The Content and Evolution of Practical Theories of Teaching: Experiences of Professionally Unqualified Teachers in Rural Zimbabwe Secondary Schools

Introduction and Background

This study set out to understand practical theories of six professionally unqualified practicing teachers (PUPTs) who were enrolled in a school-based Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) program offered by one Zimbabwean university. PUPTs in this study are university graduates, practicing as teachers and experienced, but without a professional teaching qualification, hence professionally unqualified (Mukeredzi, 2009). Participants are described as PUPTs as opposed to trainees/student teachers to distinguish them from traditional preservice teachers as they were already practicing as full-time teachers; had at least 4 years teaching experience; were university graduates without professional teaching qualifications; and were studying in-situ to become professionally qualified. These PUPTs were teaching in rural secondary schools while studying part-time to become professionally qualified. Through core educational and professional studies modules in the program, they had been exposed to the language of teaching/learning, and this was the lens through which their practical theories of teaching were viewed. The article, thus, investigates how the participating PUPTs professionally learnt and modified their practical theories of teaching in rural secondary schools in Zimbabwe.

As teaching is a complex activity, complex operations can thus be learnt effectively in authentic contexts (Buitink, 2009). Much of what teachers learn about teaching/learning occurs in school-based contexts as they provide fertile ground for effective teacher professional learning (Day & Gu, 2007; Kelly, 2006). However, what may be learnt might be “mediocre pedagogy” manifesting in teacher day-to-day practice and forming part of their practical knowledge (Buitink, 2009). Mediocre pedagogy is when the teacher’s practical theory focuses only on matters of classroom management, day-to-day issues of lesson organization and delivery, and their performance. When components of a practical theory include effective teaching, pupils’ learning, and school context, allowing scope for teacher learning, then it is regarded as developed (Buitink, 2009). These underlying principles about teaching, notwithstanding that they are a large component of school-based professional learning, are often unaddressed.

Buitink (2009) identified three characteristics of a well-developed practical theory: quality of content related to the student teacher’s initial competence, richness which is the breadth and distribution of content, and structure which involves clarity and coherence of the practical theory including possibility for further development. By exploring these student teachers, we attempted to establish whether or not immersion in practice created either “mediocre everyday pedagogy” where underlying principles of teaching/learning would not be addressed, or whether practice gave rise to modification of their thinking about teaching/learning, thereby developing well-developed practical theories (Buitink, 2009).

Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000) define practical theories as that which guides teacher classroom judgments and behaviors and not what they espouse. All teachers already possess views of what a teacher is and does from their learning experiences before teacher education (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Such theories are partially developed; modified, expanded, and refined through professional learning in teacher education; and further modified in classroom practice. In this study, we assumed that PUPTs with modified theories would have more than “mediocre everyday pedagogy” and an awareness of the underlying education principles of teaching/learning.

Thus, the question this research tried to answer was, “What constitutes the content of practical theories of PUPTs’ and what changes occur as they go through a professional program?”

The Concept “Rural”

Rural areas the world over are associated with social ills like disease, poverty, low literacy levels and learner achievements, inadequate facilities and services, unfavorable policies, and low self-esteem of those who live and work there due to conceptions that living or working in rural settings is low-grade (Johnson & Strange, 2009; Myende & Chikoko, 2014; Pennefather, 2011). In this study, “rurality” is understood as synonymous to “remote.” The term remote has two substantial meanings. First, “remote area” denotes underclass conceptions which describe rurality within social development models (Chikoko, 2011). From this perspective, rurality suggests social disadvantage to the people in reference. Chikoko adds that inhabitants of such settings are usually socially excluded partly or fully from active participation in national majority sociopolitical and decision-making activities. Second, “remote” depicts physical road distance to the nearest urban Center where geographical distance exerts the highest restrictions (Kline, White, & Lock, 2013). Such spaces are marked by poor topography and other physical infrastructures, and inadequate resource provision (Hlalele, 2012; Mukeredzi, 2009). The poor gravel roads make transport unreliable; where transport is available the costs are often high, which forces schoolchildren to walk long distances to the nearest school (Mukeredzi, 2016).

Furthermore, issues of “hard to staff, harder to stay” are severe as proficient and experienced teachers avoid or even reject posts in remote areas, citing inter alia: geography, socioeconomic circumstances, and the prevailing discourses of insufficiency where teaching in rural schools is seen as second-grade (Arnold, Newman, Gaddy, & Dean, 2005; Balfour, 2012; Moletsane, 2012; Pennefather, 2011). Accordingly, most teachers are unqualified and often their motivation is low which negatively affects their professional growth (Mahlomaholo, 2012; Majongwe, 2013).

The PUPTs explored in this study were teaching in such remote schools. Education in Zimbabwean rural communities trails behind educational developments in other parts of the country (Majongwe, 2013; Mlahleki, 1995; Zvobgo, 1999). The areas are generally lacking in resources, infrastructure, and human capital, and in some cases they are so deteriorated that they portray unattractive sites for a teaching career or for living (Mahlomaholo, 2012; Moletsane, 2012). As such, we wanted to explore whether the PUPTs in such contexts developed content of well-developed practical theories of teaching.

Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworks

Literature search for this study yielded limited sources from international contexts. It appears as if not much research has been done on the topic regionally and nationally.

Teaching is a complex activity which often demands making deliberate and skillful judgments, decisions, and actions timeously, often under problematic conditions. These processes are driven by personal knowledge, attitudes, and value systems about teaching—practical theories (Buitink, 2009). Practical theories are thus conceptual constructions, images, or structures from where teachers draw for acting the way they do, and for choosing teaching pedagogies, learner activities, and curriculum materials. They form a basis for teaching practice and a reference point for other cognition concepts given that they describe and organize the teacher’s knowledge and beliefs (Pitkäniemi, 2010). Teachers therefore draw on practical theories and personal beliefs as frameworks when planning, teaching, and reflecting on practice. Teacher beliefs, images, and mental models about teaching/learning are critical influences on classroom practice, and how they make and sustain changes in their teaching (Pitkäniemi, 2010). Practical theories, thus, underpin and guide the teacher’s obligations, decisions, and actions as “hands-on” theory; to draw on, for instance, after studying a situation, they establish how to handle it practically. Practical theories are therefore based on personal experiences and take place when one is immersed in a situation (Buitink, 2009). Consequently, teachers have to find their way out and figure out that which works well for them in their circumstances.

