Pedagogical Content Knowledge
as a tool for developing high
quality science teachers: evidence
from research
Dr. Vanessa Kind
Durham University
School of Education
Durham, UK
Introduction
• Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a tool for
studying teachers’ practices
• PCK models
• Research evidence
– What is pre-service teachers’ PCK like?
∂
– What content knowledge do pre-service teachers have?
– In what ways do content knowledge and PCK connect?
• A revised model
• Educating high quality science teachers
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
as a tool for studying teachers’ practices
Lee Shulman (1987) described
“pedagogical content knowledge” as a
“special amalgam” of knowledge
possessed by a teacher
∂
PCK is…
unique to teachers
one component of teachers’
knowledge base
Shulman suggested PCK comprises
two components:Representations and/or Instructional strategies
– what teachers “do” to teach: illustrations, analogies,
explanations and demonstrations
∂
Knowledge of students’ subject-specific learning difficulties
– misconceptions, naïve ideas, preconceptions
and that subject matter knowledge, SMK,
is transformed by a teacher for his/her students’ benefit.
Other researchers propose PCK includes
any or all of
General pedagogical knowledge /
classroom management
Knowledge of curriculum
∂
School knowledge
Knowledge of assessment
Purposes / orientations/ Nature of science
Socio-cultural issues
Subject matter knowledge (SMK)
Context for learning
creating …
A variety of PCK models, such as
Grossman
(1990)
Magnusson
et al
(1999)
Veal &
MaKinster
(1999)
Representations



Students’
understanding










Knowledge of …
∂
Subject matter
Curriculum



Assessment



Koballa Marks
et al
(1990)
(1999)

