A Model For Professional Knowledge Acquisition By Science Teachers

Author(s):

Alain Jameau(presenting / submitting)Jean-Marie Boilevin(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 03 B, Teacher Professional Developement in Didactics of Science

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

17:15-18:45

Room:

202.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Ingrid Maria Carlgren

Contribution

This contribution focuses on Physics and chemistry teachers’ professional knowledge. We present our theoretical framework for knowledge acquisition that we constructed is based on the theoretical frameworks of science didactics and professional didactics. We have elaborated some theoretical tools that express the acquisition by teachers of new knowledge from the in-class activity and, at the same time, show the impact of this new knowledge on how the teacher organizes his activity. This impact can be measured by in-class and out-of-class work. It suggests that the activity has a constructive factor and a productive factor (Samurcay & Rabardel, 2004).

We illustrate the interest of this framework with an empirical study based on the implementation of a science lesson which is founded on inquiry, in the French curricular context. We study two physics and chemistry teachers at middle school (9th grade) who are teaching mechanics. We specifically focus on the difference between what is planned and what is implemented by the teachers in their class. We investigate the unexpected events in the class (Huber & Chautard, 2001). In order to do that, we have used a specific method whose principles included monitoring of teachers over two consecutive years, encompassing their out-of-class activities.

In our study, we examine teacher’s action (in class and out of class) by identifying his professional knowledge and how it is developed. The study of different kinds of knowledge refers to the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), elaborated by Shulman (1987). PCK can be considered as a specific knowledge for teaching and it is partially enriched by content knowledge (Sensevy & Amade-Escot, 2007). Therefore, this theoretical tool can be used to understand the specific knowledge involved in the teaching of subject-related knowledge, in order to distinguish a teacher from an expert. We also refer to Grossman (1990) in order to specifically analyze the nature of Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) or the links between PK and PCK and to Magnusson and al.’s model (1999) to categorize the knowledge involved in teaching practice. This last model is composed of categories and subcategories that distinguish finely teacher knowledge and student knowledge between knowledge at the level of the teacher, which he uses in relation to the content to be taught (weight and mass in our study), and knowledge at the student level that is specific to the teaching of this content.

So as to study the developments of professional knowledge, we refer to professional didactics in order to analyze the organization of teacher activity and the accompanying regulation mechanisms (Pastré, 1999; Leplat, 2006; Coulet, 2011). Leontiev (1978) considers that actions are essential components of human activities. They are subordinated to activities. Activities are carried out through actions and actions respond to conscious goals. These goals are part of the task that Leontiev (1978) defines as a specific goal under defined conditions. Therefore, it is important to differentiate what is related to the task from what is related to the activity, in order to study the tasks required from the students. The work of Leplat (2006) connects these two elements while showing precisely what differentiates them.

The theoretical framework presented above allows us to articulate the action of teachers with their knowledge. Our inquiry focuses on two main issues:

- What are the types of professional knowledge mobilized by teachers?

- Does this knowledge evolve? Which factors lead to evolutions of knowledge?

Method

Our methodology is based on three principles: following-up of teachers, including their out-of-class activity, the comparison between what is planned and what is realized and confrontation between teachers and the videos of their actions. We have implemented this methodology for two consecutive years, for the monitoring of two experienced teachers in French secondary schools, who are specialists in physics-chemistry teaching. The case study we present here involves a lesson on mechanics with 14-year-old students. The lesson is about "weight and mass". All our teachers deal with “weight and mass” in three one-hour sessions. The advancements were coordinated so that this chapter was taught at the same time of the year so as to allow everyone to discuss teaching situations that were recently experienced. The corpus includes audio and video recordings of class sequences and interviews with each of the teachers, as well as data from a diary filled in by the two teachers all along the study. It provides a record of their class preparation and of analysis of the previous session. It allows us to address the out-of-class work of the teachers. It is an essential tool in the reflexive investigation methodology, in the sense that it encourages reflexivity on the activities (Power, 2008; Gueudet & Trouche, 2012). We have conducted different types of interviews with the teachers: interviews at the beginning and at the end of the sequence, as well as self-confrontation interviews (Clot & Faïta, 2000; Clot, Faïta, Fernandez & Scheller, 2001). The topic studied during the sequence was decided ahead by the teachers and the researcher together. It conducted a basis for two interviews, in which the teachers performed a self-analysis of their action from video recordings of the sessions, according to methods similar to simple and cross self-confrontation. Self-analysis is a method for empirical data collection and for the analysis of verbal protocols related to action. Simple self-analysis consists of an interview between the researcher and each teacher. They are asked to describe and then analyze their actions, verbalizing what they did, thought or took into account to act, and avoiding any interpretations or generalities. Cross self-analysis involved the two teachers and the researcher in a common analysis of the same video recording.

