TRAINING TEACHERS in SIERRA LEONE

Ruth Kanu
The first document discusses problems that student-teachers have in giving constructive feedback to learners during science inquiry lessons and it suggests remedial measures that can be undertaken by science educators. The second document is an example of how lesson transcripts can be used to encourage the student-teacher to first of all, be more aware of the importance of learners responses and secondly, to give considered feedback to these responses.

Makeni Teachers College Sierra Leone 1/1/1989

IMPROVING STUDENT-TEACHER FEEDBACK TO LEARNERS DURING SCIENCE INQUIRY LESSONS

-Ruth Kanu, M.Sc. Science Department Makeni Teachers College, Sierra Leone
January, 1989

INTRODUCTION In the science inquiry lesson, the learner is prompted to investigate a particular scientific phenomenon by a carefully planned sequence of questions or directives (cues) issued by the instructor. The learners responses to these cues should eventuate in discovery of new knowledge of the learners environment. Furthermore, in the process of discovering this new knowledge, the learner practises various scientific operations and critical thinking skills. In the long term it is hoped that the learner will internalize this approach to learning and carry it into everyday life. Consequently, in our training programme for primary science teachers, a major emphasis has been laid on the development of two sets of teacher competencies. The first has included those skills relating to the selection of specimens, apparatus, or field environment most appropriate for the learners successful inquiry into the phenomenon to be investigated. The second set of skills relates to the issuing of a sequence of cues in a manner suitable for stimulating investigative activities and reasoned responses from the learners.

However, careful analysis of teacher-learner interaction during science inquiry has shown that, in spite of appropriate materials and carefully chosen, well-sequenced cues, there are still many instances of learning failure, and this learning failure is the result of weaknesses in the student- teachers feedback to learners responses. It is the purpose of this paper to present, using transcripts of teacherlearner interaction*, three distinct types of weakness in feedback by the studentteacher to the learner;** and to suggest teacher education strategies which may help the student-teacher react more effectively to learner responses.

*The instances of teacher-learner interaction presented here are transcripts from science lessons taught by Higher Teachers Certificate students to small groups of primary school children (micro-classes). The recording in each case was done by a fellow-student. Whenever Creole or the mother-tongue was used, the recorder has given only the English translation. The level of the learners participating in the micro-class lessons presented in this document is as follows: Transcript # 1 Transcript # 2 Transcript # 3 -Class Two -Class Five -Class One

** In the discussions which follow the presentation of the transcripts, the focus is on weaknesses in teacher feedback to learner responses. This does not mean that the weaknesses cited are the only faults in the teaching, -or even the most important faults.

LESSON TRANSCRIPT #1 Feedback Weakness: Failure to set and maintain a worthwhile response standard 1. Teacher: Name some animals that eat only other animals. Yes, Hawa? 2. Hawa: Dog. 3. Teacher: O.K. Who can name another? Mohamed? 4. Mohamed: Yes sir. Crocodile. 5. Teacher: Crocodile. Very good Mohamed. Can anyone name another animal that eats only other animals? 6. Learners: No response. 7. Teacher: Well then, there are animals that never eat other animals. Let us name some. Analysis: An examination of the above shocking episode, recorded by the author who happened to be examining this student on Teaching Practice, reveals three faults in teacher feedback to learners. First, the student-teacher affirms Hawas incorrect assertion that dogs eat only other animals. Second, he fails to have Mohamed describe to the other learners the rather exotic crocodile and its diet so that they can benefit from this childs special knowledge. And finally, the teacher is satisfied with only two instances of animals that eat other animals. By accepting such inadequate responses, the student-teacher has set a standard for response so low the learners have no incentive for worthy thought or achievement. Worse still, they are learning to accommodate inaccurate, incomplete knowledge. Although the forgoing example of instruction is so damaging to the learners, it exemplifies a kind of teaching that is quite common in our

schools. What measures can be taken to correct such teacher behaviour?

Implication for the Teacher Educator:

When a teacher solicits information from learners, or issues a cue, that teacher must have in mind a definite standard of acceptable response. In the case of the student-teacher, this response standard should be set out clearly in the Notes of Lesson. Higher Teachers Certificate students at Makeni Teachers College are required to follow a prescribed format in the instructional section of their science Notes of Lesson. The student teachers questions and directives fall under the heading Teacher Behaviour. Directly opposite the student- teachers cues, is a column entitled Predicted Behaviour of the Learner. This column indicates the standard of response the student-teacher deems acceptable. The disastrous episode recorded in the transcript above would not have taken place if the student had laid out his note of lesson as required. Such a note of lesson might have been constructed in this manner: Teachers Behaviour 1. Teachers instruction, Let us list all the animals we can think of . Teacher lists the animal identified by the learners on the blackboard under title Animals We Know. Teacher may probe for a greater list, -Do we have any birds/insects on our list? Are humans animals? 2. Teachers instruction. Let us think about the diet of these animals. Some animals eat other animals, some animals Predicted Behaviour of Learners Learners may suggest: dog, cat, monkey, bat, owl, millipede, frog, snake, chicken, crab, hawk, spider, vulture, fish, cutting grass, cockroach, mouse, scorpion, mud wasp, mosquito, lizard, termite, driver ant, louse, cow, egret, etc.

