Exploring the Relationship between Technology Teachers Orientations towards Teaching and their Associated
Professional Life Phases
Andrew Doyle University of Limerick
andrew.doyle@ul.ie
Dr Niall Seery University of Limerick
niall.seery@ul.ie
Dr Donal Canty University of Limerick
donal.canty@ul.ie
Abstract
It is widely agreed that developed pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a knowledge base unique to teachers. Therefore, the successful development of a teacher can be evaluated in terms of an evolved PCK. However, research has shown that teachers in later professional life phases (PLP’s) are at a greater risk of being less effective (Day & Gu, 2007). Given that the rational and grade point-orientated nature of the Irish education system hinders the development of an integrated pedagogy (Commission on the Points System, 1999; Hennessy, Hinchion, & Mcnamara, 2011), this paper explores the relationship between technology teachers’ PLP and their orientations towards teaching as a critical construct of PCK.
The study cohort consisted of practicing technology teachers (n=9) ranging in experience from 4 to 31 years of classroom practice. An interpretive research methodology was employed whereby participants were involved in semi-structured interviews focused on eliciting an understanding of participants’ knowledge and beliefs around the purposes and goals of teaching technology. The findings suggest that technology teachers’ orientation towards teaching varies as teachers’ progress through their teaching career. It emerged that participants in earlier PLP’s are more likely to display a pupil-centred orientation towards teaching whereas teachers in later PLP’s are inclined to adopt transmission pedagogies suggesting a teacher-centred orientation towards teaching.
Keywords
Technology education, pedagogical content knowledge, professional life phases
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a theoretical construct first introduced by Shulman (1986, p.9) as a way of describing the “particular form of content knowledge that embodies the aspects of content most germane to its teachability”. This comprises of ways to represent and formulate a subject to make it comprehensible to others. The academic construct of PCK is recognition that teaching is not simply the transmission of concepts and skills from teacher to students but rather a complex and problematic activity that requires many and varied “on the spot” decisions and responses to students ongoing learning needs (Williams, Eames, Hume, & Lockley, 2012, p.328). Since its inception in the mid-eighties, PCK has garnered much attention, however, as a construct it has proven difficult to define with several hypothesis having been put forward (e.g. Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991; Grossman, 1990; Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2008; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). The interconnections that PCK shares with other areas of knowledge such as general pedagogical knowledge or subject- matter knowledge, and the absence of a universally accepted conceptualisation of PCK has
led to a debate on the nature of PCK. Some researchers view PCK as an integrative knowledge category, void of any unique knowledge form, instead resulting from the amalgamation of other knowledge categories with a particular inner knowledge (Gess- Newsome, 1999). Conversely, PCK is viewed as a separate category of knowledge with its own unique identifiers (Magnusson et al., 1999), and PCK is viewed as a transformation of knowledge from other knowledge categories.
Orientations towards Teaching
Despite the many conceptions of PCK, certain constructs have emerged consistently amongst researchers as being central to PCK (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). Constructs such as knowledge of subject matter (Cochran et al., 1991; Marks, 1990), knowledge of student learning and conceptions (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), and knowledge of general pedagogy (Grossman, 1990; Marks, 1990) have all emerged as constructs of PCK. However, the consistent emergence of the construct of orientations towards teaching (Anderson &
Smith, 1987; Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park & Chen, 2012) suggests the importance of this construct in shaping teachers’ approach to teaching and learning. Referring to teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals of teaching a subject, the magnitude of this construct is that knowledge and beliefs serve as a conceptual map (Magnusson et al., 1999) that guide instructional decisions about issues such as daily objectives, the content of student assignments, the use of textbooks and other curricular materials, and the evaluation of student learning (Borko & Putnam, 1996).
