EVALUATING SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERSR=
17;
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (PCK)
S.Selcen Kend=
ir,
Abstract
This study describes the analysis of teacher pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) within the context of science teaching. The focus was based on the direct comparisons between secondary science teachers who were experienced and tho= se who were beginners. Data were gathered through audiotape, extended interviews and classroom observations = with five experienced and five beginning teachers. The results indicate that des= pite extensive teaching experience, sophisticated knowledge or pedagogical skill= s, teachers may be weak in some components of PCK. Specific differences were f= ound on between experienced and beginning teachers in instructional decision mak= ing, meaningful interpretations and ability to recognize the variations of stude= nt knowledge and learning. This study suggests that professional development programs should be designed to support not only beginning teachers but also experienced teachers to develop pedagogical-content knowledge.
Introduction
Current educational development reforms (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996) emphasize the importance of teacher education to create effective teachers. Even though t= he definition of effective teacher varies from person to person, most educator= s agree that an effective teacher should have strong discipline content knowledge, appropriate pedagogical skills, and personal knowledge that helps to forge strong relationships with students. PCK is “blending” of content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge, and it helps teachers transform and present the content to learners. PCK is the crucial part of effective teaching.
Teachers = drawn variety of knowledge bases to construct their knowledge. While the elements of teac= her knowledge varies through researchers, Shulman (1987) defined teacher knowle= dge in seven categories that are content knowledge, general pedagogical knowled= ge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of context, and knowledge of educational purposes. Pedagogical content knowledge has a special interest because of its nature.
Since the= concept of PCK was introduced, many researchers give some attitudes to understand t= he nature and development of PCK. In recent years, researchers have shown a growing interest in the PCK of science teachers. The principal aim of this study was to make comparisons between experienced and beginning secondary science teacher participants to determine the nature and development of PCK= and influences of PCK on classroom practices. The research questions for this s= tudy were:
Literature
Review
Shulman (1= 986) coined the term PCK to describe it as a special type of content knowledge w= hich is required for teaching. Shulman claimed that teachers not only have to kn= ow and understand subject matter content, but also they have to know how to te= ach that specific content effectively. In other words, teachers need to know what is likely to be easy or difficult for their students to learn, and how to organize, sequence, and present the content to cater to the diverse interests and abilities of students. Shulman (1986) stated that,
= …within the category of pedagogical content knowledge I include, for the
most regularly taught t= opics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of
= representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations,
= examples, explanations, and demonstrations- in a word, ways of representing
= and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others.
= Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what
= makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult; the conceptions and
= preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with
=
them
to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons (p.9-
=
10).
In his sub=
sequent
article Shulman (1987) defined PCK as “…that special amalgam of
content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own
special form of professional understanding” and considered PCK as a
special interest because it represents the blending of content and pedagogy=
. The
discussion about PCK has a rapid growth in popularity since Shulman proposed
the construct. Many researchers have proposed different versions of =
PCK
by elaborating Shulman’s work (Cochran et al, 1993; Gess-Newsome &
Lederman, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Magnusson, Kranjick & Borko, 1999; Mark=
s,
1990). Some researchers follow Shulman’s general form of classifications an=
d add
new areas on it (Grossman, 1990; Marks 1990), others list different forms
of PCK and believe the=
indistinguishable
borders of PCK and content knowledge (Cochran et al, 1993), whereas others =
give
no indication of the borders =
of PCK
(Tamir, 1988). Table 1 shows the comparison of the conceptualizing of PCK of
various authors. Grossman (=
1990)
stated that pedagogical content knowledge is composed of four central
components. The first component includes knowledge and beliefs about purpos=
es
for teaching a subject at different grade levels. The
second component includes knowledge of students’ understanding,
conceptions, and misconceptions of particular topics in a subject matter. <=
span
style=3D'color:black'>The third
According = to Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko (1999), pedagogical content knowledge can be described as the transformation of several types of knowledge for teaching. That knowledge is subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and knowl= edge about context. The authors pointed out that PCK consists of five components= : a) “orientations toward science teaching” that includes the purpos= es and goals for teaching science at different levels; b) “knowledge and beliefs about curriculum” consisted of having clear perception about goal= s and objectives of curricula; c) “knowledge and beliefs about assessment in science” included knowing about dimensions of science learning to ass= ess and methods of assessing science learning; d) “knowledge and beliefs about students’ difficulties with specific science concept” involved knowing requirements for learning and areas about students difficu= lty; e) “knowledge of instructional strategies” consisted of knowing strategies for specific science topics.
