Discovering Grade 8 Technology Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Tshwane District of Gauteng Province
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
© Kamla-Raj 2014 Int J Edu Sci, 6(3): 479-488 (2014)
Discovering Grade 8 Technology Teachers’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge in the Tshwane District of Gauteng Province
Mishack T. Gumbo1 and P. John Williams2
1
University of South Africa, PO Box 392, UNISA, 0003, South Africa
E-mail: gumbomt@unisa.ac.za
2
University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand
E-mail: pj.williams@waikato.ac.nz
KEYWORDS Expert Teacher. Teaching. Learning. Pedagogy. Technological Knowledge
ABSTRACT This paper reports on a study conducted to inquire into Grade 8 Technology teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) in the Tshwane District of the Gauteng Province of South Africa. The research question
addressed was: What is Grade 8 Technology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the Tshwane District of the
Gauteng Province? The need to address the research question was triggered by the researchers’ awareness that
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is an important and under-researched area of Technology Education.
PCK embodies the notion that the knowledge held by expert teachers represents a unique integration of their
pedagogical techniques and their understanding of Technology subject content. To pursue this investigation, the
researchers conducted interviews, observed teachers as they taught and reviewed the textbooks that the teachers
used. Interestingly, the findings revealed significant diversity in the teachers’ PCK – specifically in their understanding
of Technology Education, the Technology Education curriculum, the pedagogy of Technology Education, assessment,
resources, and indigenous technology. Finally, the researchers provide relevant recommendations.
INTRODUCTION superior reproducible performances of represen-
tative tasks; single him out as an authoritative
An important and under-researched area of source of knowledge, techniques and skills; and
Technology Education is PCK among teachers. express intense experience through practice and
The realisation of this gap in the body of knowl- education in a particular field (Ericsson et al.
edge (Williams and Lockley 2012) provided a 2006; Pisova and Janik 2011). However, while
starting point for this research which explored emerging research has offered insights into the
PCK among Grade 8 Technology teachers in the constitution of expert teachers, much remains to
Tshwane District of the Gauteng Province of be understood still (Williams and Lockley 2012).
South Africa. The authors entered the study with It was for these reasons that the researchers
the idea that teaching as a profession implies a deemed it necessary to explore the PCK of Grade
need for a certain level subject expertise on the 8 Technology teachers in order to determine their
part of the teacher (Shulman 1987; Loughran et levels of expertise. This paper explains the theo-
al. 2012). The content area of focus in this paper ry that undergirded the study, briefly surveys
is that of Technology. The notion of the expert the PCK literature with specific reference to Tech-
teacher’s knowledge is commonly referred to as nology Education, presents and motivates the
PCK (Ben-Peretz 2010), a concept originated and research design, presents and discusses the
orchestrated by Shulman (1987) as being central findings and concludes by making a number of
to the teacher’s knowledge. Thus, mastering the necessary recommendations.
content is the basis for the relationship between
the teacher and the student – this in addition to Theoretical Framework
the pedagogical relationship (Kansanen 2009:6).
Thus, it is assumed that helping the learner to This study is premised on the seminal work
learn means that the teacher has enough of what of Shulman (1987) on PCK. PCK refers to the
Kansanen refers to as curricular knowledge and body of the teacher’s professional knowledge
pedagogical knowledge. This means that PCK that encapsulates the knowledge of the subject
goes deeper than mere teaching of the subject taught and the general pedagogical principles
content in other words, the teacher possesses and skills (Ben-Peretz 2010; Moru and Qhobela
knowledge and skills that: distinguish him from 2013). The ideals of this knowledge are to trans-
novices or less experienced people; undergird form subject matter knowledge to facilitate learn-480 MISHACK T. GUMBO AND P. JOHN WILLIAMS
er understanding (Shulman 1986). Shulman Peretz’s findings, the definition of teacher knowl-
(1987) developed a seven-part classification on edge was expanded to include global issues and
which teacher knowledge is based, namely; sub- multiculturalism. In the research undertaken for
ject matter, pedagogical content, general peda- this paper the researchers focused on Technol-
gogy, curriculum, learners and their characteris- ogy teachers’ understanding of Technology
tics, educational contexts and educational aims, Education as well as their knowledge of curricu-
and purposes and values. Shulman (1986) noted lum, pedagogical strategies, integration of re-
a lack of research having been undertaken into sources, assessment strategies and indigenous
PCK, referring to it as a “missing paradigm”. technology. The inclusion of indigenous tech-
Prompted by this, and given the relative new- nology as part of the explored PCK is justified in
ness of Technology Education in the schools the following section. The researchers ap-
curriculum, the authors felt that there was an proached the study with the knowledge that
urgent need to investigate PCK among Tech- teachers’ PCK develops over time through ex-
nology teachers. perience (Loughran et al. 2012; Williams and
It is noted that, in the period since 1986, Shul- Lockley 2012), and that PCK differs among teach-
man’s work on PCK has attracted many scholar- ers, even within the same subject area (though a
ly reactions. For example, Segall (2004) ques- certain degree of similarity cannot be ruled out).
