This article focuses on planning as a strategy for enhancing teacher pedagogical content knowledge.
Developing teaching knowledge in primary technology
Judy Moreland, Bronwen Cowie, Alister Jones, and Kathrin Otrel-Cass
How might a teacher set about teaching five-year olds how to design successfully? What could a teacher do when their students are unable to resolve construction problems? How do teachers teach technological concepts in a subject that is very practical? The InSiTE project (Cowie, Moreland, Jones, & Otrel-Cass, 2008)1 aimed to investigate these kinds of questions; that is, those related to teachers teaching technology education in primary schools. Over three years we explored teacher knowledge, its sources and development, and the ways it was used by primary teachers so that their students had worthwhile learning experiences in both technology and science education. In this article we discuss the implications for teaching of a subject-specific planning framework.
Some theory about teacher knowledge
It has been argued that to be an effective teacher is to know a subject’s central conceptual structures and forms of argument (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). To teach chemistry, for example, a teacher needs to know chemistry ideas. But is that the only knowledge required? Many of us have experienced having teachers with exceptional subject knowledge who struggled to help us to learn it effectively. So it has also been argued that an effective teacher knows specific subject pedagogies that promote student learning. They know how to make visible the practices of a subject and have the know-how for developing activities that will enhance student participation in those practices (Lampert, 2001). They know, for example, how to help students understand what it means to be a designer.
The specialised form of knowledge in action needed for the promotion of productive learning was characterised by Shulman (1986, 1987) as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK is the knowledge that is developed when teachers blend content and subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in such a way that students can learn the idea being taught, yet at the same time, the integrity of the idea is maintained. At the heart of PCK is a teacher’s ability to understand and clarify subject matter “in new ways, reorganise and partition it, clothe it in activities and emotions, in metaphors and exercises, and in examples and demonstrations, so that it can be grasped by students” (Shulman, 1987, p. 13).
What would be an example of PCK? For technology let’s take the technological concept of ergonomics. A teacher may themselves understand ergonomics as the fit between people and what they do. That is, they may know that ergonomics takes into account a person’s capabilities and limitations and ensures that tasks, equipment, information, and the environment suit each person. They may also know something of anthropometry, biomechanics, kinesiology, and physiology. But what if they were teaching Year 2 students to design skipping ropes with ergonomically appropriate handles? In this case a teacher might distil the essence of ergonomics for their students as their coming to understand ergonomics as “the right size and shape to be comfortable for skipping”. Students might develop and test out their designs by constructing models and evaluating the fit to their hands and how the fit aids the turning of the rope. Here the teacher has selected both a problem (designing a skipping rope) and an interpretation of the technological concept of ergonomics that is appropriate for Year 2 students. This translation and synthesis is not easy. If it were, anyone could teach for effective learning.
So, how can primary teachers’ technology PCK be developed? Grossman (1990) found that teachers’ PCK can be enhanced through their being involved in classroom observations of lessons, examining research findings pertinent to the subject under scrutiny, being involved in professional learning programmes, and reflecting on personal classroom experiences. The development of teacher PCK can also be supported by teachers analysing student work (Ball, 2000), studying videotaped classroom lessons (Lampert & Ball, 1998; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000), using curriculum materials that accurately represent concepts, tasks, procedures, and teaching approaches of a subject (Ball & Cohen, 1996), and deploying recommendations from trusted colleagues about what worked in their classrooms (Appleton, 2003; Appleton & Kindt, 1999).
Exploring and extending teacher PCK for teaching technology
In the InSiTE study (Cowie et al., 2008) the teachers were interested in developing their knowledge and practices for technology teaching. Together we used a technology-specific planner and collaborative discussion to explore and extend the teachers’ PCK as a means of enhancing teacher interactions and student learning.
Preparing for teaching: The use of a subject-specific planner
The use of a two-layer planner specific to technology proved to be very effective in helping teachers articulate and enhance their PCK. The first layer of the planner (Figure 1) focused on prompting teachers to articulate the intended learning outcomes (the subject ideas and skills). The second layer (Figure 2) focused on the intended classroom activities and tasks (the subject pedagogies) that would help students work towards achieving the learning outcomes.
This layer focused the teachers on articulating the main task with which they wanted their students to be involved and the specific technological area(s) it was nested within. When they articulated the overall dimensions of technology they thought more carefully about the scope of the main task and how it related to the strands of technological knowledge, practice, and societal aspects in the context of particular technological area(s). They considered how all the specific learning outcomes (LOs) might coalesce and how technology is an holistic practice with ideas and skills coming together for the successful accomplishment of a task. The four LO categories focused teachers on distilling even more specific intended LOs. These included a conceptual category where they specified the concepts or ideas they wanted their students to learn, and a procedural category where they specified the processes and procedures for students to learn. In this category they also articulated how and when students might undertake the processes and procedures. In the societal category they articulated any aspects related to the interrelationship between technology and groups of people. Finally, in the technical category they specified skills related to any practical techniques they wished their students to learn. These four categories helped them define technology as a multidimensional activity and to articulate both the practical skills and the concepts or ideas inherent in the overall dimensions and the main task within particular technological area(s). An iterative planning process was required to keep all categories coherent, interconnected, and consistent. Planning in this way helped them to move away from only planning activities for the students. “What will or could they learn?” became the focus.