Cochran et= al. (1993) revised Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge model and crea= ted one (they called it “pedagogical content knowing”) that results from an integration of four major components, two of which are subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. One component is teachers' knowledge of students' abilities and learning strategies, ages and developmental levels, attitudes, motivations,= and prior knowledge of the concepts to be taught. The other component is teache= rs' understanding of the social, political, cultural and physical environments = in other words knowledge of environmental context. They used Venn diagrams to explain how the four components interact and how PCKg form from = this interaction.
Marks (199= 0) pointed out that PCK contains elem= ents of both pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge and it is diffic= ult to make definite distinctions of PCK from its’ these elements. He als= o asserted that PCK "represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers' work and that would not typically be held by non-teaching subject matter experts or by teachers who know little of that subject" (Marks 1990, p. 9).
A number of studies have explored teachers PCK from a different perspective. The nature= of PCK was undertaken through the studies on comparisons between beginning and experienced teachers. Smith and Neale (1989) infer that there are differenc= es between beginning and expert teachers in terms of choice of representations= for the subject matter. Beginning teachers with insufficient subject matter knowledge have problems on selecting explanations and representations of the concept. Smith and Neale defined PCK as having three components: knowledge = of strategies for teaching content, knowledge of students’ conceptions, = and knowledge of elaborating and shaping content. They believed that “the= se aspects of content knowledge, along with management and classroom organizational knowledge contribute to the complexity of primary science teaching". Other study of the comparison of beginning and experience teachers was conducted by Van Driel, Beijaard and Verloop (2001) and the results show that in contrast to experienced teachers, beginning teachers&#= 8217; beliefs about science teaching differs from their own classroom practices.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
In this st= udy, the meaning of PCK is drawn from the perspective of Lee Shulman (1986, 1987). P= CK integrated knowledge of what and how to teach for a particular content. In Shulman’s words, PCK contains, “the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulm= an, 1986, p. 9). Our emphasis on PCK based on Shulman’s descriptions that= PCK is blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how a particul= ar content is represented in different ways to the learners with different interests and abilities.
In the pre= sent study the focus is on two central components of PCK. The first category, knowledge of student learning and conception, includes the following elemen= ts: students’ prior knowledge, variations in students’ approaches to learning and students’ misconceptions. Second category which is knowl= edge of instructional strategies and representations includes the following elements: representations (e.g. analogies, models) and scientific inquiry f= or teaching a specific topic.
In sum, PC= K has different types of components and it is also consisted of elements both sub= ject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. The literature review of PCK show that there are many issues such as the forms and components of PCK, the place of PCK on teacher knowledge, development of PCK, and effects of teachers’ beliefs= on the nature of PCK raised and studied in different kind of researchers, in different kind of areas. The analyses of this large corpus of the studies s= how that definition of PCK has still murky boundaries, and more research is nee= ded on PCK. In this study, many of the aspects of PCK that are ambiguous are addressed to explain more in-dept the nature of PCK.
Research
Methodology
A qualitat= ive study was designed to gather in-depth information about nature and developm= ent of PCK. Patton (1990) states “qualitative methods permit the research= er to study selected issues in depth and detail; the fact that data collection= is not constrained by predetermined categories of analysis contributes to the depth and detail of qualitative data” (p.165). Multiple data sources = were collected throughout the year-long study. These sources included semi-structured interviews about pedagogical content knowledge, and classro= om observations. This present study used a = descriptive multiple-case study methodology. Yin (1994) def= ines case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries bet= ween phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p.13).
Participant=
s &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
= In order to develop and understanding of the nature and development of science teachers’ PCK we investigated both beginning and experienced science teachers both individually and as groups. Five beginning and five experienced secondary science teachers were selected to represent a range of school setting and subjects. In ord= er to protect participants’ privacy, we used pseudonyms rather than real names of individuals. Table 2 gives demographic information of participant teachers.
The ten participant teachers for this study comprised= two general groups; Robert, Tom, Ashley, Ted, and Sherry were experienced teach= ers who each had more than 10 years teaching experience; Nancy, Brian, Jake, Ki= m, and Steven were all first-year teachers.