tioned Shulman’s shallow treatment of the inter- This is because PCK is a particular expertise with
action between pedagogy and content. Cochran individual idiosyncrasies and differences
et al. (1991) focused on only four aspects of the (Loughran et al. 2012; Makina 2013). The PCK of
seven-part elements of the PCK, namely; the the four teachers studied was thus approached
subject matter, the learners, environmental con- as case studies that potentially exhibited some
texts and pedagogy. Magnusson et al. (1999), degree of differences as a result of the factors
meanwhile, proposed five elements instead of expressed above. The next section looks close-
seven, which include orientations towards teach- ly at PCK as it pertains to Technology Educa-
ing, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of as- tion.
sessment, knowledge of students’ understand-
ing of the subject, and knowledge of instruc- PCK As It Pertains To Technology Education
tional strategies. This paper, then, is intended to
shed some light on how teachers treat the rela- The authors deemed it necessary to ap-
tionship between pedagogy and content in their proach this section by briefly relating develop-
teaching of technology as a school subject. ments in Technology Education as part of cur-
Another dimension to PCK was captured in riculum change and implementation in South
Ben-Peretz’s (2010) study in which he wrote that Africa. Since its inception in 1998, the national
teachers construct their own meaning about their curriculum for Grade R – 9 has undergone a num-
own teaching. This meaning is informed by a ber of reviews (Department of Education 2000).
repertoire of factors such as the context of teach- The first was Curriculum 2005, followed by the
ing and learning, subject-specific pedagogies National Curriculum Statement, then the Curric-
and knowledge of learners (Ben-Peretz 2010; ulum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS).
Loughran et al. 2012). Ben-Peretz conducted a According to CAPS (Department of Basic Edu-
study on teacher knowledge. She analysed nine cation 2009), the aims of Technology as a sub-
papers published in Teaching and Teacher Ed- ject require learners to:
ucation between 1988 and 2009. The papers were develop and apply specific design skills to
authored by scholars from different contexts. solve technological problems;
They reflected modes of inquiry and focused on understand the concepts and knowledge
a variety of themes related to teacher knowl- used in Technology Education and use them
edge. Her analysis was done according to the responsibly and purposefully; and
definition of teacher knowledge, mode of inqui- appreciate the interaction between peoples’
ry, emphasis on one or more common places of values and attitudes, technology, society
education, and emphasis on one or more kinds and the environment.
of teacher knowledge. The findings revealed that These curriculum reviews have implications
the elements comprising teacher knowledge for the PCK of Technology teachers and their
were in line with Shulman’s elements. From Ben- conceptualisation of what being a successfulDISCOVERING GRADE 8 TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL 481
Technology teacher means (Nicholas and Lock- nature of Technology and the conceptual and
ley 2010). The Department of Basic Education is procedural aspects of the different technologi-
committed to promoting indigenous technolo- cal areas. This content consists of conceptual
gy as part of curriculum transformation (Gumbo knowledge of Technology as an artefact and
2012). For this reason, indigenous knowledge procedural knowledge on the design and make
systems are part of the curriculum principles. of these artefacts. It is the possession of con-
For Technology education specifically, the third ceptual knowledge that makes the effective use
aim above includes indigenous technology, ex- of procedural knowledge of problem solving
plicitly expressed in CAPS (Department of Basic possible (Glaser in McCormick 2004: 149). With-
Education 2009). The researchers therefore in- in conceptual knowledge are the themes of Tech-
cluded this aspect in their investigation in order nology such as Structures, Systems and Con-
to develop an idea as to how Technology teach- trol, Materials and Processing, and Communica-
ers incorporate it as part of their own PCK. tion. “Knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed
Rohaan et al. (2009) posit that it is of great to solve technological problems can be sourced
importance that teachers have sufficient knowl- from other learning areas such as Science, Math-
edge of Technology to develop learners’ tech- ematics, Arts and Culture, etc.” (Engelbrecht et
nological literacy. In the context of PCK, Tech- al. 2007: 586-589).
