An evaluation of Technology teacher training in South Africa ...

Int J Technol Des Educ (2013) 23:455–472 DOI 10.1007/s10798-011-9198-9

An evaluation of Technology teacher training in South Africa: shortcomings and recommendations Jessica Pool • Gerda Reitsma • Elsa Mentz

Published online: 7 December 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Compared to other subjects Technology Education (TE) is regarded as a new subject both nationally and internationally. In the absence of an established subject philosophy Technology educators had little alternative than to base their professional teaching and learning practices on approaches from other fields of knowledge and to adapt these. TE is one of the compulsory subjects for learners in South Africa from grade 4–9 since 1998. One of the challenges was the fact that no previous teacher training programmes existed for Technology thus new ones had to be developed. This research described what the necessary knowledge, skills and values are that a qualified Technology teacher should possess and determined if teacher training institutions in South Africa provide opportunities to develop this qualities. Qualitative research was used to provide insight into the nature of pre-service Technology training programmes in South Africa, in order to identify shortcomings in the pre-service training of Technology teachers. The population consisted of senior faculty who have experience in the developing of pre-service training programmes and the training of Technology teachers. Findings of the study suggest a greater focus on the training of Technology teachers as subject specialists by establishing standards that is appropriate for tertiary training in order to enhance the development of subject knowledge; subject specific pedagogical content knowledge by implementing micro lessons; revision of time, planning and facilities for the practising of subject skills; and sufficient opportunities to practise, analyse and reflect on teaching processes to develop appropriate teaching strategies. Keywords Pre-service teacher training Technology education Teacher development Programme development Effective teaching Introduction Training programmes for Technology Education (TE) entice worldwide criticism (Villegas-Reimers 2003, p. 52) and it is not yet clear what the most appropriate manner is in J. Pool (&) G. Reitsma E. Mentz Faculty of Education Science, North West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

123

456

J. Pool et al.

which to train technological literate teachers effectively (Hattingh and Killen 2003). Compared to other subjects such as mathematics and science, TE is regarded as a relative new subject both nationally and internationally, and it consequently presents specific challenges. According to De Vries (2005, p. 149) in the absence of an established subject philosophy, Technology educators had little alternative than to base their professional teaching and learning practices on approaches from other fields of knowledge and to adapt these for their subject. As previous teacher training programmes for Technology did not exist in South Africa, new training programmes had to be developed, sometimes by adapting available training programmes from other subjects. These programmes may not necessarily address the unique needs of Technology teachers in South Africa. In this research we determine to what extent pre-service Technology teacher training programmes in South Africa equip teachers with the necessary knowledge, skills and values to effectively teach Technology in South African schools. Against the background of this overarching research question, the following sub-questions were answered: • What are the necessary knowledge, skills and values that a qualified Technology teacher should possess? and • How does Technology teacher training in South Africa provide opportunities to develop these knowledge, skills and values? To answer these questions, we briefly define the relevant concepts and give an overview of relevant literature. We then discuss the research methods used and the results obtained from the empirical study conducted. We conclude with a discussion on the findings and recommendations for a more effective training of Technology teachers.

Conceptual and theoretical framework In accordance with international outcomes for TE, the outcomes in the South African context are integrated in three broad learning outcomes: (a) technological processes and skills, (b) technological knowledge and skills and (c) the interrelationship between Technology, the community and the environment (DOE 2003, p. 4). Mitcham (1997, p. 153) identify four approaches with regard to the conceptualization of technology, namely technology as an object, technology as knowledge, technology as an action, as well as the ethical and esthetical aspects of technology. Depending on the approach, Technology can thus be defined as an object, knowledge or activity within a certain framework. For this article, technology is defined as an action using the definition of the South African Department of Education (DOE 2003, p. 4) who states: technology is the use of knowledge, skills and resources to meet people’s needs and wants by developing practical solutions to problems, taking social and environmental factors into consideration. The inclusion of Technology as a compulsory module took momentum in 1990 in schools in countries such as England, Wales and New Zealand (Compton and Harwood 2003, p. 2) and are defined as an interdisciplinary study of Technology over grades and levels which offers opportunity for the learning of content, processes and knowledge relating to the improvement of human possibilities (ITEA 2003b, p. 1). Training programmes for Technology teachers can be defined as the study of technological knowledge, skills, methodology, procedures and content on tertiary level in order to train and equip teacher candidates to teach Technology as a school subject (ITEA 2003a). Pre-service teacher training in South Africa is a time period of training with the primary purpose of gaining competencies in order to get entry as a beginning teacher to the profession