In a recent review of literature investigating science teacher orientations, Friedrichsen, van Driel, and Abell (2011) highlighted concerns with prevailing practices in the research community. Four issues were outlined; (1) the use of the term orientations in different or unclear ways, (2) an unclear or absent relationship between orientations and other model components, (3) assigning teachers to one of the nine orientations outlined by Magnusson et al. (1999), and (4) ignoring the overarching orientations component. A number of precautions were taken in the planning and data analysis stages of this research to ensure that the issues identified by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) were not replicated. Firstly, Friedrichsen et al. (2011) highlighted the inappropriateness of simplistically labelling teachers with one of the nine orientations outlined by Magnusson et al. (1999), citing a lack of empirical grounding to support each orientation. To alleviate this issue, teachers learning activities in this study were not pigeonholed into a set of orientations. An inductive approach to data analysis allowed a more holistic understanding of teachers’ orientations to be captured (Issue 3 & 4). The interrelationships between orientations and other model components was not of issue to this research as solely orientations were investigated from the perspective of their influential position within PCK development (Issue 2). Finally, it is important to define exactly what we mean by the term orientations towards teaching technology (Issue 1). Although PCK is rather unexplored in technology education, extensive research has been undertaken in science education. As science and technology are strongly interrelated subjects, concepts in both fields are expected to be interchangeable to a large extent (Rohaan, Taconis, & Jochems, 2009). With this view we take inspiration from Friedrichsen et al. (2011) and Magnusson et al.
(1999) in describing orientations towards teaching technology as; beliefs about the goals or purposes of technology and beliefs about teaching and learning in technology education.
Study Focus
Succeeding Shulman's (1986) introduction to the concept of PCK, many researchers have come to believe that PCK not only exists but contributes to effective teaching, student learning and in turn that high levels of PCK will predict high levels of student achievement (Abell, 2008).
This study aimed to investigate teachers’ orientations towards teaching from two perspectives.
The first was to investigate teachers’ orientations across the spectrum of post-primary education. The second was to typify technology teachers in the context of career progression, aligning teachers from different professional life phases (PLP’s, Day & Gu, 2007), working from the assumption that the PCK of teachers in later PLP’s should be more evolved. In both
contexts, the study focused on identifying common patterns across the knowledge development of different teachers (Borowski et al., 2011; Verloop, van Driel, & Meijer, 2001).
Method
The study cohort consisted of practicing technology teachers (n=9) working at 7 different schools encompassing a wide demographic variation. The inclusion criterion was for all participants to be qualified technology teachers, teaching at both lower and higher level post- primary education at the time the study was conducted. Their teaching experience ranged from 4 to 31 years, their mean experience was 16.3 years with a standard deviation of 9.6.
Participants ranged in age from 26 to 53 years, their mean age was 38.6 with a standard deviation of 9.6.
To elicit a holistic understanding of participants’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals of teaching technology, an interpretive research methodology (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007) was adopted. To prevent capturing highly contextualised data a cross- sectional study spanning the five years of post-primary education was used. A semi-structured interview was used as the sole research tool. The interviews were open ended with the goal of gaining understanding of participants’ knowledge and beliefs around the purposes and goals of technology education. Interview questions were designed to encourage participants to lead discussion, enabling reflection on teaching technology. In addition to scripted questions, probing questions (Cohen et al., 2007) were used to further encourage participants to explain the thinking that influenced their pedagogical decision making.
Data analysis was implemented in three phases. The first phase in analysing data involved a discursive analysis of participants’ orientations towards teaching technology. Taking cognisance of Friedrichsen et al.'s (2011) statements, an inductive approach to data analysis was adopted for phase one, whereby each participant’s orientation towards teaching was categorised into a simple coding system. As advocated by Strauss & Corbin (1998), the coding system was used to identify commonalities and variations in teachers’ orientation towards teaching technology. The second phase of analysis involved categorising the results from the discourse analysis into the five years of compulsory schooling. This stage was executed exclusive of participant demographic information, allowing a holistic view of teachers’
orientations to be identified as pupil’s progress through post-primary technology education.
The final phase of data analysis involved realigning the analysed data from phase one with participants’ teaching experience to categorise participants into their professional life phases (Day & Gu, 2007).
Findings
The inductive data analysis identified three empirically different orientations towards teaching;
teacher-centred orientation, pupil-centred orientation and learning community-centred orientation. A breakdown of participants’ orientations as evident from the discourse analysis of their pedagogical approaches is shown in Table 1. It is clear that the majority of pedagogies reflect a teacher-centred orientation towards teaching technology with 60% of all learning activities discussed deemed teacher-centred, irrespective of professional life phase.