eat only plants, and some other animals eat both plants and animals. Learners are given time to discuss what the animals eat. 3. I will call you to the blackboard. When it is your turn, choose one animal on the list. If you think it eats only animals, put an A beside it. If you think it eats only plants, put a P beside it. If you think it eats both plants and animals, put both an A and P beside it. Teacher invites discussion of each choice.

There may be disagreement about the diet of some animals. If the children are not sure about the diet of an animal, they may put an R beside the name of the animal to show they need to do some research to find the answer.

Such advance preparation benefits the teacher-learner encounter in several ways: First, it forces the student-teacher to perform the activities and answer the questions he plans for the learners. He thus becomes aware of any complexities or pitfalls in the tasks he has set. Second, the student-teacher now has the opportunity to modify the task embodied in his question or directive to ensure that the learner can successfully meet the standard of response required. For instance, had the teacher in Lesson Transcript #1 prepared the lesson in the manner just illustrated, he would surely have foreseen the need for some stimulus activity, such as the brainstorming activity, to obtain a wide selection of animals in the childs environment. And he would have made his own list of animals to help further stimulate learners brainstorming if necessary. Third, the student-teacher could give thought to the kind of activities which would encourage the learners participation, engage them in thoughtful discussion, and provide opportunity for widening their knowledge. By engendering discussion about the diet of the animals and calling on individual

children to identify the diet of each animal, all children become engaged in the activity. The student- teacher who has carefully set out a response standard during lesson preparation is equipped to identify differences between his proposed response standard and the learners responses. If a learners response is faulty or incomplete in some way, the teacher can adopt a strategy to help that learner find the fault in reasoning, task performance, or expression. On the other hand, if the learners response does meet the response standard, the teacher is better able to highlight for the learners classmates, those characteristics of the response that have made the answer acceptable.

LESSON TRANSCRIPT #2(3) Feedback Weakness: Teacher disregards learners responses In the following episode from a Class Five micro-class lesson, the four learners have a small bamboo cart, some expired torch batteries for use as loads in the cart, and a spring balance. 1. Teacher: 2. Ibrahim: 3. Teacher: 4. Elizabeth: 5. Sellu: What is the load in this vehicle? (He indicates the cart.) There is a load of two batteries. What is the force required to pull this load? All the force is in your hand. That is wrong. We dont know the force required to move this load. 6. Ibrahim: We can find the force if we use this measuring thing. (He refers to the spring balance.) Can you try it for us to see? Yes. (He puts four batteries into the cart and drags it on the

7. Teacher: 8. Ibrahim:

floor while looking at the units.) Teacher, the force required to move four batteries is six units. 9. Rebecca: But the cart also needs a force to pull it; so the force required for the batteries alone is less than six units. 10. Ibrahim: 11. Sellu: No force is required to pull the cart. I am going to find out. (He unloads the cart and connects the spring- balance to the empty vehicle and pulls.) Now look! . The spring does not move from zero so Ibrahim is right! 12. Teacher: 13. Rebecca: 14. Elizabeth What then is a force? A force is a pull. When we move anything, it is a force we use. Ibrahim and Sellu are wrong when they say that no force is required to pull the cart! 15. Sellu: 16 Rebecca: 17. Teacher: But the spring did not move when I used it to drag the vehicle! That does not mean that no force was used! Now, what force is required to move each of these loads? (He refers to a blackboard list of increasing battery loads.)

Analysis: The student-teacher in the above episode has failed to give explicit feedback to the learners in two critical instances. The first instance occurs when Rebecca correctly asserts that an empty vehicle cannot move unless a force is applied (Line 9). She is contradicted by Ibrahim (Line 10), and by evidence produced by Sellu (Line 11)*. Since the student-teacher takes no position in the argument, the learners may conclude