123

An evaluation of Technology teacher training in South Africa

457

(Department of Higher Education 2011, p. 15). Technology as a discipline is still young and therefore a lot of different opinions exist with regard to fundamental issues within this field (De Vries 2005:1), including the training of teachers. In South Africa, TE was only introduced in 1998 as part of a major revision of the school education system, resulting in a critical need for trained teachers. Training programmes for pre-service Technology teachers are of vital importance because a large number of teachers who are currently teaching Technology have not received any formal training (Reitsma and Mentz 2009, p. 20). Professional development in Technology is required in order to successfully teach the necessary knowledge, skills and values (Hattingh and Killen 2003, p. 39). Effective pre-service technology training according to Reddy et al. (2003, p. 29) can develop competencies and skills such as critical and creative thinking, specialist knowledge, practical knowledge, practical and technological knowledge and values and attitudes. Training programmes should provide effective training of preservice Technology teachers to develop and gain the above mentioned competencies and skills. In order to better understand what the specific training programmes should address, a detailed description of these competencies and skills are provided.

Competencies and skills needed for effective Technology teaching The inclusion of TE in the school curriculum demands clarification on the competencies a Technology teacher need in order to facilitate Technology (Gibson 2008, p. 3). Bybee and Loucks-Horsley (2000, p. 27) emphasize that the Technology teacher must know more than the learners that they are teaching because if the teacher does not understand technological concepts completely one cannot expect learners to understand these concepts. Various authors in the field have presented knowledge frameworks necessary for Technology teachers. The framework presented by Jones and Moreland (2004) for technological competencies include subject knowledge, pedagogical subject knowledge, subject skills and pedagogical subject skills. Banks et al. (2004, p. 142) support the above and add that the successes and failures Technology teachers experience can be referred back to the teachers own subject knowledge of Technology, knowledge on how the subject must be taught, subject skills and pedagogical subject skills. Values and attitudes form an inherent part of all educational processes on all levels of teaching and should also be an important competency needed for effective Technology teaching (Pavlova 2005, p. 142). Knowledge Although the names or categories used for knowledge differed from author to author (Barlex 2000, p. 100; Gibson 2008, p. 3; Reddy et al. 2003, p. 30), for the purpose of this study, Technology knowledge was classified into two main categories, subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). There is a direct link between these two categories and they can therefore not be separated (Parker and Heywood 2000, p. 90). Subject knowledge Subject knowledge refers to the know what theoretical knowledge which forms the central point of teaching and learning programmes (Ankiewicz et al. 1998:5; Parker and Heywood 2000:89). Reddy et al. (2003, p. 37) reminds us that it is important to understand that technological subject knowledge does not only indicate factual knowledge but also the ideas which give origin to thoughts and technological activities. Subject knowledge

123

458

J. Pool et al.

consequently forms the basis of the development of problem solving skills (Gibson 2008, p. 5; Reddy et al. 2003, p. 37). According to the DOE (2003, p. 7) the competent Technology teacher should demonstrate in-depth subject knowledge of all the different knowledge areas for TE which include the following: • technological knowledge and understanding (of structures, processing, systems and control); • interrelationship between technology, the community and the environment (indigenous technology, bias in technology and impact of technology); and • knowledge of the technological problem solving process. Teachers’ subject knowledge influences the way in which they teach. According to Banks (1996, p. 175) teachers with better and more in-depth subject knowledge will teach in a more interesting and daring manner using more effective teaching strategies. The opposite is true for teachers who teach with limited subject knowledge who prefer to focus only on the areas of knowledge in which they feel comfortable. This results in teaching programmes which lack depth and balance and ultimately influence educational standards (Benson 2000, p. 7; McLaren and Darkers 2003, p. 2). Pedagogical content knowledge PCK is a key element of the knowledge base of the Technology teacher. Shulman (1987, p. 8) defines PCK as a unique blend of content and pedagogy which presents the teachers professional understanding of a subject area and which is necessary to convert content in teachable forms. Rollnick et al. (2008, p. 1367) describe PCK as the way in which teachers present a knowledge area by assessing what they know about the knowledge area, the learners, the curriculum as well as what they believe effective teaching to be. Van Driel et al. (1998, p. 675) did a conceptualization of PCK pedagogical content knowledge by comparing the views of different researchers regarding PCK and they identified the following similar elements in their description: • knowledge of the context in which subject knowledge is being presented; • knowledge of learning problems of learners in a specific knowledge area; and • knowledge on the presentation of a specific subject area to overcome these learning problems. PCK is important because it specifies how the content for a specific subject should be taught. Shulman (1987, p. 8) is of the opinion that a teacher needs PCK in addition to subject knowledge to be a competent teacher. Rohaan and Jochems (2007, p. 328) acknowledge that it is of utmost importance that Technology teachers knows exactly what about Technology to teach as well as how to teach Technology, as these competencies consequently influence learners perceptions of TE positively and it is associated with elevated levels of achievement and motivation of learners in TE. PCK implies that the competent Technology teacher must possess in depth knowledge on how to teach Technology (Parker and Heywood 2000, p. 91). PCK must therefore be facilitated as part of Technology teacher’s training (Barlex 2000, p. 100). Skills The need to develop both manual dexterity and problem solving skills need to be balanced in training. It is important that training programmes develop a degree of handiness as well

