Relationship between contextual knowledge and science teaching

from multiple domains and science teaching orientations have been found to be a critical component within the PCK of science teachers (Brown, Friedrichsen & Abell, 2009).

There are various conceptions of orientations or teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching and learning. Friedrichsen, van Driel and Abell (2010, 2011) define science teaching orientations as beliefs that characterise goals, purposes of science teaching and views about science teaching and learning which include the nature of science (NOS), and the nature of teaching and learning science. A science orientation can also be defined as a general way of viewing or conceptualising science teaching (Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999). Richardson-Koehler, Anderson and Smith (1987) referred to science orientation as a combination of teachers’ cognition and action. By drawing from the different definitions above, the current study conceives teachers’ orientations as teachers’ beliefs about the nature, goals and purposes of science and how science teaching and learning occur in a particular learning environment like a township school.

In their handbook, Anderson and Smith (1987) described four different categories of science teacher orientations, namely, activity-driven teaching, didactic teaching, discovery teaching and conceptual-change teaching. On the other hand, Magnusson et al. (1999) propose nine different orientations to science teaching, namely process, academic rigour, didactic, conceptual-change, activity-driven, discovery, project-based science, open inquiry and guided inquiry. An analysis of both groups of categories shows that they describe teachers’ behaviour in class and the different pedagogical approaches they employ.

2.5.3.1 Influence of teachers’ orientations on their practice

Orientations are an important teachers’ knowledge domain particularly in this current study because teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching have a strong bearing on the kind of learning experiences and activities they select (Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999) when incorporating learners’ socio-cultural practices, experiences and beliefs. Abell (2007) also pointed out that science teachers’ orientations directly influence their practices, are context-specific and could change over

time. Likewise, Mansour (2010) views beliefs as influencing teachers’ knowledge acquisition and interpretation, selection and organisation of tasks and their ways of understanding. Resultantly, those orientations could influence the teachers’ views on the role of CK on their PCK. In their model of PCK for science teaching, Magnusson et al (1999) pointed out that orientations influence teacher practice by shaping other components of PCK.

Arguably, science reforms fail to cater for the unique situations within specific classroom contexts characterised by diverse learners’ socio-cultural background (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Sarason, 1996; Windschitl, 2002) since they disregard the influence of particular institutional contexts and the role of individual classroom teachers. Smith and Southerland (2007) found that the effectiveness of reform efforts is largely dependent on teachers’ ability or inability to modify their fundamental or central beliefs about what it means to teach and to learn science. Teachers’ beliefs shape them as to who they are as science teachers; and therefore influence their instructional decisions (Smith, 2005). Some researchers also noted that teachers’ beliefs or personal theories about teaching and learning inform the decisions they make concerning teaching methods and strategies as well as the content they select for their learners in a science classroom (Battista, 1994; Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Laplante, 1997; Smith, 2005).

Consequently, the success of any science reform programme depends on the teachers’ ability to think differently about teaching and learning. This is because changing beliefs is thought to be a long-term sustained change in practice (Richardson, 1996). Because teachers invest emotionally and intellectually in their beliefs, they maintain their beliefs unless something challenges the existing beliefs the individual teacher holds (Pajares, 1992). There is also substantial evidence that deeply held subject-matter beliefs constrain science and mathematics teachers from adopting practices that conflict with their notions of what is appropriate science instruction (Fennema & Franke, 1992; Laplante, 1997).

A number of scholars now suggest that the contexts within which teachers live and work have a potentially powerful impact on teachers’ personal beliefs and theories about both content and pedagogy and ultimately shape teaching practices (Bullough & Baughman,

1997; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000). As a result, teachers are likely to influence the context of their practice as much as other aspects of that context impact on what teachers think and what they do (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003).

In respect of the above, prospective teachers have been found to possess tacit ideas about teaching that act as filters in preventing them from considering unfamiliar and discrepant ideas (Kellner, Gullberg, Attorps, Thorẽn & Tӓrneberg, 2011; Thomas & Pedersen, 2003). It is therefore important to explore those teachers’ beliefs and ideas during teacher training as they may persist throughout the teachers’ professional lives. Teacher educators should create a context where these prospective teachers are engaged, challenged and stimulated to reflect upon their personal conceptions and ideas (Thomas et al., 2003). Science teacher professional developers should also do the same during the in-service training of teachers.

2.5.3.2 Role of contextual knowledge in shaping teachers’ orientations

Teacher orientations are a component of the PCK construct. Therefore studying the role of CK on teachers’ orientations sheds light on how the same CK could influence teachers’ PCK.

Smith and Southerland (2005) examined the role of different contexts in shaping, reinforcing or modifying the beliefs and practice of two elementary science teachers in two different settings. After 10 months of interacting with these teachers, Smith and Southerland found that there were various contextual forces at various levels that influenced both teachers’ thinking about teaching and learning science and their science instruction. These contextual elements emanated from district, state and national reform efforts and their influence on what happened in these teachers’ classrooms was notable. Smith and Southerland also noted that despite having similar backgrounds, the teachers responded in distinctive ways to the contextual forces because of differences in practical theories or fundamental beliefs about science and what it means to teach and learn science. For instance, one of the teachers ended up teaching for tests and examinations and it profoundly impacted on what she emphasised in class and shaped the instructional decisions she made. The parents and the community would make her account for learners’ performance in standardised tests which therefore influenced her to desist from employing

time-consuming inquiry activities. As a result, the teacher avoided hands-on learning and inquiry-based instruction and resorted to traditional expository methods. Her argument was that inquiry demands too much time investment. Lecturing and carrying out discussions, on the other hand, enabled her to cover more content in a shorter period of time.

The other teacher’s focus was, however, on conceptual understanding rather than memorisation of the scientific concepts and hence the teacher tailor-made her teaching strategies along the science curriculum requirements. This teacher expressed discontentment and frustration with the national assessment as it constrained her instruction because the assessment concentrated more on facts than on process skills and problem solving. She lamented that the learners were denied an opportunity to relate the concepts to real life and to apply the knowledge they had gained. The teacher therefore compromised her fundamental philosophy of teaching science because of contextual factors.

Notably, knowing how to teach specific content to learners of various abilities and in various contexts is a complex process (Abell, 2007). From the study, each teacher negotiated the tensions introduced by the contextual factors in different ways based on their own personal theories. The teachers displayed different levels of PCK. Such observations could be used in teacher education programs in a bid to improve the framing of PCK in relation to SMK, PK and CK. It may also be concluded that one of the greatest influences on one’s PCK is personal beliefs and knowledge, or orientations towards teaching science (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Nargund-Joshi and Park Rogers (2011) also suggested that there is need for professional development that address teachers’ overall PCK with special attention paid to the role of knowledge about the context (CK).

My study does not disregard the above external contextual factors per se but it seeks to examine, over and above them, what science teachers know about their learners’ sociocultural practices, experience and beliefs and how best they can use such knowledge to make science more relevant, thereby engaging their learners for more understanding. In addition, teachers’ orientations to science teaching and learning are not investigated directly in the current study; instead they are treated together with other teacher knowledge

domains in a bid to explore how CK enmeshed with other knowledge domains is transformed into PCK.