6.3 Knowledge of assessment in science

Teacher knowledge of assessment in science involved how the students are assessed during class time, for example asking numerous questions, getting students to restate their responses, questions asked not being based on knowledge recall and allowing

135

students adequate time to think and reflect before responding to the questions posed to them (Magnusson et al., 1999).

4.6.4 Teacher knowledge of instructional strategies

This involved teachers providing appropriate and relevant activities and teaching learning resources, mastery of the subject by giving appropriate and relevant examples, encouraging students to ask questions, promoting student participation and collaboration (Magnusson et al., 1999).

4.6.5 Teacher knowledge of students understanding of science

This involved addressing students’ misconceptions, helping students with difficulties, meeting the needs of students by providing adequate teaching learning resources and giving a brief revision of the previous lesson (Magnusson et al., 1999).

4.6.6 Teacher knowledge of curriculum

This involved linking prior knowledge to new knowledge, and making sure the topics taught are interconnected. Teachers demonstrating this were considered to possess knowledge of curriculum (Magnusson et al., 1999). The next section discusses the type of data analysis used in this study.