ERG SES D 07, Professional Development and Education
Teachers’ practice and instructional decision making processes are influenced by several factors such as their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK; Abell, 2007; Gess-Newsome, 1999). PCK is a professional knowledge that enables teachers to make content understandable for students (Shulman, 1986). Although there have been several models of PCK (e.g., Grossman, 1990), Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko’s (1990) model is found to be useful since it provides comprehensive information about many facets of teachers knowledge and their related practice (Aydın et al., 2013). Magnusson et al. (1999) viewed PCK as a transformation of subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context. They conceptualized PCK as consisting of five components: (a) orientations toward science teaching (teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level), (b) knowledge and beliefs about science curriculum (goals and objectives/curriculum and materials), (c) knowledge and beliefs about students’ understanding of specific science topics (requirements for learning specific science concepts, and areas of science that students find difficult including misconceptions), (d) knowledge and beliefs about assessment in science (knowledge of the dimensions of science learning that are important to assess, and knowledge of the methods by which learning can be assessed), (e) knowledge and beliefs about instructional strategies for teaching science (topic-specific activities and subject-specific strategies). PCK is more than its individual components and robust PCK requires the integration of these knowledge bases (Magnusson et al., 1999). Moreover, studies investigating teachers’ PCK indicated that PCK is a construct consisting of understanding and enactment dimensions (Park & Oliver, 2008a). Understanding dimension compromise what teachers know about PCK and its components whereas enactment dimension is related to how teachers put their PCK into play in their classroom practice. Since the elaboration of PCK, researchers have focused their attention to pre-service and in-service teachers’ PCK using qualitative data sources (e.g., interviews, observations, and lesson plans) (Aydın & Boz, 2012). Those studies were more interested in how teachers enact their PCK in class rather than investigating teachers’ understanding of PCK and then translation of their PCK understanding to classroom settings. Identifying what teachers know about PCK and then how they reflect their PCK understanding would provide more information to delve into the complexities of teachers’ knowledge and their associated practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine teachers’ understanding of PCK using concept maps in a PCK based Constructivist Method Course. Although pre-service teachers have relatively undeveloped PCK (van Driel et al., 1998), their PCK may more appropriately be considered as their “PCK readiness” (Smithey, 2003). The findings of this study also will shed light to pre-service teachers’ PCK readiness which in turn forms the base for their usable and rich PCK (Smithey, 2003). Also, concept maps will provide useful information about to what extent pre-service teachers integrate components of PCK, which will in turn affect the quality of their future teaching practice.
Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: a case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 14, 615-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00095h. Aydın, S., Demirdogen, B., Tarkin, A., Kutucu, E. S., Ekiz, B., Akin, F., Tuysuz, M & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2013). Providing Set of Research-based Practices to Support Preservice Teachers' Long-term Professional Development as Learners of Science Teaching. Science Education, 97(6), 903-935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21080. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research Design: Choosing among five traditions. London, UK: Sage Grossman, P.(1990). The Making of a Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge I science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41, 370-391. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Boston: Kluwer. Novak, J. D. (1995). Concept mapping to facilitate teaching and learning. Prospects, XXV(1), 79-86. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Smithey, J. (2003). Two perspectives on expertise in elementary science teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590. doi:10.1002/sce.10010
- 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.