EVALUATING THE TEACHING DIFFICULTIES OF A PHYSICS TOPIC USING THE

CLASSROOM PRACTICE DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK (CPDF): A FOCUS ON

CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS AND DISCOURSE

Awelani V. Mudau
Dept. of Sci. and Tech. Education, University of South Africa
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
This paper report on a qualitative case study conducted in the Johannesburg district of education.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the teaching difficulties of a physics topic using the
classroom practice diagnostic framework (CPDF) with a focus on classroom interactions and
discourse. One participant who perceived projectile motion topic to be difficult to teach was
interviewed and observed teaching the topic. The result from this participant show that the kinds
of interactions and discourse were the following; Type and pattern of discourse which was IRF
and Authoritative discourse; Teacher questioning which was for Lesson development and
Evaluation; Communicative approach which was Interactive-Authoritative. This kind of
interactions and discourse do not advance opportunities for students to make meaningful learning
of the topic projectile motion. It is also suggested that there is a need for further research with
more teachers to derive a broad and holistic view of the teaching difficulties emanating from
classroom interactions and discourse in the teaching of physics topics.

Keywords: interactive, discourse, teaching difficulties, physics

1. Introduction
McDermott (2006) advocates that teachers need to understand the topics they are going to teach
at a deeper level. This is so because having taught a particular physics topic does not necessarily
improve the comprehension of that topic. Besides, she indicates that many teachers lack an
understanding of very basic concepts in physics. These assertions are applicable to the South
African teacher. Many of the teachers were trained in the former colleges of education and as
such have limited content knowledge (Rollnick et al., 2008). They were not taught such that they
have a deeper understanding of what they were going to teach.

Teachers usually think that the ability to solve quantitative problems is an indication of good
mastery of the subject matter. According to McDermott (2006) it is not an indication of strong
command of concepts and representational skills. Emphasis should be on reasoning required in
the development and application of concepts (McDermott, 2001 and 2006). To avert the
challenges in the teaching of physics many higher institutions of education (HEI) in South Africa
adopted a system wherein pre-service students are taught physics content in the physics
591
department or by lecturers who are knowledgeable in the physics content. Hence, the DoE (2006)
emphasized the need for teachers to further their studies in physical science content. In-service
training for CTPD was also instituted to enhance deeper understanding of the science topics.
However, the in-service trainings organised for teachers mostly focus on enhancing the content
knowledge of the topics to be taught at high school. There is little or no focus in helping the
teacher to know how we know and what we know to make science meaningful to students
(McDermott, 2006). Moreover, according to Scott (1998) it is not only the activities that physical
science teachers bring to the classroom to facilitate learning that make students learn but teacher-
student talk around the activities and the subject matter also influences learning.

So, Physics can be challenging to teach depending either on how the teacher teaches it, how he
was prepared, how he is in serviced or because of the nature of the content itself. However,
Gunstone et al. (2009) indicate that a teacher with a more informed view of learning tends to
appreciate the teaching difficulties of a topic and uses the kind of discourse and interactions with
students that facilitate meaningful learning. A point also emphasised by McDermott (2006) when
she said that a teacher with a deeper and broader content knowledge and PCK should help
students to learn meaningfully. On the other hand, Rollnick et al. (2008:1382) indicate that “it is
only when difficulties are known to exist that teaching difficulties may be fully explored and
understood”. Consequently, this paper presents the teaching difficulties of the topic projectile
motion which is perceived to be difficult to teach by some teachers with a focus on interactions
and discourse in the classroom. Hence, the investigative question was; what are the teaching
difficulties in the teaching of the projectile motion topic with a focus on interactions and
dicousre?

Due to the nature of the subject, difficulty in teaching can happen when teachers fail to make the
means to achieve the end. In science teaching means to an end refers to achievement by students,
meaningful learning, developing inquiry skills and problem solving skills in students (Abd-El-
Khalick & Akerson, 2009). In this study difficulty meant not being able to advance or do
something with lost hopefulness. Therefore, teaching difficulty is the teacher’s classroom
practices which did not advance meaningful learning, misconception dissonance, development of
inquiry and problem solving skills which influence student achievement.