123


459

as cognitive and metacognitive skills of student teachers for when they solve problems (Walmsley 2003, p. 59). For the purpose of this study, Technology skills were classified into two main categories, subject-related skills and pedagogical subject skills. Subject related skills Subject related skills can be described as the subject skills which the Technology teacher possesses as a subject specialist. According to the DOE (2003, p. 6) this will include: technological processes and skills (investigate, design, make, evaluate, communicate) and the use of apparatus and tools. Subject related skills refer to know how skills in TE and is characterised as an activity and not just a discrete mass of content (Williams 2000, p. 1). Examples of these in TE include: modelling, project planning, quality control and optimalizing of projects (McCormick 1997, p. 144). In contrast with subject knowledge, subject related skills cannot be taught directly. These subject related skills can only be mastered through practising (Ankiewicz et al. 1998, p. 2). McCormick (1997, p. 145) distinguish between three levels of subject related skills which is applicable on TE: • first level: skills which focuses on familiar goals and which is automatic; • second level: skills which reach unfamiliar goals and which include specific procedures, and strategies; • third level: skills which combine cognition with the above two levels and therefore fulfil a controlling function. Pedagogical subject skills Teachers around the world are concerned about the need that exists to equip learners with a type of knowledge-in-action which will allow learners to develop purposeful and effective problem solving skills. TE is characterised with a pedagogy where not only one correct answer exist but rather different reactions to the same problem (Lunn et al. 2000, p. 1). Technology teachers are not in the position where they should be the source of all knowledge but rather the guide who leads students to this source. By this, the role of subject knowledge or the Technology teacher as subject specialist are not denied, but this implies that the teachers’ competencies must be used as guidance to regulate the speed and direction of learners (Banks et al. 2004, p. 145). The question arise what type of pedagogical skills the Technology teacher must possess. According to the Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP 2001) pedagogical skills encompass the ability of technology teachers to: • create a learning environment which encourage positive social interaction, active involvement and self motivation; • understand and use a variety of formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate sustained development of learners; • design and develop experience based activities based on subject knowledge, curriculum, the learner, the environment and assessment; and • understand and implement classroom management effectively. Barlex (2000, p. 91) and Reddy et al. (2003, p. 34) suggest that appropriate pedagogical subject skills should include the ability to plan and execute the three learning tasks, namely

123

460

J. Pool et al.

case study task, resource task and capability task during the learning programme. Thus, Technology teachers should according to the DOE (2003, p. 5) demonstrate appropriate pedagogical subject skills to promote: • learning through the use of authentic contexts which is based in real life situations outside the classroom; • combining thinking and doing so that abstract concepts can be easier understood; • execution of a variety of practical projects through the use of a variety of technological skills: and • involvement in and the use of knowledge in a structured way. In summary, it is ultimately the balance between subject skills and pedagogic subject skills that influences how students perceive the learning situation and ultimately how and what they learn in TE (Walmsley 2003, p. 59). Values and attitudes Values form an inherent part of all educational processes on all levels of teaching. According to Bishop (2008, p. 47) the difference between values and attitudes lies in that values or characteristics are what learners must develop as principles for behaviour, responsibilities, honesty and identity whilst attitudes are important for the completion of high quality tasks. It is important that values are incorporated in TE in order for technological processes to be used correctly and responsibly as individuals in a technological society (Holdsworth and Conway 1999, p. 206; Pavlova 2005, p. 142; Rekus 1991, p. 41). Value judgments can be defined as the specific decisions and choices which an individual make and which reflect their integrity and identity. The main focus on values in TE can be evident in the decisions taken during the implementation of the technological process and it equips the learner with the ability to use technology independently and responsibly. Values in TE can be linked to the following categories (Holdsworth and Conway 1999, p. 206; Pavlova 2005, p. 142; Prime 1993, p. 33): • values with regard to biological needs of an individual (personal); • values with regard to the survival and wealth of society (economical, ethical and environmental); and • values with regard to the promotion of, and co-operation and social interrelationship between groups (political, cultural). TE often includes ethical dilemmas where there isn’t necessary a correct or incorrect answer or even a satisfactory answer. In such cases it is important to keep the relevant context in mind and teachers should guide learners by values that would be important for a specific situation. When the value component is included in TE it is important that the competent Technology teacher doesn’t focus on the content but rather on value driven teaching strategies (Rekus 1991, p. 43). According to Pavlova (2005, p. 144) the best way to integrate values is to let learners reflect on values. Values have a cognitive component, an affective component and a behaviour component and according to Pavlova (2005, p. 145), all three components should be addressed in TE. The development of values through TE should address the cognitive component by exposing learners to relevant technological knowledge and the affective component by involving learner’s feelings and by placing human context in

