SCIENCE TEACHERS VI EWS OF LEARNER CENTE RED EDUCATION IN LESOTHO

Transcription

1 Buffler, A. & Laugksch, R.C. (Eds.) (2004). Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Durban: SAARMSTE. SCIENCE TEACHERS VI EWS OF LEARNER CENTE RED EDUCATION IN LESOTHO BENEDICT KHOBOLI & CLIFF MALCOLM University of Durban Westville, Durban, South Africa ; The study looks at the views and understanding of learner centred education by science teachers in Lesotho after the implementation of the new curriculum. Six teachers were selected to take part in the study and they were later observed teaching science lessons in their schools to determine what teaching approach they used in classrooms. Their lessons were observed and comments made by the six teachers together. The data have shown that teachers are aware of learner centred education and its implication but they have a weak understanding of it, and do not present it strongly in their teaching. INTRODUCTION One function of the secondary inspectorate office in the Lesotho Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is to monitor classrooms and the implementation of Ministry policies. Curriculum policy since 2000 has promoted learner-centred education, but inspectors in science and other learning areas report that it is not happening. To understand the situation and to change teachers practice, a first step is to understand what they currently do, their views on teaching, and their conceptions of learner -centered education. Hence this study was undertaken to work closely with six teachers, observing, reviewing and discussing with them their classroom practices and experimenting with approaches to learner-centered education. In Lesotho, leaner centred education is advocated as a means of catering to individual differences and social diversity, and promoting democratic participation and critical inquiry (MOET 2000). Thus it is responsive to learners lives and needs and builds on their experiences. Malcolm and Keane (2001) argue that learner-centeredness can be thought of at three levels: the relationship between learners and teacher; instructional practices or pedagogy; and curriculum outcomes (see also Brodie, Lelliott and Davis 2002). The relationship between the teacher and the learners is basic: caring for learners, knowing them, believing in their capacity to learn. At the second level, teachers coordinate the interactions of learners with content and context so that they can learn in different ways and link learning to their current knowledge. At the third level, the outcomes of schooling become somewhat localized, addressing student s needs and purposes as well as national goals. Dimmock (2000) argues that learner centred teaching is the highest goal of every teacher or policy maker in the modern school, promoting learning that is lifelong and self -driven. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS The research is based on two theoretical frameworks: social constructivism as a learning theory, and classrooms as places of critical inquiry. Both frameworks are consistent with policies of Education in Lesotho (MOET 2000). Social constructivism is used to look at the ways teachers engage learner-centered education. Critical inquiry is used to examine management, power sharing and the kinds of question that characterize the classroom (Dick 1991). Bodzin (1999) indicates that constructivism is an active process in which an individual constructs knowledge and understanding using personal experiences in an active way. When extending constructivism to include the social part (social constructivism) it recognizes the role that social interactions plays during the process which help individuals and the group to acquire knowledge. Hence knowledge under social constructivism part of a process where by individuals and the group make 474

2 meaning of their interactions with each other and the surroundings. The participants mus t come together in a way of interacting and sharing some experiences. Social constructivism thus emphasizes cultural practices and context in understanding phenomena and constructing knowledge. Learning is a component of the process, and can be facilitated by appropriate guidance and experiences in the classroom. Critical inquiry will be used to look at the management of classroom with the main purpose of analyzing how the teacher and learners work together, looking at the use of learners ideas and experie nces, the ways in which different learning styles and backgrounds are respected and used, participation and power relationships in the classroom. Managing these differences, in the name of effective learning for all, requires self- regulation, concern for others and building of conceptual structures through reflection, discussion and abstraction (Dick 1991). Critical inquiry seeks to establish a critical, intellectual inquiry into knowledge, its legitimation and uses (Giroux 1988). Part of this teaching is applying different strategies/ methods to develop learners who would be able to challenge and rethink their beliefs and perceptions (Sayler 1984). Learner centred education requires power sharing between the teacher and the learners. This power sharing can be at different levels. Following Malcolm and Keanes (2002) levels of learner -centredness, it involves at the first level, encouraging and building on learners ideas and experiences. At the second level, learning methods are used that give learners considerable responsibility for managing their own learning, and learning in different ways. At the third level, learners are given a say not only in how learning occurs, but what is learned, and in critical appraisal of uses of knowledge. Thus, in successiv e levels, power sharing results in learners having ownership of the learning process in deeper ways. At all levels, they are given opportunities to link the content with thei r questions of interest and allowed to shape the lessons (Rankin 2000). All levels require organization / planning and intellectual engagement from the teacher and the learners. These forms of inquiry demand a teacher and learners who interact, with the teacher providing interventions at strategic points, whether as additional informati on, demonstration, discussion or classroom management, and not necessarily providing learners with immediate answers to their questions. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION The study was undertaken with six Physical Science teachers at Form A (Grade 8) level, to explore their practices and beliefs. The study is part of a larger project, whose major phase is action research. The six teachers are representative of school settings, curriculum structures and teaching experiences in the Maseru area. They were selected on the basis of questionnaires administered to twenty prospective participants who demonstrated their interest through workshops at the Maseru Resource Centre. The questionnaires provided information about the teachers backgrounds, schools, a nd teaching methods. Subsequently, meetings with the selected teachers were held, individually and in groups, to discuss their teaching approaches, their understandings of policy and learner -cantered education, and to plan the project. The researcher observed classrooms, using a structured observation schedule. Lessons were also videotaped. As well as providing a base-line for the project, the video recordings were analysed by the researcher and the six teachers, to explore what teachers and learners were d oing in the video and why, and to plan next steps in the project. DATA ANALYSIS The 20 teachers who completed the questionnaire were all qualified science teachers but with different specializations. They were from schools where approximately 96% of them had one or more laboratories in good conditions. The departments in those schools meet regularly to discuss administration of the department, curriculum and teaching approaches. Most importantly the teachers planned together, mainly with teachers at the same level / form. The departments varied in their allocation of science periods per week. The MOET is recommending 6 periods per week for science but not specifying how many periods for biology, chemistry and physics. This has created a situation where some departments are teaching one 475