DeVries (2004) also indicates that practical theories contain terms, notions, perceptions, opinions, and convictions that teachers employ when preparing, delivering, and evaluating their teaching, including reflecting on it which draws on personal experiences as a student, and professional experiences as a teacher. Four influences shape development of practical theories: personal biography, classroom situation, institutional organization, and teacher education (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). They are thus an amalgam of experiential knowledge, academic or theoretical knowledge, and knowledge acquired through interaction which is often called practical knowledge (see Beijaard & Verloop, 1996). Hence, practical theories are the teachers’ complex set of perspectives which encompasses their values, attitudes, and beliefs, including emotional and moral elements of teaching which shape and guide their work of teaching (Pitkäniemi, 2010).

Content of a Practical Theory

A well-developed practical theory at the end of teacher education should encompass both initial competences, and a focus on effective teaching, both pupil’s and the teacher’s learning (Buitink, 2009). The Zimbabwean Education system expects all new teachers to possess competences set out by the Zimbabwean Education Act 1996-1999, drawn up by the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education. Such skills include a threshold of competent participation and involvement in classroom practice which encompasses the initial development of basic competences, attributes, commitments, and characteristics of the teaching profession (Mukeredzi, 2009; Murerwa, 2004).

Buitink (2009) indicates that at the beginning of their professional learning, student teachers are in the “survival” stage, focusing mainly on the “self” and on classroom context management. The concern is on how they can cope, whether or not they can survive daily challenges of teaching responsibilities. Through these efforts of learning to cope and survive, they professionally develop. Thus, the personal perspective dominates their practical theory. Later, focus shifts to effectiveness in the teaching task and finally student learning and what they themselves can learn as teachers. Thus, there is transition from self-adequacy concerns to task concerns and subsequently to concerns about pupils’ learning and their own learning (Cavanagh & Garvey, 2012). This transition implies professional growth. Following survival stage, the trainee decenters and begins engagement in trial and error activities, experimenting with classroom management and teaching strategies for effective teaching performance and students’ learning (Chakanyuka, Mukeredzi, & Nyuke, 2006). During this phase, they are often autonomous, find teaching easier and intuitive, become more efficient and aware of their students, classroom environment, and reflecting and questioning their practice. Teaching is viewed from the perspective of the task and pupils’ learning processes. The interpersonal perspective dominates the practical theory, with classroom management significantly evident (Buitink, 2009). Where practical theory devotes significant focus is on students’ learning (pupil perspective obviously present), with some attention given to teacher learning and development—then the particular student teacher satisfies one criteria of a well-developed practical theory. Hence, this period offers trainees opportunities for shaping constructions of themselves, their teaching, students’ and their learning, and the contexts in which these occur. All these shifts from one stage to the other are a result of professional growth. Hence, development of practical theories progresses simultaneously with the stages of teacher professional development.

Richness of a Practical Theory

A rich practical theory covers different categories that make up the theory’s content (initially survival, transitioning into the task, and then pupils’ learning and own learning). Richness is the breadth of distribution across the possible content (Buitink, 2009). Teachers with a rich theory require little experience to learn, understand the classroom context better and are more effective, have deep mastery of teaching, and thus learn more from poor lessons and situations where all things go wrong. In other words, they are reflective and they learn through reflection. Reflection is linked to practical theory development (Kettle & Sellars, 1996) as it enables teachers to explore, interpret, and explain the “how” and “why” of their experiences which flows into the next teaching cycle stage, (re)planning of next lesson (du Plessis, 2013). Through reflection, teachers critically evaluate their practical theory informed by new experiences (Mukeredzi, 2016). Reflective teaching involves both evaluation of one’s teaching effectiveness and self-questioning on purposes shaping classroom action (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Thus, richness of a practical theory signifies a well-developed theory.

Dynamic Nature of Practical Theories

A teacher’s practical theory is dynamic as it is their personal knowledge related to context and content, often tacit, and based on reflection on experiences. This makes it susceptible to adaptation as new experiences and knowledge are encountered (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Practical theories change from time to time as teachers encounter new knowledge and experiences and reflect on those experiences. Discussions with colleagues and mentors are also essential for modifying practical theories given that teachers learn by exchanging ideas, experiences, and teaching methods with colleagues and through experimentation with alternative methods and evaluation of those ideas (Pitkäniemi, 2010). Hence, practical theories are continuously being established through practical experiences, reading, listening, reflecting, and observing colleagues’ practices.

The Particularistic and Individualistic Nature of Practical Theories

Education problems are practical problems solved by solutions relevant to particular circumstances and contexts (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Hence, teachers are not concerned about application of their practical theories in all circumstances, rather, with their effectiveness “here and now,” in this situation, with these students. Their interest and responsibility target teaching their pupils here and now.

Practical theories are individualistic and due to diverse contexts and situations teachers need “theories of action,” which can practically solve their contextual educational problems (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). While they may be shared by other teachers, theories remain an individual teacher’s teaching style, developed from their individualistic experiences, interpretations, and reflections on their experience. Interpretations are individualistic, so are the practical theories (Kettle & Sellars, 1996).

The Study Context

The study sought to establish the components of the practical theories of the PUPTs and the changes that occurred as they developed professionally. The respondents in this study were PUPTs teaching in rural secondary schools who were registered in a three-semester PGDE program. This was a school-based program where the PUPTs were learning to teach through the practice of teaching under the guidance of school-based mentors (Mukeredzi, 2009). Thus, they were trained “in situ,” remaining at their schools, receiving from mentors, day-to-day tutorship, on-spot guidance, support, supervision, and overall nurturing of their professional development for the entire program duration. This kept them immersed in classroom practice. The main medium of instruction was the specially printed university materials complemented by 20 hr of face-to-face tuition per module/course undertaken at university regional centers (Zimbabwe Open University, 2001).

The PGDE curriculum had three components: education and professional foundations, teaching specialization, and teaching practice. Foundations modules exposed students to theories of learning, curriculum, educational management, philosophy of education, school experiences, media and classroom communication, and research methods with action research project (Zimbabwe Open University, 2001). Specialization modules targeted teaching of curriculum subjects that the PUPTs taught or had specialized in at undergraduate study.

