PCK papers
(Park and Oliver, 2007)
Results of their study indicated that PCK is developed through reflection in action and reflection on action. (Park and Oliver, 2007)
PCK has been described as the knowledge used to transform subject matter content into forms more comprehensible to students (Geddis et al, 1993; Grossman 1990; Marks 1999; Shulman 1986; 1987). In this regard the development of PCK involves a dramatic shift in teachers understanding “from being able to comprehend subject matter for themselves, to becoming able to elucidate subject matter in new ways, reorganise and partition it, clothe in it activities and emotions, in metaphors and exercises, and in examples and demonstrations, so that it can be grasped by students (Shulman, 1987, p.13). What distinguishes novice from expert teachers is the possession of such knowledge. (Park and Oliver, 2007)
(Park and Oliver, 2007) PCK has been identified as a knowledge base teachers should possess in educational reform documents (e.g. America Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1993; National Research Council (NRC), 1996).
Four commonalities have consistently appeared; pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge and knowledge of the context. (Park and Oliver, 2007)
Shulman (1987) defined PCK as: it represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organised, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and are presented for instruction (p.8). (Park and Oliver, 2007)
This definition implies that PCK is an internal and external construct constituted by what a teacher knows, what a teacher does and the reasons for the teacher’s actions (Baxter and Lederman, 1999, p.158) (Park and Oliver, 2007).
A growing number of scholars have worked on the PCK concept, mainly through the modification of Shulman’s original model (Cochran et al, 1993; Geddis et al, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Hashweh, 2005; Loughran et al, 2006; Marks, 1990; Magnusson et al, 1999; Van Driel et al, 1998) (Park and Oliver, 2007).
The adaptation of subject matter knowledge for the purpose of teaching that sits at the heart of the PCK definition was referred to by Shulman (1987) as ‘transformation’, Ball (1990) referred to it as ‘representation of knowledge’ and Veal and MaKinster (1999) used the term ‘translation’. (Park and Oliver, 2007)
(Park and Oliver, 2007) No matter the term, most agree the main components are the combination of subject matter, instructional strategies to represent the subject matter and responses to student responses and conceptions in respect of the subject matter.
Novak (1993) stated that every educational event has a learner, a teacher, a subject matter and a social environment, but add a fifth dimension, the knowledge of assessment (Park and Oliver, 2007).
The assessment of PCK requires a combination of approaches that can collect information about what teachers know, what they believe, what they do, and their reasons for their actions (Baxter and Lederman, 1999). In this regard we need to collect data from multiple sources, including classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, lesson plans, teachers written reflections, students work examples and researchers field notes (Park and Oliver, 2007).
Interviews can provide access to the context of teachers action and what they know. Thus, we also conducted interviews in combination with classroom observations in a semi-structured way (Park and Oliver, 2007).
PCK was manifested as a feature of knowledge in action. This term is defined as knowledge developed and enacted during teaching through ‘reflection in action’ (Schon, 1983; 1987). In particular, PCK as knowledge in action became salient in situations where a teacher encountered an unexpectedly challenging moment in a given teaching circumstance. In order to transform the challenging moment into a teachable moment, the teacher had to integrate all components of PCK accessible at that moment and apply them to students through an appropriate instructional response. In this respect the development and enactment of PCK is an active and dynamic process (Park and Oliver, 2007).
Teachers often encounter students questions about knowledge the did not possess subject matter knowledge in a form from which answers or even a means to construct answers. Thus these questions made them look for things and questions that have never occurred to them (Park and Oliver, 2007).
The reflection shows that the act of responding to challenging questions results in a teachers subject matter being deepened (Park and Oliver, 2007).
It is unlikely that teachers acquire PCK first, and then enact it. Rather, knowledge acquisition and knowledge are interwoven within the context of instructional practices (Eraut, 1994). Teachers develop PCK through a relationship found amid the dynamics of knowledge acquisition, new applications of that knowledge, and the reflections on the uses embedded in practice. This assertion also supports the idea that teachers do not simply receive knowledge that others create to teach, but produce knowledge for teaching through their own experiences. Most powerful changes result from experiences in practice. Teachers are knowledge producers not knowledge receivers (Park and Oliver, 2007).
PCK is conceptually defined as a construct of the two dimensions of understanding and enactment (Park and Oliver, 2007).
Teachers capacity to read students is essential to their PCK development because students responses can influence teaching practices, especially when a teacher is aware of their significance. Only when teachers grasp their students cognitive and affective status with regard to the learning of a particular topic can they apply pedagogically adjusted procedures on order to facilitate learning (Park and Oliver, 2007).
When teachers develop the knowledge bases of PCK, they come to create personal theories and explanations based on them. Then those theories inform the teacher’s instructional decisions and actions (Park and Oliver, 2007).
Teachers fill much of the school related parts of their lives with planning, enactment and reflection on instruction. At each phase, teachers continually assess their performance primarily based on interactions with students. As a result teachers develop a body of knowledge unique to the members of the teaching profession. In this regard, it is PCK that is at the heart of teacher professionalism (Park and Oliver, 2007).
Given the significance of reflection on PCK development, understanding the relationship among a teachers reflective capacity, PCK, and students learning will provide a clearer picture of how students learning relates to the knowledge and thinking carried by teachers (Park and Oliver, 2007).
(Saxena, 2015)
Stated by NCTE (1998) in Quality Concerns in Secondary Teacher Education-"The teacher is the most important element in any educational program’’. It is the teacher who is mainly responsible for implementation of the educational process at any stage (Saxena, 2015).
In Shulman’s view, pedagogical content knowledge is a form of practical pedagogical wisdom of able teachers to guide their actions in highly contextualized classroom settings (Saxena, 2015).
The most useful forms of content representation., the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations, in a word, the most useful ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others (Saxena, 2015).
Cochran, et al.2 revised Shulman’s original model to be more consistent with a constructivist perspective and renamed PCK as pedagogical content knowing (PCKg) to acknowledge the dynamic nature of knowledge development (Saxena, 2015).
teacher ’s integrated understanding of four components pedagogy, subject matter content, student characteristics, and the environmental context of learning (Saxena, 2015).
Their definition of PCKg emphasized the development of pedagogical and subject matter knowledge in the context of two other components of teacher knowledge. The first additional component is teachers’ knowledge of students’ abilities and learning strategies, age and developmental levels, attitudes, motivations, and prior knowledge of the concepts to be taught (Saxena, 2015).
The other component of teacher knowledge that contributes to pedagogical content knowledge is teachers’ understanding of the social, political, cultural and physical environmental context that shapes the teaching and learning process (Saxena, 2015).
The model in figure 1 shows that these four components of teachers’ knowledge contribute to the integrated understanding that is called as pedagogical content knowledge; and the arrows indicate that pedagogical content knowledge continues to grow with teaching experience (Saxena, 2015).