123


461

authentic real life situations. The behaviour component refers to values which goes over into action (Pavlova 2005, p. 144). The relationship between the competencies and skills of Technology teachers The relationship between the competencies described in the previous section is summarized in Fig. 1. Each circle represents a competency, such as knowledge, skills and values as well as their inter-relationship (Jones and Moreland 2004; Lunn et al. 2000; McCormick 1997; Pavlova 2005; Reddy et al. 2003; Rollnick et al. 2008). The overlapping section (illustrated by the black centre triangle) between knowledge, skills and values results in the professional knowledge, skills and values of the Technology teacher as it figures in the practice of teaching. Although knowledge is classified into subject knowledge and PCK (Jones and Moreland 2003) there is a direct link between these two categories and can therefore not be separated. The transformation of subject knowledge to PCK requires good subject knowledge of the teacher in order to facilitate the content of TE effectively. PCK is the observable activities in teaching and learning in the classroom and these activities include the use of a variety of resources’, teaching strategies and assessment strategies (Rollnick et al. 2008, p. 1367). TE is viewed as

Fig. 1 A model of the professional competencies of the technology teacher

123

462

J. Pool et al.

an activity and therefore it is important that the Technology teacher possesses pedagogical subject skills in order to facilitate subject related skills (Williams 2000, p. 1). The value component in TE relates to subject knowledge in the sense that TE expose learner to relevant knowledge in real life situations. This cognitive component connects values with knowledge. Pedagogic wise it is important that the successful Technology teacher possesses a wide variety of teaching strategies in order to facilitate values effectively (Pavlova 2005, p. 144). From the above discussion it is clear that subject knowledge, pedagogical subject knowledge, subject skills, PCK and values are essential and interrelated competencies needed by Technology teachers. An empirical study was conducted to find out how Technology teacher training in South Africa provide opportunities to develop these competencies. The empirical research was aimed at establishing whether pre-service training programmes provide opportunities for pre-service Technology teachers to develop the necessary knowledge, skills and values necessary to teach Technology effectively. In the following section the results obtained from the empirical study are discussed. We conclude with a discussion on the findings and recommendations for the more effective training of Technology teachers.

Research design Research approach This research was approached from a functionalistic and interpretative paradigm. The ontology from a functionalistic framework focuses on problem-based situations and emphasise the importance of an understanding of order, balance and stability in the environment. In this study, the functionalistic framework was appropriate because it attempted to present practical solutions to practical problems (Burrel and Morgan 2005). Typical questions from within this framework include: why is? and how should? The ontology from within an interpretivistic framework presents a concern to comprehend society as it is and seeks subjective explanations within the consciousness of individuals (Burrel and Morgan 2005). A phenomenological approach was followed in this study in order to identify lecturers’ experiences of the phenomenon. Qualitative research was used to provide insight into the nature of pre-service training programmes in South Africa, in order to identify particular shortcomings in the pre-service training of Technology teachers. Participants and data collecting methods From a population of 23 tertiary institutions currently training undergraduate technology teachers, a random sample of 5 institutions was drawn. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at these institutions with senior staff members who have experience in the training of Technology teachers and who were involved in developing pre-service training programmes at their institutions. At all the institutions a single interview was conducted with the senior faculty staff member except at one institution where both faculty members preferred to take part in the interview. All of the participants who were interviewed had more than 5 years teacher training experience, except for one who had 2 years training experience. One of the participants was female and the rest male. Students from 2 of the institutions come predominantly from rural areas and students from the other 3 institutions are predominantly from urban areas. Although data saturation was achieved after 4 interviews, we continued interviewing the whole sample.

123


463

Measuring instruments A semi-structured interview schedule (see ‘‘Appendix’’) was used with specific questions organised around specific themes derived from a thorough literature overview (Baily 2005, p. 100; McMillan and Schumacher 2006, p. 356). The researcher used follow up questions as suggested by Baily (2005, p. 103) when further explanation or understanding was required. Analysis of data The interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed by means of a computer aided, qualitative data analysis software (Atlas.ti). Themes were identified, categorised, organized and described to provide a structured and comprehensive description of the results. Transcriptions of the interviews were done as soon as possible after the interviews as recommended by (Anderson and Arsenault 2000, p. 207) The transcriptions were done by the researcher after every interview in order to gain better insight and intimacy with the data. The researcher made use of concept-driven coding (Gibbs 2007, p. 45) which enabled the researcher to build up a list of key thematic ideas from the literature but also generated themes from the transcribed interviews. It was thus possible to identify categories and sub categories from these themes in order to answer the research questions. Validity and trustworthiness Validity and trustworthiness were ensured through methods of credibility, dependability and conformability (Poggenpoel and Myburgh 2004, p. 421; Shenton 2004). Credibility refers to internal validity (Shenton 2004). The researcher applied strategies for the application of credibility for this study by applying the following procedures: • • • • • •