The teaching practice (TP) module, which spanned three semesters, was carried out in the schools where the PUPTs were teaching. The process commenced with demonstration lessons by experienced teachers at TP schools nearby the university during face-to-face sessions in the first semester. Lessons were video recorded and used as springboard for collaborative reflection and discussion by students and lecturers. Subsequently, the PUPTs conducted peer and micro teaching sessions followed by whole group (lecturers and peers) reflection, critique, feedback, and discussion. Such activities exposed them to “critical friend” roles in observing and analyzing teaching, and exploring critical incidents from their own classroom experiences (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). These activities would help prepare PUPTs for subsequent TP assessment observations. Both mentors and university lecturers observed and reported on the PUPTs twice a semester during the second and third semesters.

Participants

Six participants who were part of a cohort of 26 PUPTs in Semester 1 of the PGDE program participated in the study. Participants were purposively identified from biographical data sheets that included type of school, geographical location, and the schools’ distance from town (at least 70 km). The principal criterion was that they were teaching in a rural secondary school and were in the first semester. As practicing teachers, they carried full teaching roles and responsibilities. Apart from learning on the job and the core educational and professional studies modules that they were studying, these participants had no prior preparation for the work of teachers at undergraduate level.

Their biographical data showed diversity in teaching experiences, subject specializations, age, and gender. Four had an undergraduate degree while two had post graduate degrees. Teaching experience ranged from 4 to 7 years. Two participants were teaching social sciences (history, geography), two teaching languages and arts (English, Shona, religious studies), and another two were in commercial subjects (accounting, economics, business studies). Their mean age was 36 years, and actual ages ranged from 30 to 43 years. There were three men and three women. However, while they all had an undergraduate degree and at least 4 years’ teaching experience, the study neither established nor catered for other differences.

Data Generation

The study adopted a qualitative multimodal approach which thrives on utilizing various modes of generating subjective evidence from participants (Creswell, 2008). Consistent with this notion, the study employed interviews and photo elicitation for generating data. Informed by Seidman (1998) that interview data should involve more than one interview, three-series, in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with each participant.

The first interview was conducted at the end of Semester 1 (December). This was broadly “wide angle view” (Kettle & Sellars, 1996) which was in two parts: focused education history and details of teaching practices. Focused education history facilitated eliciting information, experiences, and value systems that drove their practical theories and so prepared a context for detailed discussion of the theories in the second part of the interview. The belief was that education history experiences would connect them to events, which answered the question “how” they ended up enrolling on the program. The “how” aspect would lead them to talking about their current practices and practical theories. Details of teaching practice prompted reconstruction of the details of their practical theories within the context in which they occurred. Participants discussed in depth their classroom practices, reconstructing the details of what they actually did, how, when, with whom, and so forth. They also reconstructed a typical working day in their teaching, from waking up to retiring at night to enable them to describe and define their practical theories.

Subsequent interviews (Interviews 2 and 3) shifted from the comprehensive level to an in-depth but “more restricted observational focus” (Kettle & Sellars, 1996, p. 4). The second interview was held after Semester 2 (July) and the third in January after the final semester of the program. Time gaps allowed the student teachers to incorporate suggestions and guidance from mentors and university lecturers and enabled contextualization of interviews and confirmation of internal consistency of participants’ stories. Again, this facilitated comparisons and connections of practical theories of different respondents. Given that dependence on participants’ words and voices is a typical feature of qualitative enquiry, and that tape recordings produce complete verbal transcripts, all interviews were recorded to allow capturing of every detail (Hargreaves, 2001). This also enabled taking sparse notes while attending fully to interviewees to uphold the flow of the conversation. Interviews lasted approximately 90 min.

In conjunction with Interview 2, photo elicitation was introduced based on photographs taken by participants depicting their teaching practices and practical theories. Photo elicitation uses photographs or other visual representations in a research interview to promote direct participant involvement which stimulates data generation (Warren, 2005). Harper (1998) regards research practice as visual because its business is to describe participants’ worlds to readers—foster visualizing the worlds of participants. The vital thing is to make others “see” what the researcher has “seen” during their research journey. Photo elicitation therefore enabled “seeing” what researchers had seen through participants’ descriptions of the sentiments behind the images (Heisley & Levy, 1991; Warren, 2005). This was informed by Warren (2005) who asserts that what photos show actually existed in front of the camera for at least the time the camera took to make the exposure. Hence, they illustrated practical theories as they really were and how they were practiced as photographs are representations, and not constructions of reality. Participants took photographs of their practical theories related to lesson preparation and delivery, and assessment and lesson evaluation, and used the images as prompts to discuss, examine, elaborate, and clarify the content of their practical theories.

Interview 3—Reflection on meaning prompted participant reflection on their practical theories in a rural school answering the question, “how does your teaching reflect your practical theories?” This further promoted deeper critical reflection on what underpinned their teaching practices and to confirm accuracy of the data gathered.

The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim immediately after each interview and data from different interviews and across different participants cross verified. Data were further verified by checking field notes following each interview, and the transcriptions were taken back to participants for “member checking” (Creswell, 2008) during the third interview to confirm whether or not key components of their practical theories of teaching were accurately represented.

Data Analysis

Data analysis adopted an inductive approach which involved detailed readings of raw data to derive themes from interpretations made out of that raw data by the researcher (Thomas, 2006). This approach allowed practical theories to emerge from the frequent, dominant/significant themes inherent in the data. The process involved interview-by-interview reading of transcriptions and listening to tapes for each respondent over and over. Following this, five analytic steps were undertaken. First is identifying broad statements, phrases, sentences, or words that suggested practical theories for each participant across all their interviews—horizontalization where each participant’s data were analyzed individually to identify responses in detail, for comprehensive representation of this stage (Creswell, 2009). Second is carefully analyzing the broad statements scrutinizing and extracting those that clearly suggested practical theories participant-by-participant and interview-by-interview recording them in a table. Third is carefully scrutinizing the tabled statements comparing with and cross-checking for omissions and errors against the broad statements in Step 1. Fourth is identifying dominant themes/practical theories that emerged from each interview across all participants from the tabled statements. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2006) suggest involvement of independent judges to verify themes. The data set was given to a colleague to confirm or identify errors and omissions. Fifthly, scrutinizing all tables to identify the key practical theories that appeared throughout the three interviews and any additions made after each interview. We then reexamined the data and selected quotes representative of each theme, ensuring appropriate representation across participants which would enhance description of PUPTs’ practical theories in their words. Singleton and Straits (1999) emphasize, “. . . capturing in their language and letting them speak for themselves” (p. 349). Involving a third person helped to establish credibility and trustworthiness.