Magnusson, et al.4 argued for the uniqueness and importance of pedagogical content knowledge in teacher preparation. According to them pedagogical content knowledge is often conceived as the transformation of several types of knowledge for teaching that are strongly related or integrated (Saxena, 2015).
They considered PCK as a separate domain of knowledge that is iteratively fueled by knowledge of its component parts: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of context (Saxena, 2015).
Pedagogical content knowledge is defined as a teacher’s understanding of helping students to understand specific subject matter (Saxena, 2015).
It includes knowledge of organising and representing particular subject matter topics, problems and issues to the diverse interest and abilities of learners and then presented for instruction. They consider “teaching” as everything that teachers must do to support the learning of their students (Saxena, 2015).
Ball et al. hypothesized that Shulman’s content knowledge could be subdivided into common content knowledge (CCK) needed by teachers and non teachers alike and specialized content knowledge (SCK) (Saxena, 2015).
According to Park and Oliver (2008) the transformation of content knowledge by the teachers for the purpose of effective teaching and enhancing student learning lies at the center of PCK (Saxena, 2015).
Van Driel9 focused on a model for the development of science teachers’ PCK. The model integrates the effects of external input, collegial interactions, and experimentation in practice on teachers’ PCK through processes of enactment and reflection. It is recommended to provide external input together with opportunities for teachers to experiment with new teaching approaches in their classroom, and to reflect on their experiences, both indivi- dually and collectively. In such cases, teachers then act as “architects for change”. Collegial interactions provided the input for a collective comparison of ideas about specific learning difficulties of students, or about particular teaching approaches (eg. using certain analogies to explain chemical equilibrium) (Saxena, 2015).
A common view of pedagogical content knowledge is that it is bound up and recognizable in a teacher’s approach to teaching particular content. Teacher should act as facilitator of children‘s learning in a manner that the child is helped to construct his/her own knowledge (Saxena, 2015).
Shing, Saat and Loke (2015)
Shing, C.L., Saat, R.M. and Loke, S.H., 2018. The knowledge of teaching –pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), pp.40-55
https://mojes.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12781/8206
Copy from doc…
From the past studies, scholars had forwarded many definitions of PCK. Some of the scholars shared similar view with Shulman on the definition of PCK such as Smith and Neale (1989) and Cochran, DeRuiter and King (1993). Other scholars such as Veal and Makinster (1999), Cochran et. al (1993) and Grossman(1990) had forwarded some critiques on Shulman’s model of PCK. Subsequently, they revised and refined Shulman’s model. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(20), 1-20.
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4), Article Two.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
....pedagogical content knowledge, which goes beyond knowledge of the subject matter per se to the dimension of the subject matter of teaching. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
he category of pedagogical content knowledge includes the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations and demonstration – in a word, ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015).
teacher is said to teach with his/her PCK when he/she has gone beyond understanding the content subject, is capable of restructuring the subject content and present it in a form suited to the diverse interests and abilities of the students based on their preconceptions and difficulties encountered (Shulman, 1986b, 1987). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Smith and Neale (1989) also shared the similar view as they also believe that teachers with good PCK are aware of their students’ typical errors in a particular topic. As such, they are able to prepare their lessons with suitable strategies and effective elaboration which lead to students’ conceptual understanding. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Cochran et al. (1993) further express that “PCK concerns the manner in which teachers relate their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach) to their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching) and how subject matter knowledge is a part of the process of pedagogical reasoning” (pp. 263). The abilities of restructuring the subject matter knowledge to suit the diversities of the students further distinguished a teacher from a content specialist and verify PCK as the knowledge of teaching (Cochran et al., 1993; Shulman, 1987; Veal & Makinster, 1999). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Grossman (1990) argues that teachers draw upon more than subject matter knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge while teaching. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Grossman (1990) further expands PCK conception to include four central components, namely: (1) knowledge and beliefs about the purposes of teaching a subject at different grade levels; (2) knowledge of students’ understanding, conceptions, and misconceptions of particular topics in a subject matter; (3) curricular knowledge which includes knowledge of curriculum materials available for teaching particular subject matter, knowledge about both the horizontal and vertical curricula for a subject; and (4) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching particular topics (pp. 8-9). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Teachers with student knowledge will ensure the appropriateness of the content and instructional strategies used in their teaching. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
An appropriately planned lesson is one which takes into consideration students’ characteristics such as their prior knowledge and ability hence leading to meaningful and effective learning. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
PCKg is an integration of four types of teacher knowledge, namely subject matter knowledge, knowledge of pedagogy, knowledge of students, and knowledge of environmental contexts. The emphasis is on the last two components with teachers’ understandings of their students as a central role in teaching. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
The components may grow in an integrated manner if the teachers experience the four components simultaneously. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Barnett and Hodson (2001) believe that good teachers employ four categories PCK in their teaching, which are: (1) knowledge of learners’ existing knowledge; (2) knowledge of effective teaching/learning strategies according to particular content; (3) alternative ways of representing the subject matter; and (4) curricular saliency. Knowledge on curricular saliency enables the teacher to determine the depth of the content and contextualisation. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good Science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453.
in fact, many of the minor attributes are either clustered under an attribute as in the PCK definition of Cochran et al. (1993) and Grossman (1990) or as the knowledge bases upon which teachers draw when they teach, as in the PCK definition of Shulman (1986b).(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
it is a construct made up of attributes. The attributes are interrelated and connected with each other, they also integrate with each other and operate collectively (Cochran et al., 1993). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
The integration of PCK attributes is vital to effective science teaching; in fact the more integrated the attributes, stronger and more developed is the PCK (Smith & Neale, 1989; Tuan et al., 1995). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Tuan, H., Jeng, B., Whang, L. & Kaou, R. (1995). A case study of pre-service Chemistry teacher PCK development. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
CK is only useful when it is applied (Davis, 2004). The growth and the development of these attributes can happen in stages, collectively or individually and at different rates. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Davis, E. A. (2004). Knowledge integration in Science teaching: Analysing teachers’ knowledge development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 21-53.
PCK is expected to expand and grow with the teaching experience of a teacher. It is generally agreed that experienced teachers tend to have a richer repertoire of instructional strategies, a good understanding about the students and confidence in the content that they teach. However, it is not uncommon that under certain situations, experienced teachers may have little or no PCK, particularly when they have to teach a subject outside their subject areas (Hasweh, 1987; Marks, 1990; van Driel, Verloop & De Vos, 1998) and also when the teachers fail to learn from their experience because they do little or no reflection on their teaching (Berliner, 1987). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Hasweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing Science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
Geddis et al. (1993) termed it crucial for student teachers to learn this knowledge of experienced teachers or “wisdom of practice” (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575-591.
