In evaluating the analysis of responses from firstly category A, curriculum goals and technologies (curriculum-based technology use) educators exhibited a developing and some a standard level rating. It can be deduced that this might be because the curriculum goals are spelled out in the National Curriculum Statement and relatively easy to link technologies, especially if that has been done already for one by the service providers.
Secondly, technology selection (Compatibility with curriculum goals and instructional strategies) it was clearly shown that the educators, although they could link the selection of technology based on curriculum goals they had difficulties with aligning them to instructional strategies. Their rating in this category was mainly served by their strength to select in line with curriculum goals, but their inability to align with instructional strategies proved to be their undoing in most cases.
Thirdly, instructional strategies and technologies (Using technology in teaching/ learning) the educators exhibited low skills in this category. Most educators do not arrange their lessons with different strategies. Educators can start a lesson with a PowerPoint and end with the same PowerPoint. Only two educators explained their strategies and corresponding technologies well, but the rest struggled. Literature shows that in the topic specific measurements of Physical Sciences, conceptual teaching strategies are the most difficult (Mavhunga, 2012).
Lastly, Fit (Content, pedagogy and technology together) proved the most difficulty of all the categories of the TPACK constructs. This might be that the educators had a challenge combining the three together. The first problem identified was that of educators teaching physical science which was not their area of specialty. The Education for All (EFA) 2000 assessment (2005) also stated that 84% of science educators professionally qualified, only 42% was competent to teach Physical
114
Sciences meaning most have problems to teach the subject hence low capability when it comes to the Fit component
Furthermore conceptual teaching strategies in Mechanics are a problem. Teachers in the study did not seem to display that they understood what conceptual teaching was and the relevant instructional strategies. Teaching Mechanics follow three fundamental conceptual teaching strategies in the Physical Sciences: Procedural Knowledge Building, Conceptual Knowledge Building and Knowledge Expression. Among most educators I could not distinguish when there was a procedure being developed or when a concept was being built. Therefore, this combination has to be viewed in tandem with the context they operate.
Educators as projected by their responses work and operate within a given context. These contexts affect the trajectory of their TPACK development. The educators who are at varying levels of competence in implementing the ICT project reported that they teach under a shortage of Physical Science educators.They reported that the inclination for transformation from traditional teaching to technological teaching was not well coordinated from top to bottom, especially at the bottom where implementers are located. Although attitudes and beliefs on the use of technology are positive, they are confronted by lack of poor training. The initial time planning constraints, sourcing of software and hardware and obtaining good quality software and hardware has resulted in poor teaching standards.
The poor standards have also been exacerbated by the role of Principals and school management teams, compromised leadership, support and collegiality in their school. In addition, the provincial and national policies commitment to professional ICT learning and teaching was inconsistent. Batchelor (2014) proffered that ICT incorporation was viewed as a wicked problem within the education circles in South Africa as it was required at policy level, but ignored at functioning level and there was existence of numerous role actors not well harmonized with seemingly concealed agendas looking for the fast fix, with policies determined by an idealistic viewpoint of current research programs, limiting theory construction, overlaying Eurocentric study viewpoints in emerging situations, and finally exposed to speedy modifications in the field with possibilities of modification before they can be judged suitable results.
Overall, the participants got a rating of 3 i.e. developing TPACK (see TPACK rubric) this was because of the fact that they provided good quality responses in other categories. Their weaknesses in one aspect of ICT integration was balanced by their strength in another aspect. The above responses
115
provide further evidence that the TPACK instrument could measure the differences in qualities of TPACK of Physical Science participants and hence it was valid.
5.5 Conclusion remarks
The narrative aspect of the ICT application in the Mechanics lesson exposed a number of factors affecting successful integration. The quality of responses in each category of TPACK traits corroborated a deficient narrative in the Fit classification trait. Some participants relied on the content material integrated in the hardware but during class observation some concepts were conceptually wrong. Others were of the idea that any lesson written electronically is ICT integrated oblivious to the fact that there are technological instructional strategies which are mainly subject and topic specific in sciences that allow a lesson to be classified as an ICT integrated Mechanics lesson. But also the same narrative revealed the strengths of educators in their ability to show case the teacher knowledge in technology selection and curriculum goals linked to technologies.
Lastly the qualitative analysis revealed a plethora of contextual variables ranging from different levels of competence of participants in ICT integration with some very low and others very high. The educators cited that their management teams were not prepared to plan and manage technology integration. They themselves received a variegated amount of training and sometimes no training but depending on trial and error techniques among others.
5.6 Projection to the next chapter
The next chapter was the final chapter which proffers discussions of the findings, implication of the results and conclusions of this research project on ICT integration.
116
CHAPTER 6
Discussion of findings, implication of results and conclusions
This chapter offered a brief summary of how the project was carried out and also discussed the findings in relation to the research questions for this project. Associated literature was reviewed and implications of the findings presented. Conclusions, recommendations and lastly limitations of the research project were argued.
6.1 Overview
Firstly, the initiatives by the GDE to provide tablets to government funded schools, in addition to the computers supplied under another project called the GOL, at a huge cost running into millions of Rands was the main motivation that led me to undertake the study concerning ICT integration, in specific its state of inclusion in the teaching of the subject Physical Sciences. Secondly, Physical Sciences are considered as one of the most difficult subjects in the South African school system, according to the records issued by the Department of Basic Education (DBE, 2012). Lastly, learner performance in the topic of Mechanics (Work and Energy) in the Grade 12 examination has been found to be particularly poor in the report of NSC (DBE, 2012).
Ornek, Robison and Haugan, (2008) are of the view that learners consider Physics concepts as difficult and abstract as they should be represented as experiments, formulas, calculations, graphs and conceptual explanations that should be transformed among them. For this reason, learners tend to perform poorly in this topic. Literature indicates that the learners in different countries hold a number of misconceptions about the Mechanics topic starting from grade 10 when it was first introduced in secondary school learning. This suggested the need to establish how physical science teachers can alternatively handle the topic Mechanics using ICTs and unpack this topic so that it was understood by their learners.
For this reason, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge theoretical construct (TPACK) guided this research project. The TPACK rubric was used as a tool to measure how effectively educators teach using ICTs. The rubric was composed of four components namely: (i) Curriculum Goals and Technologies (Curriculum-based technology use), (ii) Technology Selection(s) (Compatibility with curriculum goals and instructional strategies), (iii) Instructional Strategies and
117
Technologies (Using technology in teaching/ learning), (iv) Fit (Content, pedagogy and technology together). It was believed that it was through these four components of TPACK that one was be able to measure the extent of how effectively the selected participants use ICTs to alternatively transform the abstract topic of Mechanics to a level understood by the learners (Harris, Grandgenett and Hofer, 2011). It was through the TPACK instruments: questionnaire, questionnaire and observations schedules that the four components of TPACK were assessed and analyzed.