Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Background to the study
A major concern in science teacher education is the development of teachers’ knowledge base for improving classroom practice and learners’ learning (Abell, 2007; Brown, Friedrichsen & Abell, 2013; Kind, 2009b). According to De Jong, Veal and Van Driel (2002), this concern has come about, first, as a result of empirical evidence, which shows that there is a strong relationship between what teachers know, and how they teach. Second, constructivist views on teaching and learning (Gullberg, Kellner, Attorps, Thoren & Tarneberg, 2008; Treagust & Duit, 2008) suggest that teachers’ knowledge base should include knowledge of learners’ prior conceptions or alternative frameworks of science topics to be taught, which could always be used as the basis of a teaching point on learners’ behalf.
The three types of teacher knowledge, namely subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of learners’ preconceptions, relate to what Shulman (1986) and others (e.g. Loughran, Berry & Mulhall, 2006, 2012; Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 2001) have collectively referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Pedagogical content knowledge has been simply described as that teacher knowledge which allows teachers to assist learners to access specific content knowledge in a meaningful way (Miller, 2007). So pedagogical content knowledge is an important teacher knowledge base needed for effective teaching to take place.
Subject matter knowledge pertains to the disciplinary knowledge, which is usually acquired through formal education in universities and colleges (Ijeh, 2012; Ozden, 2008; Shulman, 1986). Pedagogical knowledge refers to knowledge about methods of teaching and learning. It is the type of knowledge a teacher requires and uses to execute daily educational tasks, which include instruction and classroom management (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Penso, 2002). Pedagogical knowledge is normally obtained through formal educational training and from classroom teaching experience (De Jong, 2010; Schneider & Plasman, 2011). Knowledge of learners’ preconceptions or alternative frameworks entails the knowledge teachers have about the ideas, views or beliefs learners bring along to the classroom from their (learners) own background experience, before they learn aboutparticular topics or concepts to be taught (Juttner & Neuhaus, 2012; Morrison & Lederman, 2003; Treagust & Duit, 2008). This knowledge of learners’ conceptions is not one that is ormally taught during teacher preparation programmes. It is acquired from classroom teaching experience (Morrison & Lederman, 2003; Penso, 2002), among other knowledge pursuits. This knowledge is built up over years through teachers carefully paying attention to learner feedback and thus becoming familiar with their learners’ usual ideas about scientific topics or concepts.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 The problem of the study
1.3 Statement of the problem
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 The theoretical framework for the study
1.7 Chapter summary
1.8 Chapter organisation of the study
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Genetics teaching in the Swaziland school curriculum
2.3 Research on teaching genetics in school biology
2.4 Pedagogical content knowledge
2.4.1 Conceptualizations of pedagogical content knowledge
2.4.2 Development of science teachers’ PCK
2.5 Methods of assessing teachers’ PCK
2.5.1 Teachers’ PCK and content knowledge
2.5.1.1 Development of PCK: content knowledge
2.5.2 Teachers’ PCK and pedagogical knowledge
2.5.2.1 Development of PCK: pedagogical knowledge
2.5.3 Teachers’ PCK and knowledge of learners’ preconceptions and learning difficulties
2.5.3.1 Development of PCK: knowledge of learners’ preconceptions and learning difficulti
2.6 Chapter summary
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research method and design
3.3 Study population and sample
3.3.1 Study population
3.3.2 Study sample
3.4 Data collection instruments
3.4.1 Development of research instruments
3.4.1.1 Concept mapping for teachers
3.4.1.2 Pre-lesson interview schedule
3.4.1.3 Lesson observation schedule
3.4.1.4 Post-teaching teacher questionnaire
3.4.1.5 Post-lesson interview schedule
3.4.1.6 Teacher reflective journals
3.4.1.7 Document analysis
3.4.1.8 Video-recording
3.4.2 Validation of research instruments
3.4.2.1 Validation and reliability of concept mapping
3.4.2.2 Validation and reliability of Pre-lesson interview schedule
3.4.2.3 Validation of lesson plan and lesson observation schedule
3.4.2.4 Validation of post-teaching teacher questionnaire
3.4.2.5 Validation and reliability of post-lesson interview schedule
3.4.2.6 Validation of reflective journal guidelines
3.5 Pilot study
3.5.1 Purpose of the pilot study
3.5.2 Participants used in the pilot study
3.5.3 Administration of the pilot study
3.5.4 Results of the pilot study
3.6 The main study
3.6.1 Participants of the main study
3.7 Procedure for analysing data
3.8 Validity and reliability of the study
3.9 Ethical considerations
3.10 Chapter summary
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Teacher demographic profile
4.3 Concept mapping
4.4 Pre-lesson teacher interviews
4.5 Lesson observations
4.5.1 Case 1: Lucy
4.5.1.1 Lucy’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.1.2 Summary of Lucy’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.2 Case 2: Lily
4.5.2.1 Lily’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.2.2 Summary of Lily’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.3 Case 3: Leon
4.5.3.1 Leon’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.3.2 Summary of Leon’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.4 Case 4: Lillian
4.5.4.1 Lillian’s lesson observation analysis
4.5.4.2 Summary of Lillian’s lesson observation analysis
4.6 Post-teaching teacher questionnaire
4.7 Post-lesson teacher interviews
4.8 Document analysis
4.9 Chapter summary
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 REFERENCE
