Science Didactic Competencies Development in Teacher Training Colleges. Perspectives of Final Year Students at Nyamata TTC in Rwanda

Science didactic competencies development is essential in teacher training because it equips pre-service teachers with the pedagogical skills, practical knowledge, and instructional strategies necessary to effectively teach science and foster student understanding. This study investigated the perceptions of final-year students at Nyamata TTC in the Eastern province of Rwanda regarding the effectiveness of science didactic competencies development within their teacher training program. The purpose was to examine how well the college prepares pre-service science teachers in key didactic competencies, including lesson planning and curriculum interpretation, pedagogical content knowledge, inquiry-based learner-centered teaching, practical and laboratory skills, assessment and evaluation, and classroom management and communication. A descriptive research design was employed, guided by Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Theory (Shulman,1986). It used quantitative approach to collect data with structured questionnaire administered to 96 final-year students. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine the levels of confidence across the different competency areas. The results indicated that the majority of students expressed high confidence in most competencies, particularly in lesson planning, assessment and evaluation, and classroom management. However, a relatively low confidence was noted in areas such as improvising teaching aids using locally available materials, integrating ICT tools, and managing large classes. The study concluded that Nyamata TTC’s teacher training program effectively develops core science didactic competencies, but it requires enhanced support in resourcefulness and technology integration to fully prepare graduates for real classroom conditions. It is recommended that the college strengthen innovative teaching aid development, and enhance ICT integration to bridge the gap between training and classroom realities.

Teachers are widely recognized as the cornerstone of quality education systems

1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2017). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Practical work in science education. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ansari, A., (2022), Book Reviews: John Chris Jones, Designing Designing, Judy Attfield, Wild Things. Design & Culture, Volume 14:3, pp 361-365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Attard C, Berger N and Mackenzie E (2021) The Positive Influence of Inquiry-Based Learning Teacher Professional Learning and Industry Partnerships on Student Engagement With STEM. Front. Educ. 6:693221. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.693221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 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] [Crossref]

7. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2015). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2016). Teachers’ and pupils’ behavior in large and small classes. Learning and Instruction, 44, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2020). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A Study of Co-Teaching Identifying Effective Implementation Strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32 (3), 538-550. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Brown, G. T. L., & Jones, N. (2021). Assessment literacy. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Designing educative curriculum materials. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Depaepe, F., et al. (2013). Teachers’ instructional beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Emmer, E. T., & Sabornie, E. J. (2015). Handbook of classroom management. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2014). Classroom management. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 103–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Estrada, O., Dieter, M., & Fuentes, R. (2022). The as-sessment of the usability of digital educational resources : An interdisciplinary analysis from two systematic reviews. Education and Informa-tion Technologies, 4037–4063. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(6), 594–609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gulikers, J. T. M., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017). Authentic assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 181–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Habiyaremye, H. T., Ntivuguruzwa, C., & Ntawiha, P. (2023). Rwandan teacher training college’s mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching: Assessment toward competency-based curriculum. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1214396. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1214396 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hashweh, M. (2013). Teacher pedagogical constructions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2017). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hegedus, S., & Dalton, S. (2015). Technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(2), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2015). Learning in and from chemistry laboratories. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2014). The laboratory in science education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2014). The prosocial classroom. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Johnson, R. (2018). Trauma and Learning: Impacts and Strategies for Adult Classroom Success. Minne TESOL Journal, 34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kember, D. (2016). Understanding the nature of motivation and motivating students. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning. Science Education, 101(1), 8–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Kuo, Y.-C., Hsiao, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). Mobile learning. Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Maher, C. (2005). How students structure their investigations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2017). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mir, A. H. (2024). Learner-Centered Pedagogies: Transforming Education for the 21st Century. Journal of Accounting Research, Utility Finance and Digital Assets. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Mupa, P., & Chinooneka, T. I. (2015). Factors contributing to ineffective teaching. International Journal of Science and Research, 4(5), 125–131. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Nakawuki, R., Kyasanku, C., & Tebenkana, T. (2025). Teachers’ Proficiency in Designing Competence-Based Curriculum Formative Assessment Tools in Selected Public Secondary Schools in Mpigi District, Uganda. East African Journal of Education Studies, 8(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.4.3769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ndihokubwayo, K. (2017). Investigating the status and barriers of science laboratory activities in Rwandan teacher training colleges towards improvisation practice. Rwandan Journal of Education - Volume 4 No 1 (2017). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/rje/article/view/160061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. OECD. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2017). Teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2014). Active learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. R. Aguilar-Moya, “Teaching Methods, Learning and Development: A 15-Year Research Perspective by Educational Stages,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 9, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. REB Curriculum Framework for TTCs. (2020). Rwanda Education Board. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Scherer, R., et al. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 981–1013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Schneider, M., & Simonsmeier, B. A. (2025). How does prior knowledge affect learning? A review of 16 mechanisms and a framework for future research. Learning and Individual Differences, 122, 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102744 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 337–366. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Learner-centred education. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Stronge, J. H., & Hindman, J. L. (2017). The teacher quality index. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Tondeur, J., et al. (2017). Preparing pre-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555–575. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Tondeur, J., et al. (2019). ICT integration in education. Computers & Education, 133, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2017). Quality questioning. Corwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Wibowo, A. M., Utaya, S., Wahjoedi, W., Zubaidah, S., Amin, S., & Prasad, R. R. (2024). Critical thinking and collaboration skills on environ-mental awareness in project-based science learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 13(1), 103-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Zhao, Y., & Jiao, Y. (2012). Technology-supported learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 807–825. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study