Sockett (1987) critiques Shulman’s PCK conception for overlooking the tacit knowledge of experienced teachers. He argues that experienced teachers do not necessarily articulate all their wisdom and experience at a particular moment as tacit knowledge is often difficult to articulate.(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Sockett, H. T. (1987). Further comment: Has Shulman got the strategy right? Harvard Educational Review,57(2), 208-219.
Although little is known about how teachers develop their PCK, two ingredients are assumed to contribute to its development, that is, subject matter knowledge and teaching experience (Lederman, Gess-Newsome & Latz, 1994; Tuan et al., 1995; van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002; van Driel et al., 1998).(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice Science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129-146.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing Science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
PCK is perceived as the integration of subject matter knowledge and pedagogy knowledge (Marks, 1990) and as a synthesis from the simultaneous development of the various domains (van Driel et al., 1998). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
Thus the prospective and novice teachers tend to have inadequate or no PCK at their disposal. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Many researchers do agree that the development of PCK is embedded in classroom practice (van Driel et al., 1998) because teachers derive PCK from their own practice and also from formal training.(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
It is possible to enhance novice teachers” PCK through intensive intervention with short-term skills-oriented workshops (Clermont, Krajcik & Borko, 1993). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive in-service workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 21-43.
As knowledge of teaching, PCK therefore is influenced by factors which affect teaching such as personal learning history, beliefs, conception of teaching and learning, teaching preferences or values, teacher education, teaching practice experience, reflection, students and others (Berliner, 1987; Grossman, 1990; Gudmundsdottir, 1990; Hauge, 2000; van Driel et al., 1998; Tuan et al., 1995). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Berliner, D.C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking, (pp. 60-83). London: Cassell Education.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 44-52.
Hauge, T. E. (2000). Student teachers’ struggle in becoming professionals: Hopes and dilemmas in teacher education. In Day, C., Fernandez, A., Hauge, T. E., & MØller, J. (Eds.), The life and work of teachers: International perspectives in changing times (pp. 159-171). London: Falmer Press.
Shulman (1987) had identified six processes in his Pedagogical Reasoning and Action Model (PRA Model)that generate PCK and support the development of PCK among teachers. The six processes are comprehension, transformation (preparation, representation, selection, adaptation and tailoring to student characteristics), instruction, evaluation, reflection and new comprehension (Figure 3). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action - Shulman (1987, p. 15)
No | Process | Description |
1 | Comprehension | Of purpose, subject matter structures, ideas within and outside the discipline. |
2 | Transformation |
|
| (i) Preparation | Critical interpretation and analysis of texts, structuring and segmenting, development of a curricular repertoire, and clarification of purposes |
| (ii) Representation | Use of a representational repertoire which includes analogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations, explanations, and so forth |
| (iii) Selection | Choice from among an instructional repertoire which includes modes of teaching, organizing, managing, and arranging |
| (iv) Adaptation and tailoring to student characteristics | Consideration of conceptions, misconceptions, and difficulties, language, culture, and motivations, social class, gender, age, ability, aptitude, interests, self-concepts, and attention |
3 | Instruction | Management, presentations, interactions, group work, discipline, humour, questioning, and other aspects of active teaching, discovery or inquiry instruction, and the observable forms of classroom teaching |
4 | Evaluation | Checking for student understanding during interactive teaching. Testing student understanding at the end of lessons or units. Evaluating one’s own performance and adjusting for experiences. |
5 | Reflection | Reviewing, reconstructing, re-enacting and critically analysing one’s own and the class’s performance, and grounding explanations in evidence |
6 | New Comprehension | Of purposes, subject matter, students, teaching, and self. Consolidation of new understandings, and leanings from experience |
Teachers need to understand subject matter knowledge in order to carry out good teaching and enhance student understanding (Cochran, King & DeRuiter, 1991). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Cochran, K.F., King, R.A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Chicago: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED340683)
Shulman (1986b) argues that “comprehension alone is not sufficient as the usefulness of such knowledge lies in its value of judgments and action” (pp. 14). Teachers with more subject matter knowledge are capable in reorganizing material in the textbook to match with their own understanding and spotting misleading or poorly articulated themes. They are more sensitive to students’ misconceptions and made more intra-disciplinary connections in the instruction (Hasweh, 1987). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Hasweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
Transformation According to Shulman (1987), teachers often reflect critically on and interpret the subject matter before transforming their understanding of the content they are going to teach into a form understood by the students. Teachers are likely to engage in the following four processes while doing transformation: preparation, selection, representation and adapting and tailoring to students' characteristics. The four processes may occur either concurrently, at different sequence or be missing altogether. During the preparation, teachers try to interpret critically and understand the content. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Experienced teachers are more familiar with the most effective ways of helping students learn the information which they need to know (Arends, 1994), though the novice teachers may be less familiar, they do have their own specific representations about the ideas and concepts in the content and their limited repertoire of representations will grow with experience (Wilson et al., 1987). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Arends, R. I. (1994). Learning to teach(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert. A. E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell educational.