Qualitative examples from interviews with teachers that reflected a teacher-centred orientation towards teaching include:
We look at the booklets of previous years and we look at the sections that have to be done and we try and go through the design process and the five sections to be completed, starting off at Analysis of Design Brief and they will underline the keywords and discuss it and then they will move onto Investigation and Research … so then they refine that into a working drawing and the working drawing has to include measurements and details of the joints and so on. The next section is the Manufacture of chosen solution so they take photographs of that as the work progresses and finally then you have the Evaluation. (Participant 7)
I suppose at the start of third year, in September-October, before they even get the brief I would be going through refreshing their minds on the design process, I really go through the design process. For me that would be the main thing, instead of actually students coming up with a sketch and making the project I would actually go through the proper steps ... what I feel are the proper steps. (Participant 5)
The above examples reflect the teacher-centred orientation adopted in 60% of the activities discussed. For these activities, participants typically presented structured information about the activity, generally through a presentation or working drawings. The teacher-centred approach was also reflected in the grading criteria with many developing marking schemes, which awarded individual marks for getting specific elements of an activity ‘correct’, irrespective of a pupils approach or level of cognition. The following examples represent teachers’ pedagogies that reflect a pupil-centred orientation towards teaching:
We are going to pick a small wooden object for use in the home, footstool, small stool for sitting on, something for relaxing on, that type of thing. I give them a brief and I will give them an overall measurement, maximum 400 [mm] long and we'll go from there
… we take a stool, just an ordinary classroom stool, I get one kid to sit on one and I get him to put his feet up on the other one, and ask him how they feel. They will all complain because their legs are so high, so we get out the measuring tape and we slowly drop the legs down and we get a comfortable height. (Participant 3)
The dimensions they have to figure out at home ... so again we worked out what are the sizes ... what makes it stable, what makes it stand ... they'd go home and measure the sizes of lamps that they were going to use and lampshade because they'd have it with a lampshade. They made it out of cardboard, again that made a model and kind of what made it off of balance. So they figured out the sizes, then we came up with three ranges of the heights here and about three ranges of the base here so they could put them together based on what they wanted themselves. (Participant 9)
The pedagogical approach adopted by participants 3 and 9 allowed a certain level of personal input from pupils, as well as having multiple outcomes. Pedagogies associated with this approach were constructivist in nature, typically consisting of a dialogue between teacher and pupils. This dialectic occurred in a variety of ways, individually, as a group or as a class as a whole. Finally, the following example highlights an excerpt from the data deemed to reflect a learning community-centred orientation towards teaching, exhibited by a single teacher from the participating cohort:
You show them a video of a car that I would have made back in the day, going across a bench and you show how it works. They'll see in the video, how this thing is actually working with the mousetrap and how it powers the car. Similar kind of idea, you get them to work in groups or in pairs … I work with the basic objects, how they could get the car powered, if they were to use pieces of timber or all the apparatus I give to them.
Once they come up with a tangible or a solid solution then they'll go ahead into making that. (Participant 1)
Table 1: Teachers' Orientation towards Teaching Technology Year
Group Teacher-Centred Pupil-Centred Learning
Community-Centred
Participant 1
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 2
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 3
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 4
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 5
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 6
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 7
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 8
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
Participant 9
1st X
2nd X
3rd X
5th X
6th X
4th Year is an optional, one year programme offered by 75% of Irish post-primary schools. Due to the lack of a nationally structured curriculum, 4th Year was not included in this study.
The results from the second phase of data analysis are displayed in Figure 1. As previously stated, this analysis was carried out exclusive of participant demographical information, allowing a cross-sectional view of post-primary education. It was found that teacher-centred orientations were most prevalent in the first, third and sixth year of schooling, aligning with the summative assessment at the end of third and sixth years of school. The benefits of fostering a reductionist approach to teaching were outlined by a number of teachers, in particular when discussing learning activities undertaken in examination years.
Figure 1: Orientations towards Teaching - Year of Study
The final stage of data analysis involved realigning participants’ orientations towards teaching with PLP’s. In an effort to identify common patterns across the development of technology teachers, mean scores were calculated for each PLP. Figure 2 shows that only teachers in the second PLP displayed a learning community-centred orientation towards teaching.
Participants from the final four PLP’s primarily espoused teacher-centred orientations towards teaching, ranging from 60% to 80% of learning activities analysed.