3 topic from one discipline until it is finished and then proceeding to the next discipline, while other departments have broken down the 6 periods into 2 for chemistry, 2 for biology and 2 for physics in any one week. Hence schools vary in how they teach science. From the 20 teachers who completed the questionnaire, six teachers were selected, because of their particular interests in participating in an action research programme to develop their knowledge and skills in learner-centred education. These six teachers and the researchers formed a team that would work together on the project. The analyses reported here bring together interviews with the six teachers, classroom observations, and analyses of videos of three lessons (whether the teachers own lessons or others). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The three lessons that were videotaped proved to be traditional in structure: the teacher introduced a concept and explained it, a demonstration was presented, learners were invited to touc h or work with the equipment, and teachers asked questions to check whether learners had understood. In two of the lessons, teachers conducted the demonstrations, whereas in the third (presented below) learners worked with stop watches, and selected learners presented the demonstrations of how to use a beam scale. In all three lessons, students were given opportunities to look closely at equipment and handle it. The topics dealt with were electro magnetism, measurement, and senses. One of the lessons is presented below in detail, to illustrate its development and the ways in which learners were involved. The lesson The lesson was conducted in a laboratory that was well resourced compared to most schools in this area. The teacher started the lesson by greeting all learners and allowing them to settle. She stated that today they will be measuring time. However, the opening discussion concerned microscopes: T: What do we use the microscope for? S: To look at small things. T: To look at small things. Right. Th ere are some things that we cannot.. There are some other points of information that we can not get using our sense organs, we need more instruments such as the Ultrasound, telescopes and binoculars. Let us look in to our laboratories, what do we use to measure time? Yes (pointing at one learner). S: time (with low voices) T: Time. S: Watch. T: Watch (repeating twice). Yes (pointing at another learner) S: Minutes. T: (repeating what the learner has just said). What instrument do we use to measure time. One is saying time while the other is saying minutes. S: Watch (all answered in a chorus) T: Have you ever seen a watch like this? (She said holding a stop watch in her hand). Yes (pointing at another learner) S: Yes (some said). No (others said and there was a lot of noise). T: Is this a watch? Yes (pointing at another learner) 476

4 S: No it is not? T: It is not. A stopwatch is used to measure time. The teacher explained afterwards that this part was intended to be the introduction of the lesson. She had begun with the microscope because microscopes had been part of the previous lesson, and she wished to make connections to that lesson. She made little attempt to connect time measurement in any way with learners everyday activities or experiences. In the disc ussion of time, she did not use or encourage learners to critically analyse answers given such as minutes as an instrument. She asked questions to the learners, but tended to overlook answers that indicated poor understanding or misunderstanding. The vie ws of the learners were not challenged to help them to properly understand the concept. After this the teacher gave the 6 tables six stop watches and told them to measure the time she will take to write her name. For most of them this was their first time to use a stopwatch, and they failed to do the activity. She interrupted to explain the different colour coding on the buttons and demonstrate their use. T: The stop clock is used to measure time frame. If you want to know how much it takes for someone to run from one point to another, you can use a stop clock, rather than using a watch because a watch is moving continuously but the stop clock can be started at the beginning of the action and stopped at the end. We use it for measuring time frame, time need ed for a particular action. I hope all of you know the common watch that we use every day? S: Yes Madame (All said). T: How many minutes make one hour? S: 60 minutes (all said) T: What time is it now? S: (noise). T: Yes (pointing at another learner) S: 11:45 T: We are going to measure time. From here the learners are given an oral activity where they were to use the stop clock to measure the time taken to write their names and the time taken to answer a question asked by one member of the group. This suitable and challenging activity could have been designed to allow learners to explore how to use the stop watch but here they were given a very short task while still struggling with pressing the right buttons and their own reaction times. While the learners were working, without any prior discussion, groups were provided with triple beam scales. The teacher interrupted the class to ask who knew how to use a beam scale. Two students who did know were asked to demonstrate to the rest of the class. The learners worked with the clocks and the beam scales until the time for the lesson expired. During the activity phase, the teacher visited three of the six groups, mainly to demonstrate use of the instruments. There was no closing discussion. Throughout the lesson the teacher did not call any of the learners by name and kept a distance between her and them. Discussion of the videos The other five teachers after watching the video of this lesson, said: The approach used was mostly learner centred since most of the time students were able to handle the instruments when measuring time and mass 477