2. Interactions and discourse in the science classroom

Interactions and discourse in the science classroom between the teacher and students is
fundamental to learning because it is central to the meaning making process (Mortimer & Scott,
2003). Meaning making which is a dialogic process (Scott, 1998) occurs in three phases, the
social plane where the teacher presents the new content, the internalisation process where the
teacher helps students to make sense of the new content, and the application of the new content.
In a dialogic process the appropriate speech genre needs to be used. Thus there is a difference
between the everyday social language and the social language of school science. So a science
592
teacher cannot present the content as if it is obvious because students bring ideas of how things
are from their ontological perspectives. In the classroom the teacher explains the concepts
differently to the way students may have understood them. The teaching of science can be
difficult or effective, stemming from the kind of discourse the teacher uses.

Language and discourse are co-dependent. That is, they rely on each other for developing
understanding and scientific knowledge. Furthermore, he indicates that language is used to create
discourse. Language can also be a gate keeper or a bridge to a science discourse. This point is
also emphasised by Reis and Ng-A-Fook (2010), who posit that language is a limiting factor as it
is affected by social contexts. Language does not only affect the discourse in the science
classroom but can be a barrier to learning. Teachers must have an understanding of the different
ways that language shapes discourse. This point is further emphasised by Lee (2005), who
indicates that teachers need to have the knowledge of the linguistic abilities of their students to
enhance meaningful learning.

3. Theoretical framework
The classroom practice diagnostic framework (CPDF, figure 1) was used as the lenses to
evaluate the teaching difficulties of a physics topic with a focus on classroom interactions and
discourse.

Figure 1: The Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework (CPDF)

593
In the classroom interaction and discourse frame; the emphasis was on the types and patterns of
discourse, communicative approach and teacher questioning. Types of discourses comprised the
authoritative, dialogic and reflective discourses. Some of the actions or activities are spontaneous
[this part is accommodated in the link (a) between A and C]. The analysis or diagnosis of
teaching difficulties focuses mainly on what happens in frame. The three types of science
classroom discourse namely authoritative, dialogic and reflective discourse as expounded by
Chin (2006) and Mortimer and Scott (2003) are discussed next

Authoritative discourse is based on one voice, has a fixed intent and outcome and “student
utterances are often given in response to teacher questions”, whilst dialogic discourse involves
many voices and flexible intent and outcome (Chin, 2006:1317). In an authoritative discourse the
teacher conveys information and his utterances are often made up of instructional questions and
factual statements, whilst dialogic discourse encourages debates and challenges (Chin, 2006). An
alternation between the authoritative and dialogic discourse is desirable for the development of
conceptual thinking (Chin, 2006). In reflective discourse teachers use a process of negotiation of
alternative ideas rather than transmission or confrontation to assist students in understanding the
concepts (Chin, 2006).

The communicative approach focuses on ways in which the teacher works with the students to
address ideas and concepts. There are four classes of communicative approach, namely
interactive/authoritative, interactive/dialogic, non-interactive/dialogic and non-
interactive/authoritative (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). According to Chin (2006), in an
interactive/authoritative communicative approach the teacher invites responses but discounts
them if they are incorrect as the teacher focuses only on correct answers. The teacher uses a
series of questions and answers to reach a specific viewpoint. In contrast, in the
interactive/dialogic approach students’ views are taken into account even though they may be
alternative to the accepted scientific meaning. Chin (2006) also indicates that the non-
interactive/authoritative approach is best represented by the formal lecture, where ideas are
presented in a monologue. In a non-interactive/dialogic approach the teacher does not invite
other points of view from the students but in his/her teaching makes statements that also address
other points of views in addition to the formal ones (Chin, 2006).