A closer look at a sliver of planning exemplifies this attention to technology ideas and skills. Carol planned an outdoor-games-making unit for her Years 7 and 8 students. Producing an outdoor game for their school grounds provided an authentic context as the students decided that their school environment lacked attractive items for playtimes. They wanted to investigate this problem and provide some solutions to present to their board of trustees. The main or macro task was therefore defined as, “To modify an existing game for the outdoors based on client preference”. Carol specified five overall dimensions of technological practice, which were to:
•&&develop an understanding of functionality, robustness, specifications needed for construction
•&&develop an understanding of the importance of the design process when developing a solution, creating and refining design briefs
•&&explore and identify appropriate materials through researching material characteristics
•&&follow a design process to develop a solution through creating and refining their design briefs
•&&identify and discuss client needs and preferences during the modification and adaptation of an existing game.
More specific intended learning outcomes in the technological conceptual, procedural, societal, and technical categories were then defined. These demonstrated that she understood technology as multidimensional and more than undertaking practical activities; it also included the development of ideas or concepts. She reconfigured concepts and procedures to suit her Years 7 and 8 students, illustrating her PCK. For example, she wanted her students to understand the notion of design portfolios. Design portfolios for her Years 7 and 8 students would be about including product research, conceptual drawings and working drawings with accurate measurements, appropriate labels, specific materials, methods of construction, and manufacturing steps.
The second layer of the planner focused teacher attention on linking pedagogy with content. It featured spaces for detailing meso and micro tasks (nested and increasingly detailed tasks that contribute to the achievement of the main task), focal artefacts, planned interactions, and key outcomes. Figure 2 shows this planning template.
The first three columns of the second layer of the technology planner focused the teachers on developing teaching sequences of nested and linked tasks. The sequencing of tasks and the breaking down of the main task into smaller, but connected, meso and micro tasks became important for helping the teachers think about how they were going to link ideas, tasks, and lessons and how they were going to engender similar coherence for students. The benefits were that when the teachers interacted with their students they could make decisions in the moment to follow particular ideas and practices whilst still maintaining a focus on their overall main technology task. That is, they were able to be responsive to their students’ interests and abilities, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the students’ technology learning.
They then recorded the resources or focal artefacts (Roth, McGinn, Woszczyna, & Boutonne, 1999) that would help them to structure lessons, focus attention, and support the introduction and development of ideas and skills. Real artefacts, and those designed by teachers, provide scenarios and resources for interaction. The influence of an artefact on interaction is not a given; rather, it depends on how it is introduced to the students by the teacher and how it is integrated into interaction (Cowie et al., 2008). Completing this section of the planning template, therefore, helped the teachers to think about their choice and use of artefacts in a more teachable way, as they considered how they might employ artefacts to augment students’ learning experiences.
In the next column they recorded their ideas about interactions. For some teachers this helped them think about how they might organise the social groupings of students; it helped others think about some of the key questions they might ask, and focused others on the main thrust of their interactions.
Finally they listed the key outcomes. Taking the standpoint of their students they catalogued what the upshot might be from their teaching. They thought about their students’ prior knowledge and experiences, considered the possible impact from their teaching, and then listed what they were aiming for in terms of what their students would know and be able to do.
This lesson outline layer helped teachers anticipate possibilities and undertake dress rehearsals before classroom teaching. For example, Carol planned seven technology lessons for her Years 7 and 8 class when they were designing outdoor games for their school. Each lesson was unpacked into meso and micro tasks. Figure 3 outlines the second lesson Carol planned.
The way the focal artefacts, planned interactions, key outcomes, and tasks were linked indicated that Carol had thought about ways to help her students learn effectively. For example, she planned that her students would analyse real games to discern their salient features, such as material properties, before designing their own.