the use of a well established research method; prolonged and verified involvement in the field of study; the use of tactics to help ensure honesty in informants; frequent debriefing sessions with mentors; the use of thick description of the phenomenon under scrutiny; and the use of paraphrasing so that the respondents could verify the accuracy of information gathered.

Dependability refers to the reliability of the data and for this study the researcher ensured dependability through the pre-testing of the data gathering instrument by means of a pilot study. The data was verified through transcription of the interviews and independent member checking for verification of codes and emerging categories. The independent member was chosen on the criteria of his/her familiarity with Technology teacher training in a tertiary institution. After thorough discussion the two coders agreed on 200 of the 215 codes which indicate a 93% agreement and this confirms a high association and agreement between the two coders. Conformability refers to the objectivity of the data and for this study it was ensured through the verification of data and conclusions by an independent member. Direct quotes confirm the information that was gathered.

123

464

J. Pool et al.

Results and discussion Data analysis regarding the nature of pre-service training of Technology teachers enabled the researcher to identify particular shortcomings in pre-service training programmes in South Africa. The results will be discussed according to specific shortcomings that were identified by the participants. Direct quotations of the lecturers are added to clarify and support the findings. Comments that were not in English were translated for clarity. The following shortcomings were identified: insufficient subject knowledge and technological subject skills; limited subject specific pedagogical knowledge, lack of modelling of teaching strategies during facilitation of technology education and limited opportunities for students for self-reflection on own teaching practices Subject knowledge From the empirical study it was clear that there was no consensus regarding the scope and depth of subject knowledge. Data analysis indicated that lecturers differed on the amount and depth of subject knowledge that a pre-service Technology teacher must gain in order to teach Technology effectively. Some lecturers indicate that they use the school curriculum (Revised National Curriculum Statement) (DOE 2003) as criteria while others mention that very little subject knowledge are being conveyed. I would say if you look at the policy documents you will see that the teacher who finishes here can basically teach all the assessment standards. We (lecturers) who train teachers have to bring students up to the National Curriculum Framework level equal to university level and as a result we teach students stuff that they never use. We pump them full of knowledge and try to bring on a too high level. I only have ten two-hour sessions with them. I focus on the procedural knowledge rather than the content knowledge because I believe with intermediate phase the content knowledge, they can pick up. They are post graduates after all. Guidelines and standards for accreditation have been implemented in various international universities over the last 15 years (ITEA 2003a). In South Africa the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) have been implemented and serve as the only national minimum professional standards available for the teaching of Technology on school level. Sadly there is no specific minimum standard available for the training of Technology teachers accept for the National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development which focus only on general teacher training and not specifically for Technology. The RNCS is written for school level and does not meet the demands and criteria for university training. The RNCS is not sufficient to act as minimum criteria for training because the teacher must possess more in-depth knowledge than just the learning outcomes and assessment standards required for school learners. This is a serious shortcoming in current Technology teacher training programmes. Subject specific pedagogical content knowledge Lecturers mention the only PCK which is addressed in training is generic in nature and not subject specific for TE. From the empirical research regarding the nature of Technology

123


465

the conclusion can be made that the training programmes do not equip future Technology teachers with the appropriate subject specific PCK required to teach Technology. According to the literature, the technology teacher should after training be a Technology subject specialist, possessing the required PCK as well as pedagogical subject skills in order to facilitate Technology effectively in the classroom. In two of the institutions, the respondents mentioned that the development of PCK was not specifically addressed during training. Lecturers contribute this shortcoming to the amount of time available to teach the content as well as the manner in which the content must be taught. This is an aspect of great concern because PCK is as already stated a prerequisite for the knowledge base for pre-service Technology teachers. We do not get to it (PCK). It is a big shortcoming in our programme. 10 sessions where you not only have to teach them the subject content but also how to teach the content. So it is a massive burden really. (PCK) is not subject specific. They are getting a lot of PCK from their other subjects so one must be careful not to repeat things. They get it as a generic module in educational studies. Subject specific PCK is important because the pre-service technology teacher must be able to convert specific content of Technology into knowledge that is meaningful for learners. Therefore it is not enough to teach pedagogical content knowledge as a generic module in education modules, as is evident in some training programmes. Some lecturers focused strongly on learning theories in the facilitation of PCK. This is grounded in the assumption that learning doesn’t happen automatically but that learning must be purposeful through the use of learning theories such as constructivism and behaviourism. A person should not think that the transfer of knowledge happens automatically. In methodology of technology we discuss learning theories and how it is related to the policy documents and specifically in technology, to bring these things in context with each other. Although learning theories are important in the acquisition of theoretical content, it is important to take the concept of learning theories further into practice. These learning theories must clearly indicate appropriate teaching strategies for Technology. Subject skills It seems that some lecturers view subject skills as the concrete manual dexterity which is used in the manufacturing of artefacts only, whilst other lecturers are of the opinion that cognitive and metacognitive skills are also important skills throughout all the outcomes for TE. From the data analysis it is clear that lecturers are of the opinion that pre-service Technology teachers after completion of their studies demonstrate insufficient subject skills due to a lack of workshop facilities as well as tools to complete practical work. The large number of students in a single class also seem to be problematic. Development of subject skills is addressed differently at the various institutions. Some institutions focus on design skills, without resulting in an end product, to illustrate the manufacturing process whilst others focus on the planning and organization of workshops,