nology teachers should acquire a thorough Teachers should facilitate the technological
knowledge of content and pedagogy in order to process so that learners can practise the proce-
be effective in their teaching. Jones and More- dural knowledge. The technological process is
land (2004:124) assert that teachers cannot pro- about identifying a problem, investigating pos-
vide experiences and activities that guide stu- sible solutions to the problem, designing a suit-
dent progress towards understanding ideas if able solution to the problem, producing the de-
they themselves do not know what the ideas signed solution and then evaluating the solu-
are. Technology teacher knowledge is about tion while focusing on the different themes of
what Technology is; its philosophy and its the- Technology within different contexts (Mawson
matic domains, and how to teach it to learners. 2007: 119). The teaching of Technology happens
Technology is “the human activity that trans- through identifying and solving technological
forms the natural environment to make it fit bet- problems and, for this to happen, the techno-
ter with human needs, thereby using various logical process plays a key role in directing the
kinds of information and knowledge, various problem-solving activities.
kind of natural (materials, energy) and cultural
resources (money, social relationships, etc.)” (de RESEARCH DESIGN AND
Vries 2005: 11). Technology involves the use of METHODOLOGY
knowledge, skills and resources with the aim of
meeting people’s needs and wants by develop- The study followed a case study design to
ing practical solutions to problems whilst also investigate Grade 8 Technology teachers’ PCK
taking into account social and environmental (Neale et al. 2006) in an attempt to answer the
factors (Department of Basic Education 2009). research question: What is Grade 8 Technology
According to de Vries (2005: 8), the philosophy teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the
of Technology Education can be an inspiration Tshwane District of the Gauteng Province? The
for determining the content of curriculum. It can PCK-related questions that emanated from this
yield insights into how to construct teaching main research question and which were used to
and learning situations, can provide a concep- gather data are stated as follows:
tual basis and proper understanding of Tech- How do teachers express their PCK in terms
nology (which can help Technology teachers of their understanding of the nature and pur-
respond to unforeseen situations while teach- pose of Technology Education?
ing about Technology), can help position the How do teachers express their PCK in terms
teaching of Technology among other subjects, of their knowledge of the Technology Edu-
and can help identify research agenda for edu- cation curriculum?
cational research in Technology Education. How do teachers express their PCK in terms
Jones and Moreland (2005) suggest that of pedagogies that they consider suitable
teachers require a clear understanding of the for Technology teaching?482 MISHACK T. GUMBO AND P. JOHN WILLIAMS
How do teachers express their PCK in terms wise process. This process moves from a gener-
of types of assessment activities and how al approach of listening to the recordings, to
do they relate them to the Technology con- developing themes and codes, to noting the
tent? themes from the transcribed data, and then de-
How do teachers express their PCK in terms tailing the themes. The coding strategy followed
of teaching and learning resources for Tech- analyst-constructed typologies based on the
nology teaching? principles of PCK developed from the literature.
How do teachers express their PCK in terms The analyst-constructed themes included teach-
of integrating indigenous technology in their er understanding of Technology Education, of
teaching? the Technology Education curriculum, of peda-
The study targeted Grade 8 Technology gogy, of assessment, of resources and of inte-
teachers in the Tshwane District of the Gauteng gration of indigenous technology. The interview
Province. Four Grade 8 Technology teachers questions and the reporting of the findings were
from four schools were conveniently selected – based on these themes. Once the audio tran-
two were based in city schools, one in a town- scripts had been analysed, they were integrated
ship school and one in a rural school. In one with the teaching observation notes and docu-
school there was only one teacher who was re- ment reviews. The outcome was the presenta-
sponsible for the Grade 8 class. In all cases par- tions of the findings with pseudonyms substi-
ticipants were identified as “expert” teachers and tuted for teacher’s names in order to protect their
were willing to cooperate. Permission to con- identities.
duct the study was sought from and granted by
the Gauteng Provincial Department of Educa- FINDINGS
tion. Access to the schools was sought by first
visiting each school to deliver letters of consent Findings from different sources of data (in-
and to have them signed by the respective terviews, observation and document analysis)
school principals and the teachers to be sam- are presented. Initially, each of the four cases is
pled. To allow for the teachers to be observed briefly contextualised (Table 1), noting some fea-
presenting classes, a letter of consent was sent tures of the observations that were made. This
with the help of the teachers to the affected par- is followed by the presentation of findings un-
ents for their signatures. der six research questions. Pseudonyms were
The researchers negotiated a convenient day assigned to the teachers to protect their identi-
to observe and interview the teachers. They used ty. It should be noted that all the schools were
an observation sheet to note the PCK elements co-educational.
that were demonstrated during teaching. The The integrated findings of these cases will
researchers co-observed each teacher’s teach- now be presented in order to find answers to the
ing in order to counter the possibility of bias research questions asked.
