The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic

Awelani Victor Mudau

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

Full Text (PDF)

Awelani Victor Mudau ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Unisa^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework for diagnosing teaching difficulties of a science topic in the science classroom

Material and methods:
qualitative study

Results:
The development of the framework is presented as well as descriptions of the features of the framework. How the framework can be used is also elaborated.

Conclusions:
It is also recommended that further studies can be done on the intersection between teacher knowledge and the kinds of discourse it promotes. That is the focus can be on the connection between teacher content knowledge and the classroom discourse. Hence, the researcher can use the framework to analyse the intersection of those from the perspective of teacher action

Keywords

Framework
science classroom
teacher practice
teaching difficulties

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2016, Volume 12, Issue 11, 2797-2815

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

Publication date: 15 Aug 2016

Article Views: 1935

Article Downloads: 1232

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.
Akarsu, B. (2010). The influence of disciplines on the knowledge of science: a study of the nature of science. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 4(1), 99-118.
Akerson, V. & Donnelly, L.A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understanding can they claim? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97-124.
Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273-291.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221-238.
Carr, M., Barker, M., Beverley, B., Biddulph, B., Jones, A., Kirkwood, V., Pearson, J. & Symington, D. (1994). The constructivist paradigm and some implications for science content and pedagogy. In: P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, and R. White. The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press, pp. 147-158.
Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A. & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L.S. Vygotsky on education theory, research and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
Department of Basic Education. (2009). Report of the task team for the review of the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2010). Road show reports. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2011a). Report on the National Senior Certificate examination results. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2011b). National diagnostic reports on learner performance. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2011c). School performance analysis. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Education. (2006). National policy framework for teacher education and development in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2007). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 Subject Assessment Guidelines Physical Sciences. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussion on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding forces and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Galus, P.J. (2002). Toying with motion. The Physics Teacher, 69(4), 48-51.
Geelan, D.R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6(2), 15-28.
Geelan, D.R., Wildy, H., Louden, W. & Wallace, J. (2004). Teaching for understanding and/or teaching for the examination in high school physics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 447-462.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In: J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman eds. Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 3-17.
Gilbert, H.K. & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: the case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107-120.
Graham, T., Berry, J. & Rowlands, S. (2012). Are ‘misconceptions’ or alternative frameworks of force and motion spontaneous or formed prior to instruction? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, (24 July 2012), 1-20.
Gunstone, R., Mulhall, P. & McKittrick, B. (2009). Physics teachers’ perceptions of the difficulty of teaching electricity. Research in Science Education, (39), 515-538.
Hausfather, S. (2001). Where’s the content? The role of content in constructivist teacher education. Educational Horizons, 79(1), 15-19.
Hollon, R.E., Roth, K.J. & Anderson, C.W. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Advances in Research on Teaching, (2), 154-185.
Jita, L.C. (2004). Resources of biography: teacher identities and science teaching. Perspectives in Education, 22(4), 11-27.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. [Online] Available: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/socialConstructivism.html [Accessed 10 October 2012].
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113.
Lederman, N.G (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
Lee, E. & Luft, J.A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1-34.
Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(3), 296-316.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). In: J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman, eds. Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 95-132.
Mathews, M.R. (1995). Challenging NZ science education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: a philosophical critique. Science and Education, 6, 55-83.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176- 186.
Prescott, A. & Mitchelmore, M. (2005) Teaching projectile motion to eliminate misconceptions. In: H.L. Chick, and J.L. Vincent, eds. Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 97-104.
Prescott, A.E. (2004). Student understanding and learning about projectile motion in senior high school. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney.
Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Dharsey, N. & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content: a case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365-1387.
Schwartz, R. & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727- 771.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Staver, J.R. (2007). Teaching science. Geneva: Educational Practices Series, The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (UNESCO).
Tao, G. & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B.J. Fraser & K G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (623–640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

How to cite this article

APA

Mudau, A. V. (2016). The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(11), 2797-2815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

Vancouver

Mudau AV. The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(11):2797-815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

AMA

Mudau AV. The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(11), 2797-2815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

Chicago

Mudau, Awelani Victor. "The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 11 (2016): 2797-2815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

Harvard

Mudau, A. V. (2016). The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(11), pp. 2797-2815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a

MLA

Mudau, Awelani Victor "The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework: A Framework to Diagnose Teaching Difficulties of a Science Topic". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 11, 2016, pp. 2797-2815. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02305a