School / context /
socio-cultural issues


General pedagogy


Purposes/
orientations


Is subject matter knowledge “in” or
“out”?
“Out”
Transformative
“In”
Integrative
(Gess-Newsome, 1999)
PCK is new knowledge created
by the teacher to make his/her
subject matter knowledge
understandable
Magnusson et al (1999)
Grossman (1990)
∂
PCK represents everything a
teacher knows / does
Veal & MaKinster (1999)
Koballa et al (1999)
Marks (1990)
PCK research
– occurs in various settings and contexts around the
world
– adopts qualitative OR quantitative methodologies
• If qualitative – triangulation and analysis are poor
• If quantitative – correlations
claim inappropriate
∂
cause and effect
– adopts a PCK model as a background framework
• selected BEFORE analysis of empirical evidence
• selected model is ASSUMED to be correct
– is often theoretical
Unsurprisingly this results in
– disagreement about what PCK is
– what PCK offers
∂
– limited impact of research on practice of
teacher education
Consequences
More prosaically, PCK is…
Philosophically, PCK
remains
Alluring …
promising …
In the pre-science phase (Kuhn)
∂
A diverse set of research
programmes (Lakatos)
frustrating..
And / OR
“Anything goes” (Feyerabend)
Possibly leading us along….
Research evidence –
start at the beginning
• What is pre-service teachers’ PCK like?
• What subject matter knowledge
do pre-service
∂
teachers have?
• In what ways do subject matter knowledge and
PCK connect?
Sample
Pre-service teachers (PSTs) starting a one-year
Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) teacher
education program for teaching 11 -16s
All PSTs:• are graduates in a science∂ subject
• have 16+ qualifications in English, Maths and Science
• have 18+ qualifications in at least one science subject
• pass a “suitability for teaching” interview
235 PSTs from 2005 – 2010, 35 – 52 per year
The pre-service teacher sample
∂
∂
Most PSTs were well-qualified graduates aged 21 -25
Methodology
This is a mixed methods study (Meriam & Associates,
2002)
Data were collected by use of three vignettes and
open-ended questions
Classic content analysis (Ryan
& Bernard, 2000) was
∂
applied to devise coding schemes for responses
WARNING!
No PCK model was assumed
correct in the design of this study!
Test: Does any evidence
support a PCK model?
The vignettes
PSTs responded to one vignette each in chemistry, physics
and biology
Each:• described a teaching situation based on a teacher
∂
demonstration
• listed main student misconceptions
• stated the scientifically correct response
• asked PSTs to “describe what you would do” to help
students learn the correct answer
Vignette: example
A teacher showed a class of 11 -12
year olds magnesium burning in air.
There was a bright white light,
smoke, and white ash remained.
Teacher asked, “Where did the
∂
white stuff come from?”
•Responses included:Inside the magnesium
It is carbon/ soot
It is ash left over from burning
•Correct answer: It was made in a
reaction
What would you do to
help the class learn
the correct answer?
Biology and physics vignettes
Biology
Explanations for plant
growth
∂
Physics
Current flowing through
an electric circuit
Vignettes were analysed
for evidence of:
PCK
∂
SMK
Connections between SMK and PCK
Chemistry vignette initial PCK:
Representations and Instructional Strategies
Whole
sample
N=235
Chemists
N=71
Biologists
N=125
Physicists
N=39
14
9
4
2
53
20
25
8
15
4
8
3
Show ash is MgO
10
3
6
1
Explanations
Equation for reaction
39
16
19
4
Analogies
“mixing paint”
“baking a cake”
15
2
10
3
Illustrations
Particle diagram
13
4
7
2
Use visual aids
16
3
9
4
Subcomponent
Example
Demonstrations Cut Mg
Experiments
Repeat experiment
(variants)
Do other reactions
∂
Chemistry vignette initial PCK: Knowledge of
students’ understanding and orientations
Component
Sub-component
Whole
sample
N=235
Chemists
N=71
Biologist
s
N=125
Physicists
N=39
Misconceptions
10
5
4
1
11
6
4
1
Didactic
123
39
67
17
Conceptual change
18
9
5
4
Academic rigour
18
5
10
3
Inquiry
8
2
5
1
Knowledge of
students’
understanding Prior knowledge
PSTs’
personal
orientations
∂
Examples
Talk about the magnesium
– it is an element… explain
the concept of
conservation of mass ..
(Didactic, Chemist)
∂
Most PSTs responded to their
specialist vignettes using mainly
didactic orientations.
Explain the nature of
electricity, it’s the
flow of electrons
illustrate how a light
bulb works …
(Didactic, Physicist)
Explain that
photosynthesis occurs
in the leaves of plants
to make food…
(Didactic, Biologist)
Examples
Allow pupils to investigate
with circuits and ammeters to
see readings are the same,
then give the correct
explanation.
Let students make and
practice their own
circuits changing it
themselves… so they
find out through
practice..
(Chemist, Physics vignette, Guided
Discovery)
(Biologist, Physics vignette,
Discovery)
∂
Allow pupils to grow their own
plants from start, changing
factors, then lead to the answer.
(Physicist, Biology vignette, Activity
Driven)
PSTs responded to nonspecialist vignettes using
a greater variety of
orientations
Chemistry vignette initial PCK responses:
showed no evidence for
General pedagogical knowledge /
classroom management
Knowledge of curriculum
School knowledge
∂
Knowledge of assessment
Socio-cultural issues
Context for learning
(of course, limitations apply)
Chemistry vignette initial SMK:
Content knowledge and substantive knowledge
Component
Whole
sample
N=235
Chemists
N=71
Biologists
N=125
Physicists
N=39
23
4
18
1
22
7
12
3
Partially Mg burned
correct
14
5
6
3
Incorrect Mg and O
mix
6
0
5
1
Particle theory
14
5
6
3
Chemical reaction
emphasised
16
3
8
5
Quality
Correct
Content
knowledge –
facts,
concepts
Substantive
underpinning
ideas
Example
New
substance
MgO
∂
Connections found between SMK and PCK
Type
Characteristics
Transformative
Correct content knowledge
Factual content
Analytical
Dismantles misconceptions
Transformative
substantive
Activities linked to substantive
∂
statement
Aim to correct misconceptions
Integrative
No SMK statement
Experimental detail
Unrealistic experiment
Transformative
Incorrect content knowledge
Misconception apparent
SMK – PCK connection
Transformative Correct content knowledge
The white stuff is magnesium oxide