Findings

Interview 1

While practical theories are individualistic due to the diverse contexts in which teachers operate and the subjective nature of interpretations (Kettle & Sellars, 1996; Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986) findings in this study have been pooled and reported together as opposed to separate reporting by identifying linkages in the responses to reduce the length of the article. The themes adopted in presenting findings emerged through the readings and rereadings, and interpretations of the raw data.

In describing education history, participants generally revealed that their schooling was pleasurable but the atmosphere was always “very formal” with limited interaction or active pupil participation during teaching/learning processes. Lessons were teacher-centered, heavily teacher directed, and exposition was the common teaching strategy. While all PUPTs indicated that they enjoyed school, none of them aspired to becoming a teacher as exemplified by Teacher 5: “I wanted to be something better than a teacher, I never thought I would end up in the classroom.” Notwithstanding, all six PUPTs seemly entered teacher education with some ideas of what teachers are and what they do (Britzman, 1986; Kettle & Sellars, 1996).

Data also indicate that their conceptions of teaching had undergone some transformation after entering the classroom and had further evolved when they started the PGDE program. Teacher 4 explained,

I admired them and their work, never imagined being one. I thought teaching required knowledge and imparting it, I didn’t know it demands more. You put in lots of effort and time to prepare, get media, mark.

From their somewhat naive perceptions of teaching which they brought into the classroom and PGDE program, after three semesters, some had developed elaborate components of practical theories. Most of their learning occurred when they enrolled on PGDE and started learning in “situ,” and not when they entered the classroom.

I learnt and enjoyed myself, this was my greatest moment in my entire education. I read, attended lectures, came back, and applied that knowledge with my students. Students felt the change. Sometimes I phoned my PGDE classmates, we discussed, shared and laughed (laughs). We would meet as a group to share experiences, ask each other why are you doing this, is that how it is done? It was exciting to us and our students, we were discovering new things. Implement this one if it fails, try another one and if it works you say this is how it is done let me go and try then you find what works, to what extent it works, why it works to that extent. It became exciting, it was practically-based. I did enjoy during these three semesters. (Teacher 2)

The above quotation supports Kettle and Sellars (1996) who say practical theories are modified, extended, and polished in teacher education, further modified in classroom practice and continuously being improved through experimentation, reading, discussing, listening, and seeing others. While the PUPTs attributed most of their learning to the PGDE program where they were learning “in situ,” the prior teaching knowledge gained through classroom practice before entering the program cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, all teachers know who teachers are and what they do from their own learning. Thus, classroom practice enhances this prior knowledge before teacher education (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Hence, they must have possessed some form of practical theories from classroom teaching which were developed/modified in teacher education. Discussing the aspects of classroom practice which they valued most, findings revealed four components of their practical theories reflected in Figure 1 and Appendix A. The PUPTs viewed them as key targets for their teaching and their survival. Essentially, they were concerned about themselves and their classroom activities which Buitink (2009) and Katz (2011) call “self—adequacy concerns.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Interview 1 major components in the content of the practical theories after one semester on the program.

Relationships

Five PUPTs indicated concern and anxiety about relationships with colleagues and students. They viewed their professionally unqualified status as giving rise to being despised by qualified colleagues. This made them feel inadequate as Teacher 1 related: “There is a difference between me and my colleagues, I am not qualified. They call us temporary teachers.” Teacher 5 said, “I want to be confident in teaching, I feel inadequate.” These feelings seemingly prompted hard work to prove themselves and survive the situation.

Data also indicate that good relations with students was an important element of their practical theories:

. . . good rapport with pupils, it’s not good. They must feel free to bring questions or problems, not like our days where you never asked teachers questions. (Teacher 3)

I want good relations, respecting each other. I respect them I want their respect. I try to be approachable, accommodating them any time. (Teacher 2)

I have no favourites—they are the same. They should not be afraid, I try to make them relax and comfortable to bring problems up. (Teacher 1)

The PUPTs wanted good rapport with and respect of their students, and also to respect them. They aspired to be accommodative and approachable teachers.

Lesson preparation

Preparation offers the teacher an opportunity to pre-play their lesson regarding content, materials, strategies, and learner activities, and harmonizing the content with pedagogical knowledge (Mukeredzi, 2016). Lesson preparation was a key component of the PUPTs’ practical theories and an aspiration that they all held for teaching. They aspired to be teachers who were always well prepared for lessons. Teacher 5 explained, “Most of my free time is for preparing thoroughly.” Teacher 4 added, “I sit in the staffroom preparing so that nothing goes wrong. Teacher 3: “I should be well prepared for all my classes. I take a lot of time planning so that I know how I move from stage to stage.” Preparation was seemingly as important as what was taught, which ensured smooth flow of lessons given that planning involves laying out a design, indicating the procedures to follow and how objectives will be achieved. This focus on preparation implies a concern about “survival” and a personal perspective dominating the content of the practical theory (Buitink, 2009; Katz, 2011).

Lesson delivery

Smooth lesson delivery, was another important component of all six PUPTs’ practical theories at this point. Possession of content knowledge and being regarded as knowledgeable by pupils were seemingly more important than effective teaching/learning. Teacher 6 commented, “I am worried about transmission of knowledge, to show them I have knowledge.” Teacher 3 added, “I must be able to dish out information to students. . . . ” These comments suggest transmitting knowledge from Point A (teacher’s head) to Point B (students’ heads). This teacher-centered approach where the teacher dispenses a designated body of knowledge in a predetermined order (Santrock, 2004) often does not maximize students’ understanding, participation and quality performance. This also portrays the personal perspective governing the content of their practical theory as the focus is on the “self,” on “survival” and “fitting in” (Katz, 2011).

Four PUPTs highlighted treating pupils equally and fairly. Teacher 1 said, “My class of 52 all need undivided attention, I have to treat them equally and fairly.” Teacher 3 explained, “They can easily pick favouritism.” Teacher 2: “Students want similar attention when they talk to you”; Teacher 4: “I treat boys and girls the same. I don’t only pick smart pupils, but all of them.” Seemingly the professional studies modules had made them aware of this aspect. Equality is about exposing all students to the same learning resources, and fairness is based on interpretations of behavior, and not intentions (Safir, 2016). The PUPTs’ practical theories apparently focused on equality and interactional fairness. Their interaction with students encompassed impartiality (treating equally), respect (treating politely), concern (caring about), integrity (consistence/truthfulness, justifying procedures/decisions for fairness to be judged and understood), and propriety (acting acceptably socially; Safir, 2016). This content of their practical theory suggest a focus on managing the learning context (Buitink, 2008) which is an element of the survival stage.