Shulman (1986b) stated ‘learners are unlikely to appear before them [teachers] as blank slates’ (p. 10). As a result of interacting with the surrounding world, students make observations of physical phenomena and have their own explanation for the phenomena and they bring these preconceptions which are often misconceptions to the class. If teachers are to be fruitful in their chosen strategies in their teaching, they have to reorganise the understanding of the students, and be aware of students’ misconceptions (Chin, Lee, Boo & Lee, 2002; Shulman, 1986b). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Chin, C. H. L., Lee, Y. J., Boo, H. K., & Lee, L. K. W. (2002). Alternative conceptions and conceptual change. In Yap. K. C., Toh, K. A., & Goh, N. K. (Eds.), Science teaching: Readings and resources for the primary school teacher (pp. 90-98). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
teachers need to decide the amount of content they aregoing to teach to the class besides selecting suitable representations for the instruction. It is impossible for the teachers to teach everything in the content to everyone (Gunter et al., 1999). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. (1999). Instruction: A models approach. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Instruction To Shulman (1987), instruction includes “organising and managing the classroom; presenting clear explanations and vivid descriptions; assigning and checking work; and interacting effectively with students through questions and probes, answers and reactions, and praise and criticism” (pp. 17). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
First, teachers must be clear on “the needs of the students and the goals of education” (pp. xv); second, it is essential to formulate objectives and evaluation procedures while planning for the instruction; and finally, teachers need to choose suitable materials and procedures to deliver the content. Thus, it is essential for teachers to use a variety of approaches. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Evaluation According to Shulman (1987), esides the checking for understanding and misunderstanding, teachers evaluate their own teaching as well by looking at the lesson and materials employed. Tan, Yap & Wan (2002) state that a “good lesson preparation and planning is not complete without an evaluation of students’ understanding and the self-reflection of the teacher” (pp.118). (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Tan, K. S., Yap, K. C., & Wan, Y. K. (2002). Preparing and planning for Science teaching-learning. In Yap. K. C., Toh, K. A., & Goh, N. K. (Eds.), Science teaching: Readings and resources for the primary school teacher (pp.90-98). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Reflection According to Berliner (1987), an experience that is reflected upon is of value to teachers to improve their practice. To reflect, teachers have to question themselves on what they were doing, to monitor, to seek alternatives, to solve problems, to evaluate, to identify their weaknesses and strengths and make necessary adjustments for future teaching.(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
New comprehension Upon going through the whole process, from preparation to the implementation of a teaching episode, teachers are expected to achieve new comprehension of curricular goals, content, students and the pedagogical processes (Shulman, 1987). A new insight and a new understanding of the whole teaching and learning process is going to improve the teaching of the same topic in the future.(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
(Why interviews) Methods used to assess PCK Baxter and Lederman (1999) view PCK as both an internal and external construct because “it constitutes what a teacher knows, what a teacher does, and the reasons for the teacher’s actions’ (pp. 158). The internal construct of PCK is situated in the long-term memory of the teachers. It is referred as the “teachers’ understanding of content-specific examples that best represent specific topics, and knowledge of common student difficulties with specific topics” (pp. 148). As a cognitive structure, PCK cannot be observed directly, furthermore not all of the teachers’ knowledge is retrieved during a specific teaching episode. Therefore, a combination of approaches is needed to gather information about what teachers know, what teachers believe and their reasoning. In fact, the view of PCK obtained from any one approach is likely to produce an incomplete and distorted picture about PCK. In order to obtain a better picture of the teachers’ PCK, it is crucial for them to articulate in a language of their own.(Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Baxter, J.A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 147-161). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Loughran , J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(4), 370-391.
Loughran et al. (2004) comment that due to the tacit nature of PCK, it is difficult to categorise and exceptionally difficult for teachers to articulate. As a result, data collection methods such as interviews and classroom observations are unable to portray and document the actual account of PCK. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Tuan et al. (1995) discussed the advantage of using a few of the data collecting techniques. For instance, semi-structured interviews allow researchers to do in-depth probing on the interviewees thus enabling to rich data to support classroom observations. Post teaching interviews allow a researcher to view the nature of PCK. Written documents such as course work assignments, journals, and lesson plans do provide a rich source of data too. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Abell (2008) argued that PCK still remains a useful idea because it helps her to understand teaching process and generate viable instructional strategies in her methods courses. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
PCK is the professional knowledge of teachers. (Shing, Saat and Loke, 2015)
Tuan, H., Jeng, B., Whang, L. & Kaou, R. (1995). A case study of pre-service Chemistry teacher PCK development. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Abell, S.K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.
…
(Cochran et al, 1993)
(Cochran, DeRuiter and King, 1993)
Both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are crucial to good teaching and understanding (Buchmann, 1982; 1984; Doyle, 1986; Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann, 1987; Reynolds, 1992; Tobin and Garnett, 1988). (Cochran et al, 1993)
Shulman suggested that teaching expertise should be described and evaluated in terms of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). (Cochran et al, 1993)
A modification of Shulman’s concept based on a constructivist view of teaching and learning process. In this version there is an increased emphasis on knowing and understanding as active processes and on the simultaneous development of all aspects of knowing how to teach. (Cochran et al, 1993)
In our version we emphasise the importance of teachers knowing about the learning of their students and the environmental context in which learning and teaching occur. (Cochran et al, 1993)
PCK differentiates expert teachers in a subject area from subject area experts. PCK concerns the manner in which teachers relate their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach) to their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching) and how subject matter knowledge is part of the process of pedagogical reasoning. (Cochran et al, 1993)
The transformation of subject matter for teaching (Shulman, 1986) occurs as the teacher critically reflects on and interprets the subject matter, finds multiple ways to represent the information as analogies, metaphors, examples, problems, demonstrations and classroom activities; adapts the materials to students abilities, gender, prior knowledge and pre-conceptions (those pre instructional, informal, or non-traditional ideas students bring to the learning setting); and finally tailors the material to those specific students to whom the information will be taught. (Cochran et al, 1993)
Recent research, much of it part of the Stanford project, shows that inexperienced teachers have incomplete or insufficient levels of PCK (Carpenter et al, 1988; Feiman-Nemser and Parker, 1990; Gudmundsdottir and Shulman, 1987; Shulman, 1987). A novice teacher often relies on unmodified subject matter knowledge most often extracted from the text or curriculum materials and may not have a coherent framework from which to present information. (Cochran et al, 1993)
Studies indicate that novice teachers have major concerns about PCK and struggle to form and present the concepts and ideas to make sense to the students they are teaching (Feiman-Nemser and Parker, 1990; Wilson, Shulman and Richert, 1987). Grossman (1989) suggested that this concern is present even in new teachers with substantial subject matter knowledge from a masters degree program in a specific subject matter. Even teachers in their first year with a masters were much less prepared or confident in the classroom than teachers who had completed teacher education program with a strong subject matter component. (Cochran et al, 1993)
PCK is much more than just subject matter knowledge.
We propose a modification of PCK based on a constructivist view. For constructivist educators knowing is created rather than imparted or transferred, and teachers must understand how students construct and use their understandings (Fosnot, 1989; Steffe, 1991; Von Glaserfeld, 1989). (Cochran et al, 1993)
The more a teacher understands about each student’s understanding, the more effective the teaching is likely to be (Resnick, 1989; Reynolds, 1992). (Cochran et al, 1993)
Constructivist educators conclude that working in and understanding specific contexts is crucial. (Cochran et al, 1993)
The constructivist processes of knowledge growth and transformation occur in a social context as a result of interpersonal interactions (Newman et al, 1989; Reid and Stone, 1991; Rogoff, 1990), a concept rooted in the work of Vygotsky (1978; 1986; 1987). (Cochran et al, 1993)
ME: Importance of learning from and with peers and from the involvement of the subject matter expert to scaffold subject matter learning.(Cochran et al, 1993)
Understanding is situated and context bound because social interactions are fundamental and inseparably bound to the development of the tools for thinking and understandings of how to use them. (Cochran et al, 1993)
Careful attention must be paid to the context in which the development of understanding of teaching occurs, and learning must be situated in a context like the one in which these understandings are to be used. (Cochran et al, 1993)
Cochran et al, 1993 find the term knowledge too static and inconsistent with the constructivist perspective. They proposed pedagogical content knowing (PCKg) with the following definition: a teachers integrated understanding of four components of: pedagogy, subject matter content, student characteristics, and the environmental context of learning. PCKg enables teachers to use their understandings to create teaching strategies for teaching specific content in a discipline in a way that enables specific students to construct useful understandings in a given context (Cochran et al, 1993).