In school science discourse teacher questioning is prominent (Chin, 2006). For the purposes of
this study two kinds of teacher questions are explained. In traditional lessons the purpose of
questions is for evaluation of what students know and in constructivist based or inquiry
orientated lessons teachers use questions to help students construct understanding and /or
generate meaning. Thus teachers use questioning “to diagnose, and extend students’ ideas and
scaffold students’ thinking” (Chin, 2006: 1319). It follows then that using questions for

594
evaluation is related to an authoritative discourse whilst using questions to generate meaning is
related to dialogic and reflective discourse.

The framework was used to diagnose how the teacher supported the meaning making process
(Leach & Scott, 2003 and Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The focus was on the kind of the
communicative approach and discourse the teacher used in the social plane wherein s/he
introduced the new subject matter knowledge. This was based on the notion that knowledge is
constructed during social interaction (Carr et al., 2004; Lemke, 2001; Kim, 2001 and Davydov,
1995). Furthermore, the framework was used as a basis to diagnose how the teacher’s classroom
interactions and discourse facilitated internalisation of the subject matter knowledge by the
students. This was so because according to Vygotsky (1978: 128) “the process of internalisation
is where individuals appropriate and become able to use for themselves conceptual tools first
encountered on the social plane”. So it is the role of the students to internalise the new
knowledge (Leach & Scott, 2003) and for teachers to support the process.

The final phase in the process of meaning making is the application phase. So the framework
was used as the reference point to diagnose the kinds of interactions and discourse the teacher
used to create opportunities for students to answer questions, solve problems and discuss the
knowledge (Hausfather, 2001) to reinforce knowledge development. This was so because
according to Nola (1997: 59) “only when they can go through the steps of reasoning by
themselves and thereby make fully explicit to themselves the reasons for the answer will they
have knowledge”. The framework was also used to diagnose the kinds of interactions and
discourse the teacher used to promote the development of inquiry and problem solving skills.

4. Methodology
This qualitative case study research was underpinned by the interpretive research paradigm.
Hence, even though the analysis of data and inferences was embedded on what the teacher
pronounced in the interviews and observations only, the researcher’s experiences of teaching
projectile motion, attendance at workshops and cluster meetings and marking NSC examinations
also influenced the resultant interpretations of the analysis and inferences. The research focused
on one teacher from a cluster in the Johannesburg district of education in South Africa who
perceived projectile motion to be difficult to teach. The teacher was interviewed prior to the
teaching of the topic and after teaching the topic. He was also observed whilst teaching the topic.
Data was presented in tabular format wherein themes which were derived inductively were used
to organise data. The tables contained raw data from interviews and observations. Only instances
that would relate to interactions and discourse were included. The interpretation of data for
meaning was reached by two processes (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995) namely: direct
interpretations of the individual instances and/or aggregation of instances where in an
interpretation was reached after aggregating instances.

595
 5. Results and discussion
Table 1 contains the characteristics of the theme classroom interaction and discourse. The focus
was on the type and pattern of discourse demonstrated by the teacher, the purpose of his
questions as well as the nature of his communicative approach.

Table 1: Classroom interactions and discourse (Mr M)