The two-layered planner helped our teachers identify the technology ideas and skills appropriate for their students, the knowledge they needed in order to teach, and the appropriate pedagogical approaches for teaching the ideas and skills. Teachers reported that planning for the multiple dimensions of technological learning and designing nested tasks—aimed at supporting student understanding of the multiple dimensions—changed their interactions; they became more focused on multiple conceptual, procedural, societal, and technical aspects within the tasks:
It has reinforced to me the importance of clarifying ideas before teaching and thinking ahead to what the children may think at each step. This helps with my preparations. They are different and more thorough ways to plan technology units. (Betty)
They commented on the benefits of planning for interactions, including the sorts of responses their students might make. Such forethought meant that they could optimise learning within their interactions with students:
It made me think through each stage thoroughly instead of always having to think on my toes, which can often mean missing good opportunities, or not choosing the best way to do something. (Jenny)
Collaborative discussions using the planner
Another means for supporting the development of teacher knowledge for teaching technology were meetings held several times throughout the three years and between teaching science and technology units. These included time for planning for teaching their next unit and discussions about what worked or did not work. It was in these discussions that teachers used each other, and the researchers, as sounding boards about the effectiveness of the ideas they were planning. Some used planning from another teacher as a basis for their own planning. Lois, for example, had planned a technology unit for her Years 1–3 students in which they developed a kite. Jane also taught Year 1 students and so she adapted Lois’s plan for her purposes. When Lois taught the unit her students had difficulty cutting the material for the sail. In a meeting we discussed whether the students’ cutting it was necessary in the context of the whole unit and concluded that it was not. So Jane prepared the sail material beforehand, thus eliminating the time-consuming task of cutting.
In meetings we also discussed PCK itself and what it meant to teachers, as we thought that this was a worthwhile way for teachers to think about their own knowledge development and about their teaching from the theoretical standpoint of PCK. The teachers came to understand that PCK was about their knowing the science and technology ideas and concepts and how best to teach them to their students. They emphasised that their knowing the ideas for teaching was an important first step:
I have to be able to grasp the concepts and learn about what I want to teach before I teach them to my children. (Jo)
Discussion
The InSiTE project (Cowie et al., 2008) has highlighted the importance of working with primary teachers to identify, articulate, and build their technology PCK. Teachers need to employ an intellectual process to translate their content knowledge into forms learnable for particular students, and to transform generic pedagogical practices to help their students learn technology. The use of the two-part planner that identified key features of technology supported this process. The planner, like other artefacts, provided a scenario and resource for individual and collective reflection, analysis, and interaction. The planner focused our teachers on analysing their own and their students’ understandings. It was pivotal in helping our teachers bring to mind, refine, and develop the PCK they needed to effectively interact with students, and also became a tool for collaborative talk that supported the articulation and development of PCK.
By preparing appropriate materials and setting tasks with clear objectives in meaningful contexts our teachers were able to respond flexibly to their students’ developing ideas, interests, and skills. They were emphatic that their detailed planning did not lead to their constraining student learning possibilities but, rather, allowed them to respond flexibly to student ideas, interests, and skills. As an advance organiser the subject-specific technology planner focused them on identifying the technology they wanted students to learn and the pedagogical approaches to help students learn those aspects. Their planning involved the synthesis of learning outcomes and how to help students achieve them—planning was executed knowledgeably.
We also used a science-specific planner with the teachers in the study and some of them adapted the idea for other learning areas. We therefore surmise that a subject-specific planning approach would be useful for any learning area within the curriculum when a teacher was interested in developing their PCK and thus extending their ability to productively interact with their students’ ideas and interests.
References
Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching in practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.
Appleton, K., & Kindt, L. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 155–168.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
Cowie, B., Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2008). The classroom InSiTE project: Understanding classroom interactions to enhance teaching and learning in science and technology in Years 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9215_finalreport.pdf
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lampert, M. (2001). The teaching of problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Mathematics, teaching, and multimedia: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Roth, W-M., McGinn, M., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configuration and physical arrangements. Journal of Learning Sciences, 8, 293–347.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for teacher professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.
Note
1&&The Classroom InSiTE (Classroom Interactions in Science and Technology Education) research project was undertaken between 2005 and 2008 and involved a team of four University of Waikato researchers working alongside 12 primary teachers and their students in Years 1–8 classrooms. We were interested in teacher–student interactions around science and technology ideas, and the knowledge teachers employ to respond to and build on student learning. In the classroom we videotaped teacher interactions with students, audiotaped teacher talk, took field notes and photographs, and collected teacher and student work. We also talked with teachers and students outside of class. Classroom work alternated with teacher-researcher team meetings throughout the three years. The project was funded by the Teaching & Learning Research Initiative (TLRI).
Bronwen Cowie is Director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, the University of Waikato. Her research interests include assessment for learning, classroom interactions in science and technology education, and teacher use of laptops and ICTs in their professional lives. Email: bcowie@waikato.ac.nz
Judy Moreland is a senior research fellow at the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, the University of Waikato. Her research interests include technology and science education, the nature and development of teacher pedagogical content knowledge, and assessment for learning. Email: j.moreland@waikato.ac.nz
Kathrin Otrel-Cass is a lecturer at the Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, the University of Waikato. Her research interests include science and technology education, engaging the public in science through activities such as Café Scientifique, and the role of ICTs in science education. Email: kathrino@waikato.ac.nz
Alister Jones is Dean of the School of Education, the University of Waikato. His research interests include the development of technology as a subject in New Zealand schools, science and technology education, and the role of ICTs in science education. Email: ajones@waikato.ac.nz