(Kelly 2006). Once the observations had been How Did Teachers Express Their PCK In
conducted, the researchers integrated the data Terms of Their Understanding of the Nature and
on a final observation sheet. Observation was Purpose of Technology Education?
followed by interviews with the teachers in or- Context impacts on the nature of teachers’
der to explore their perspectives on PCK. A doc- PCK as it relates to their understanding of Tech-
ument review focused on the textbooks in use nology Education. In general terms, all four teach-
to understand how they were integrated and ar- ers realised the importance of relating Technol-
ticulated during the teaching activities. To en- ogy Education to an authentic context, an im-
sure the validity of the interview data, the inter- portant element of PCK which helps make the
viewees were asked to confirm what they had teaching of Technology meaningful to learners.
said once the data had been transcribed. The Their conception of Technology is that it is ap-
findings from the interviews, observations and plicable in people’s daily lives and that it thus
document reviews were triangulated to ensure cannot be divorced from the authentic context
validity of the data. in response to people’s needs. The teaching
Regarding data analysis, the researchers approach has to be contextualised. Lerato, one
adopted a variation of Marshall and Rossman’s of the “expert” teachers alluded to this claim in
(1999) coding strategy which involves a step- the following manner:DISCOVERING GRADE 8 TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL 483
Table 1: The contexts of the four schools presented through the teachers sampled
Moropa (Male) Mapula (Female)
Biographical Biographical
Moropa is 47 years old and has been teaching for 13 Ms Mapula is 39 years and has been teaching for seven
years (seven of which have been in teaching years, four of which have been in teaching Technology.
She has a diploma in Maths and Science Education,
Technology). Moropa started as a science teacher. He and an ACE in Education Management. Ms Mapula
holds a BA, BEd (Hons) and an ACE: Technology volunteered to teach technology.
Education. Context and Teaching
Context and Teaching School and Learners: Mapula teaches in an urban school
School and Learners: Moropa teaches in a rural school with at least 1158 learners. There were five groups of
which has 830 learners. There were 30 learners in his eight learners and a total of 40 learners in her class.
Classroom: There were no Technology tools/materials
classroom in groups of four each. or storage facilities and only a chalkboard was present.
Classroom: The classroom was bare – there was a There were, however, a few old posters on the wall.
chalkboard only and there no technological tools/ The teacher would constantly ask the learners to bring
materials or storage room. The computer room was along design project materials from home.
used for storage. Learners were asked to bring their Lesson and Activity: There was a food design project
own materials from home for their design projects. and the learners were divided into groups. On the day
Lesson and Activity: Design portfolio templates were of observation there was only one group which was
prepared. There was time for questions and answers
handed out to learners. There were also box design and all the answers were written on the chalkboard.
projects (individual/group). In addition. there were The teacher awarded marks for presentations. Learners
templates with sketch spaces for design and idea in the classroom seemed very interested because what
development, and questions to consider during design. was done drew much from real life examples.
Lerato (Female) James (Male)
Biographical Biographical
Lerato is 25 years old and has been teaching Technology James is 30 years old and has been teaching Technology
for the past four years. She has a BEd degree. for four years. He holds a BEd Technology Education.
Context and Teaching James comes from an engineering and graphic design
School and Learners: Lerato teaches in an urban school background.
which has 100 learners. Context and Teaching
Classroom: There were two woodwork benches at the School and Learners: James teaches at an urban school
rear of the room. There was a storeroom which was with 1300 learners. There are 35 learners in his class
part of the classroom with some tools and equipment.
There was a nice display of previous projects on the seated at long benches. Classroom: The learners’
benches at the front of the room. These projects folders were kept in drawers. The Technology tool
included a suspension bridge, examples of water towers kit was locked away. There were models, teaching aids
and house artefacts. in the classroom and posters on the wall.
Lesson and Activity: There was a water tower group Lesson and Activity: The structures were textbook-
design project coupled with work on processing and bound, teacher-centred and backed by case studies and
the properties of materials. There was built-in peer demonstrations. Lessons were conducted using the
assessment and there was heavy use of a textbook question and answer method by referring learners to
that learners were constantly referred to. the textbook most of the time.