Figure 2: Orientations towards Teaching - Professional Life Phase
Discussion
The minority of learning community-centred activities undertaken in examination years in tandem with an over-reliance on didactic teacher-centred activities suggests that the terminal examinations are influencing teachers’ orientations towards teaching. Pre-eminent to participants’ selection of pedagogies were the influences of terminal assessment as the focus of the third and sixth years of study was the development of technical competencies and leading pupils through the design process as prescribed by the syllabus. The weakness of such models is that they suggest that pupils are not engaged in designing unless they undergo
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 5th Year 6th Year
Percentage of learning activities undertaken
Year of Study
Teacher-Centred Pupil-Centred Learning Community-Centred
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 - 3 years 4 - 7 years 8 - 15 years 16 - 23 years 23 - 30 years 31 + years
Percentage of learning activities undertaken
Professional Life Phase
Teacher-Centred Pupil-Centred Learning Community-Centred
and demonstrate each of the stipulated stages of the process (Atkinson, 1994). Predictability of terminal examination questions offered teachers the convenience of adopting a reductionist approach to teaching the subject. Jones and Moreland (2003) indicate that such an approach is representative of underdeveloped PCK as teachers are reluctant to forge links between the different characteristics of the subject. Superficial compliance in the selective teaching of syllabus content, focusing exclusively on the assessed curriculum, illustrates a lack of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) between the intended learning outcomes and classroom practice. Although participants acknowledge the importance of developing technological capability, the advantages of working solely within the remit of examinable material influences their orientation towards teaching, thus, rendering the development of technological capability a largely utopian aspiration.
Conclusion
It is clear that technology teachers face challenges in terms of pedagogical aspirations and the reality of classroom practice. Within this conceptual tug of war, the prominence of teacher- centred orientations displayed by teachers in latter PLP’s illustrates that teachers’ orientations towards teaching vary as their career progresses. Porter (2006) states that a knowledge of the assessed curriculum is paramount as pupil achievement is solely measured by the content assessed, accordingly participants in this study are allowing the nature of the assessed curriculum to dictate their orientation towards teaching and in turn, their selection of pedagogies. As evidenced by teachers in this study, a teacher-centred orientation towards teaching technology is the most rewarding in terms of pupil achievement, as pedagogies aligned with such an orientation are effective in preparing pupils for terminal examinations. As long as the assessment system is perceived by teachers to be a means of accountability, teachers will be reluctant to take the risk of abandoning dependable pedagogies.
Limitations & Future Work
Measuring any construct on PCK is a complex process and any teacher evaluation based on a singular data point should be interpreted with caution. When attempting to comprehensively deconstruct, analyse and measure any complex concept in technology education, including PCK, a more robust system must be in place including content assessment, multiple observations and interviews over time. Few studies have addressed the contention that teachers with strong PCK are more likely to increase student achievement (Abell, 2008;
Borowski et al., 2011). It is intended that future work will examine teachers at different career stages, inclusive of student achievement results to further unpack the relationship between PCK and PLP’s.
References
Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416.
Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching Science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook - a research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York: Longman.
Atkinson, S. E. (1994). Key factors which affect pupils’ performance in technology project work. In J. S. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 1994 (pp. 30–37). Loughborough, UK: Design and Technology: Loughborough University.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. (4th ed.). Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to Teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 273–708). New York: MacMillan.
Borowski, A., Carlson, J., Fischer, H. E., Henze, I., Gess-Newsome, J., Kirschner, S., & van Driel, J. (2011). Different Models and Methods To Measure Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).
Indianapolis.
Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
Tentative Model for Teacher Preparation. In American Educational Research Association (pp. 2–23).
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Commission on the Points System. (1999). Final Report and Recommendations. Dublin, Ireland.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443.
Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a Closer Look at Science Teaching Orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358–376.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Subject Matter andtheir Impact on Instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hennessy, J., Hinchion, C., & Mcnamara, P. M. (2011). “The points, the points, the points”:
Exploring the impact of performance oriented education on the espoused values of Senior Cycle poetry teachers in Ireland. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 181–198.
Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003). Considering pedagogical content knowledge in the context of research on teaching: An example from technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 9, 77–89.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teacher Education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–
1320.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, Sources and Development of Pedaogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 96–132). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: From a Mathematical Case to a Modified Conception. Journal of Teacher Edcuation, 41(3), 3–11.
Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping Out the Integration of the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Examples from High School Biology Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.
Porter, A. (2006). Curriculum Assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & E. L. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141–159). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2009). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in primary technology education. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 27(3), 327–338.
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), 1–23.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
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.
Verloop, N., van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.
Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343.
