Theme One – PCK suitable for teaching simple circuits

As described in Chapter Two, PCK has various elements that each contributes to the successful teaching of a specific concept. The main theme PCK has been sub-

categorised by addressing the use of analogies as a form of representation of the abstract concepts; the use of conceptual teaching strategies for active learning and its associated underpinning constructivist perspective on learning; and lastly the professional language associated with the teaching of science.

The first theme that emerged from the data collected in the first cycle of the research revealed a lack of knowledge about (and consequent usage of) analogies which can simplify the teaching of simple electricity concepts. Instead the teachers did not have a good understanding of the underlying constructivist learning theories prominent in science teaching; they used the textbook method or direct teaching predominantly in their teaching practice.

On a question by the researcher as to whether the qualified teacher makes use of any analogy when she teaches electricity concept, and if she does use analogies, to describe the analogy she used, the response was as follows:

“Yes, I do [make use of analogies]. For example, there is an advertisement about the danger of electricity and illegal connection of

electricity then I tell-ahh-told them about that...mhm... advertisement because they love to watch TV.”

The unqualified teacher, on the other hand, admitted that she did not know about analogies, nor about constructivist teaching:

“I have never heard of this constructivist teaching method.”

The challenge faced by the teachers is their lack of knowledge about analogies as scientifically proven strategies that enhance understanding in science. There is conclusive literature that suggests that analogies have been used successfully as strategies that enhance understanding of complex concepts such as electricity in science education so that learners can be proficient in the reading, writing and understanding of science concepts (Asoko & de Boo, 2001; Chiu & Lin, 2005; Glynn, 2008). The teachers‟ lack of knowledge about analogies is quite alarming and exposes a deficiency in the teachers‟ PCK. It is also important to note criticism from

various scholars levelled at the traditional method of teaching when teaching difficult concepts like electricity (Duschl, 2007; Schwartz et al., 2009).

When asked about the use of active learning principles during the teaching of a topic of such abstract nature as electricity, T1 was hesitant and evasive when responding to the question on how she used actual components of a simple electric circuit in her teaching, blaming the lack of a laboratory for her lack of using concrete examples of the components during her teaching.

T1: “Ahm … because we don‟t have a laboratory in our schools, Ahm…instead of

eh…because they know the wires, they know the bulbs and I use the symbols in the book so that they can know if I have used this particular symbol, that

particular symbol means may be a battery, a wire, a switch.”

T1 did not answer the question directly; instead a totally different direction is taken where the poor physical state of the school is addressed which I believe does not have direct bearing to the question asked.

Posner et al. (1982), believe that most research in science education focuses on the constructivist view of learning because learners use their existing knowledge to attribute meaning to new information. There is also consensus amongst scholars that the traditional textbook method encourages rote-learning while constructivist- informed teaching helps in building concept-formation by using models and analogies (Duschl, 2007; Glynn, 2008; Schwartz et al., 2009). The use of old-fashioned textbook methods in teaching difficult sections of science like simple circuits paints a daunting picture about the quality of the teachers‟ PCK, and in particular the use of teaching strategies that link abstract scientific knowledge with the familiar, home context.

Determining the type of teaching method used was not enough for my study as that information alone was not sufficient to address my research objectives. My other concern was to probe for reasons on why the textbook was used as the primary teaching strategy so that I could determine whether there were any gaps in the teachers‟ subject content knowledge and teaching strategies. While the objectives of

the research questions require the identification of the type of teaching method used by the teachers, I believe that the reasons have a bearing on teaching and learning because the use of analogies as alternative teaching strategies will be shaped by the openness of the teachers to recognise flaws in their current teaching styles and be willing to change their usual teaching strategies.

The interviews revealed that the teachers use the textbook as the main source of subject content knowledge as T1 explained that:

“I use the symbols in the book so that they can know if I have used this particular symbol, that particular symbol means may be a battery, a wire, a switch.”

T2 was up-front and provided specific reasons on why she relied so heavily on the textbook as a teaching resource:

“… so I use the textbook and tell the kids that this symbol represents a cell, etc. This is what is needed in a test so I teach so that they can know the parts of a circuit diagram when they are asked in a test or exam.”

On the other hand, T2 explained that the textbook has examples and information which makes it an easy reference information tool. The textbook is used as a tool which ensures that specific subject content is passed from the teacher to the learners in a prescribed manner and in a certain time period so that curriculum objectives set by the department can be met.

While acknowledging that teachers‟ reliance on the textbook method is not a new phenomenon, as previous studies have shown, questions had to be raised about why it has been used so often (Hubisz, 2003; McCarthy, 2005). T2‟s verbatim extracts show that the textbook is used as a reference source for the learners about the meaning of the different symbols forming the different parts of a circuit diagram. The negative effect of this practice is that the over reliance on the textbook may lead to rote learning where learners do not get opportunities to understand concepts. T2 clarified that she only gives her learners information and exercises that are in the

textbook because “It‟s what is needed for them to pass in the test.” A challenge may arise if this reliance on the textbook is left unchallenged and teachers continue to teach learners without providing the learners with meaningful opportunities to understand concepts (McCarthy, 2005).

Having realised that there was a gap in the knowledge about constructivism in both teachers, it became necessary to investigate which language was used by both teachers during instruction because constructivism considers greatly the role played by prior knowledge (which includes language) for understanding abstract concepts (Duschl et al., 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwartz et al., 2009). Taking into consideration Webb‟s (2010, p. 448) argument that ESL learners need to be assisted to “cross the borders between the informal language they speak at home” and the formal, academic language used in the science classroom, the role of language as an element of constructivism follows in the discussion. In view of the fact that both teachers and learners are ESL speakers, the use of familiar isiXhosa home language and ESL as language of instruction and learning has been examined in greater detail (see 4.2.2).