Classroom management

Another component of their practical theories concerned classroom management as reflected below:

On day one, make your expectations of students’ behavior known, set rules that emphasize appropriate behavior and display. . . . greet them on entering and direct them right away (“sit down, take out homework, find your folders”) this reduces noise and time waste. (Teacher 5)

I make sure that students see me and I always see everyone when I speak. I keep reminding them of ground rules and good behaviour. (Teacher 2)

Often the more classroom discipline problems teachers face, the less effective their instruction becomes and the more difficult their “survival.” Participants regarded creating an optimal learning atmosphere as promoted by establishing effective classroom management strategies. Teacher 5 suggests beginning of the school year as the best time for setting class tone and teacher expectations. Establishing good class management early often makes the teacher’s job easier, albeit it does not mean that their work is accomplished. Classroom management is an ongoing process, often difficult to sustain because it requires continuous attention as suggested by Teacher 2. Just because students abide by rules at the beginning of the year does not mean that they will not test the waters later on (Yezbick, 2016). The emphasis placed on class context management suggests the survival stage where concern is on coping as individuals and surviving daily teaching responsibility challenges (Buitink, 2009).

Interview 2

During this interview, participants discussed content of their practical theories drawing on photographs as prompts. The images depicted their most valuable teaching aspects, which formed the content of their practical theories after two semesters on the program. Seven major elements emerged, reflected in Figure 2 and Appendix B. The was an evolution in the content of their practical theories from focusing on themselves (“self-concerns”) trying to “survive” and “fit in” to focusing on the teaching task, “task concerns” (Fuller & Brown, 1975).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Interview 2 major components in the content of the practical theories after two semesters on PGDE program.

Lesson preparation

Lesson preparation resurfaced as part of the content of their practical theories. At this stage, preparation was vital not only for smooth delivery, but also for enhancing students’ learning: “. . . makes delivery effective, because you break down concepts for learners to understand. . .” (Teacher 1); “. . . helps you focus on content, directing students to what they need to master” (Teacher 4). While some viewed lesson preparation as critical for the teaching/learning process, others valued it for thinking through mediational materials given the underresourcing in those rural schools. “Resources are short, I plan thinking how to improvise and make lessons effective” (Teacher 6). Proper planning keep teachers organized and on track while teaching, allowing them to teach more, help students reach objectives more easily, and manage less (Yezbick, 2016). The better prepared the teacher is, the more likely she or her will be able to handle whatever unexpectedly happens during the lesson. The content of their practical theories at this stage seemingly focused on the teaching task, students’ learning, and an awareness of context. When a practical theory encompasses teaching/learning effectiveness, and school context, this suggests a developed practical theory (Buitink, 2009).

Conducive teaching/learning environment

Five PUPTs mentioned developing a conducive learning environment as part of their practical theories. They viewed a conducive environment as space devoid of both physical intimidation and emotional frustration, which enables free exchange of ideas where all students participate. Teacher 1 commented,

An environment, sort of easygoing where they feel safe to give wrong answers without embarrassment, having confidence to try.

Teacher 3 said,

I create a pleasant, serious classroom atmosphere, where everyone is comfortable physically, having courage to say what they have to say . . . good for effective learning.

Teacher 5 added,

A bad atmosphere affects learning, causes poor performance and behavior. I try to create one where they all feel comfortable and confident.

Participants viewed a positive classroom environment as a catalyst for student learning. Spencer (2003) indicates that effective teachers develop positive classroom climates and use appropriate language for all students to understand. The focus on students’ learning and managing learning environments suggests components of developed practical theories (Katz, 2011). The way in which teachers organize or control their class may yield positive or negative consequences for students. The cause and effect element highlighted (Teacher 5) is important for teachers to understand so that the classroom atmosphere is favorable for learning.

Student-centered teaching

Another common component of the PUPTs’ practical theories highlighted by all participants was use of student-centered/interactive pedagogy in teaching. There was a strong sense of teacher behavior change from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction and student involvement in knowledge construction. This again was a major shift from Interview 1 where participants were concerned about “possessing and dishing out information” (Teacher 3). Others referred to demonstration lessons that they had observed at the TP schools, and exposure to diverse teaching strategies in the School Experiences module. Some explained that university face-to-face sessions provided them with different strategies to choose from, emphasizing that “if one method fails, I switch to another, as one strategy may not work for all lessons/sections of a lesson” (Teacher 4). Prominent among the student-centered strategies highlighted were group work, project, and research as reflected below:

Students must talk amongst themselves like here (showing photo) and with me. . . . group-work or pair work or 3s. I give group tasks to research and discuss on their own, then report back. I monitor and give feedback on report backs. (Teacher 2)

Here they are on group-work (showing photo). I encourage interaction in class and outside, give lots of cooperative activities: group-work, pair-work, project work, I move around assisting, making sure everyone participates and remains focused. (Teacher 5)

Student assessment

All six PUPTs perceived assessment as another key component of their practical theories given its impact on students’ learning. Teacher 6 explained,

I give lots of written work, here they are writing (showing photo). . . .I write detailed comments so that they learn and correct their understanding. Then record and analyze scores to assess progress and my teaching. . . . give overall class feedback.

I mark thoroughly writing informative comments. These are books to be marked (shows photo). Comments make them see their strengths and errors. . . . timeous feedback while they still remember. . . . individual feedback time, elaborating on comments for A-Level. (Teacher 3)

Often when students see their performance, and what they need to know to meet program requirements, they can determine whether or not they understand the material. This may either motivate or prompt them into working harder. Assessment also forces teachers to reflect on both students’ and their performance and take appropriate remedial action. Such competence takes teachers from assessment of learning, through assessment for learning to assessment as learning which promotes their professional development (McLaughlin, 2008).

An important dimension of assessment was detailed feedback to clarify students’ performance efforts. Feedback is often a powerful influence on achievement. The teacher’s comments indicate strengths/weaknesses adding to students’ knowledge on the topic and then compile mark profiles and rate students’ performance. Students need knowledge of how well they are performing as knowledge of good performance gives them a sense of worth which breathes vigor into them (Brookhart, 2008). Similarly, students should know when they make mistakes so that they learn therefrom and take corrective measures. Hence, honest and objective feedback places them on the right path to their goal. One crucial dimension of the content of their practical theory highlighted was turnaround time. For optimal effectiveness, feedback should be given while students are either working on the task or just finished it. In fact, feedback should occur while students are still mindful of the task and striving to complete learning goals (Brookhart, 2008). The longer the time gap between task completion and feedback, the less effective that feedback becomes.