that the student-teacher is in accord with Ibrahim and Sellu i.e. No force is required to pull the cart.(Line 10) By his non-committal behaviour, the teacher has failed in an opportunity to introduce the learners to Newtons First Law of Motion.** In fact, by default, he seems to be denying this fundamental principle of physics, a principle that Rebecca and Elizabeth know intuitively. Another failure of effective feedback to learners occurs when the studentteacher fails to help Ibrahim (Line 15) and Rebecca (line 16) resolve the dilemma of a zero reading on the spring-balance used to pull the empty cart. The studentteacher left the learners with the false impression that measuring instruments must always be accurate. He also missed an opportunity to have the learners consider the problem-solving question - How could we make a more sensitive force-measurer? Although this teacher was well-prepared with engaging materials, an appropriate sequence of questions to stimulate investigation, the learners inquiry in this episode has taken the student-teacher beyond the depths of his own knowledge of the topic of Force and Motion. He was unprepared for Rebeccas assertion of Line 9 The cart also needed a force to pull it Not knowing how to deal with the ensuing discussion, which was outside the predicted learner behaviour, the student-teacher ignored the learners concerns and proceeded with his plan as outlined in his lesson notes. ______________________________________

*Sellu tried to find the force required to move the cart using the spring balance. Because the cart was very light, however, the force required to move it was small -so small that it was not enough to stretch the rather stiff spring of the balance they were using. A more sensitive measuring instrument would have detected the force.

**Newtons First Law of Motion: A body remains at rest (or in motion with uniform velocity) unless it is acted upon by an unbalanced external force. This property of a body is also known as inertia. (1)

Implications for the Teacher Educator:

In our colleges, it is necessary to compensate for the inadequate educational background in science of many of our students. Ways must be found to telescope large amounts of science practice and information into an already brief and crowded programme. In addition to their regular instructional science classes, student-teachers would surely benefit from exposure to every available media for dispensing science informationelementary science text-books, childrens science literature, encyclopedia, science bulletin-boards, science clubs, science videos. Most importantly, the student-teacher needs to be equipped with science curriculum materials containing all background information necessary for the teachers comprehensive understanding of the science topics to be taught. In the long run, it is important that a sound foundation in secondary school science becomes an entry requirement to Teachers Colleges. Otherwise, we will continue to have instances (as the one above) wherein the primary school learners show themselves to be more sophisticated in science than their instructors.

LESSON TRANSCRIPT #3 (3) Feedback Weakness: Teacher feedback is incompatible with the inquiry approach to learning The learners in this lesson have been comparing the behaviour of a candle flame burning under different conditions: in open air, under a small jar, and under a large jar. The lesson continues

1. Teacher:

What did you observe when we covered the flame with the small bottle?

10

2. Farida:

The flame went out quickly.

3. Teacher: What happened when we used the big jar? 4. Farida: 5. Teacher: 6. Junior: 7. Teacher: 8. Pupils: 9. Learner: It burned for a longer time before going out. Good. But can you tell me why? Is there a reason for that? Yes sir. The glass jar is bigger than the small Vaseline jar. Is that the whole reason? No answer. Well. Let us use these tins and perhaps you will get the point*. He lit a candle and covered it with an overturned tin. Look here! Lets wait a minute. Now I will remove the tin and you can tell me what you see. (He removed the tin.) Now Junior, what do you see? The flame went off. Again, look at this tin with holes. (He lit the candle and covered it with a tin that had holes on the sides.) Look at the smoke coming out of the holes. You are very observant. Now, take up the tin, Junior, and tell me, what do you see? The candle is still lit and burning.

10. Junior: 11. Teacher:

12. Farida: 13. Teacher:

14. Junior:

*The point which the student-teacher wanted the learners to get was this: Air is necessary for burning. When the air inside the tin or jar is used up, the flame goes out. The learners fail to get the point because their previous experience does not include the realization that empty tins and bottles contain air.

11

15. Teacher:

Now, cover the candle with the same tin again. What can we do to put out the flame? 16. Farida: We can cover the holes to prevent the smoke from coming out. 17. Teacher: Let us close the holes and see. (He wrapped a paper around the tin to cover the holes, waited a moment, then he removed the tin.) 18. Teacher: So! The candle flame is out! Farida was right to say we could put the flame out by blocking the holes. But why did this make the flame go out? 19. Farida: The smoke couldnt get out. 19. Teacher: Yes. No smoke could get out. But that is not the answer. Can you try Junior? 20. Junior: No answer. Analysis: In the above lesson episode, the student-teacher has engaged Junior and Farida in a series of investigative activities designed to help them discover, through observation and inference, why the candle flame goes out when put under an inverted container. That the teachers inquiry strategies are sound is evidenced when Farida eventually suggests a reasonable explanation based on her observations and on inference, -smoke is putting the candle out.( Line 20) But how does the student-teacher respond to Faridas deduction? Yes, he replies, No smoke can get out. But that is not the answer! (Line 21) With this crushing assertion, the student-teacher negates all the processes of reasoned investigation that he has been teaching. He has, in effect, let the learners know that the right answer is not to be found through observation, inference, or deduction, -but the right answer is something that the teacher has hidden in his own mind. The teacher has sacrificed the process of science inquiry for the right answer. How much more constructive it would have been, and how much more in line with the preceding inquiry process, had the teacher replied to Farida in this

