Session Information
10 SES 06 C, Research on Professional Knowledge and Identity in Teacher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
The focus of this paper is on university teachers’ Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). We want to comprehend how PCK is acquired and expressed in university teaching practice within the challenges that EHEA are demanding to our universities and academics, as teaching is concerned.
PCK is a powerful conceptual construct that has been a study object for many researchers interested on how teachers, from different disciplines, transform expert disciplinary knowledge into a comprehensible knowledge for students (Shulman, 1986, 1987; Grossman, 1995; Van Driel, de Vos & Verloop, 1998; Turner Bisset, 1999, Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2008).
Most PCK studies are concentrated on primary and secondary education ( Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Berry, Loughran & Van Driel, 2008; De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; García-Franco & Garritz, 2006; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2008; Veal & Kubasko, 2003).), showing an important disadvantage as university teaching is concerned.
PCK is constructed with practical aims and through a process of organization and transformation. It includes the comprehension of that entailed by teaching a particular topic, as well as the principles, techniques, and ways for contents didactic representation (Abell, 2008).
This transformation means a complex amalgam that includes:
“[…] the most useful forms of representation […], analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations and demonstrations; that is, the forms to represent and formulate the topic which make it comprehensible for others […] apart from the comprehension of that which determines the difficulty (or ease) involved by learning a particular topic: the previous conceptions and ideas which students at different ages bring to learning” (Shulman, 1986, 9).
Different perspectives arose since Shulman and his research team proposed this concept. Some researches interpret that this amalgam is connected with specific topics of a discipline. (Van Driel, de Vos, Verloop, 1998). Turner- Bisset (1999) present a broad view including other knowledge to this amalgam. Gess- Newsome (1999) highlight the idiosynchratic perspective of PCK as a synthesis between the knowledge of the topic, general pedagogic knowledge, and the students’ knowledge, being also partially determined by the lecturer’s personal biography.
Another interested point is to debate about how researchers approach this teaching construction. Most PCK studies show the huge difficulty involved by establishing links between the teaching practice and lecturers’ knowledge. Firstly, for many lecturers, part of the knowledge which justifies their pedagogical actions is not easily accessible due to its tacit nature (Gigerenzer, 2008). Besides, lecturers usually perceive no need to explicit this knowledge, thus involving the inexistence of a shared vocabulary on the didactic reasons behind pedagogic work (Tardif, 2004).
The results of the study that are presented here are framed within a coordinated project, financed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation from the government of Spain, and where three Spanish universities participate: University of Barcelona, University of Santiago de Compostela and University of Sevilla.
Each of the three universities profound PCK’s analysis on one of university teachers’ professional development stage: novel (U. of Sevilla), intermediate (U. of Santiago de Compostela), and expert (University of Barcelona). This paper is focused on the expert stage.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Abell, S.K (2008) Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416. Barnett, J. & Hodson, D (2001) Pedagogical context knowledge: toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453. Berry, A.; Loughran, J. & Van Driel, J. (2008) Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1271-1279. De Jong, O. Van Drie, J.l & Verloop, N. (2005 ) Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947-964. García-Franco, A. & Garritz, A. (2006) Desarrollo de una unidad didáctica: el estudio del enlace químico en el bachillerato. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 24(1), 111-124. Gigerenzer, G. (2008) Decisiones instintivas. La inteligencia del inconsciente. Barcelona: Ariel. Grossman,P (2005)Un estudio comparado: las fuentes del Conocimiento Didáctico del Contenido en la enseñanza del inglés en secundaria. Profesorado. Revista de currículum, y formación del profesorado, 9 (2), 1-18. Loughran, J. Mulhall, P. & Berry, A. (2008) Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301-1320. Shulman, L. 1986). Those who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Stake, R (1998) Investigación con estudio de casos. Madrid: Morata Tardif, M (2004) Los saberes del docente y su desarrollo profesional. Madrid: Narcea
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.