This definition of PCKg emphasises that teachers must develop their pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge in the context of two other components of teacher knowledge: teachers understanding of students and the environment context of learning (Cochran et al, 1993).
The environmental component of teacher understanding that contributes to PCKg is teachers understanding of the social, political, cultural and physical contexts that shape the teaching and learning process (Cochran et al, 1993).
Teachers can learn about students best by working directly with them because live teaching permits the direct interaction that shows ideas in use and opens the way to negotiating paths of understanding (Cochran et al, 1993).
Working directly with students provides teachers with the optimum opportunity to construct a version of reality that fits the experiences of that environment. Such work provides an opportunity for teachers and students to see whether their knowledge is useful, relevant and viable (Von Glassersfeld, 2984, p.23) (Cochran et al, 1993).
The relationship to other content also affects teaching and is a potential source of preconceptions that can be directly communicated to students, of which Cochran et al, (1993) include under subject matter knowledge in their model (Cochran et al, 1993).
(Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Shulman (1986) introduced the concept “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK) as a possible answer to the so-called “missing paradigm” in research and practice on teaching (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015).
Copy from paper…
(Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015) Systematic review of PCK papers and research
Shulman [Shulman, 1986] introduced the concept “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK) as a possible answer to the so-called “missing paradigm” in research and practice on teaching. Teaching was either approached by only focusing on content or by exclusively focusing on pedagogy. Shulman believed that neither approach grasped every aspect of teachers’ knowledge base. Hence, he defined PCK as “that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding” [Shulman, 1987, p.8]. The two main components that Shulman [Shulman, 1986] distinguished in PCK were, on the one hand, the most useful forms of representing the topics in one’s subject area and, on the other hand, an understanding of what makes the learning of these topics easy or difficult for students. Besides PCK, he considered other categories in teachers’ knowledge base, that is, content knowledge (CK), general pedagogical knowledge (PK), curriculum knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values [Shulman, 1987]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Grossman [1990], who studied PCK in the context of language, added two other components to Shulman’s original PCK components, that is, knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of purposes for teaching. Another elaboration that has been very influential in the context of science education is the model of Magnusson et al. [1999]. This model added three components to the original ones of Shulman, that is, orientation to teaching science (i.e., knowledge and beliefs about purposes and goals for teaching), knowledge of science curricula, and knowledge of assessment of scientific literacy. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Results even showed that PCK had greater predictive power for student progress and instructional quality than CK. In another study, Kunter et al. [2013] confirmed these results. Moreover, they showed that teachers’ PCK had a positive effect on student motivation (measured through an enjoyment questionnaire). Hence, to improve the quality of education, investing in (prospective) teachers’ PCK seems to be a good strategy. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
In an attempt to describe how PCK develops, several scholars have distinguished sources that contribute to PCK development [Grossman,1990; Haston and Leon-Guerrero, 2008; van Driel and Verloop, 1998]. The first source is teaching experience [Grossman,1990; Kind, 2009; van Driel and Verloop, 1998]. Empirical studies have shown that significant improvements in PCK are made in the early months of one’s teaching career [Simmons et al, 1999]. PCK courses, which aim at improving teachers’ knowledge on how to teach a subject, are the second source for PCK development [Grossman,1990, Haston and Leon-Guerrero, 2008]. The third PCK source is disciplinary knowledge, that is, CK [Grossman,1990; Kind, 2009]. Possession of CK is necessary for the presence of PCK [Kind, 2009; Friedrichsen et al, 2009]. CK positively influences teachers’ decisions about the relative importance of particular subject matter and their selection and use of curriculum materials, that is, their PCK [Grossman,1990]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Fourthly, “apprenticeship of observation” [Lortie, 1975] has been distinguished as another source for PCK development [Grossman,1990; Haston and Leon-Guerrero, 2008]. Apprenticeship of observation refers to the influence of teachers’ past experiences as a student on their current teaching models [Grossman,1990]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Haston and Leon-Guerrero [2008] empirically showed that teachers consider their memories of past education as an important PCK source. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Fifthly, teachers’ cooperation with colleagues has been described as a possible source for PCK development [Haston and Leon-Guerrero, 2008; Kind, 2009]. According to Kind [2009], provision of a supportive working environment that encourages collaboration may benefit teachers’ PCK development. Haston and Leon-Guerrero [2008] empirically showed the importance of cooperation with colleagues for PCK development. Finally, the sixth possible source for PCK development is the importance of reflection on educational practice [van Driel and Verloop, 1998]. Kenney et al. [2013] showed that reflection on writing assignments improved teachers’ PCK. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
To define an intervention, we build on the framework of Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie [Hattie, Biggs and Purdie, 1996]. We claim that interventions are educational interference that (a) differ from the educational activities that the instructor(s) involved in the study would normally organize, (b) require an outsider (e.g., the researcher) to design the intervention and study its effects, and (c) focus on the increase of a certain variable. Hattie et al. [Hattie, Biggs and Purdie, 1996] included the use of an experimental design as the fourth prerequisite (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
“Disciplinary knowledge” is understood as all activities and courses that focus on CK. The term “PCK courses” is used to describe activities and courses focusing on PCK. Interventions addressing teaching experience include teaching and trying out new insights in a real classroom. “Contact with cooperating teachers” is understood as any contact with other people, for instance, other participants and colleagues. Interventions including reflection ask participants to systematically question past events. “Observation,” finally, is used to describe interventions in which attention is given to participants’ prior experiences as students. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
The majority of PCK studies used qualitative research methods, mostly combining several instruments. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Particularly, interviews were often used. Qualitative methods were mostly used on smaller datasets, while quantitative methods were applied to larger datasets. All studies measured the effects of the intervention immediately after the intervention. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Most interventions addressing PCK courses focused on Shulman’s [Shulman, 1986] two components: knowledge of students’ (mis)conceptions and knowledge of educational representations. Particularly, teachers’ knowledge of student understanding was very often addressed in interventions (e.g., Smith and Neal, 1989; Wahbeh and El-Khalick, 2014), for instance, in tasks in which student work had to be analyzed (e.g., [Dash et al, 2012; Burton, 2013). The second most used PCK source across the dataset is contact with cooperating teachers (𝑛 = 23). Activities addressing this source vary from online interaction with other participants [Derry, Wilsman and Hackbarth, 2007], getting feedback from an experienced teacher [Arbaugh and Brown, 2005], to group discussions [Justi and van Driel, 2005; Kanter and Konstantopoulos, 2010; Khourey-Bowers and Fenk, 2009; Sperandeo-Mineo, Fazio and Tarantino, 2006]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Reflection is addressed in 17 studies. Participants reflected on learning activities (e.g., [De Jong and van Driel, 2004; Aydin et al, 2013; Aydin et al, 2015; Goodnough and Hung, 2009) or on feedback from peers [Burton, 2014]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Reflection was mostly organized through written reports (e.g., Burton, 2014; Aydin et al, 2013). (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Reflective group discussions [Watson and Beswick, 2011] were part of a few interventions. The least addressed source is disciplinary knowledge (CK) (𝑛 = 15). (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Firstly, in most studies, participants mainly learned from an expert (𝑛 = 31). The experts were mostly authors of the study (e.g., [Arbaugh and Brown, 2005; Sperandeo-Mineo, Fazio and Tarantino, 2006; Beyer and Davis, 2012). In a smaller number of interventions, the experts were other individuals, who were trained in advance for course facilitation [Dash et al, 2012; Michalsky, 2012; Rodrigues, Marks and Steel, 2003]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