Lesson evaluation

Concomitant to assessing students’ written work, five PUPTs highlighted lesson evaluation as another important element of their practical theories vital for problem identification and teaching improvement: “We evaluate all lessons, analyzing what happened, any challenges with me or pupils, and why” (Teacher 4); “Evaluation helps identify learners needing help and determine effectiveness of teaching/learning, whether or not materials worked and why . . . ” (Teacher 3). Teacher 5 was more elaborate:

This is my evaluation (showing) to see whether my methods or media worked and you learn. I play back my lesson, see which students were active or had problems and why, and then plan differently, that way you learn.

The comments are seemingly oriented toward pragmatics of classroom practice (task-concerns), students’ learning and their own learning which suggests developed practical theories (Buitink, 2008). Evaluation seemingly assisted teachers to improve and manage learning, and also to explore, interpret, and explain the “how” and “why” of what happened which then flows into the subsequent teaching cycle stage, (re)planning the next lesson (du Plessis, 2013).

Collegial collaborations

At the end of Semester 2, the constrained collegial relations (being despised as temporary teachers) seemed to have been forgotten. All participants highlighted collaboration as an important component of their practical theories. This was a major shift and evolution of their practical theories. Notable was taking initiative and exercising personal agency to collaborate as exemplified by Teacher 5: “. . . you have to make a start, it will not happen on its own.” The agency and initiative could be attributed to some developed confidence in teaching probably emanating from learning in course modules or from the professionally qualified status that was only one semester away. In taking responsibility for their needs, they became more confident to initiate the collaboration. Asked about this sudden change, Teacher 6 explained,

I don’t worry about that anymore, after next semester, I am qualified. . . . I worry about what students gain and my learning. . . . Module 4 emphasizes collaboration for teacher growth and students’ learning. . . . Sharing ideas with other geography teachers develops me which is good for students.

Participants cited various benefits from collegial collaborations: Teacher 1 said, “I consult colleagues and get ideas and guidance so that I don’t go wrong . . .” Teacher 3 said, “I ask colleagues when I am not competent in a topic and I learn from that.” Teacher 5 added, “You have to collaborate, resources are short so we help each other to make effective teaching . . . learn that way.” Three PUPTs also highlighted joint scheming, planning, setting assessments, and marking with mentors. This facilitated mentees’ access to mentors’ craft knowledge through guidance as mentors articulated and presented recipes, and appropriate nuts and bolts (Mukeredzi, 2016).

Enthusiasm

Five participants regarded enthusiasm as vital for their practical theories. Teacher enthusiasm is an essential and desirable quality and characteristic of effective teachers as they often make tremendous differences in students’ motivation and learning engagement. Some PUPTs commented,

I must be motivated to motivate students . . . I try motivating them by my teaching to make them eager to learn. (Teacher 2)

Motivating pupils is one key teacher task, getting them all involved . . . the teacher should prompt it by being motivated about his/her subject. I demonstrate commitment, so that they become committed to school work. (Teacher 4)

From the comments, enthusiasm was viewed as a motivational tool and a valuable component of their practical theories. An enthusiastic teacher has energy that is often contagious as their enthusiasm may spark students’ curiosity and jumpstarts their motivation to learn. When students see that their teacher, who they care about and want to please, is enthusiastic, they often find subject matter exciting and engaging. This usually triggers their own motivation for learning and excitement about achievement to skyrocket. Usually enthusiastic teachers become energized about their students and their subject, generally approaching teaching with excitement, hope, and charisma (Zhang, 2014). While enthusiasm may be part of a teacher’s personality, it is often an intentional component of their practical theory which might contribute to professional success. Teachers who are enthusiastic about their subject and students’ learning are often motivated to transcend minimum levels in developing activities that benefit students as they may research new teaching techniques.

Interview 3

The third interview carried out after participants had completed the program intended to promote deeper critical reflection on what underpinned their practical theories of teaching in rural schools. Six new elements emerged, and nine that were reported in Interviews 1 and 2 recurred. These are reflected in Figure 3 overleaf and Appendix C. The content of their practical theories suggest a strong focus on student and teacher learning.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Major components of the content of PUPTs’ practical theories after completing the program.

Awareness of and handling student diversity

All PUPTs highlighted awareness of and handling learning diversity as a vital component of content of their practical theories. The concept of diversity generally encompasses acceptance and respect, understanding each individual student’s learning capability as unique, and recognizing their individual differences. In any classroom situation, usually some students master complex concepts with relative ease, while others struggle but nevertheless fail in their attempts. Thus, knowledge of student diversity is an understanding of students’ differences regarding their abilities and interests, and how they respond to diverse situations; applying appropriate strategies; and managing various learning activities to suit different students. Given the eminence of individual differences at all learning levels, it is unsurprising that participants highlighted diversity as a vital component of their practical theories.

. . . give remedial lessons during free time, take home extension work to high flyers, then assess individual progress. (Teacher 1)

Know your students and use strategies that cater for them all, following up when they abscond, counselling those with behaviour problems or not doing work. (Teacher 6)

I record marks and meet one-to-one those with problems to bring their minds to learning because some are not daft, but just naughty. I help weak pupils, sometimes ask smart ones to help low performers. (Teacher 5)

The comments suggest students’ learning and learning management involving remedial and extension work, and following up as constituting part of the content of participants’ practical theories. Remedial work is generally additional tutoring a teacher provides to underperforming students due to some identified learning deficiency or problem. Hence, remedial students may not have inabilities but some other disturbing issues, and the facility offers them individual attention required to develop skills, focus, and confidence to perform up to their potential. An awareness of learning diversity requires exploring students’ differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment, understanding each of them, transcending simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the dimensions of diversity contained within students (Ruggs & Hebl, 2012). Thus, knowledge of learner diversity is essential for effective teaching as teachers should be aware that students in a classroom are and will always be different from one another in many ways. Participants were apparently aware that learning ability is profoundly influenced by various elements like habits of mind as reflected by “knowing your students,” “one-to-one meetings.” Deep knowledge of students may enable teachers to consider all factors and determine individual capability with more accuracy, consequently pitching remedial instruction more accurately to a student’s optimal zone of learning. These concerns for students’ learning suggest some elements of well-developed practical theories.

