A Closer Look at the Influence of Context on Experienced Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Author(s):

Sevgi Aydin(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

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

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES C 11, Context and Content in Education

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-09

11:00-12:30

Room:

B-203

Chair:

Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is professional knowledge that makes a difference between content specialists and teachers (Shulman, 1987). It is a new type of knowledge that is formed through the special blend of subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogy, and knowledge of context (KofC) (Grossman, 1990). PCK has sub-components, namely, orientation to science teaching (OST), knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS), knowledge of learner (KoL), knowledge of curriculum (KoC), and knowledge of assessment (KoA) (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Since Shulman’s instruction of PCK, researchers have focused on SMK’ effect on PCK and PCK development, PK-PCK relation, and PCK development through in-service and pre-service teacher education programs. In addition to SMK and PK, context is one of the important factors stimulating teachers’ practice (Nargund-Joshi, Park-Rogers, & Akerson, 2011). However, the context and its influence on teachers’ PCK has received little attention by teacher education researchers. Even Abell (2007) did not include KofC in the review of PCK literature. The context can be described as ‘the place and situation in which teachers work’ (Ingber, 2009, p.87-88). Learners and their abilities, facilities (e.g. laboratory supplies), colleagues, curriculum, and the high stake exams are the pieces forming the context in which teachers teach. Recently, Nargund-Joshi et al. (2011) studied Indian teachers’ practice and stated that exam-based educational system in India made teachers modify their ideal goals of teaching. Therefore, the variation was observed between what teachers’ said about their teaching and what they actually did. Likewise, in China, Zhang et al. (2003) identified a gap between teachers’ ideal view of teaching and how they teach. The reality of preparing learners to the exam made teachers play the game with its rules. Although teachers were aware of the benefits of teaching through inquiry, they had to concentrate on didactic teaching for the exam. In Turkish context, teachers teach chemistry very didactically and perform algorithmic exercises as many as possible due to university entrance (UE) system (Nakiboğlu & Tekin, 2006). However, a noticeable difference between the practices of teachers working at public and private schools has been observed (Butt & Kausar, 2010). With the gap in the PCK literature in mind, this study aimed to compare and contrast two experienced teachers’ PCK. The research question guided this study was: How the contextual factors do influence teachers’ PCK for teaching electrochemistry at private and public schools?

Method

This study is a case study (Patton, 2002). Cases were two experienced chemistry teachers (i.e., about 17 year-experience) one of whom has been working at private high school (i.e., Mr. Burke) whereas the other working at public one (Mr. Hahn). Moreover, they graduated from the same college. Both schools are in the same district in central Turkey. Both high schools have about 400 learners. In both contexts, learners are generally between 16 and 18 years old. The classrooms observed have about 20-24 students. All classrooms in both high schools have computers. However, in private school, classrooms have benches and cupboards for chemicals at the backside. Additionally, the private school has smart boards in the classes. Public school has chemistry laboratory including chemicals and equipment. To answer the research question, data were collected through observation, field notes, weekly-interviews, and Content Representation. Both teachers’ teaching was observed about four weeks. Data and investigator triangulation, and member checked were used for ensuring credibility. Data analysis was between inductive and deductive analysis (Patton, 2002). In inductive analysis, there are no priori codes and categories whereas deductive analysis is based on existing codes and categories (i.e., components of Magnusson et al., (1999) PCK model).

Expected Outcomes

Both teachers had traditional OST. Although Mr. Burke basically utilized traditional teaching, he enriched it with topic-specific activities (e.g., demonstration). Neither of participants used subject-specific strategies (e.g., inquiry). Mr. Burke prepared presentation including figures and representations. Regarding KoL, both teachers had very rich knowledge about learners’ difficulties (e.g., balancing redox reactions), pre-requisite knowledge (e.g. knowledgeable about spectator ion), and misconceptions (e.g. anode is always on the left side in the cells). A huge difference between teachers’ use of KoC was observed. Mr. Hahn did not take curriculum into consideration. He used textbook as a guide for planning and teaching. Also, he had to determine his own curriculum to prepare his learners for university entrance exam. Due to learners’ and parents’ pressure, he had to skip many parts and to teach topic quickly to solve worksheet problems. Mr. Burke, however, used curriculum to draw borders of his teaching. Also, he related topic to other topics in chemistry (i.e., equilibrium) and in physics (i.e., electricity). Finally, for KoA, both teachers showed general assessment knowledge rather than topic- or subject-specific one. They utilized summative assessment to grade learners. Only Mr. Burke used formative assessment to follow learners’ development.

References

Butt, M. & Kausar, S. (2010). A comparative study of using differentiated instructions of public and private school teachers. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 12(1),105. Grossman, P.(1990). The Making of a Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Ingber, J. (2009). A comparison of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge while planning in and out of their science expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, NY, USA. Nakiboğlu, C., & Tekin, B. B. (2006). Identifying students’ misconceptions about nuclear chemistry. A study of Turkish high school students. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(11), 1712-1718. 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. Nargund-Joshi, V., Park-Rogers, M. A., & Akerson, V. (2011). Exploring Indian secondary teachers’ orientation and practice for teaching science in an era of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 624-647. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and training: Foundations of the new reform. Hardward Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Tekin, S. (2006). The examination of the effect of teaching method course on pre- service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The poster was presented in the 7th National Science and Mathematics Education Conference, 7-9 September, Ankara. Zhang, B., Krajcik, J., Sutherland, L. M., Wang, L., Wu, J., & Qiang, Y. (2003). Opportunities and challenges of China’s inquiry-based education reform in middle and high school: Perspectives of science teachers and teacher educators. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 477–503.

Author Information

Sevgi Aydin (presenting / submitting)

Yuzuncu Yil University, Turkey

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.