Data Collection = &nb= sp;
Intervi= ew. A semi-structured interview (Berg, 1998) was developed to investigate teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The interview consisted of t= wo broad questions and a series of follow-up probes (Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig, in press). The broad questions were:
Can you br= iefly describe a recent lesson you taught that you thought was successful?
What did y= ou consider as you plan this lesson?
During the interviews we allowed for ample time for participants to respond in detail = and to give elaborate answers. If teachers did not mention students as part of their planning process, we probed further with targeted, follow-up question= s:
· Did you consider students’ prior knowledge? If so, how?
· Did you consider variations in students̵= 7; approaches to learning? If so, how?
· Did you consider students’ difficulty = with specific science concepts (misconceptions)? If so, how?
Classr= oom Observations. Each teacher was observed four times during the school ye= ar. Each observation consisted of a written summary describing the format of the lesson, the interactions between the teacher and students, notable events in the classroom, and teacher behaviors that facilitated or blocked the lesson objective(s).
Observati=
ons were
scored using the Oregon Teacher Observation (OTOP) (Wainwright, Morrell, &a=
mp;
Flick, 2004). The observations were guided by s=
et of
themes about teachers’ instructional planning, teaching and management
strategies. During the observed teaching, we coded the instruction t=
ype
for every 5 minute. We also take field notes during the whole class period.=
Classroom observations assisted us =
to
determine teachers teaching strategies, the possible factors
that may influence their teaching and the level of their concerns about
students (variations, misconceptions, prior knowledge) in their lesson plan=
ning.
Data
Analysis
All inform= ation from the semi-structured interviews was cross-referenced with information f= rom classroom observations.
Analysis o= f data began with transcribing the interviews. Interviews were coded carefully usi= ng a rubric where categories allowed emerging from the data. The rubric was crea= ted by Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig (in press). According to the rubric, PCK inclu= des two major categories and they consist of:
Category I- Knowledge of Student Learning and Conceptions
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Prior knowledge
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Variations in students’ approaches to learning
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Students’ difficulties with specific science concepts
Category II- Knowledge of Instructional Strategies and Representations
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Science specific strategies (scientific inqu= iry)
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Representation
According to the rubric, teachers’ PCK levels categorizes as limited, basic and proficient. The term proficient level is used and refers to being the advan= ced and the term limited used for being the beginning level.
Once the intervi= ew and observations were summarized and the interview data coded for an individual= teacher, we wrote an individual case study for each teacher. Case studies provided in-depth portrait of each teacher. These case descriptions were analyzed for the patterns of similarities and differences in beginning and experienced teachers’ PCK.
Results
Results are presented separately with respect to the nature of PCK and influences of PC= K on classroom practices. Through the analysis of collected data using the rubri= c, we found that beginning and experienced teachers have various differences in their level of PCK. Table 3 and Table 4 show the results of analysis of PCK= of experienced and beginning teachers.
The
Nature of PCK
PCK of experienced teachers
= All the experienced teachers were found at or above the basic level for the first category of PCK which is “knowledge of student learning and conceptions.” =
= Experienced teachers were found at basic in the “prior knowledge” category. Although they were aware of students’ prior knowledge none of them actually constructed their lessons that build upon students’ knowledge. According to Ted, experience allowed him to catch students’ prior knowledge on a particular topic. He stated that “After a couple years, I learned where their [students] prior knowled= ge, in general every kid different. First couple years I did not know where that [prior knowledge] was, it came clear after trying it a couple of times.” Robert pointed = out that students’ prior knowledge is just assumed. It is a general assumption that students know something about the new topic because it was covered previously in another semester or class.
Experienced teachers were sensitive to the potential variation in learning amongst different groups of students. With the exception of Ashley and Ted, experie= nced teachers were at the proficient level in the category of “variations = in students’ approaches in learning.” While explaining her most successf= ul class which was on velocity/ force, Ashley noted that she considered students’ prior knowledge, and variations in students’ approach= es on this topic. She expressed that the knowledge of this area was the lowest= and misconceptions were common. She explained in-depth that,
= The students about third of them already in geometry and the rest st= ill on
= algebra one and they were having the determine the slope of line and some of
= them have not done that before so I am more worried about math conce= pt more
= than science in this case.