Theme Category Characteristics
 Mr M when you start to engage learners (students) and
say can you write the answer on the chalkboard it shows
that now what they are doing they understand [dialogic]
 (student answered the first question, velocity and
acceleration are always in the same direction)
 First student: it is true (response)
 Mr M: why is it false? (initiation, instructional
question)
 First student: because velocity and acceleration are not
always in the same direction (response)
 Mr M: is it always the case? (initiation, instructional
question)
 First student (does not reply) [no feedback]
 Second student: it is true and it can also be false…it
depends… (response, incorrect)
 Mr M: it cannot be true (response, conveys
information, Authoritative)
 Third student: it is true because the object is coming
Type and
down (response, incorrect)
pattern of
 Mr M: you don’t read and understand the question
discourse
(authoritative)
 Mr M the answer is false (feedback, factual statement)
Classroom
Interaction  Mr M: which formula can we use? (lesson
s and development, instructional question)
discourse  Mr M: what is the value of a? (lesson development,
instructional question)
 Mr M: what is the initial velocity? (lesson
development)
 Student: sir I solved the problem using a different
formula which means there are other ways of solving
the problem
596
 Theme Category Characteristics
 Mr M: show us what you did [evaluation]
 Student: solved the problem using the formula ½ (vf-
vi) t + vit and got the same answer as the teacher’s
(incorrect formula)
 Mr M: where did you get the formula? (evaluation)
 Student: there are many textbooks Sir (response)
 Mr M: in the exam they check the formula and if it is
incorrect you will lose marks (conveys information)
 Student: where will we get the formula?(initiation)
 Mr M: there is a formula sheet…(response)
 Students: but not the area one…
 Mr M: you are taught these formulas in the
Mathematics class… (students) but we were not taught,
we are seeing them for the first time [conveys
information, prior knowledge assumption]
 Student still insist that if his answer is correct the
formula is correct)
 Mr M: so you are still defending it… if you still have
an argument about the equation lets meet each other
later (authoritative discourse)
Teacher
questioning

 (Mr M solved the problem, interactive but

authoritative)
 Mr M: the graph is positive because we are having a
straight line [ISMK]
Communic  Student: is it always the case that if the object is
ative moving downwards that direction is positive?
approach (interaction)
 Mr M: what is the use of making the direction negative
if they are in the same direction (acceleration and
velocity) you cannot say the direction towards the
ground is negative (Authoritative, dismissive)

Mr M had begun his lessons by asking questions and students responded to these questions.
However, the kind of feedback he provided was one dimensional in the sense that only that

597
which was correct was emphasised and incorrect responses were not interrogated extensively. As
such, the provider of the response could not notice why he /she was incorrect. This was
necessary because according to Nola (1997) learning occurs through reasoning which enables
construction of new meaning (Carr et al., 1994). So if the incorrect response is not engaged with,
it creates dissonance in the mind of the student which may hinder the understanding of the new
information.

So for instance in one case a judgement was passed that the reason they responded incorrectly
was because they did not read questions properly, for example a student that responded to the
question that acceleration and velocity are always in the same direction. Even though the teacher
interacted with the student about the incorrect response, the emphasis was not on assisting the
student but on providing the correct answer as a fact. This was not an isolated incident:
throughout the lessons the teacher did the same. The kinds of question he employed were
instructional and with the intention to convey information, evaluate and develop the lesson, as
shown in Table 4.13 As a result the pattern and kind of discourse in Mr M’s classroom was IRF
(Carlson, 1990) and authoritative (Chin, 2006). This kind and pattern of discourse does not
promote the construction of meaning and debate which is necessary for understanding new
concepts.

In another incident a student indicated that although he had used a different formula to solve a
problem based on graphs – which the teacher solved using the area formula – he got the same
answer as the teacher. The student indicated that he saw the equation from another textbook [½
(vf-vi) t + vit]. The formula was incorrect but the teacher did not thoroughly engage the student
to explain why his formula was incorrect. Mr M indicated that he would engage with the student
after class if he still had problems. Other students then indicated that the formula which the
teacher used was unfamiliar to them. Mr M indicated that the students were supposed to know
that formula as it was taught in the Mathematics class and that it was the area formula. If the
teacher had assisted the student who used the incorrect formula in class it would have also
assisted other students who questioned the same approach. The teacher then continued to the
next problem without further discussion. It follows then that Mr M’s communicative approach
was interactive but authoritative (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Although Mr M invited responses he
discarded them if they were incorrect and focused only on the correct responses.