123

466

J. Pool et al.

skills to handle a variety of tools, knowledge of materials as well as the processing of these materials. The learner tasks applied in Technology are used in a variety of ways to develop technological skills in pre-service Technology teachers. Yes the hands on subject skills are important. The (technological skills) is an absolute void: measuring skills, cutting, manufacturing. They (pre-service Technology teachers) have very little practical skills. It is my biggest worry, the focus on design but not on the manufacturing of products. We have a whole module, Workshop and Workshop Practice. In this module I teach the student when he arrives as school with no workshop how to set it up. Which types of material must be bought, which type of materials ect. And then I teach them how to work with these basic tools, even electrical tools. From the above discussion it is clear that the development of specific subject skills is a serious shortcoming in pre-service training programmes due to a lack of facilities and time. Integration and development of values and attitudes during training From the data analysis it is clear that lecturers are of the opinion that the development of values and attitudes are of great importance in pre-service Technology training and that it should be address but there is a need for further research and development of resources for referencing in this regard. The problem is that there is so little written and research available about that (norms and values) and we need to wait for people to start developing that resources. Yes it is part of education today. So yes the value issue is a very big issue in our curriculum. Analysis of the data further shows that values and attitudes are integrated and facilitated as part of the technological process and projects. One lecturer mention that values and attitudes should form an integral part of design choices and design aspects and that it is important that this aspect must be assessed. It is integrated and an integral part of design choices that students make. We (lecturers) have set up a rubric which we use to assess design choices and the biggest aspect that we assess here is values and attitudes which also closely link with Learning Outcome 3(Technology and society). Values and attitudes should form an important part of training programmes in order for preservice Technology teachers to be informed about the important ethical issues involved in TE. Implementation of teaching strategies Lecturers are of the opinion that more focus should be placed on developing competencies that would enable Technology teachers to use appropriate strategies in their classes. I think what we are trying to focus on now is to sharpen up our own facilitation techniques and to try and bring it in line with what we are expecting from our students. We still have a lot to learn ourselves.

123


467

I think that group work as a teaching strategy is one aspect that should receive more attention. Although all the participants were of the opinion that problem solving and problem based learning were important in the facilitation of Technology, shortcomings were identified concerning the implementation of problem based learning as teaching strategy. Lecturers are unsure about how to structure purposeful problem solving activities, and as a result problems are over-specified so that in effect no creative problem solving actually takes place. There are a lot of misconceptions with regard to problem based learning and problem solving. Nine out of ten times the solution to the problem is pre-determined and involves no actual problem solving. When you pose questions and give ideas you must not have in your mind a particular solution to a problem. Try not to pose questions where you start them thinking about a particular track (solution). Lecturers make use of co-operative learning to a lesser extent than what the literature prescribes for professional development due to the lack of suitable facilities and the perception of lecturers that students must be able to demonstrate knowledge and skills individually. We try to avoid group work because we believe that students must be able to show their work skills and competencies individually. Our main focus is not group work. We do a little bit of group work but much of the work is done individually. One of the participants is of the opinion that in many cases group work is modelled incorrectly to students, and that there are many misconceptions concerning the implementation of group work, including aspects of planning and group dynamics. Group work is not just about letting learners sit around a table and say now let us do group work. When student teachers report back to us they say: it is not at all how they were trained to do group work. Co-operative learning must be well planned, although a lot of lecturers think it is all about sitting around a table and discussing things. There are a lot of things to take into consideration like group dynamics. The role that each person must play. From the qualitative data analysis, it is clear that in many cases lecturers lack the knowledge to implement appropriate teaching strategies to pre-service teachers. Modelling of teaching strategies Although all the participants agreed that the modelling of appropriate teaching strategies to students are important to enable them to practice these in their own classrooms, only one of the participants actually confirmed that appropriate teaching strategies are modelled to preservice teachers during training. This department strongly believes in modelling. We may not cover the curriculum as thoroughly as we like because we realise that we can’t, but the important thing is that we model how you like this to be taught. I believe that you often teach as well as you were taught.