= All the experienced teachers but Tom considered students’ misconceptions at the proficient level.&nb= sp; With the exception of Tom, all of them integrated this knowledge into their instructional plans. In the interview, Tom said that “I can pre= dict difficulties in students understanding in each topic. I knew when students = come up with misconceptions or get confusion in lessons.” Due to having lo= ng years of teaching experience, Tom had a sense of what types of behaviors, problems, and misconceptions that he could face with during a lesson but he= did not specifically address these misconceptions during the process of lesson planning. Tom did not implement any special strategy to address students= 217; misconceptions. His knowledge of student learning and conceptions was not f= ully embedded his lesson planning and teaching strategies.
= For the second category of PCK which is “knowledge of instructional strategies and representations”, Tom and Ted were at the limited level; Amy was at the basic level; different from the others Robert= was at the proficient level in “scientific inquiry” category.
= Robert’s beliefs about enhancing science learning overlapped in his beliefs about inquiry-based science teaching. He was very comfortable w= ith inquiry due to having years of teaching experience through inquiry, administrative support, and adequate equipment. Robert created a classroom environment that was supportive to increase students’ critical thinking. Ongoing discussions through the classes triggered students’ higher order thinking. Students tried to analyze what they = had learned and how this new content fit with other topics that they had already studied.
Ashley did= not have enough knowledge on inquiry-based instruction; during the interview, Ashley asked what was meant by inquiry-based teaching. Although student-centered education was at the heart of = her instructions, she did not implement inquiry purposefully and she also did n= ot a special interest on learning to do inquiry-based science.
In talking= about inquiry, Tom expressed that he did not use inquiry because of the size of h= is classes. “Class sizes are over 30, and I am not comfortable with doing inquiry…It is difficult. I have to teach them, give examples and give information. They cannot know what they should learn with themselves. If I = have smaller classes, maybe I can use guided inquiry.” Tom used more teach= er directed lessons and focused on content.
Classroom observations showed that Ted mostly used lecture/discussion instruction with occasional verification laboratory activities. His constraints to implement inquiry-based teaching included school mandated curricula and lack of administrative support.
Sherry als= o chose not to teach science through inquiry-based strategies. She believed that she should give students as much information and explanation as possible to help them to learn science best. She managed students’ own learning and directed them in classroom activities. In terms of teaching style, Sherry mostly used teacher-directed lessons.
For the ca= tegory of “representations” that is the subcategory of “knowledg= e of instructional strategies and representations” all the experienced teachers, except Ted were at the proficient level. Their familiarity with content helped experienced teachers to implement different strategies. Their subject matter knowledge allowed them to generate new activities with representations that are conceptually connected with the content. They used= the effective lab activities, demonstrations, explanations and examples that mo= stly linked to real-world situations.
During the=
time of
the study Ashley taught biology to students with special needs. To catch th=
ese
students’ attention, Ashley knew she should carefully choose classroom
activities. While teaching about viruses, Ashley showed a short video to the
students. The video was on bird flue which was a current and outstanding is=
sue
in recent years. Her Asian students showed too much interest on the topic. =
To
enhance students’ interest for the video show, Ashley stopped the vid=
eo
regularly and asked students to explain what they had understood so far and
which information was new and fascinating for them. After the video show As=
hley
asked students to discuss how viruses transform and the effects of the epid=
emic
in the
During the classroom observations, Ted mostly gave factual information to studentsR= 17; questions. He generally referred the textbook for scientific based explanations. While he was teaching about classification of Kingdom Monera,= at the beginning of the class one student asked him “Who are deciding th= is classifications?” Ted responded that “I do not know, scientists decided many years ago.” Later during the lesson, Ted wanted students= to fill out the necessary parts in a worksheet on “Monera.” He told his students, “I just gave the basic information; you could use your books to answer questions.”
On the oth= er hand, Robert, Tom, and Sherry mostly applied examples or explanations that represented real-world issues. They did not mainly relied on textbook as a resource of their knowledge of science and how to teach it.
PCK of Beg=
inning
Teachers
All the be= ginning teachers were found at either limited or basic level for the first category= of PCK, “knowledge of students’ learning and conceptions.” <= /p>
All the be= ginning teachers but Jake and Steven were found at basic in the “prior knowledge” category. In the interview all of them talked about their awareness and understanding of what students already know about a particular science topic. However, none of them integrate this knowledge into their instructional plans.
