What Pre-Service Teachers Know About Their Professional Knowledge Base?

Author(s):

Betul Demirdogen(presenting / submitting)S. Nihal Yesiloglu Fitnat Koseoglu

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES D 07, Professional Development and Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-07

13:30-15:00

Room:

324. [Main]

Chair:

Janinka Greenwood

Contribution

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.

Method

This was a case study that is the study of an issue investigated through one or more cases (e.g., small group and process) within a bounded system (i.e., setting) (Creswell, 2007). In this study, 33 pre-service chemistry teachers’ (PCTs) understanding dimension of PCK was investigated using concept maps within the method course. PCK based constructivist method course mainly included instructional sessions, workshops, and PCTs’ microteachings at college of education. The instructional sessions grounded on the PCK framework (Magnusson et al., 1999) and constructivism, which was explicit in various activities. For integrating PCK, we (1) explicitly introduced PCK with topic-specific examples at the beginning of the semester (2) included Content Representation (CoRe) developed by Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry (2004) as a lesson planning tool, (3) organized workshops which spanned two weeks to stimulate PCT’s PCK when they develop a lesson using CoRe, and (4) used language of PCK explicitly throughout the course. Constructivism was achieved through (1) introducing constructivism to students at the beginning and (2) teaching various instructional strategies (e.g., argumentation and inquiry) to PCTs by enabling PCTs to experience the strategy itself where they have role of students. PCTs studied in groups and they were asked to construct a concept map about PCK at the end of the course. Concept maps were used to identify PCTs’ understanding of PCK since Novak (1995) advocated that concept map is a way to represent structured knowledge (Novak, 1995) and to capture the “tacit” knowledge (i.e., PCK) of experts (i.e., teachers). Moreover, Novak defined knowledge as a hierarchically organized set of concepts and relations among these concepts. Six groups drew six concept maps by identifying the concepts themselves. Deductive and inductive coding was utilized (Magnusson et al., 1999) for qualitatively analyzing PCTs’ maps (Patton, 2002). In deductive phase, PCTs’ understanding of PCK was evaluated using Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model as no understanding (i.e., map includes few PCK components), partial understanding (i.e., map includes several PCK components) and full understanding (i.e., map includes all PCK components). In deductive phase, we constantly compared the maps and came out with three maps with different degree of integration: fragmented (i.e., connections among PCK component is missing), partially integrated (i.e., connections among PCK components is moderate), and integrated (i.e., connections among PCK component is high). After constructing o coding scheme, all the authors coded the maps and reached consensus by negotiation.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of data revealed that PCTs were different from each other in terms of both how well they understand PCK and to what degree they integrate the PCK components. Only one group did not understand PCK. That is their map did not include right components and connections. In their mind, PCK requires pedagogical and SMK (i.e., chemistry). Interestingly, the group thought that chemistry knowledge requires lesson plan and curriculum knowledge. Another group who had partial understanding had fragmented PCK as well. The group realized that PCK is formed from SMK and pedagogical knowledge, and it includes science teaching orientation and knowledge of curriculum. However, there was no connection between orientation and curriculum components. A different group had both partial understanding and integration in PCK. Their maps included all the PCK components but with the missing sub-components. For instance, they did not include how to assess and what to assess dimension of assessment component. Nevertheless, they grasped that orientation affects curriculum and knowledge of learner components. There was one group of PCTs who had partial understanding on PCK and was able to integrate the components of PCK. The group included all the PCK components without defining sub-components for some PCK components (e.g., knowledge of learner). However, they integrated all the PCK components but orientation with each other. Two groups of PCTs fully understood PCK construct and were able to integrate components of it. These two groups defined PCK as a transformed form of SMK, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context. They included all components and sub-components of PCK in their maps consistent with Magnusson et al.’s model (1999). They integrated orientation component with other four PCK components. Moreover, they were able to integrate some PCK components (i.e., knowledge of curriculum informed knowledge of assessment).

References

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

Author Information

Betul Demirdogen (presenting / submitting)

Bulent Ecevit University

Zonguldak

S. Nihal Yesiloglu

Gazi University, Turkey

Fitnat Koseoglu