Skip to main content
Log in

Student Teachers’ Knowledge in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Student teachers’ knowledge during teaching practice becomes the contested phenomenon in the era of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). Inadequate knowledge negatively impacts the existing South African curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) subjects, despite the attempt at introducing the new 4IR curriculum into schools. Consequently, this qualitative interpretive case study explored student teachers’ knowledge in the teaching of CAPS subjects. The study purposively selected thirty-one student teachers from a South African university who were conducting teaching practice; they were also conveniently co-opted because they were fourth years, conducting teaching practice in three different schools. A technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework was used to frame the study. File observation, reflective activity, and a one-on-one semi-structured method were utilised to generate data, which was analysed using both deductive and inductive process. Credibility and dependability were used to ensure trustworthiness, while the anonymity and confidentiality of this study were maintained to ensure ethics. This paper revealed that student teachers are good at standard content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge, while having no notion of advanced knowledge that caters for 4IR. Hence, inadequate training received from the university contributes to their failings. Thus, Advanced Signal (AS)-TPACK emerged from the findings as the most useful framework for knowledge growth in education to prepare student teachers in the 4IR era.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the authors on reasonable request.

References

  • Amory, A. (2015). Models to support learning and teaching with technology. Moving beyond the hype: A contextualised view of learning with technology in higher education, 8.

  • Balkaran, S. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution–its impact on the south African public sector.

  • Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers: National Center for research on teacher education East Lansing, Michigan.

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Butler-Adam, J. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution and education. South African Journal of Science, 114(5–6), 1–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 ed.). California: SAGE Publications, inc.

  • Gleason, N. W. (2018). Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution: Springer.

  • Govender, N., & Khoza, S. (2017). Technology in education for teachers. In L. Ramrathan, L. Le Grange, and P. Higgs, (eds.), Education studies for initial teacher development. Cape Town: Juta & Company (PTY) Limited.

  • Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality.

  • Grossman, P. (2018). Teaching Core Practices in Teacher Education: ERIC.

  • Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., Sointu, E. T., & Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and Technology in Education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, A., Kennedy, D., & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Bologna: European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

  • Izadinia, M. (2016). Student teachers’ and mentor teachers’ perceptions and expectations of a mentoring relationship: Do they match or clash? Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 387–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplon-Schilis, A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2019). Analysis of relationship between five domains of TPACK framework: TK, PK, CK math, CK science, and TPACK of pre-service special education teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–19.

  • Khoza S., & Mpungose, C. (2018). Use of the Moodle Curriculum by Lecturers at a South African University. Paper presented at the ICEL 2018 13th International Conference on e-Learning.

  • Khoza, S. (2013). Can they change from being digital immigrants to digital natives? Progressio, 35(1), 54–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoza, S. (2019). 2 lecturers’ reflections on curricular spider web concepts as transformation strategies. Transformation of Higher Education Institutions in Post-Apartheid South Africa, 15.

  • Marwala, T. (2017). Implications of the fourth industrial age in higher education: ResearchGate publications.

  • Mishra, I., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Eachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motshekga, A. (2019). Speech by the minister of basic education delivered at the 9th SADTU National Congress held at Nasrec [press release].

  • Mpungose, C. (2016). Rationale of Teaching Physical Sciences Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Content: Teachers’ Reflections. International Journal of educational science, 14(3), 256–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mpungose, C. (2018). Exploring Lecturers’ Reflections on the Use of Moodle to Teach Physical Science Modules at a South African university. (PhD. ), UKZN, Durban (214581960).

  • Mpungose, C. (2019). Is Moodle or WhatsApp the preferred e-learning platform at a south African university? First-year students’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 927–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L., & Neuman, L. W. (2006). Workbook for Neumann Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches: Allyn & Bacon.

  • Ngidi, D. P., & Sibaya, P. T. (2003). Student teacher anxieties related to practice teaching. South African Journal of Education, 23(1), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkambule, T., & Mukeredzi, T. G. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ professional learning experiences during rural teaching practice in Acornhoek, Mpumalanga Province. South African Journal of Education, 37(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory Piaget and his school (pp. 11-23): Springer.

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramrathan, L. (2017). Educational Research: Key concepts. In L. Ramrathan, L. Le Grange, & P. Higgs (Eds.), Education Studies: for Initial Teacher Development (pp. 403-418). Cape Town: Juta & Company (Pty) LTD.

  • Schäfer, M. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: How the EU can lead it. European View, 17(1), 5–12.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means and how it responds, 16 Jan 2016, viewed on 15 Jan 2019. New York: Currency Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Currency Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standal, Ø. F., Moen, K. M., & Moe, V. F. (2014). Theory and practice in the context of practicum: The perspectives of Norwegian physical education student teachers. European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (1959). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction: Syllabus for education 305. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Akker, J., de Boer, W., Folmer, E., Kuiper, W., Letschert, J., Nieveen, N., & Thijs, A. (2009). Curriculum in developmentEn: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. Netherlands: Spring.

  • Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4).

  • Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H. J., Daugherty, P., & Bianzino, N. (2017). The jobs that artificial intelligence will create. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, M., David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Opportunities and challenges. International journal of financial research, 9(2), 90–95.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Prof. Simon Bheki Khoza for his supervision in to construct this article from a PhD and Post-doctoral research project. Mrs. L. Gething for language editing. Furthermore, we want to thank in advance the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions that will be made.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Fund (NRF) and Fulbright scholarship within the framework of the Research and innovation, support and advancement. The NRF funding was granted to the author to complete the PhD research project in South Africa. Fulbright scholarship was granted to the author do a post- doctoral research in United States of America (University of Denver). These sponsors were not involved in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

I was the main author of this article and was involved in conceptualizing the article. I have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cedric Bheki Mpungose.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I declare that I have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mpungose, C.B. Student Teachers’ Knowledge in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Educ Inf Technol 25, 5149–5165 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10212-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10212-5

Keywords

Navigation