During the classroom observations, Naomi, Kim, and Brian asked provoking questions to catch students’ prior knowledge before starting to teach a new topic.= According to them, they used “question of the day” strategy to identify students’ pre-existing knowledge about topics. For the first day of DNA lesson, Na= omi had planned to implement two classroom activities. She wrote two questions on t= he board at the beginning of the class and wanted students to discuss about the questions. The questions were: a) what is a DNA marker? b) explain how mode= rn genetics is being used to trace ancient human migration patterns.
Students&#= 8217; responses helped Naomi to understand their knowledge about the topic, and t= heir answers were strong evidence that they had very little known about the new = topic. Despite students’ insufficient knowledge about the new topic, Naomi d= id not change her instructional plan and after the discussion she showed a vid= eo as she planned before. The video was on DNA and mutations in which there was v= ery complex information for students. As was mentioned earlier, as a beginning teacher Naomi considered students’ prior knowledge but she did not bu= ild on her lessons thinking of students’ pre-existing knowledge. The class period was not enough for the video show; Naomi stopped the video at the en= d of the class period and did not let students watch the rest of it in the follo= wing classes.
All beginn= ing teachers but Kim and Jake were found at limited in the “variations in students’ approaches in learning” category. Kim and Jake were at basic in this category; they chose the classroom activities according to the variations in students’ learning. Jake made his plans thinking about students’ ability to understand the scientific content. He taught bio= logy for a variety of students who were unsuccessful in the traditional school setting. Attendance was a big problem in his class. Jake made day by day pl= ans because students did not show up orderly.
Kim was wo= rking with immigrant students within the context of regular classroom. In the interview, Kim explained how she considered students’ variations in learning. She expressed that many of her students struggled with understand= ing the process of translation and transcription. She decided to spend extra ti= me on these topics. She made little magnets up on the board to help student visualize the processes. Acco= rding to Kim, she had to differentiate instructions for students with insufficient English abilities.
Like Kim, = Steve worked with students who were not successful in the traditional school sett= ing. Steve did not use any specific teaching strategies. Most of his classes were monotonous for students.
With the e= xception of Jake and Brian, beginning teachers were at basic in the “students’ difficulties with specific science concepts” category. Brian and Jake were limited in this category. During the intervie= w, all the teachers explained they were little aware of students’ misconceptions about scientific topics due to not having years of teaching experience. They did not consider students’ misconceptions while they were planning their lessons. They were not able to identify students’ misconceptions before the instruction. As Kim stated, before the instruction she did not know what kind of misconceptions she was going to face.
When asked= to talk about students’ misconceptions, Brian responded that he needed to wor= k on this issue. He mostly mimicked instructional strategies that used by next d= oor classroom experienced biology teacher. Identifying and treating students= 217; misconceptions were hard for Brian because he did not have enough content knowledge. Brian stated that he had difficulty making decisions about conte= nt coverage. According to him, sometimes it took him 20 minutes to teach the subject that the next door teacher taught in a whole class period.
Naomi and = Steven recognized students’ learning difficulties and in limited level they modified their lessons. They generally prefer to spend extra time on instruction if they identified any student misconceptions.
= For the second category of PCK which is “knowledge of instructional strategies and representations”, Naomi and Steven were = at the limited level; others were at the basic level in the subcategory of “scientific inquiry.”
From the experiences, Jake developed a different orientation toward science in which= the emphasis was on inquiry. While he was doing his masters he did research and inquiry by himself and he wanted his students to do the steps with themselv= es aspiration. He stated that “I feel like I can bring in a lot of unique information from my studies to class.”
Kim implem= ented inquiry in her classes but she mostly used cook book labs that had step by = step instructions for students and did not force students to think or analyze critically.
Naomi and = Steve rarely taught science through inquiry. They asked provoking inquiry-oriented questions to engage students in inquiry. For example, in a flower dissection activity which is traditional and commonly used as a part of plant reproduc= tion unit, Naomi did not provide students the opportunity to design their own investigations. Students made observations of their flowers, made sketches = of flower parts, dissected them and investigated the internal structures. Naomi made the activity more inquiry-based using inquiry-based questioning strategies. Her questions on developmental stages of flowers and effects of pollen germination on environment made students think about the topic in depth, critically and cr= eate explanations.
Beginning teachers’ level of representations was similar to their level of scie= ntific inquiry. With the exception of Steven, all the beginning teachers were at b= asic level in this category. Beginning teachers generally mimicked experienced teachers’ instructions and most of them were not willing to create new lessons plans or classroom activities during their first year teaching. They did not good at responding students’ questions; they did not answer t= he question to the student's satisfaction as best as they can. Beginning teach= ers relied on textbook as a main source of knowledge of science. For example, N= aomi mostly responded a students question referencing the textbook. During the observations, following= by students’ questions several times she went to the textbook and she lo= oked up something to answer students’ questions.