In most of these studies, participants learned from whole- or small group discussions with other (equally experienced) teachers [Arbaugh and Brown, 2005; Derry, Wilsman and Hackbarth, 2007; Roth et al, 2011]. Furthermore, this category includes studies consisting of a course with peer review [Burton, 2014], a community of practice providing constant feedback and support [Rodrigues, Marks and Steel, 2003], and collaborative inquiry, in which the participants answered a question through reflection and action [Goodnough and Hung, 2009]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Effective Elements in the Interventions. Comparing the results of the studies in the limited dataset, it can be concluded that the majority of the studies reported a positive effect on PCK development of the intervention. 13 out of 16 quantitative studies found a significant positive effect of their intervention on PCK development [Dash et al, 2012, Derry; Wilsman and Hackbarth, 2007; Kanter and Konstantopoulos, 2010; Watson and Beswick, 2011; Beyer and Davis, 2012; Michalsky, 2012; Harr, Eichler and Renkl, 2014; Roth et al, 2011; Capraro et al, 2005; Luft et al, 2011; Monet and Etkina, 2008; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Strawhecker, 2005). (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
(Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015) All qualitative studies in the dataset reported a growth in PCK at the end of the intervention. For instance, Arbaugh and Brown [2005] reported better performances of their participants on a PCK-related task that was executed during a post interview in comparison with a pre interview.
Aydin et al. [2005, 2013] concluded that their participants moved from fragmented PCK to more integrated PCK, measured through content representations (CoRes) prepared by the participants, interviews, and reflection papers (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
These differences on the quantitative instruments show that using mixed methods leads to richer results than just focusing on one kind of methodology. The results on the qualitative measurements of these studies are nuanced by the quantitative results. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Firstly, particularly reflection stands out as an effective PCK source. In Michalsky’s [2012] intervention, the best performing condition was the one that most strongly induced reflection. Similarly, reflection was part of 16 other effective interventions. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Thirdly, contact with cooperating teachers was included in 22 effective studies. Aydin et al. [Aydin et al, 2013; Aydin et al, 2015] included several aspects in their intervention (such as design of content representations, microteaching, and educative mentoring) but concluded that the mentoring part was the most effective way to promote PCK. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
. In Strawhecker [2005], the most effective conditions were those including a field experience. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
De Jong et al. [2013] used an intervention that focused on “learning from teaching” instead of “learning of teaching,” meaning that participants learned in a way that involved real situations from practice that made learning more meaningful (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Teaching practice seems to play an important role in the development of prospective teachers’ practical knowledge base. These authors argued that preservice teachers get the opportunity in teacher education to link authentic teaching experiences to educational literature on student conceptions. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Most effective interventions as well as most noneffective interventions were facilitated by an expert. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
The limited dataset only included studies with a pre-test-post-test design, given the aim to examine effects of interventions. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
RQ 2 compared the designs of the interventions. The most addressed PCK sources are PCK courses, contact with cooperating teachers, teaching experience, and reflection (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Firstly, several PCK sources were part of effective interventions. A large number of studies showed the effectiveness of reflection for PCK development. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Only reflection that induces higher order thinking seems beneficial. This makes teachers understand their own learning process, allowing them to apply adequate techniques in their teaching practices [Monet and Etkina, 2008]. The importance of reflection for PCK development is also mentioned by van Driel and Berry [2012]. These authors claim that, in order to promote PCK development, teacher education should be closely aligned to teaching practice and hence should include the possibility for preservice teachers to try out what they have learned and to reflect on their experiences both individually and collectively. Reflection is also considered important for teacher education in general by many scholars. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
For instance, McIntyre [1993] claimed that reflection is important in teacher education for two main reasons: (1) it promotes preservice teachers’ understanding of their own problems and needs and guides their search for solutions for these problems, and (2) it helps to develop reflection skills and habits that will be extremely useful once preservice teachers become more experienced in teaching. Furthermore, the importance of reflection has been shown empirically (e.g., [Brownlee, Purdie and Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Wubbels and Korthagen, 1990]). Brownlee, Purdie and Boulton-Lewis (2001), for instance, found that students taking part in a teacher education program focusing on reflection showed more growth in sophisticated epistemological beliefs than a control group taking part in a more traditional, subject-oriented program. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
CK seems necessary, despite being not sufficient for PCK [Friedrichsen et al, 2009]. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Secondly, most effective studies took place off-site or combined off-site with on-site parts, all guided by an expert. The importance of course facilitation by experts has been shown in several studies. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Effect sizes of intervention studies were significantly higher if the intervention was organized by researchers than if it was organized by regular teachers [Dignath, Buettner and Langfeldt, 2008]. They claimed that researchers are more concerned with the importance of self-regulated learning. For the present study, this would mean that researchers are more aware than (either more or equally experienced) teachers about the importance of PCK and therefore better succeed in promoting it. However, not all studies in the dataset allowed for drawing this conclusion (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015).
It seems indicated to be careful in sampling and to look for a representative if one wants to draw conclusions that are generalizable to a large population. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
As a solution, the authors suggested to assess teachers’ knowledge before finalizing the design of the intervention and adapt the intervention to the participants’ knowledge level. Furthermore, the authors stressed the importance of sharing the professional development goals with the participants prior to the intervention. This conclusion corresponds to the finding in several effective studies that making the concept PCK explicit to the participants in the beginning of the intervention is beneficial for the effectivity of the intervention. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
This review has particularly shown the importance of reflection for PCK development. Further intervention studies are encouraged to include reflection in their interventions. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Furthermore, the present study has shown that interventions including courses or exercises on student understanding and educational representations, contact with other teachers, and experiences in educational practice are effective PCK sources. Further interventions could incorporate these elements. Secondly, making PCK explicit to participants in interventions might help them in developing as teachers. Thirdly, course facilitation by experts in the field has been shown to be effective for PCK development. Fourthly, interventions would benefit from a clear conceptualization of PCK. The way in which PCK is operationalized by the different research instruments in the dataset reveals that PCK is understood in different ways. A clear conceptualization, on which PCK instruments are based, might be a sound basis for the systematic design of an intervention. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Fifthly, the use of intervention studies that apply experimental designs, compare at least two groups, and use pre- and post-testing (Hattie, Biggs and Purdie, 1996) to increase the chance that effects are caused by the intervention is advocated. (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015)
Ninthly, we recommend using mixed methodology while studying the effects of educational interventions as this methodology leads to richer, more nuanced results than the use of only quantitative or qualitative methods (Evens, Elan and Depaepe, 2015).