Student engagement

Student engagement is generally the degree at which they process tasks/activities deeply, using active strategies, thought processes, and prior knowledge (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). This involves attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students demonstrate when learning, which includes learning motivation. All six PUPTs reported adopting strong/active student engagement strategies like turn to your partner, research and presentations, cooperative work, brainstorming, colored cards, questioning, end of lesson reflections, and think and share sessions. Some said,

My lessons are “learning-friendly” with cooperative activities like “turn to your partner.” I give them an activity, they sit in pairs working separately, then compare answers to make sure they have all the information. (Teacher 1)

Brainstorming works well. The whole class discusses a topic, I record points. But some don’t tell you they don’t understand, so I prepared different coloured cards which mean different things; red means I am lost, green—all is okee, yellow—I am getting confused. I gave everyone 3 cards so they just lift it up . . . (Teacher 2)

Form 4, 5 and 6, I give end-of-lesson reflection time. They write new things they learnt, enjoyed, didn’t enjoy, didn’t understand or want repeated. They share with the class. I take note and either explain or plan for the next lesson. (Teacher 3)

All these student engagement strategies suggest a concern for student learning. The concept of “student engagement” is predicated on the belief that learning improves when students are participating, inquisitive, interested, or inspired, and may suffer when they are bored, dispassionate, disaffected, or otherwise “disengaged” (Parsons & Taylor, 2011).

A content which focuses on student learning implies aspects of well-developed practical theories. The concept of student engagement usually arises when teachers prioritize teaching strategies that capture pupils’ developmental, intellectual, emotional, behavioral, physical, or social factors that promote their learning.

Moving students from known to unknown

Five participants reported teaching students from familiar to unfamiliar knowledge as another vital component of their practical theories. Prior knowledge preconditions learning, acting as mental clips/catches for lodging new information, and providing foundational building blocks for new content and skill knowledge (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Teacher 2 explained, “I re-cap on previous knowledge before going to new information. I base on their prior knowledge, which makes them confident . . . ” Teacher 4 added, “Working from what they know motivates them to learn new knowledge. . . . understand what level they are at, then take them to new content.” Teacher 6: “I ask them what we did previously, discuss it a bit, then move forward to avoid frightening them with new information.” These comments indicate students’ learning concerns,’ which satisfies one component of a well-developed theory. Even shallow but appropriate prior knowledge greatly improves learning and fosters profound depth at a future time (Marzano, 2004). Tapping/activating preexisting knowledge, then adding new content suggested by the comments, is the hallmark of instruction as it promotes meaningful and lasting learning (Campbell & Campbell, 2009).

Reflection

Reflection on practice was highlighted by five PUPTs as an important aspect of their practical theories. Reflection is about evaluation of one’s teaching effectiveness and questioning teaching purposes (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). This requires teachers to critically think about their lessons, the moves therein, justify, and influence subsequent instructional actions which promote professional learning. The PUPTs indicated that reflection helped them to identify errors and strategize for subsequent lessons.

You reflect on your teaching otherwise you remain making same mistakes. If you think and analyze your work, you learn and improve because you know what works next time. (Teacher 3)

Evaluating and reflecting on your lessons make you re-play, thinking seriously what happened, why and what I should have done. That makes you grow realising what you should have done differently. (Teacher 5)

I use different methods, when one fails, I change to another to keep students learning because you have to keep thinking and analysing their learning during the lesson, waiting for the end may be too late to undo the damage. (Teacher 2)

From the comments above, not only does reflection aid identification of errors and strategizing for subsequent lessons for improved students’ learning, but it also promotes teacher learning and growth from reflecting on the experience. Teacher learning is derived more from reflecting on the experience than from the experience itself (Masinga, 2012; Mukeredzi, 2016). Asking “why” questions and analyzing why things happened the way they did, and the teacher and students’ contributions during the lesson bring classroom experiences and complexities into focus, helping teachers connect knowledge, practice, and learning (Olsher & Kantor, 2012). The comments thus imply that the content of their practical theories encompassed both students’ and teacher learning, suggesting well-developed practical theories (Buitink, 2009; Kettle & Sellars, 1996).

Research

Another content aspect of their practical theories reported by four participants was research. Reading and research was intended not only to enhance teaching effectiveness but also promote teacher learning. Teacher 2 explained,

I evaluate current research, compare and contrast it. I research to learn ways to teach better. Jaah! I learn what people are saying or researching in my subject.

Teacher 6 added,

Research is vital with these new topics you must read, research and get ideas before planning. You get information from different books to broaden yourself and even your students.

The comments encompass a focus on students’ learning and what teachers themselves can learn. When content of a practical theory focuses on students’ learning processes, including teacher learning, it can be viewed as well-developed. (Buitink, 2009)

Confidence

Part of the content of the PUPTs’ practical theories highlighted by five participants related to confidence. Confidence is about being certain of one’s abilities, related to self-esteem and optimism, belief in positive achievements and self-awareness involving ability to judge how well one can perform (Prince, Snowden, & Matthews, 2010).

I am now confident, I learnt many things about methods. I am a better teacher now, I keep learning as a professional. . . . now professionally qualified and confident in my work. (Teacher 4)

I have confidence now. I work in my class, teach confidently, answer students’ confidently, set well-structured exams following Bloom’s taxonomy. Can interact freely with colleagues, engage in professional discussions. Am no longer withdrawn, even reach out to others. (Teacher 2)

Two factors apparently contributed to developing confidence. First is awareness of being qualified and no longer despised as temporary teachers. Second, some felt professional growth from the PGDE program which probably equipped them with knowledge and skills for effective practice given that confidence is important for teacher practice as it affects pupils’ reactions to classroom instructions and communications.

Discussion

Data suggest that all PUPTs had a simplified view of what teaching entailed when they registered for the PGDE program. While they generally had some components of well-developed practical theories at the end of the program, they were still in the process of discovering the full extent of what teaching involved (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Findings suggest that the PUPTs developed practical theories of teaching from the PGDE program. However, Buitink (2009) and Kettle and Sellars (1996) concur that teachers often have partially developed practical theories which will be modified, expanded, and refined through professional learning in teacher education and further modified in classroom practice. While data do not indicate whether or not these teachers had developed some practical theories of teaching before the professional program, one assumes that they had, through their own learning and teaching experiences. Kettle and Sellars (1996) suggest that an individual’s own school learning and classroom teaching experiences have an impact on the development of practical theories.