The textbo= ok was also a good resource for Steven. While he was teaching, he tried to follow = the textbook. During one classroom observation, Steven taught water movement. He did lecture, handed out worksheet and asked students to fill out the necess= ary information on the worksheet. Since Steven copied questions from the textbo= ok student easily find out the answers in their books.
Another pr= oblem that beginning teachers face in this category was that they used representations that were not completely tied to the one concept. For examp= le Kim showed a video while she was teaching about the structure of DNA. The v= ideo was about ethical issues that came up with the invention of DNA. It was not really connected to the main concept. =
Effects
of PCK on Classroom Practices
To complet= e the detailed analyses and useful comparisons between experienced and beginning teachers’ PCK, one parallel lesson- teaching about DNA- was selected = to examine. This concept was selected because of its association with other fundamental concepts in biology. Each teacher explained how they taught DNA= and most of them were observed during their instructions. Similar demonstrations were used among beginning and experienced as they taught about DNA. Teachers used a range of demonstrations that included structure of DNA and RNA. All the teachers conducted laborat= ory on DNA extraction from anything living. During the instructions; unlike beginn= ing teachers, experienced teachers frequently connected school knowledge to students’ daily life; they gave more real life related examples. For example, Robert asked students to discuss about finger printing technology = and bioterrorism. Two of the beginning teachers, Naomi and Kim, preferred to sh= ow students a long video regarding the ethical issues of invention of DNA. Experienced teachers discussed the topic in greater detail. In Ted’s class students joined a long discussion on DNA, mutations and evolution.
Some begin= ners particularly these with less biology content knowledge gave incomplete and misleading responses or asked students to check the answer of their questio= ns from textbooks. For example Brian responded one student questions as “= ;I am not the genetics person, I do not know the answer.” Experience teachers were familiar with the misconceptions that hold by students. They recognized the difficulties students may have about the topic. Tom spent an extra time while he was teaching the replication of DNA. Due to years of teaching experience he knew that it was a complicated topic and students had misconceptions about it.
Classroom observations suggest a po= ssible link between teachers’ PCK and instructional decisions. Teachers̵= 7; knowledge about students and the content that they taught play a role in th= eir decisions on classroom practices.
Discussion
and Conclusion
The central purpose of this study was to portray PCK from beginning and experienced sci= ence teachers’ perspectives to understand the nature of PCK and the role of PCK on classroom practices. The results of this study show that PCK of knowledge of student learning and concerns was derived from experience. On = the other hand knowledge of instructional strategies and representations was derived from experience and contextual factors. In addition to these findings, we a= lso found that PCK plays an important role in teachers’ classroom practic= es.
Regarding = their PCK of knowledge of student learning in science, the findings show that experienced teachers seem to be more advanced than beginning teachers. Experienced teachers were better than beginning teachers to predict misconceptions the students may have, due to their better developed content knowledge and knowledge of learners. The more teachers work with students, = the more they can learn students’ prior knowledge, misconceptions, and variations in students’ learning about a particular topic.
Like previ= ous study (Grossman and Gudmundsdottir, 1987) the results indicate that experie= nced teachers have more explicit representations of their PCK than beginning teachers. Through working with students teachers can increase their collect= ion of representations. They can learn what type of explanations, examples, demonstrations and also instructional strategies that work best for students while they are teaching a particular topic. Beginning teachers are still in th= e process of developing a repertoire of instructional strategies and representations.=
The compar= ison case analyses between two groups show that there were some similarities between experienced and beginning teachers on the PCK of scientific inquiry. All th= e teachers, but Robert, were at the limited or basic level for this element of PCK. Par= ticipant teachers main constraints to implement inquiry-based strategies were belief= s (having unfavorable beliefs about inquiry), contextual factors (school mandated cur= ricula, student immaturity, state standard tests, inadequate equipment, lack of administrative support), and experience (lack of previous teaching and/or research experience with inquiry). We investigated both beginning and experienced science teachers both individually and as groups, and results showed that every teacher had diffe= rent barriers to teach science through inquiry. There was not a link between specific groups and specific constraints.