Add to Zotero:
[1] L. S. Shulman, “Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4–14, 1986.
[2] L. S. Shulman, “Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1– 23, 1987. [
3] P. L. Grossman,The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
[4] S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko, “Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching,” in Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, J. Gess[1]Newsome and N. G. Lederman, Eds., pp. 95–132, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999.
[5] D. L. Ball, M. H.Thames, and G. Phelps, “Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special?” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 389–407, 2008.
[6] J. Baumert, M. Kunter, W. Blum et al., “Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 133–180, 2010.
[7] M. Kunter, U. Klusmann, J. Baumert, D. Richter, T. Voss, and A. Hachfeld, “Professional competence of teachers: effects on instructional quality and student development,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 805–820, 2013.
[8] W. Haston and A. Leon-Guerrero, “Sources of pedagogical content knowledge: reports by preservice instrumental music teachers,” Journal of Music Teacher Education, vol. 17, pp. 48–59, 2008.
[9] V. Kind, “Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 169–204, 2009.
[10] J. van Driel and N. Verloop, “‘Pedagogical content knowledge’: a unifying element in the knowledge base of teachers,” Pedagogis[1]che Studien¨ , vol. 75, pp. 225–237, 1998.
[11] P. E. Simmons, A. Emory, T. Carter et al., “Beginning teachers: beliefs and classroom actions,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 930–954, 1999.
[12] P. J. Friedrichsen, S. K. Abell, E. M. Pareja, P. L. Brown, D. M. Lankford, and M. J. Volkmann, “Does teaching experience mat[1]ter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 357–383, 2009.
[13] J. Brownlee, N. Purdie, and G. Boulton-Lewis, “Changing epis[1]temological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students,” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 6, pp. 247–268, 2001.
[14] D. C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1975.
[15] R. Kenney, M. Shoffner, and D. Norris, “Reflecting to learn mathematics: supporting pre-service teachers’ pedagogical con[1]tent knowledge with reflection on writing prompts in mathe[1]matics education,” Reflective Practice: International and Multi[1]disciplinary Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 787–800, 2013.
[16] M. Petticrew and H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2006.
[17] J. Hattie, J. Biggs, and N. Purdie, “Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 99–136, 1996.
[18] M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1994.
[19] F. Arbaugh and C. A. Brown, “Analyzing mathematical tasks: a catalyst for change?” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 499–536, 2005. [
20] S. Dash, R. M. de Kramer, L. M. O’Dwyer, J. Masters, and M. Russell, “Impact of online professional development on teacher quality and student achievement in fifth grade mathematics,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2012.
[21] O. De Jong and J. van Driel, “Exploring the development of student teachers’ PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry topics,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Edu[1]cation, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 477–491, 2004.
[22] D. C. Smith and D. C. Neale, “The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching,” Teaching & Teacher Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 1989.
[23] N. Wahbeh and F. Abd-El-Khalick, “Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 425–466, 2014.
[24] E. P. Burton, “Student work products as a teaching tool for nature of science pedagogical knowledge: a professional devel[1]opment project with in-service secondary science teachers,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 156–166, 2013.
[25] S. J. Derry, M. J. Wilsman, and A. J. Hackbarth, “Using contrasting case activities to deepen teacher understanding of algebraic thinking and teaching,” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 305–329, 2007.
[26] R. Justi and J. van Driel, “A case study of the development of a beginning chemistry teacher’s knowledge about models and modelling,” Research in Science Education, vol. 35, no. 2-3, pp. 197–219, 2005.
[27] D. E. Kanter and S. Konstantopoulos, “The impact of a project[1]based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: the effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices,” Science Education, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 855–887, 2010.
[28] C. Khourey-Bowers and C. Fenk, “Influence of constructivist professional development on chemistry content knowledge and scientific model development,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 437–457, 2009.
[29] R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, C. Fazio, and G. Tarantino, “Pedagog[1]ical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: a case study,” Research in Science Education, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 235–268, 2006.
[30] R. Justi and J. van Driel, “The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling: promoting, characteriz[1]ing, and understanding the process,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 549–573, 2005.
[31] S. Aydin, B. Demirdogen, A. Tarkin et al., “Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long[1]term professional development as learners of science teaching,” Science Education, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 903–935, 2013.
[32] S. Aydin, B. Demirdogen, F. Nur Akin, E. Uzuntiryaki[1]Kondakci, and A. Tarkin, “The nature and development of inter[1]action among components of pedagogical content knowledge in practicum,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 46, pp. 37–50, 2015. X
[33] K. Goodnough and W. Hung, “Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science,” Teaching Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 229–242, 2009.
[34] J. W. Watson and K. B. Beswick, “School pupil change associated with a continuing professional development programme for teachers,” Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 63–75, 2011.
[35] N. Buchholtz and G. Kaiser, “Improving mathematics teacher education in Germany: empirical results from a longitudinal evaluation of innovative programs,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 949–977, 2013
[36] C. J. Beyer and E. A. Davis, “Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowl[1]edge,” Science Education, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 130–157, 2012.
[37] T. Michalsky, “Shaping self-regulation in science teachers’ professional growth: inquiry skills,” Science Education, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1106–1133, 2012.
[38] S. Rodrigues, A. Marks, and P. Steel, “Developing science and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: a model of continuing professional development,” Innovations in Education and Teach[1]ing International, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 386–394, 2003.
[39] N. Harr, A. Eichler, and A. Renkl, “Integrating pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical/psychological knowledge in mathematics,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, article 924, 10 pages, 2014.
[40] K. J. Roth, H. E. Garnier, C. Chen, M. Lemmens, K. Schwille, and N. I. Z. Wickler, “Videobased lesson analysis: effective science PD for teacher and student learning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 117–148, 2011.
[41] R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, D. Parker, G. Kulm, and T. Raulerson, “The mathematics content knowledge role in devel[1]oping preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge,” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 102–118, 2005.
[42] J. A. Luft, J. B. Firestone, S. S. Wong, I. Ortega, K. Adams, and E. Bang, “Beginning secondary science teacher induction: a two-year mixed methods study,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1199–1224, 2011.