You cannot make before you know that there ment in the country. We depend on people from
is a need for that particular product for a par- other countries rather than those from our coun-
ticular market. try for most of these scarce-skills careers. Tech-
The authentic aspect of Technology is nology Education will help minimise this.
aligned to the national needs. James and Lerato, Some teachers considered the importance of
as Technology teachers, recognised the need facilitating the learners’ understanding of Tech-
for skills development which is strongly es- nology Education. In particular, Mapula and
poused by government. Future architects, engi- Moropa stated:
neers and business people need to play a mean- Technology is fine because it teaches learn-
ingful role in filling the gap and in minimising ers about things that they were ignorant about
foreign dependency. James stated in this regard: before. Like now we have been doing a struc-
It will help learners learn about Technolo- tures project, suspension bridge and learners
gy so that they can add to the skills develop- do not know structures. I even told them to go484 MISHACK T. GUMBO AND P. JOHN WILLIAMS
to places like Johannesburg to see some of the tual differences. Because of these differences
structures like Mandela Bridge [Mapula]. teachers could conceptualise the PCK of the
Technology is very important for learners. curriculum in their own ways. Moropa articulat-
If they can be interested in learning Technolo- ed the learning outcomes [referred to as aims in
gy, then they can use ATM, cellphone, internet CAPS] and how he envisaged their achievement:
and computer better [Moropa]. Technology has three learning outcomes.
Moropa stated that he preferred teaching Today we dealt with the knowledge learning
Technology to science because learners were outcome which is outcome number two – be-
more interested in studying Technology than cause the learners had to know the character-
science. It seemed that this teacher did not un- istics of materials for the project that they will
derstand the interdisciplinary nature of the PCK do later. I was giving them the knowledge foun-
of Technology and Science because he sound- dation.
ed as if he had completely abandoned Science James felt strongly about anchoring learn-
in favour of Technology instead of taking ad- ers in the required technological knowledge.
vantage of the synergy between the two study Thus, he emphasised knowledge outcome/aim
areas. Unlike Moropa, Mapula demonstrated a two, even though he was aware of outcomes/
good sense of this interdisciplinary aspect: aims one and three. He was also aware of the
Technology is linked with physical Science. emphasis placed by the curriculum policy on
Like in the one of the chapters we are doing continuous assessment which targets learners’
systems and control. It includes electricity knowledge, skills and attitude. It was evident
which is also part of Physical Science. Learn- during the observation that he integrated as-
ers must know properties of materials and what sessment with his teaching.
these materials are used for. Mapula and Lerato did not have a clear un-
These teachers were also aware of the de- derstanding of the curriculum. Mapula vaguely
sign process (investigate, design, make, evalu- referred to the learning outcomes, while Lerato
mixed them up:
ate and communicate). This indicated their
Learning outcome one is about structures,
awareness of the curriculum requirements as an
learning outcome two is about processing and
element of PCK. For these teachers, the under- learning outcome three is about systems and
lying purpose of teaching learners Technology control.
is to equip them with the design knowledge and How Did Teachers Express Their PCK in
skills to prepare them to make a functional fit in Terms Of Pedagogies That They Considered
the technological environment in which they will Suitable for Technology Teaching?
work in future. James, however, argued that there The teachers’ responses to this question
is more to Technology than simply the design varied from the pedagogical strategies to how
process: they involved their learners. Moropa preferred
The focus on design is not enough. When to do concept clarification first before engaging
you look at any company in the world, what learners in any design activities. Lerato’s peda-
goes into the design of a cup in industry, for gogies were about doing diagnostic assessment
example, you will realise that there is more to it of the learners prior to developing their knowl-
than the design process only. Yes, the learners edge of Technology: “We move from the known
will in the end know more about design, but to the unknown”. She then involved them ac-
there is more knowledge around it. tively in the learning activities:
How Did Teachers Express Their PCK In When you do Technology practically, they
Terms of Their Knowledge Of The Technology remember but when you simply do theory with
Education Curriculum? them, they easily forget.
Teachers were aware of the curriculum and James seemed to have a good understand-
what was expected from them in this regard. ing of his learners as he claimed that they were
However, their knowledge of the basic elements lacking in critical thinking skills and that it was
of curriculum and principles varied. This could his aim to encourage the development of their
be attributed to the curriculum reviews present- technological knowledge. James seemed to be
ing different understandings to teachers. An- primarily concerned about learner understand-
other possibility might have to do with contex- ing, an important aspect of PCK.DISCOVERING GRADE 8 TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL 485
How Did Teachers Express Their PCK in Terms sive use of textbooks. The schools involved had
of Types of Assessment Activities and How Did learner-teacher support material teams who at-
They Relate Them to the Technology Content? tended exhibitions for the purpose of selecting
textbooks. The researchers were made aware of
The teachers considered a range of assess- a variety of textbooks that the teachers had cho-
ment strategies and methods and how they could sen for their schools, for example, Dynamic Tech-
be implemented. The strategies of assessment nology (Clitheroe et al. 2005) and Spot-on Tech-
included weekly tests, end-of-term examinations, nology 8 (Holdt and Richter 2006). The teach-
a design project portfolio, case studies, home- ers’ views illustrate the polarisation between well-
work, and classwork. Types of assessment in- resourced schools (James’ and Lerato’s) and
cluded teacher assessment, self-assessment, poorly resourced (Moropa’s and Mapula’s)
peer assessment and group assessment. Teach- schools. Moropa asked learners to bring basic
ers commonly base their assessment strategies materials from home from which to produce
on design project portfolios. Group-based de- prototypes. He and Mapula felt that Technolo-
sign project assessment was favoured by some gy Education was not being taken seriously be-
teachers but not by others. Lerato favoured it cause it was not being adequately supported by
and she explained how she implemented and the Department of Basic Education or by the
managed it: schools. Mapula had this to say in this regard:
They also have to produce a project that I We do not have resources. I have provided
must assess. I assess them on the design process the school with the list of items that we need for
and technological processes. The design project Technology teaching. I have not received any-
portfolio contains individual activities and thing yet. There is a lot that we need to be able
group activities and they are assessed as such. to teach a topic, like structures. We have to find
Individual activities go up to the design stage a workshop for Food Technology, Systems and
where each group member must design at least Control, and the like; we do not have any.
