Teachers’ Transformed Subject Matter Knowledge Structures of the Doppler Effect
More details
Hide details
School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, SOUTH AFRICA
Online publish date: 2018-04-10
Publish date: 2018-04-10
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(6):2407–2417
The pupils’ poor performance in science in South African secondary schools is well documented. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to conduct a study that would portray knowledge structures for teaching a science topic. This is an empirical qualitative interpretive multiple case study looking at four physical science teachers teaching Doppler Effect to Grade 12 pupils. The data was collected through classroom observations and teacher interviews. Data analysis was done using concept maps. The results show that teachers’ knowledge as portrayed during the teaching lack coherence and to some extent the correctness that is expected of teachers. The weaknesses are considered likely to compromise their pupils’ conceptual understanding of the topic.
1. Bartos, S., & Lederman, N. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51(9), 1150-1188.
2. Brodie, K., Lelliott, A., & Davis, H., (2002). Forms and Substance in learner-centred teaching: Teachers’ take-up from an in-service programme in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 541-559.
3. Chang, K., Sung, Y., Chang, R., & Lin, S. (2005). A new assessment for computer based mapping. Educational Technology and society, 8(3), 138-148.
4. Daley, B. J. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (Vol. 1, pp. 191-197). Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
5. Department of Basic Education. (2015). Report on the National Senior Certificate examination results. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
6. Geddis, A., & Wood, E. (1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilemmas. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 611-626.
7. Goldsmith, T., Johnson, P., & Acton, W. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88-96.
8. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education & Training, 48, 127–142.
10. Hough, S., O'Rode, N., Terman, N., & Weissglass, J. (2007). Using concept maps to assess change in teachers' understandings of algebra: A respectful approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(1), 23-41.
11. Iuli, R. J., & Helldén, G. (2004). Using concept maps as a research tool in science education research. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (Vol. 1, pp. 367-374). Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
12. Jüttner, M., Boone, W., Park, S., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 45-67.
13. Kinchin, I. (2008). Using concept mapping to locate the tacit dimension of clinical expertise: towards a theoretical framework to support critical reflection on teaching. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(2), 93-104.
14. Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D.B., & Adams, A. (2010). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57.
15. Kinchin, I., Streatfield, D., & Hay, D. (2010). Using concept mapping to enhance the research interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 52-68.
16. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
17. Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent Knowledge Structures of Physics Represented as Concept Networks in Teacher Education. Science & Education, 19, 259-282.
18. Lachner, A., & Nuckles, M. (2014). Bothered by Abstractness or Engaged by Cohesion? Experts’ Explanations Enhance Novices’ Deep-Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 21(1), 1-50.
19. Legotlo, M., Maaga, M., Sebego, M., Van der Westhuizen, P., Mosogo, M., Niewoudt, H., & Steyn, H. (2002). Perceptions of stakeholders on causes of poor performance in Grade 12 in a province in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 22, 113-118.
20. Makgato, M., & Mji, A. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners’ poor performance: a spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 177-319.
21. Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1-2), 113-125.
22. Nakiboglu, C., & Ertem. H. (2010). Comparison of the Structural, Relational and Proposition Accuracy Scoring Results of Concept Maps about Atom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 60-77.
23. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Novak, J., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117-153.
25. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A.J. (2006). Theoretical Origins of Concept Maps, How to Construct Them and Uses in Education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29-42.
26. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Opie, C. (2004). Doing educational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Pitjeng, P., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Learning to teach the Chloralkali Industry to Grade 12- In Mudaly, V. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Durban: SAARMSTE, 3, 143-152.
29. Pitjeng, P. (2014). Novice unqualified graduate science teachers’ topic specific pedagogical content knowledge and their beliefs about teaching. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, M. Aksew, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: Windows into teacher thinking (pp.65-83), Abingdon: Routledge.
30. Pitjeng, R. J. (2011). Developing pedagogical content knowledge through a self-study: a case of teaching “chloralkali industry” (Unpublished MSc Research Report). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Witwatersrand.
31. Probyn, M. (2008). Policy, practice and power: Language ecologies of South African classrooms. In A. Creese, P. Martin & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of 246 Language and Education: Volume 9: Ecology of language (pp. 207-223). New York: Springer.
32. Rollnick, M. (2014). Using self-study to learn new topics in chemistry- A case of three practicing teachers. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, M. Askew, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: Windows into teacher thinking (pp.147-162), Abingdon: Routledge.
33. Rollnick, M., Mundalamo, F., & Booth, S. (2009). Teachers’ meanings and intentions in constructing concept maps while learning to teach semiconductors. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
34. Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). Knowledge structure, acceptance, and teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21-27.
35. Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring Concept Maps: an Expert Map-Based Scheme Weighted for Relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44.
36. Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Canas, A. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of research in science teaching, 42(7), 741-766.
37. Shulman, L. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and its exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3-13). New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Wood, E. (2003). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Example from Secondary School Mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 49-61.