12

way: Farida believes that smoke may be putting the candle out. Let us see if her explanation is a good one. Can we use Faridas explanation to tell us why the candle in the big glass jar burned for a longer time than it did in the small bottle? By engaging the learners in this manner, the student-teacher would take the learners another step forward in inquiry. They would be learning that a good scientific explanation accounts for all the observations. The feedback response of this student-teacher to Farida- (Line 22)indicates that he believes his paramount objective is getting the learners to know new scientific information. He has failed to appreciate the importance of science inquiry skills.* It is difficult for many student-teachers to keep in their minds that the process by which learners gain science information is as important as or sometimes more important than,-the points they wish to put across

Implications for the Teacher Educator:

It must be recognized that a student-teacher can foster desirable scientific inquiry skills in learners only if he, himself, can identify and use those skills. It is imperative therefore, that the teacher education programme include intense practice in science inquiry. The science education tutor acts as guide during these inquiries, making explicit for the student at each step of the inquiry, the particular science inquiry skill being adopted. Another useful practice for helping student-teachers gain competence in teaching science inquiry skills relates to lesson preparation. The student-teachers, during the teaching practicum, are required to clearly indicate in lesson behavioural objectives, the specific inquiry skill(s) that they expect the learners to practice at each stage of the lesson.
*Science inquiry skills include these which were cited by Robert M. Gagne (2):observing, classifying, communicating, measuring, predicting, inferring, formulating hypothesis, masking operational definitions, controlling variables, experimenting, formulating models, interpreting data.

13

Finally, a strategy that is being tested at Makeni Teachers College is one in which the student-teachers carry out a critical analysis of lessons transcripts their own lessons and those of others.(3) As a part of this critical analysis, the students examine feedback responses to the learners and consider the likely consequences of this feedback for the learners progress in science inquiry. (See appendix for a copy of the booklet used for this exercise.)

REFLECTION By providing carefully considered feedback to learners responses during science lessons, it is expected that the science teacher will contribute to the intellectual development of the learner. In his book, Intelligence Can Be Taught, Arthur Whimby (4) discusses intellectual development in young children and tells us that verbal interactions with an adult, in which knowledge Is presented and in which language is used to inquire, analyze, explain, and deduce, nurtures extensive and precise language growth, as well as accurate analytical thinking. (p.30) It is now the contention of this author that teachers who listen attentively to the remarks and responses of their learners, and who give considered and appropriate feedback, are nurturing in these learners, habits of precise language use and accurate analytical thinking- the infrastructure on which academic proficiency and intellectual acuity are established.

14

On the other hand, teachers who either ignore the responses of their learners, or reply to the responses carelessly, are contributing to the development in learners of a cognitive profile described by Whimby(4) thus: First , there is one-shot thinking rather than extended sequential construction of understanding; and second there is a willingness to allow gaps of knowledge to existin effect, an attitude of indifference toward achieving an accurate and complete comprehension of situations and relations.(p.54) The standards set by the teacher during tuition are those which the learner will internalize (5); and it is these standards which will govern the learners future performance in life.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Joseph, A. et al. (1961). A Sourcebook for the Physical Sciences. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. (p.359) 2. Gagne, R.M. (1966). Elementary Science: A New Scheme of Instruction. Science 131:49-53 3. Kanu, R. (1988). Science Lesson Transcripts:- for analysis by students studying Science Education under the Higher Teachers Certificate Programme, Makeni Teachers College, Sierra Leone 4. Whimby, A. (1975). Intelligence Can be Taught. New York, Bantam Books Inc. 5. Turner, R.L. (1971). Conceptual Foundations of Research in Teacher Education from Research in Teacher Education, A Symposium. Ed. Othaniel Smith. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

16

Science Lesson Transcripts

-for analysis by students studying Science Education in The Higher Teachers Certificate Programme at Makeni Teachers College, Sierra Leone

The lesson transcripts in this booklet were selected from the practice-teaching records of student-teachers studying for the Higher Teachers Certificate in Bunumbu Teachers College (1979-81), and Makeni Teachers College (1981-1988).
Ruth Kanu Lecturer of Science Education, Makeni Teachers College (1981-1990)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the students of the Bunumbu Teachers College and the Makeni Teachers College whose lesson transcripts were used in this booklet.

Thank you also to Canadian University Services Overseas (CUSO) for sponsoring me for one year to study Science Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). Ruth Kanu, OCT, Toronto Teachers College; MSc, McMaster University