Most of the data used to analyse my
teaching practises in the classroom was captured from the videotapes of the
lessons that I presented on the topic. A total number of two topics (Appendix
F) were video-recorded for the purpose of analysing my teaching.
Topic 1 was named “Magnetic field
associated with current carrying wires” and was presented over a period of 2.5
hours and included 4 sub-topics (named L 1.1; L 1.2; L1.3 and L 1.4, where L = Lesson) accompanied by a practical
activity (Appendix G) investigating the magnetic field around a straight
current carrying conductor, a loop wire conductor as well as a solenoid.
Topic 2 was named “Faraday’s Law of
electromagnetic induction” and was presented over a period of 2 hours and
included 3 subtopics (named L 2.1; 2.2 and L 2.3 , where L = Lesson)
accompanied by a practical activity (Appendix G) investigating the effect of a
changing magnetic field on a solenoid.
The lesson plans provides a basic format
for how these lessons were conducted. The videotaped lessons are recordings of
the lessons that were presented on the whole topic of electromagnetism. A total time of 4.5 hours was spent in recording
the two topics over a period of 8 days.
Opie (2004) however, warns against
videotaping too many lessons as it can be very time consuming to process and analyse. On the other hand,
Loughran et al. (2004) suggest that a teacher’s PCK may not be displayed
clearly within the parameters of one lesson as it requires an extended period
of time to unfold in order to make valid and reliable conclusions. The choice,
therefore of videotaping two lessons in 9 teaching periods rather than one or two
teaching periods was meant to broaden the base from which I would gather
sufficient evidence regarding the development of my TSPCK.
Supplementary data sources such as the
lesson plans (Appendix F), practical activities (Appendix G) and formative
assessment tasks (class work and homework exercises) were also used to analyse
my teaching practises as well as my understanding of PCK. Their use in the
analysis varied depending on how they were required to assist in supporting the
evidence that was gathered. In some instances, these data sources were used as
tools for observing and reflecting on the teaching that took place. In other
instances, they were consulted either for verification purposes or as means for
triangulating the findings that emerged from the videotapes.
12.4.2 Analytical framework
Mavhunga’s model of PCK classifies
teacher knowledge into two broad categories called the domains and
manifestations. The four domains include:
i. Knowledge of context
ii. Knowledge of students
iii. Subject matter knowledge
iv. Pedagogical knowledge,
combined, these domains produce PCK.
The transformations refer to any visible
aspects of teacher knowledge which can be observed during classroom practice.
These transformations or also classified as manifestations are:
i. Student’s prior knowledge (including
ii. Curricular Saliency
iii. What is difficult to teach
iv. The use of representations (including
v. Conceptual teaching strategies.
understanding that the domains produces PCK and that the manifestations are the
products of the domains would therefore imply that the domains can also be
regarded as the inputs of PCK and that the manifestations/transformations can
be regarded as the outputs or the product(s) of