Interview 1 data indicate that participants were operating in the survival stage at the time where the personal perspective and mediocre pedagogies seemingly dominated their focus to survive the context. The content of their practical theories targeted relationships with colleagues and students, lesson preparation and delivery, and managing the classroom. Some questions frequently asked during survival stage are, “Will colleagues and students accept me? Can I teach successfully?” “Will I manage to control students?” (Katz, 2011). These everyday aspects imply “mediocre pedagogies” where content of practical theories cover matters of day-to-day lesson delivery, classroom management, and teaching performance and where underlying principles of what is learnt are not explicit (Buitink, 2009). Thus, the content of their practical theories at that stage constituted their survival and managing classroom and school contexts.

Findings from Interview 2 suggest that the content of participants’ practical theories at that stage targeted effective performance of the teaching task and to some extent, student and teacher learning. The major content components highlighted were thorough lesson preparation, learner-centered pedagogies, student assessments, lesson evaluation, collaboration, creating conducive teaching/learning environments, and teacher enthusiasm. The evolution in the content of their practical theories shifted their focus from themselves (self-concerns) to how the tasks were to be actioned which Fuller and Brown (1975) call “task concerns”—concerns about teaching tasks. Focus was on teaching effectiveness which implies students’ learning. Students’ learning and knowledge of context (resources) highlighted suggest components of well-developed practical theory. When focus is on pupils’ learning and school context, such student teachers meet one criterion of well-developed practical theories (Buitink, 2009). Furthermore, lesson evaluation highlighted by five PUPTs promoted teacher learning which, as Kettle and Sellars (1996) indicate, leads to reconstruction of the experience leading to new understandings of the “self” as a teacher. This signals some development in the practical theory given that when a practical theory encompasses effective teaching, pupils’ learning, and school context, with teacher learning, then it is viewed as developed (Buitink, 2009).

Furthermore, all PUPTs highlighted collegial collaborations which benefited students’ learning through ideas and information, and three added teacher professional learning. This signaled another evolution in the content of their practical theories given the reports of being despised in Interview 1. Teachers learn through sharing ideas, experiences, and teaching methods with colleagues which benefits their own and students’ learning (Pitkäniemi, 2010). Thus, the content of the practical theories comprised interpersonal perspective, students’ learning, and for three participants, their own learning, which reflects the individualistic nature of practical theories. Where the practical theory evidently encompasses the pupil perspective with classroom management dominating, and attention paid to teacher learning and development, the teacher satisfies one criteria of a well-developed practical theory (Buitink, 2009).

From Interview 3 data, new components in the content of the PUPTs’ practical theories were reflection, identifying and handling student diversity, student engagement/pupil-pupil interaction, moving learners from known to unknown, research, and confidence. These suggest students’ learning focus which accommodates teacher learning. Other important elements which recurred related to lesson preparation, conducive environment, enthusiasm, lesson evaluation, student assessment and feedback, and learner-centered pedagogies. There is a clear shift from “task concerns” in Interview 2 to “student and teacher learning concerns” in Interview 3. In this last stage, participants attended to concerns related to recognizing and meeting individual learning and social and emotional needs of students (Pitkäniemi, 2010). This research indicates that novices do not typically attend to student differences and learning needs until the last stage of professional development. Self-assessment/self-evaluation suggest teacher learning through constructive reflection, and self-criticism, which is vital content for well-developed practical theories (Buitink, 2009). This implies that those PUPTs who understood their classroom contexts and were reflective had a rich theory.

One element in the content of practical theories reported by five PUPTs was confidence. It is unclear whether developing confidence was a Zimbabwean phenomenon where the system undermined self-confidence/self-belief of professionally unqualified degreed teachers. Confidence is linked to performance because it increases motivation, perceptions, and thought processes (Prince et al., 2010). Often confident people are daring, open to learning, self-expressive, enjoy taking risks, and voice when they do not understand. These aspects are vital for PUPTs as they may help them develop reflective practice and enhance content of their practical theories. Participants reported growing confidence from the knowledge gained through PGDE program and from knowing that they had completed the professional course. As teacher confidence influences students’ responses to instructions (Prince et al., 2010), lack of confidence in the content of practical theories may have implications for professional practice. Essentially, for them to take agency, they should believe that their acting will in-fact change the situation.

Conclusion

The PUPTs entered the PGDE program with a simplistic notion of teaching. The content of their practical theories at the end of Semester 1 focused on relationships, lesson preparation, lesson delivery, and classroom management. These aspects suggest mediocre pedagogies (Pitkäniemi, 2010). Focus was on “self” and fostered their survival (fitting in) within the classroom and teaching context (Buitink, 2009).

Findings from Interview 2 after two semesters suggest that the content of their practical theories had developed and evolved. Focus had shifted from “self” to the “task” at hand (Fuller & Brown, 1975; Kettle & Sellars, 1996). The content of their practical theories targeted effective performance of the teaching task which was reflected through thorough lesson preparation, learner-centered pedagogies, student assessments, lesson evaluation, collaboration, creating conducive teaching/learning environments, and teacher enthusiasm. At this stage, three PUPTs displayed elements encompassing context and students’ and teacher’s learning (Buitink, 2009), suggesting components of fully developed theories.

Findings from Interview 3 after completing the program suggested that most of the content of their practical theories constituted elements well-developed theories. The major elements included identifying and handling student diversity, student engagement, moving students from known to unknown, self-evaluation, reflection, and research. This suggests a focus on students’ learning which also allows for teacher learning and development. Other components of the content of their practical theories like lesson preparation were evident throughout the three semesters, while conducive environment, enthusiasm, lesson evaluation, student assessment and feedback, and learner-centered pedagogies were reported in Interviews 2 and 3.

The findings show that these novice teachers progressed through three stages: survival concerns, teaching situation concerns, and pupil and teacher learning concerns (Fuller & Brown, 1975). The development and evolution of their practical theories through these stages illustrates the dynamic nature of the content of practical theories given its links to contexts and reflection on experiences (Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Again, the components of the content of the practical theories of these PUPTs were often not identical due to diverse contexts and situations in which they operated which also reflected the individualistic nature of practical theories as teachers need “theories of action for here and now” to address particular contextual educational problems (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). It appears emersion in practice gave rise to gradual growth and development of the content of their practical theories which seemingly created their understanding of the underlying principles of teaching/learning and adjustment of their views thereto, consequently enhancing well-developed practical theories (Buitink, 2009).

This is a small study which explored the content and development of practical theories of teaching of six PUPTs. A more comprehensive study with a bigger sample needs to be carried out to address, among others, questions regarding whether or not content and development of practical theories of professionally unqualified and qualified teachers grow in the same way.