[43] S.-J. Jang, “Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument,” Higher Education, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 663–678, 2011.
[44] S. Park and J. S. Oliver, “National Board Certification (NBC) as a catalyst for teachers’ learning about teaching: the effects of the NBC process on candidate teachers’ PCK development,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 812–834, 2008.
[45] J. D. Davis, “Understanding the influence of two mathematics textbooks on prospective secondary teachers’ knowledge,” Jour[1]nal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 365–389, 2009.
[46] J. A. Monet and E. Etkina, “Fostering self-reflection and meaningful learning: earth science professional development for middle school science teachers,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 455–475, 2008.
[47] L. Spear-Swerling, “A literacy tutoring experience for prospec[1]tive special educators and struggling second graders,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 431–443, 2009.
[48] J. Strawhecker, “Preparing elementary teachers to teach math[1]ematics: how field experiences impact pedagogical content knowledge,” The Journal, vol. 4, pp. 1–12, 2005.
[49] D. Tirosh, “Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: the case of division of fractions,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 5–25, 2000.
[50] R. Santagata, N. Kersting, K. B. Givvin, and J. W. Stigler, “Problem implementation as a lever for change: an experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning,” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2010.
[51] K. L. McNeill and A. M. Knight, “Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of profes[1]sional development on K-12 teachers,” Science Education, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 936–972, 2013.
[52] O. De Jong, J. H. van Driel, and N. Verloop, “Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 947–964, 2005.
[53] P. Nilsson and J. Loughran, “Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 699–721, 2012.
[54] B. M. Kinach, “A cognitive strategy for developing pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathematics methods course: toward a model of effective practice,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 51–71, 2002.
[55] E. Weber, M. A. Tallman, and J. A. Middleton, “Developing elementary teachers’ knowledge about functions and rate of change through modeling,” Mathematical Thinking and Learn[1]ing, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2015.
[56] P. Grossman and S. Stodolsky, “Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching,” Educational Researcher, vol. 24, pp. 5–11, 1995.
[57] J. H. van Driel and A. Berry, “Teacher professional develop[1]ment focusing on pedagogical content knowledge,” Educational Researcher, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 26–28, 2012.
[58] D. McIntyre, “Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education,” in Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Develop[1]ment, J. Calderhead and P. James, Eds., pp. 39–52, The Falmer Press, London, UK, 1993.
[59] T. Wubbels and F. A. J. Korthagen, “The effects of a pre[1]service teacher education program for the preparation of reflec[1]tive teachers,” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 29–43, 1990.
[60] H. M. Chae, J. H. Kim, and M. Glass, “Effective behaviors in a comparison between novice and expert algebra tutors,” in Proceedings of the Modern Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference, Dayton, Ohio, USA, April 2005.
[61] L. B. Couto, R. B. Bestetti, C. B. Restini, M. Faria Jr., and G. S. Romao, “Brazilian medical students’ perceptions of expert ˜ versus non-expert facilitators in a (non) problem-based learn[1]ing environment,” Medical Education Online, vol. 20, Article ID 26893, 2015.
[62] C. Dignath, G. Buettner, and H.-P. Langfeldt, “How can pri[1]mary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: a meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes,” Educational Research Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 101–129, 2008.
[63] J. D. Scargle, “Publication bias (the ‘file-drawer problem’) in scientific inference,” in Proceedings of the Sturrock Symposium, Stanford University, March 1999.
[64] A. Hume and A. Berry, “Enhancing the practicum experience for pre-service chemistry teachers through collaborative CoRe design with mentor teachers,” Research in Science Education, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 2107–2136, 2013.
[65] A. Hume, “Promoting higher levels of reflective writing in student journals,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 247–260, 2009.
[66] A. C. Hume, “Primary connections: simulating the classroom in initial teacher education,” Research in Science Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 551–565, 2012
Notes:
Intro to PCK - what it is, what others have put
The extra elements for socially constructed knowledge.
Cochran model to capture the full essence of KS2.
Cultural, contextual and social.
Cultural learning from peers- pedagogy culture.
Why the contextual element important for exploring KS2.
Lesson study similarities and why the idea framework to explore knowledge. Research design like Shulman’s PRA model
PCK data collection- interviews and combined with other.
Nind, Curtin and Hall (YEAR)
————-
Questionnaires used alongside secondary sources such as interviews help to develop a more complete picture when answering a complex research question and in some cases help for comparisons or to make predictions, especially in the instances of preparing for pedagogic roles and to find out what sorts of pedagogical knowledge is held and what correlates with that knowledge (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016, p.82).
Within PCK Shulman (1986) drew attention to questions of how teachers formulate explanations, decide on teaching content for the subject, how to represent learning and how to interact with the understandings or misconceptions that learners might have.
Shulman’s model specifically highlights the understudied form of teacher’s knowledge of how content can be transformed for teaching into a form that is comprehensible to learners (Shulman, 1986; 1987).
The concept of PCK has taken hold amongst research on teacher education (Kind, 2009).
Kind, V. (2009) Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45 (2) pages 169-202
When it comes to the craft of teaching, it is difficult knowledge to represent as it is tacit and hard to get at (Lewthwaite and Nind???; Traianou, 2006).
Traianou, A. (2006) Understanding teacher expertise in primary science: a sociological approach, Research papers in education, 21 (2) pages 63-78
It is not something easily observed but can be made visible through a combination of observing teachers situated in context, through interviews and reflections (Nind, Kilburn and Wiles, 2015), and something that the process of lesson study research offers (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016).
Nind, M., Kilburn, D and Wiles, R (2015) Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods. International journal of social research methodology.
Gaining access to the educational thoughts and decision making of others towards their practice is intrinsic to the endeavour of many social scientists (Calderhead, 1981, p.211) but in pedagogical research this takes on a very practical importance to help understand the thinking and decision making behind it (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016. p.161).
Calderhead, J (1981) Stimulated recall: a method for research on teaching. British journal of educational psychology, 51, pages 211-17
Nind, Curtin and Hall (2016, p.267) recommend a set of research techniques that offer ideal insights for studying teacher’s thoughts, processes, evaluations, problem solving and decision making for PCK. These mainly relate to think aloud methods to capture thinking in the moment, these can access introspective higher order mental processes for planning teaching (pedagogy as planned) and lesson study to observe teaching in action (pedagogy as enacted) and the dialogue of reflection to uncover evaluative thinking after the event (pedagogy as experienced).
Lewthwaite - one challenge for teaching DA is that it’s been mainly adopted in the technical profession there is an issue where - technical specialists have no pedagogical repertoire to be able to teach learners, and teachers with pedagogical repertoire don’t have the technical knowledge (quote). - Vital to teach the foundational elements that don’t need specialist knowledge, especially in basic awareness at primary school level.
Comments
Post a Comment