My research methods were designed to measure firstly the extent of pedagogical and technological use of ICTs in these six selected educators, who are part of the GDE 2 200 high schools in possession of the ICT provisions by using the following criteria: Curriculum Goals and Technologies- (Curriculum-based technology use), Instructional Strategies and Technologies-(Using technology in teaching/ learning), Technology Selection(s)- (Compatibility with curriculum goals and instructional strategies) and “Fit”- (Content, pedagogy and technology together) and secondly, to examine the contextual variables that affect the pedagogical integration of ICT in these three Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) high schools in South Africa. I have taken care to minimize my biases as discussed in this research project. The participants rejected completely to follow the order of my research design by refusing to be audio-taped for the initial and follow up questionnaires rather opting for writing responses. The prospective trust and mutual aid between the researcher and the respondent was viewed as solid in face-to-face meetings (Dooley 2001). I recognize that I was enthusiastic about the study, and to see colleagues science educators transitioning with great effort from traditional ‘chalk and board’ to high tech paperless board, with its potential impact on the South African context. These sentiments may obscure my assessments and certain facets of the analysis. I also acknowledge that the data collected during school practice were only for duration of two weeks and for a solitary topic; I am aware of this, in addition to the restrictive aggregate sample size, as one of the practical limitations of the research project.
3.10 Conclusion remarks
One of the aims of the research preparation is to assemble an effective method that captures the essence of the phenomena to be investigated. In this chapter the Mixed Methods research methodology was selected based on the intricacies of the process of ICT integration which is not only pedagogically new but has a tendency to evolve fast. Therefore both narrative (descriptive) method and numerical method was essential for the design of a study involving ICT integration. An
45
aspect like gold, fast changing in value or trade but whose narrative spans over centuries. Educators actions had to be captured, the responses captured and all these converted to numerical values that could be quantified and offer an opportunity of comparison. The chapter finally ends with ethical issues in which both learners and educators had to be protected.
3.11 Projection to the next chapter
The next chapter deals with the Quantitative analysis using the TPACK rubric and the Rasch Statistical Model, how they were used towards responding to Question One of the research project and discussing the significance of the results
46
CHAPTER 4
Quantitative Analysis of the Extent of ICT Applications using TPACK
The previous chapters dealt with the introductory rudiments of the theoretical framework TPACK, its locus standi within the educational, scientific literature and culminating in a comprehensive research methodology for this research project. In this chapter I discussed the TPACK rubric and the Rasch statistical model, how they were used towards responding to Question 1 - the determination of the extent of effective use of ICTs for pedagogical and technological use in the teaching of the Grade 10 Physical Sciences topic of Mechanics by six educators in three high schools in Gauteng province, South Africa. The instruments used for data collection were called Data Collection Tools) and the TPACK rubric and Rasch statistical model package was referred to as the Analytical Instruments. Finally, I provided the significance of the findings.
4.1 Overview
The aim of this project was to collect data of educators integration of ICT’s in teaching topic of Mechanics in Grade 10 Physical Sciences in three approved South African High Schools. The obtained data in the sequence as shown in Figure 5 was analyzed quantitatively to determine the educators’ extent of effective use of ICTs for pedagogical use in Mechanics. The quantitative analysis was composed of the aspects shaded in light green in Figure 5 shown below
47
As outlined above, the first analysis feedback was obtained from the initial questionnaire (see appendix A3), where participants were asked questions relating to technology selection, instructional strategies, or pedagogical approaches, as well as software and hardware all aligned to the curriculum goals to do with the topic Mechanics. The responses from these questions became part of the Response Assessment Schedules (see appendix A21- A26) that were assessed using the TPAC rubric (Table 12).
The second analysis feedback was provided for the data obtained during a two week topic Mechanics class observation. During that observation period the following procedure was undertaken: the researcher sits down with each participant and obtains information on what they normally say they use during their ICT integration. The Observation Schedule allows this sort of arrangement to take place first as the researcher did tick on the schedule what the participant claim to use in his or her lessons. The second step involves the actual two week observation, whereby as the researcher, I was ascertaining if what the participant alluded to was actually being employed or done and with what technological integrations (This was the reason table extracts 3-6 to 3-8 were inducted earlier on in chapter 3 for the reader to understand that there are science specific TPACK activities which constitute successful ICT integration in Mechanics – the ability to try to measure this and make a comparable analysis was what allows the research to determine the levels of TPACK. This was a new approach introduced by this approach and might fit the traditional view point).
The observation schedule (see appendix A5) was composed of the first section (Observation A) of a checklist of questions which the researcher had to respond to in the form of notes taken down during ICT integration lessons of all participants. The second section (Observation B-see Appendix 7 summary of observations per each category of Appendices A7a-c) consisted of ticking the checklist of three component strategies (knowledge expression, conceptual knowledge and procedural building activities) that were being observed if they were applied often, occasionally or none at all as participants had alluded to in the beginning. These notes and ticked checklist were be combined with the responses from the initial questionnaire alluded above to make a combined Response Schedules that were assessed using the TPAC rubric.
There was a clear guidance for what consist knowledge expression strategies/ activities (sees appendix A7a), conceptual knowledge activities (see appendix A7b) and procedural building strategies/ activity types (see Appendix 7c) respectively. The combined or aggregated results of all
48
each observed activities in each category from Appendices A7a-c forms the summary of observed results which was Appendix 8.
Using Appendix 6 one was able to view in which categories of activities did the lessons of the participant was strongly in ICT integration (in conceptual knowledge activities, knowledge expression strategies or procedural building strategies/ activity types). One was able to come out with a comparison of what participants alluded to before, during observations and in the questionnaires. These observations allow comparisons to be undertaken between educators on the topic of Mechanics. If a participant had more of none in all the categories of observations obviously a participant with more observed occasional use in all the categories was given a fair balance in the areas of instructional strategies and this was deemed as doing very well in comparison to none. We expect that from the initial stages of the topic building until the conclusions on the topic, there be a balance in ICT integration activities or strategies.
A summary table of results from observations is below:
Table 11: Observation Results: (Appendix 8)
TPACK: Observations on Activities Summary Results Knowledge Expression
strategies / Activities
Conceptual Knowledge Activities Procedural Building Strategies
Total score per Activity 12 17 11
Participant Mr Ariel 4 3 2 Mr Johns 10 10 6 Mr Sibeko 6 4 3 Ms Nomsa 8 6 3 Mr Khumo 8 7 4 Mr Zuva 10 13 8
Finally the last analysis feedback was from question 3.2 of the follow-up questionnaire (see appendix A11 and 12) that requested the educators to choose a topic of their own choice and explain how they would integrate ICTs. The response from this question would show from the educators, knowledge of content curriculum aligned topics and goals, technology selection(s), pedagogy and instruction
49
skills. These responses formed the final part of the Response Schedule that was assessed using the
TPAC rubric.
The whole set up was structured in such a way that the researcher at all the given moments would be located in the classroom and sometimes in the laboratories or preparation rooms to get to understand from in situ the whole integration process in their science lessons to allow proper and accurate pedagogical integration assessment of ICTs. The obtained data were subjected to the TPACK rubric assessment which is described below.