&nb= sp; From this study, it is clear that there is a need to study how to strengthen the= PCK of beginning and experienced science teachers. This study suggests that professional development programs should be designed to support not only beginning teachers but also experienced teachers to develop pedagogical-con= tent knowledge.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon= work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0550847. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view= s of the National Science Foundation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Reference
American
Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science
=
literacy.
Cochran,
K.F., DeRuiter, J.A., King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: an
= integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-
= 272
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. =
=
In J. Gess-Newson and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
=
knowledge: PCK and science education (pp.3-17).
= Publisher. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;
Grossman, PL. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowl= edge & teacher education. <= /span>
=
Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J= . & Roehrig, G. (in press). Assessing beginning science teachers’
= PCK: Pilot year results. Sch= ool Science and Mathematics.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development o= f
= pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newson and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: PCK and science education
=
(pp.3-17).
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogic= al content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
= conception. Journal of teach= er education, 41(3). 3-11
National Research Council. =
(1996). National science education standards.
=
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research me=
thods.
= Sage
Shulman, L.S. (1986).Those =
who
understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
= Researcher, 15(2), 4= -14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Disc=
iplines
of inquiry in education [An overview]. Educational
=
Researcher, 10(6), 5=
-12.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Know=
ledge
and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
= Educational Reviews, 57, 1-22.
Smith, D.C & Neale, D.C= (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary
= science teaching. Teaching a= nd Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20
Tamir, P. (1988). Subject m= atter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teacher
= education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110
Van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, = D. and Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform
in science educat=
ion:
The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research
=
in Science Teaching, 38<=
/i>(2),
137-158
Wainwright, C., Morrell, P.= D, & Flick, L. (2004). Observation of reform teaching in
=
undergraduate level mathematics and science courses. School Science and
= Mathematics, 104(7), 322-335.
Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S.= , and Richert A.E. (1987). ‘150 Different Ways’ of
= knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In. J. Calderhead (Ed.),
=
Exploring teachers’ th=
inking
(pp.104-124).
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case
study research: Designs and methods.
Table
A framework to conceptualize the
components of PCK
|
Knowledge= of |
||||||||
|
Authors |
Subject -matter |
General Pedagogy |
Context |
Representations And strategies |
Students’ learning and conceptions |
Curriculum |
Assessment |
Purpose |
|
Shulman (1987) |
a |
A |
A |
PCK |
pck |
A |
b |
a |
|
Smith & Neale (1989) |
PCK |
B |
B |
pck |
pck |
B |
b |
b |
|
Grossman(1990) |
a |
A |
A |
pck |
pck |
PCK |
b |
PCK |
|
Marks (1990) |
pck |
B |
B |
pck |
pck |
pck |
b |
b |
|
Cochran et al. (1993) |
pck<=
sub>g |
pck<=
sub>g |
pck<=
sub>g |
B |
pck<=
sub>g |
B |
b |
b |
|
Magnusson et al. (1999) |
a |
A |
A |
PCK |
PCK |
PCK |
PCK |
PCK |
a different category
b not discussed explicitly
Table 2
Description of participant teachers
|
|
Namea<= /sup> |
Degree<= /p> |
Subject and= school setting |
School Sett=
ing |
|
Experienced Teachers |
Robert |
M.S. and M.Ed. in Biology |
11th and 12th grade Environmen= tal Science and AP Biolog= y |
Independent school |
|
Tom |
B.S. in Industrial Technologies and licensure for Middle School Science |
9th, 10th and 11th = grade Biology and Ph= ysical Science |
Public School |
|
|
Ashley |
B.S. in Biology and MA in Second Languages Acquisiti= on |
9th and 10th grade Biology and Ph= ysical Science |
Public School |
|
|
Ted |
B.S. in Biology and M.Ed. in Biology |
9th, 10th and 11th = grade Biology |
Private School |
|
|
Sherry |
B.S. in Biology and M.Ed. in Science Educationb= |
Middle School Integrated Science |
Magnet School |
|
|
Beginning Teachers |
Naomi |
B.S. in Biology, Ms in Botany, PhD in Science Educat=
ionc |
9th and 10th grade Biology and AP Biology |
Private School |
|
Kim |
B.S. in Kinesiology And M.Ed. in Science Educationb |
10th&nbs= p; grade Biology / Public School |
Public School |
|
|
Jake |
B.S and M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries M.Ed. in science education |
10th grade Biology |
Public School and |
|
|
Brian |