While CK conversations were not differentiated into sub-categories, PCK conversations were further categorised into conversations about knowledge of students understanding (KSU) and knowledge of instructional strategies (KISR).
It is evident from Table 4.8 that more PCK conversation time was spent on KISR than on KSU. This is an unexpected finding, given the fact that DIPIP prioritises understanding learner thinking (KSU) ahead of practice (KISR). The fact that there was more KISR conversation time than KSU conversation time can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that most conversations around errors (the kernel of KSU conversations) quickly led into KISR conversations which centre on instructional strategies for dealing with the errors. In other words, KSU conversations usually triggered KISR conversations.
Table 4.8: KSU and KISR in professional learning community conversations
Time spent Percentage of
PCK time total conversation Percentage of time
KSU 03:49 42 27
KISR 05:22 58 38
Teacher’s knowledge of learner understanding (KSU) was differentiated into two components, first knowledge of errors – identification of errors and learners’ reasoning behind the errors; and second knowledge of what makes a topic or concept difficult. As is evident in Table 4.9, significantly more KSU conversation time (88%) was spent identifying errors and discussing the reasoning behind the errors than on discussing what makes a concept difficult (12%).
Table 4.9: Time spent on each category of KSU conversations
Time
spent of KSU timePercentage of PCK timePercentage teacher knowledge Percentage of conversation time
Identifies errors and reasoning behind errors 03:22 88 37 36
What makes topic/ concept difficult? 00:27 12 5 <1
Total 03:49 100 42 37
Teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies and representations of the subject matter (KISR) was differentiated into five sub categories, namely teaching strategies to accommodate errors and misconceptions, rationale for teaching strategies and representations in connection with learner understanding, questioning to probe learner understanding, spontaneity to challenge misconceptions or resolve learning difficulties discovered and, finally, the use of new understanding of learner understanding to modify instructional strategies and representations.
Table 4.10 on the next page shows that the majority of KISR conversation time (71%) was spent discussing teaching strategies to accommodate errors and misconceptions. As was shown in Table 4.9, the bulk of the KSU time was spent identifying errors and reasoning behind errors. It is thus reasonable to find that most of the KISR time was spent discussing teaching strategies to accommodate the identified errors and misconceptions as teachers discuss ways of implementing their learning and findings. The professional learning community spent a relatively low percentage (17%) of KISR conversation time discussing rationale for teaching strategies and representations in connection with learner understanding. This could be due, at least in part, to the fact that teachers are more comfortable discussing what they do in the classroom than discussing the reasons for what they do (Brodie, personal communication). The amount of time spent discussing rationale for teaching strategies and representations in connection with learner understanding might have been higher had facilitators probed for this. Only 13% of KISR conversation time was spent in conversations on the other three sub-categories of KISR, namely questioning to probe learner understanding, and use of new understanding of learner understanding to modify instructional strategies and representations.
Table 4.10: Time spent on each category of KISR conversation
Time
spent Percentage of KISR time Percentage of PCK time Percentage of teacher knowledge conversation time Teaching strategies to accommodate
errors and misconceptions 03:48 71 41 27
Rationale for teaching strategies and representations in connection with
learner understanding 00:54 17 10 6
Questioning to probe learner
understanding 00:09 3 2 1
Spontaneity to challenge misconceptions
or resolve learning difficulties discovered 00:04 1 <1 <1 Use of new understanding of learner
understanding to modify instructional
strategies and representations 00:28 9 5 3
Total 05:23 ≈ 100 ≈ 59 ≈ 38
Tables 4.11 and 4.12, show KSU and KISR conversations as a percentage of PCK in each activity type and provide evidence to support my argument that the professional learning community activity type is a determinant in the type of teacher knowledge conversation. I have shown that lesson planning and lesson reflection are the two activity types that elicited the most CK conversation and PCK conversation, 28% of total conversation time and 56% of total conversation time respectively. An analysis of Tables 4.11 and 4.12 reveals that the activity type has some influence on the type of PCK conversation. Error analysis and lesson reflection are the two activity types during which there is most KSU discussion, while lesson planning and lesson reflection are the two activity types during which there is most KISR discussion.
Table 4.11: KSU conversations as a percentage of PCK in each activity type
Activity type Error
analysis interviewsLearner planningLesson reflectionLesson
Identifies errors and reasoning behind the errors 14 <1 3 20
Identifies what makes topic/ concept difficult 0 0 4 0
Table 4.12: KISR conversations as a percentage of PCK in each activity type
Activity type Error
analysis interviewsLearner planningLesson reflectionLesson Teaching strategies to accommodate errors and
misconceptions 0 0 20 22
Rationale for teaching strategies and representations in
connection with learner understanding 1 0 5 5
Questioning to probe learner understanding 0 0 0 2
Spontaneity to challenge misconceptions or resolve
learning difficulties discovered 0 0 0 1
Use of new understanding of learner understanding to
modify instructional strategies and representations 0 0 0 5
Total 1 0 25 35
In summary, my findings show that lesson planning and lesson reflection meetings create the most opportunities for the development of teachers’ PCK and that the activity type has some influence on the type of PCK conversation. In addition, I have argued that more PCK conversation time was spent on KISR than on KSU and that KSU conversations usually triggered KISR conversations. My findings in terms of the sub-categories of KISR and KSU are that the majority of KISR conversation time was spent discussing teaching strategies to accommodate errors and misconceptions and that significantly more KSU conversation time was spent identifying errors and discussing the reasoning behind the errors than on discussing what makes a concept difficult.