three possible solutions, evaluate them on the
Lerato listed, among other things, glue guns,
basis of advantages and disadvantages of each,
and choose the optimum solution. Then the bulbs, electric circuits, screwdrivers, sandpaper
members must negotiate the optimum solution and money clips. James used his laptop com-
from each member’s best one, to adopt as a puter and data projector because how can one
group design. Group members assign each oth- be a Technology teacher without a computer?
er time frames specifying when to complete the Though he used the textbook a great deal, he
project within the main assigned time frame. thought that working from the laptop is a lot
Lerato explained that she always provided a better. He used an overhead projector and trans-
rubric together with the design project so that parencies for his Engineering Design Drawing
the learners would know how their project would subject. The setup in his Technology Education
be assessed. Mapula was uncomfortable with classroom included plugs under the learners’
the group-based design project assessment as tables to allow them to plug in power tools.
she claimed that it encouraged certain group How Did Teachers Express Their PCK In
members to shirk their responsibilities. James Terms of Integrating Indigenous Technology in
had a fixed plan for writing tests: Their Teaching?
On Tuesdays and Thursdays we have 30 There was evidence of indigenous technol-
minute tests. Learners are expected to diarise ogy integration on a small scale. Teachers were
them. guided to some extent by certain chapters in the
It can be concluded that, though teachers textbooks which integrated indigenous technol-
use a variety of assessment activities, the pre- ogy. Lerato used such chapters as a springboard
dominant assessment activity is the design to let learners express their technological under-
project with its associated portfolio. standing. The learners’ indigenous cultural back-
How Did Teachers Express Their PCK In grounds were expressed in this regard. For ex-
Terms of Teaching and Learning Resources for ample, Lerato explained as follows:
Technology Teaching? Last year when we did processing, learners
Instructional strategies as an element of PCK had a bead project. Some learners’ colour
imply that there will be resources for the instruc- choice for the beads had to do with beads for
tion given. The teachers commonly made exten- healing.486 MISHACK T. GUMBO AND P. JOHN WILLIAMS
Moropa planned to integrate indigenous aims as he mentioned that: Technology has three
technology into the packaging project: We will learning outcomes. Today we dealt with the
talk about packaging by the Bushmen who used knowledge learning outcome two because the
to carry water in eggshells. learners had to know the characteristics of
James and Mapula appeared surprised to materials for the project that they will do later.
hear the term “indigenous technology” as they I was giving them the knowledge foundation.
had not thought about integrating it prior to the In as far as pedagogical approaches are con-
interviews. James explained his position in this cerned the teachers exhibited different approach-
regard: es to their teaching – these were expressed in
The textbook does integrate indigenous terms of concept clarification, starting with the
technology. We touched a little on it in chapter known to the unknown, and so on. However,
two. But I must be truthful to say we have not what was common to their different approaches
done much yet to integrate it. Our limitation
is that they focused on the learner, making ef-
seems to lie in the fact that we seem to take from
foreign curriculum. In my class are children forts to facilitate understanding of the content.
from Akasia and beyond; coloureds, Zulus and Their assessment of learners was informed by
Xhosas. Some come from indigenous contexts. varied approaches according to their personal
So, we need to integrate their indigenous con- preferences. The predominant approach, how-
texts in the curriculum. ever, was the design project approach. It seems
Mapula stated that she did not remember ever that the teachers’ PCK was prescriptive in this
having integrated indigenous technology in her regard because design is emphasised in the cur-
teaching. riculum as it is part of learning outcome/aim one
(Department of Basic Education 2009). Resourc-
DISCUSSION es, which are crucial in helping teachers express
their technological PCK as they teach learners,
The findings yielded some interesting teacher were not readily available. This state of affairs
perspectives that could be linked to contextual frustrated the teachers to a great extent. They
differences as reflected in Table 1. The teachers’ blamed the undersupply of resources on the
technological PCK in as far as their understand- Department of Basic Education and schools. As
ing of Technology Education was commonly a result, they relied mainly on textbooks – Dy-
related to societal context. This expressed un- namic Technology (Clitheroe et al. 2005) and
derstanding seems to be in line with de Vries’ Spot-on Technology 8 (Holdt and Richter 2006).