Explain that the oxygen in the product comes
from the air
Say, “If I cut open the Mg strip∂will there be
oxygen in there?”
Mg strip only contains Mg atoms…so when it
burns the product will contain Mg and atoms
from the other reactant, oxygen
Ash/ Soot comes from burning carbon
containing species
Correct SMK
Instructional
Strategy
Academic
orientation
Students’
understanding
Chemist, PhD, Female
Transformative substantive
…remind students about the definition
of a chemical reaction.
…get them to discuss what they think
might be reacting with the magnesium,
looking for “the air” or “oxygen”.
Once established …link to this∂was the
product of reacting magnesium and
oxygen to make this new substance.
I would return to their original
answers to clarify which were correct
and or the value in their answers.
Substantive
SMK
Didactic
orientation
Students’
understanding
Physicist, Masters degree, Male
Integrative
Weigh the magnesium before
burning it. Collect the ash.
The ash is weighed… an
increase should be observed.
Ask “Why did the weight∂
increase?” and “Where did the
increase come from?”
Repeat in nitrogen only.
Ask, “Does it burn?” No ….
No explicit SMK
statement
Didactic
orientation
Instructional
strategy
Industrial chemist, BSc degree, male
Transformative Incorrect
…demonstrate that product
is a result of 2 reactants
and all look different
e.g. demonstrate with
different colour paints, ∂
Red + blue -> purple
Metal + gas -> white
powder
Didactic orientation
Instructional
strategy
Incorrect SMK
statement
Biologist, MSc, female
Findings
(1) Pre-service teachers’ PCK comprises
Representations and Instructional
Strategies
Knowledge of students’ understandings
ONLY!
∂
Orientations tell / show / explain = didactic
And tends to be transformative
BUT
PCK is hard to establish from written evidence
Categories overlap with each other
and there is evidence of “integrated” PCK
We need a more accurate PCK model
(2) Subject matter knowledge
• Pre-service teachers’ subject matter knowledge :– is mainly content knowledge which is
– correct
– incorrect
– partially correct
∂
• Quality is related to teachers’ subject specialist
backgrounds
• Shows some substantive knowledge based on “big
ideas”
We need to acknowledge quality differences
(3) PCK – SMK connections
• Good PCK is related to good quality, explicit SMK
– Transformative correct
– Transformative substantive
• Poor PCK is related to poor / non-existent SMK
– Transformative incorrect
– Integrative
∂
• Evidence across all three vignettes indicated that
subject specialists with the best quality SMK had
the most appropriate PCK
Non-specialists need support for SMK and PCK
Subject matter
knowledge
My PCK model
Knowledge of
Students‘
Understanding
Good PCK is
characterized by
Are mutually
dependent
∂
Fast decision making
Sequencing
Effective planning for
practice
Knowledge of
Representations
and Instructional
Strategies
and produces
Student
learning
Limitations and further research
These findings are based on evidence from:– one group of PSTs from one institution
– one data set comprising written evidence only
– Vignettes which were limited in scope
∂
Confirmation is required, for example by:Observing teaching
Collecting oral evidence from video analysis
Using vignettes which probe a broader range of
Strategies and situations
For PCK valuable research
– use an accurate, evidence-based model based on
pre-service teachers’ starting points, and allows for
developments
∂
– state what good quality PCK looks like
– ensure good subject matter knowledge
– remember that PCK generates student learning
Finally, teacher education programmes
need to:• Make transformation of subject knowledge explicit
• Acknowledge and address differences in PCK quality
• Realise that school science and academic science knowledge
∂ this explicitly
are not the same and deal with
• Consider pre-service teachers’ starting orientations prior to
training, as these may impact on outcomes
• Take note of pre-service teachers’ emotional attributes as
these may impact on progress
Contact details
Dr. Vanessa Kind
Reader in Education
School of Education
Durham University
Leazes Road
Durham ∂
DH1 1TA
UK
Vanessa.kind@durham.ac.uk
Telephone: + 44 191 334 8369
Fax: +44 191 334 8311
References
GESS-NEWSOME, J.(1999) Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation In: Explaining
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Eds Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N. Dordrecht: Kluwer
GROSSMAN, P. (1990) The Making of a Teacher New York: Teachers College Press
KIND, V. (2013) Pre-service science teachers’ initial pedagogical content and subject matter knowledge for
teaching aspects of science Oral presentation European Science Education Research Association conference,
Nicosia, Cyprus, 2013
KIND, V. (2009) Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education: Perspectives and potential for progress
Studies in Science Education 45 (2): 169 – 204
KOBALLA, T.R., GRÄBER, W., COLEMAN, D. AND KEMP, A.C. (1999) Prospective Teachers’ conceptsions of the
knowledge base for teaching chemistry at the gymnasium Journal of Science Teacher Education 10 (4): 269 –
286
MAGNUSSON, S., KRAJCIK, J. AND BORKO, H. (1999) Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject
matter and their impact on instruction In: Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G. Eds (1999) Examining
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers p 95 – 132
MARKS, R. (1990) Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception Journal of
Teacher Education 41 (3): 3-11
MERIAM, S.B. & Associates (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco: Wiley
RYAN, G.W. & BERNARD, H.R. (2000) Data Management and Analysis methods. Chapter 29 p 769 – 802 in
Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Eds. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. London: Sage
Publications Ltd
∂
SHULMAN, L. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform Harvard Educational Review 57(1): 122
VEAL, W.R. AND MAKINSTER, J.G. (1998) Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies Electronic Journal of Science
Education available at http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html (accessed 20.12.06)