123

468

J. Pool et al.

Opportunities for students for self-reflection on own teaching practices There is not enough opportunity for self reflection on completed tasks during pre-service training of teachers due to lack of time. Micro lessons1 as curriculum component provides opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own practices. Lecturers indicated that micro lessons as curriculum component is not addressed in programmes offered to pre- service technology teachers due to time constraints. According to one lecturer the lack of micro teaching in training programmes can clearly be seen in practice, when their students do their practical teaching at schools. I don’t do any of that (micro teaching). We do a few micro lessons and those that we don’t reach, you can clearly see in practice. You know they have a disadvantage. We try to include micro lessons somewhere, but with time, it does not get so much attention.

Recommendations Based on the findings from the empirical study recommendations were made. The following section of the paper includes recommendations from the literature review as well as the empirical study for the improvement of pre-service Technology teacher training programmes: Recommendations with regard to subject knowledge • Training programmes should train prospective Technology teachers with specialist knowledge. • Standards for pre-service training of Technology teachers have to focus on more indepth knowledge suitable for tertiary education. Recommendations with regard to pedagogical content knowledge • Pedagogical content knowledge should be developed specifically for Technology and must therefore focus on context, the nature of Technology, the nature of Technology training and the nature of learning in Technology. • Suitable teaching strategies based on suitable learning theories must be modelled in the teaching of Technology in in-service training programmes. • Training programmes should provide opportunities for Technology teachers to investigate new knowledge, to expand current knowledge and to integrate existing knowledge through the following activities: • Observation of other pre-service teachers; • Analysis of own teaching practices; • Reflection on own teaching practices.

1

Micro lessons/teaching is organized practice teaching with the purpose to give instructors confidence, support and feedback by letting them try out a short slice of a lesson of what they plan to do with their students (Derek Bok Centre for Teaching and Learning Harvard University 2006).

123


469

• Micro lessons are recommended to develop pedagogical content knowledge on a practical level. Recommendations with regards to subject skills • Training programmes should provide opportunity for technological skills to be developed which will enable pre-service technology teachers to get involved in technological activities where optimal solutions for problems must be found. • Time management and availability of facilities must be revised and adjusted in order to provide facilities and time for practicing of skills, because subject skills can only be developed through practice. Recommendations with regards to teaching strategies • Lecturers should model problem solving with the following criteria in mind: • Problems must not be over- specified; • Problem based learning must be integrated throughout the learning content; and • Project must figure as part of problem based learning. • Lecturers should model co-operative learning with the following in mind: • Training programmes should provide opportunity for problem based and competitive projects which provide opportunity to work co-operatively and thus improve professional development; • Lecturers should possess sufficient knowledge of co-operative learning to structure group work in such a way that students still take responsibility and ownership. • Training programmes should provide sufficient opportunity for pre-service Technology teachers to practise, analyse and reflect on own teaching practices in order to develop appropriate teaching strategies.

Conclusions and implications The unique situation within the South African school system requires an equal unique model for pre-service training of Technology teachers to be able to function effectively in a variety of contexts. When you look critically at the shortcomings in training that have been identified in this study the question can be asked whether the pre-service training programmes are fulfilling the purpose of Technology teacher training. These shortcomings need to be addressed in order to improve Technology teacher training. Specific recommendations have been made with regards to the development of subject knowledge, development of subject specific pedagogical content knowledge, technological subject skills and knowledge of teaching strategies in pre-service training programmes. Acknowledgments This research is based on work financially supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) (Thuthuka-project) in South Africa. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and therefore the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard thereto.

123

470

J. Pool et al.

Appendix See Table 1.

Table 1 Interview schedule Question 1

Do you think that the training you are providing to pre-service teachers is adequate in equipping them with sufficient in-depth knowledge of technology to ensure effective teaching of the subject? Why do you say so?

Question 2

Do you think that the training you are providing to pre-service teachers adequately equips them with the necessary pedagogical content knowledge to facilitate effective classroom practice?

Question 3

Explain how your training programme equips pre-service teachers to design their own curricula and apply lesson plans?

Question 4

Do you think that your training programme equips pre-service teachers with adequate technological skills which are necessary for the effective teaching of the subject? Why do you say so? Explain how the students’ practical skills are developed.

Question 5

Which aspects of your training programme contribute to the development and enhancement of pre-service teachers’ values and attitudes regarding technology

Question 6

Which are the most prominent teaching strategies that you apply in your classroom? Which of these teaching strategies will you regard as essential to model to students in order to prepare them to implement these strategies in their own classrooms?