When students make meaning from what they are learning it improves the possibilities of
performance (Chin, 2006). As the meaning making process occurs in three phases (Mortimer &
Scott, 2003), that is, the social plane, internalisation and application process, Mr M’s students
were largely exposed to the social plane where aspects like velocity, acceleration and using
equations of motion were dealt with. The teacher also used the social language of school science
which was appropriate and at the level of the students. However, the internalisation phase was
compromised as there were limited opportunities for internalising the new knowledge. This is
598
because Mr M’s lessons were epitomised by instructional questions intertwined with the lecture
method. For example, when students asked where they would get formulas and gave the
incorrect formula, they were told that they would find the formula in the formula sheet. When
they further indicated that the formula did not appear on the formula sheet, the teacher replied
that he meant those taught in the Mathematics class. Thereafter, he dismissed the incorrect input
by the student without further engagement. This was an interacting-authoritative communicative
approach (Chin, 2006). This approach is teacher centred and provides no opportunities for
students to interact meaningfully with the subject matter (Chin, 2006 and Biggs, 2001).

Furthermore, Mr M’s lessons were dominated by the conveying of information to the students
and this discourse, intertwined with the type of questions he asked to develop the lesson, was
authoritative. For example, when he was solving problems using equations of motion he would
intermittently ask students for input in terms of values for substitution in an equation. This kind
of discourse does not foster student thinking (Chin, 2006) which is necessary for the
development of problem solving and inquiry skills. Hence, the internalisation and application
processes were seriously compromised.

6. Conclusion
The interactions and discourse in Mr M’s classroom promoted rote learning. Table 2 summarises
the Mr M’s classroom interactions and discourse.

Interactions and discourse of Mr M

Type and pattern of discourse IRF, Authoritative discourse
Classroom
Lesson development
interactions Teacher questioning
and Evaluation
discourse Communicative approach Interactive-Authoritative

Taking into consideration that the DBE (2010, 2011a) asks questions to test for inquiry and
problem solving skills, Mr M’s students were at a disadvantage. The kind of interaction and
discourse he had with his students may not advance opportunities for students to perform in the
topic and may be the subject at large during examinations. However the posits in this study are
limited to the teacher who was part of this study and there is need to extend the study to more
teachers to have a holistically broad view of the teaching difficulties emanating from classroom
interactions and discourse in the teaching of physics.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on
preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.

599
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41, 221-238.
Carlson, R.E. (1990). Assessing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: item development
issues. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 157-173.
Carr, M., Barker, M., Beverley, B., Biddulph, B., Jones, A., Kirkwood, V., Pearson, J. and
Symington, D. (1994). The constructivist paradigm and some implications for science
content and pedagogy. In: P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, and R. White. The content of science:
a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press, pp. 147-158.
Case, R.E. (2002). The intersection of language, education, and context. Science instruction for
ESL students. The Clearing House, 76(2), 71-74.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’
responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346.
Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L.S. Vygotsky on education theory, research and
practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
Department of Basic Education. (2010). Road show reports. Pretoria: Department of Basic
Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2011a). Report on the National Senior Certificate examination
results. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Department of Education. (2006). National policy framework for teacher education and
development in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the teacher: a qualitative introduction to
school-based research. London and New York: Routledge.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and
technology. [Online] Available: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/socialConstructivism.html
[Accessed 10 October 2012].
Leach, J. and Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science
education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: synthesis and research
agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-5301.
Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(3), 296-316.
McDermott, L.C. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: “Physics Education Research-The key to
student learning”. American Journal of Physics, 69 (11), 1127-1137.
McDermott, L.C. (2006). Preparing K-12 teachers in Physics: insights from history, experiences,
and research. American Journal of Physics, 74 (9), 758-762.
Mortimer, E.F. and Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Reis, G. and Ng-A-Fook, N. (2010). TEK talk: So what? Language and the decolonisation of
narrative gatekeepers of science education curriculum. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 5(4), 1009-1026.
600
Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Dharsey, N. and Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter
knowledge in pedagogical content: a case study of South African teachers teaching the
amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science
Education, 30(10), 1365-1387.
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis
and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

601