(2005: 11) definition of Technology: a “human These resources included minimal sections or
activity that transforms the natural environment chapters on indigenous technology. However,
to make it fit better with human needs, thereby teachers did not take full advantage of this or
using various kinds of information and knowl- give regard to the fact that the third learning
edge, various kind of natural and cultural re- outcome/aim includes indigenous technology
sources”. The teachers expressed the practical (Department of Basic Education 2009).
nature of Technology education – and thus the This study was faced by certain limitations.
need for teaching Technology with the aim of The study did not target common Technology
producing future technologists able to contrib- themes. To do so would have been impractical
ute to the development of the country. They as the teachers themselves were engaged with
seemed to possess a reasonable understanding differing themes at the time of the study. Con-
of Technology Education and what and how text played a role in the study in terms of how
they planned to teach their learners. According the different natures of the teachers’ PCKs were
to Rohaan et al. (2009), teachers should possess revealed. Hence, the researchers cannot con-
technological knowledge in order to facilitate clude that the teachers’ PCK is similar across
learners’ technological literacy. The teachers in contexts, although the study does provide an
this study expressed varied understanding of insight into the teachers’ PCK.
the curriculum. Their focus was more on the
learning outcomes/aims which are encapsulat- CONCLUSION
ed in the curriculum document (Department of
Basic Education 2009). Only one teacher, how- In this paper the surveyed literature on PCK
ever, seemed to know these learning outcomes/ revealed the dynamic conceptualisation of PCKDISCOVERING GRADE 8 TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL 487
and how teachers implement this concept in their where teachers’ interviews did not match the
practice. Four Grade 8 Technology teachers were observations of their classes, dual sources of
interviewed and observed in class, and the re- data become particularly important. Although
search ended with document analysis conduct- all the participating teachers in this project were
ed with the intention of revealing these teach- teaching the same year span of students and
ers’ PCK. There were certain similarities and di- following the same curriculum, diverse PCK was
vergences in the four teachers’ PCKs in these revealed, even though there were interesting
case studies. This suggests that PCK is individ- commonalities in a few notable instances.
ual, unique, varies from class to class and chang-
es over time. Regarding the similarities, almost RECOMMENDATIONS
all of the teachers were aware of the impact of
the subject context on Technology Education Bearing in mind the findings, the research-
and they were also aware of the value of teach- ers would seriously advise Technology teach-
ing Technology to learners in view of their fu- ers to take the initiative in building their own
ture careers and the development of the country PCK by reading up on the necessary elements
in general. All the teachers stated that they were and making sure that they know and clearly un-
guided by the curriculum and that they knew derstand the Technology Education curriculum.
what was expected of them. Teachers also con- It is therefore recommended that Department of
ceded that they depended heavily on the pre- Basic Education and relevant higher education
scribed textbook. The divergences between the institutions offer specialised training to Tech-
teachers seemed bigger than the similarities, nology teachers, especially in view of the fact
though. Teachers differed in their understand- that Technology Education is a relative new-
ing of the concept of Technology. While on the comer in the curriculum. For instance, training
one hand some teachers recognised Technolo- on structures should last for a quarter at least in
gy’s complementary nature to science and vice order to allow teachers to be sufficiently exposed
versa, on the other hand, other teachers viewed to learning about and teaching this theme. This
the two subjects as two entirely different enti- would allow them to proceed with much added
ties. While all the teachers were aware of the confidence. We believe that future studies
weight accorded to the design process (techno- should consider targeting common themes that
logical process) regarding the teaching of Tech- teachers deal with in the field of Technology. In
nology, they held differing views about it and saying this, we are fully aware that there could
its use. They also approached the learning out- be practical challenges in doing so due to tight
comes (aims) differently, and placed varying school scheduling.
emphasis on them. Disappointingly, some teach-
ers were not really sure of their knowledge of REFERENCES
the learning outcomes. They also differed sharp-
ly in their pedagogical strategies, varying in Ben-Peretz M 2010. Teacher Knowledge: What Is It?
terms of emphasis on concept clarification and How Do We Uncover It? What Are Its Implications
diagnostic assessment and the like. Understand- For Schooling? From (Retrieved on 17 August 2011).