5 The teachers felt that the lesson was learner centred because the learners were allowed to work freely with equipment, and had participated in the questioning sessions. However, they were critical of the lesson: There was not reflection of rapport between the teacher and the learners since the lesson was more of teacher asks and learners answer type Teachers recognized the need for level one of learner centred education (Malcolm and Keane, 2002), which is characterised by interrelationships that reflect caring and support between learners and the teacher. They went further to argue that the lesson was largely a teacher -ask and learners-answer type that did not fit well with level two where the instructional practice supports different learning approaches and the construction of knowledge and skills. At the same time, they were aware that the stop clock activity gave the learners freedom to practise using the watch and to decide what they wanted to measure. Poor class management, students were making a lot of noise and the teacher said nothing to stop this behaviour. There was a lot of chorus responses from learners and the teacher allowed it continuously happen This shows a concern from teachers about the management and relationship between teacher and learners in the classrooms. They felt that the teacher had not been well prepared, in that logical steps were jumped, and learners often seemed unclear about what they should be doing or why. And they were concerned about noise and control rather than the management of learning and individual differences. DISCUSSION The other lessons videotaped were not greatly dissimilar to this one. While the teachers who presented the lessons felt in interview that the children had generally understood the lessons correctly, when they and their colleagues observed the video, as a group they identified problems in the logic of the lesson (similar to the one highlighted above) and lea rners who had not understood. The teaching approaches adopted did not illustrate social constructivism since the teachers were telling the learners answers and not encouraging them to engage in the process of constructing knowledge. Teachers differed considerably on their judgments about the extent to which lessons were teacher -centred. Four said the lessons were mostly teacher centred since the teacher was talking most of the time and learners only talking to answer the teacher while two felt the lessons were learner centred due because learners participated and handled equipment. In terms of power-sharing, all teachers were aware that the teachers dominated the lessons, usually doing the talking and directing the agenda. Critical inquiry was seldom evid ent: learning was essentially individualistic, aimed at transmission of ideas. CONCLUDING REMARKS The study shows that these teachers have limited conceptions of learner centred education. They see learner centred education as characterized by touching science equipment and learners being able to answer questions as asked by the teacher. In terms of Malcolm and Keanes levels of learner -centredness, they express even level 1 only poorly, in that they do not seem to know individuals in the class very well, nor demonstrate particular care for the children and their learning and provide for individualized learning. In all cases teachers hardly reached levels 2 and 3 at all. Their views of learner-centred education have persisted in spite of policy documents a nd related workshops conducted over a two-year period. However, by now working together in reading, reviewing their classrooms on video, discussing and experimenting, allowing their collogues to visit their lessons, they are beginning to see new options, and their positions of understanding and using learner centered education are shifting. 478

6 REFERENCES Bodzin, A.M. (1999). An online inquiry instructional system for science education. North Caroline State University. Retrieved from Brodie, K., Lelliott, T. & Davis, H. (2002). Developing learner centered practices through the FDE programme. In J. Adler and Y. Reed (Eds.), Challenges of teacher development. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer s view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(5). Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learner centred school - A cultural perspective. Great Britain: Falmer Press. Giroux, H.A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mackinnon, A. & Scarff-Seater, C. (1997). Constructivism: Contractions and confusions in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understanding. Great Britain: Falmer Press. Malcolm, C. (1998). Making Curriculum 2005 work. RADMASTE Centre, University of the Witwatersrand. Malcolm, C. & Keane, M. (2001). Working scientifically in learner centred ways. Paper presented at the 6th International History and Philosophy of Science and Teaching Conference, Denver, USA, 7-10 November Ministry of Education and Training. (2000). The Junior Science Syllabus. Maseru, Lesotho: Government Printers. Rankin, L. (2000). Lessons learned: Addressing common misconceptions about i nquiry. Retrieved from Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understanding. Great Britain: Falmer Press. Seyler, D.U. (1984). Critical inquiry. Retrieved from 479