Question 7

Which role does problem solving as a teaching approach play in your classroom? Can you supply possible examples of such an approach that you have used in your classroom?

Question 8

Which role do projects play in your technology training? Give examples of typical projects that you have given to students to complete.

Question 9

How do you ensure the active participation of your students during the learning process in technology?

Question 10

How do you facilitate the technological process?

Question 11

What would you like to improve in the current programme?

Question 12

If you have suggested improvements to the programme, what prevents you from implementing these improvements?

Question 13

Have you received any feedback from previous students concerning your programme? How did they experience the training they received?

References Anderson, G., & Arsenault, N. (2000). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press. Ankiewicz, P., De Swardt, E., & Engelbrecht, W. (1998). Technology education in South Africa since 1998: A shift from contents (conceptual knowledge) to process-based learning. Paper presented at the PATT 15 technology education and research: Twenty years in retrospect. Baily, C. A. (2005). A guide to qualitative field research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Banks, F. (1996). Developing professional knowledge during initial design and technology teacher education. Journal of design and technology education, 1(2), 175–178. Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E. M., O’Sullivan, G., Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH— Developing professional thinking for technology teachers: An international study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 141–157.

123


471

Barlex, D. (2000). Perspectives on departmental organization and childrens’ learning through the Nuffield design and technology project. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Teaching and learning design and technology (pp. 91–103). London: Continuum. Benson, C. (2000). Ensuring successful curriculum development in primary design and technology. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Teaching and learning design and technology: A guide to recent research and its applications (pp. 1–12). London: Continuum. Bishop, A. J. (2008). Values in mathematics and science education: Similarities and differences. Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(1), 47–58. Burrel, G., & Morgan, G. (2005). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Ashgate. Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Effective professional development for technology teachers. Technology Teacher, 61(3), 26–29. Compton, V. J., & Harwood, C. D. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: an assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 13(1), 1–26. De Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 149–154. Department of Higher Education. (2011). National qualification framework act (67/2008): Policy on the minimum requirements for teacher education qualification. Retrieved from www.sabinetlaw.co.za/ education/newpolicy-teacher-education-qualifications-published-gazette. Derek Bok Centre for Teaching and Learning Harvard University. (2006). What is microteaching. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from Derek Bok Centre for Teaching and Learning: http://isites.harvard.educ/fs/html/ icb.topic58474/microteaching.html. DOE. (2003). Revised national curriculum statement grades R-9 (Schools): Technology: Teachers’ guide for the development of learning programmes. Pretoria: Department of Education. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: SAGE. Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3–15. GSTEP. (2001). Effective teachers framework: Self-assessment for accomplished teaching. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from www.teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/self-assessment.doc. Hattingh, A., & Killen, R. (2003). The promise of problem-based learning for training pre-service technology teachers. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(1), 39–45. Holdsworth, I., & Conway, B. (1999). Investigating values in secondary design and technology education. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(3), 204–214. ITEA. (2003a). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology: Executive summary. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/TAA/TAA.html. ITEA. (2003b). Curriculum guidelines. Reston: International Technology Education Association. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003). Emerging assessment practices in the emergent curriculum: Implications for technology. International Journal For Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 283–305. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 121–140. Lunn, S., Davidson, M., & Murphy, P. (2000). Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problemsolving in D&T. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from www.kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?docu mentfileid=4186. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159. McLaren, S., & Darkers, J. (2003). A curriculum for excellence: review of research literature. Design and technology education, 29(1), 1–9. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Mitcham, C. (1997). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: Chicago press. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89–111. Pavlova, M. (2005). Knowledge and values in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 137–145. Poggenpoel, M., & Myburgh, C. (2004). The researcher as research instrument in education research: A possible threat to trustworthiness. Education, 124(2), 418–422. Prime, G. M. (1993). Values in technology: An approaches to learning. Design and Technology Teaching, 26(1), 30–36.

123

472

J. Pool et al.

Reddy, V., Ankiewicz, P., De Swardt, E., & Gross, G. (2003). The essential features of technology and technology education: A conceptual framework for the development of OBE (outcomes based education) related programmes in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 27–45. Reitsma, G., & Mentz, E. (2009). In-service training for technology teachers: A needs assessment. African Journal of Research in MST Education, 13(2), 15–29. Rekus, J. (1991). Teaching technology with a focus on moral education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1, 41–46. Rohaan, E. J., & Jochems, M. G. (2007). Examining teachers pedagogical content knowledge in primary technology education. Research in science & technology education, 27(3), 327–338. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Walmsley, B. (2003). Partnership-centered learning: The case for pedagogic balance in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 2(14), 56–69. Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: the only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 1–16.

123