Clitheroe F, Dilley L, Tholo T 2005. Dynamic Tech-
tween types of assessments and projects. Some nology. Cape Town: Kagiso.
teachers attempted to embed indigenous tech- Cochran KF, King RA, DeRuiter JA 1991. Pedagogical
nology although they had a limited understand- Content Knowledge: A Tentative Model for Teacher
Preparation. East Lansing, MI: National Centre for
ing of it, whereas others did not integrate it at Research on Teacher Learning.
all. As a framework for developing an under- De Vries MJ 2005. An Introduction to the Philosophy
standing of teachers’ PCK, the methodology of Technology for Non-philosophers. Dordrecht:
used seems to have been appropriate. The ob- Springer.
Department of Education 2000. South African Curric-
servation of teacher context and teaching, the ulum for the Twenty-first century: Report of the
interview, and to a lesser extent document anal- Review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Pretoria:
ysis, together proved to be a rich data source. Government Printers.
The data was generally triangulated in order to Department of Basic Education 2009. Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) Technology
provide valid results. In those instances in which Grades 7-9. Final Draft. Pretoria: Government Print-
triangulation did not validate data, for example ers.488 MISHACK T. GUMBO AND P. JOHN WILLIAMS
Engelbrecht W, Ankiewicz P, De Swardt E 2007. An Marshall C, Rossman GB 1999. Designing Qualitative
industry-sponsored, school-focused model for con- Research. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
tinuing professional development of technology Mawson B 2007. Factors affecting learning in technol-
teachers. South African Journal of Education, 27(4): ogy in the early years at school. International Jour-
579-595. nal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3):
Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR 253-269.
2006. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and McCormick R 2004. Issues of learning and knowledge
Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- in technology education. International Journal of
sity Press. Technology and Design Education, 14(1): 21-44.
Gumbo MT 2012. Claiming indigeneity through the Moru K, Qhobela M 2013. Secondary school teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge of some common
school curriculum, with specific reference to tech- student errors and misconceptions in sets. African
nology education. Africa Education Review, 9(3): Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
434-451. Technology Education, 17(3): 230.
Holdt JMD, Richter EFS 2006. Spot-on Technology 8. Neale P, Thapa S, Boyce C 2006. Preparing a Case
Sandton: Heinemann. Study: A Guide for Designing and Conducting a Case
Jones A, Moreland J 2004. Enhancing practicing pri- Study for Evaluation Input. From
edge in technology. International Journal of Tech- (Retrieved on 04 October 2011).
nology and Design Education, 14(2): 121-140. Nicholas M, Lockely J 2010. The Nature of Technol-
Jones A, Moreland J 2005. The importance of peda- ogy: Teachers’ Understanding of Design and Knowl-
gogical content knowledge in assessment for learn- edge in Empowering Technological Practice in Edu-
ing practices: A case-study of a whole-school ap- cation. From
proach. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2): 193-206. (Retrieved on 21 June 2010).
Loughran J, Berry A, Mulhall P 2012. Understanding Pisova M, Janik T 2011. On the nature of expert teacher
and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 5(2): 95-115.
Content Knowledge. 2nd Edition. Rotterdam: Sense. Rohaan EJ, Taconis R, Jochems WMG 2009. Measur-
Kansanen P 2009. The curious affair of pedagogical ing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in pri-
content knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 3(2): 5-18. mary technology education. Research in Science and
Kelly P 2006. Observation Techniques. Plymouth: Technological Education, 27(3): 327-338.
University of Plymouth. Segall A 2004. Revisiting pedagogical content knowl-
Magnusson S, Krajcik J, Borko H 1999. Nature, sourc- edge: The pedagogy of content/the content of ped-
es, and development of pedagogical content knowl- agogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5): 489-
edge for science teaching. In: J Gess-Newsome, NG 504.
Shulman LS 1986. Those who understand: A concep-
Lederman (Eds.): Examining Pedagogical Content
tion of teacher knowledge. American Educator, 10:
Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for 9-15.
Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Shulman LS 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Founda-
Kluwer Academic, pp. 95-132. tions of the new reform. Harvard Educational Re-
Makina A 2013. Designing a PCK Framework for the view, 57(1): 1-21.
Professional Development of Statistics Teachers. A Williams PJ, Lockley J 2012. An Analysis of PCK to
Paper Presented at 21 st Meeting of the Southern Elaborate the Difference between Scientific and Tech-
African Research Mathematics, Science and Tech- nological Knowledge. A Paper Presented at PATT26
nology Education, Cape Town, 15 January 2013. Conference. Stockholm, June 27 2012.You can also read