Expected Outcomes

Our study shows that the teachers mobilize other types of knowledge in addition to the academic discipline knowledge: knowledge on the students, knowledge on the programs, and knowledge on the teaching strategies. Knowledge depends on the content to be taught, and corresponds to PCK categories. It is particularly combined (Shulman, 1986) with subject matter knowledge (SMK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK). All these categories are included in the teacher’s professional knowledge. They make the teacher’s courses easier to understand for the students (Ibid.). Our study has allowed us to identify some elements about teachers’ acquisition of experience. Indeed, the unexpected events lead to the construction of new PCK on students. They sometimes generate retroactive activity regulation loops, it shows that this knowledge contribute to the teacher’s adaptation to the teaching for the class, on a relatively long time scale. Actually, the mechanisms that could partially model the professional experience acquisition are the acquisition of new PCK and the constitution of predictable events that we identified in the action, and which were previously constructed. Nevertheless, this study should be continued, notably by positioning it with respect to the work on teachers’ professional development. The empirical study presented here shows that the model for knowledge acquisition that we have developed is suitable for the representation and the explanation of professional knowledge acquisition by science teachers based on IBSE. But is it predictive? It should be tested in other cases and particularly in other science teaching situations because IBSE has specific characteristics. Furthermore, is this model suitable for disciplines other than physics-chemistry with its specific epistemology? Again, it should be tested in other teaching subjects.

References

Abell, K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In K. Abell, & N. Lederman (Éds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1150). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clot, Y., & Faïta, D. (2000). Genres et styles en analyse du travail. Concepts et Méthodes. Travailler, 4, 7-42. Clot, Y., Faïta, D., Fernandez, G., & Scheller, L. (2001). Entretiens en autoconfrontation croisée : une méthode en clinique de l’activité. Education permanente, 146(1), 17-25. Coulet, J.-C. (2011). Une approche psychologique de la gestion des compétences, Au delà de l'opposition expert/novice. Clermont-Ferrand: GESCO Conference. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York : Teachers College Press. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2012). From text to ’lived resources’: curriculum material and mathematics teacher development. New York : Springer. Huber, M. & Chautard, P. (2001). Le savoir caché des enseignants. Paris: L’Harmattan Jameau, A. (2014, à paraître). Les connaissances professionnelles des enseignants et leur évolution à travers une analyse de l’activité. Une étude de cas en physique au collège. Education & Didactique, 8. Leontiev, A.N. (1978): Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Leplat, J. (2006). Les contextes de formation. Education Permanente, 166, 29-48. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. Lederman (Éds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Boston: Kluwer. Pastré, P. (1999). La conceptualisation dans l’action : bilan et nouvelles perspectives. Education Permanente, 139, 13-35. Power, M. (2008). Le concepteur pédagogique réflexif : un journal de bord. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press. Samurçay, R., & Rabardel, P. (2004). Modèles pour l'analyse de l'activité et des compétences, propositions. In R. Samurçay, & P. Pastré (Éds.), Recherches en didactique professionnelle (pp. 163-180). Toulouse: Octarès. Sensevy, G., & Amade-Escot, C. (2007). Une présentation de "Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching". Education & Didactique, 1(1), 95-96. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Author Information

Alain Jameau (presenting / submitting)

Université de Bretagne Occidentale - ESPE

Saint-Gilles

Jean-Marie Boilevin (presenting)

CREAD - UBO

ESPE Bretagne

Rennes

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.