Perspectives from research on pedagogical content knowledge perspectives

Perspectives from research on pedagogical content knowledge: perspectives and potential for development Dr Vanessa Kind School of Education Durham University Durham, UK

Durham is here… ∂ ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

∂ Durham County Cricket team won England’s County Championship in 2008 and 2009 ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Per Morten Kind Eduardo Mortimer Harrie Eijkelhof Jon Ogborn Elke Sumfleth Me Robin Millar Peter Dekkers ∂ Geeske van Hoeve Brower Piet Linjse Laurence Viennot Dimitri Psillos Adri Verdonk 1 st Ph. D Summerschool, Utrecht, 1993

About Durham… "I got off at Durham. . . and fell in love with it instantly in a serious way. Why, it's wonderful - a perfect little city. . If you have never been to Durham, go there at once. Take my car. It's wonderful. " ∂ Bill Bryson, “Notes from a Small Island”, now Chancellor, Durham University ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

The lecture • Introduction to pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) • What model of PCK best represents science teaching? • • • Pre-service teachers Experience teachers PST – Expert shift ∂ • How should we train science teachers? • Are science teachers born or can they be made? • Conclusions ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Introduction: Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) PCK was proposed by Lee Shulman in 1985 -6 as “special amalgam” of knowledge possessed by a teacher ∂ Shulman proposed PCK as one component in a teacher’s knowledge base PCK itself has been widely researched and is regarded as a fruitful tool for understanding teacher knowledge ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Shulman’s original view about PCK Two components: • Representations and/or Instructional strategies – what teachers “do” to teach chemistry: the illustrations, analogies, explanations and demonstrations used ∂ • Knowledge of students’ subject-specific learning difficulties – misconceptions, naïve ideas, preconceptions Subject matter knowledge SMK, is separate. This is the knowledge that a teacher transforms for students’ benefit. ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Critique Shulman’s original model for PCK has been criticised: - • Static – implying one “set” of knowledge is learned and transformed • Inflexible - a teacher’s knowledge ∂ changes as s/he gains experience • Narrow – PCK is more complex than the original proposals suggest – Other researchers identify many more components as part of PCK – Hence many proposals for “what is PCK? ” ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Teacher knowledge base components identified as part of PCK Representations and Instructional strategies Students’ subject specific learning difficulties • • Purposes / orientations/ Nature of science Curricular knowledge ∂ Context for learning Subject matter knowledge (SMK) General pedagogical knowledge / classroom management Assessment Socio-cultural issues School knowledge ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Different PCK models Shulman 1987 Grossman 1990 Magnusson et al 1999 Marks 1990 Shulman’s two components Purposes X X Curriular knowledge X Subject matter knowledge (SMK) X X X ∂ ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Deciding which model … Gess-Newsome (1999) suggests two extremes: Integrative – “chemical mixture” – individual knowledge base components still recognisable, but all used in teaching. All parts of a teacher’s knowledge is PCK. ∂ Transformative - ”chemical compound” – ”fusion” or ”transformation” subject matter knowledge (SMK) + instructional strategies + understanding of students’ difficulties + other components -> PCK ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Transformative • Components, including SMK, are transformed into PCK • Teachers rely on developing PCK for all topics ∂ • Classroom practice reinforces development of PCK • “Good” SMK is a pre-requisite ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Integrative • Components are developed separately and integrated by teaching • PCK is not a separate knowledge base component – teacher knowledge is PCK ∂ • SMK is part of PCK • Teachers integrate knowledge components as needed by topics taught • Classroom practice reinforces development of all teacher knowledge ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Transformative: Comments and Critique • Emphasises developing PCK to help students learn concepts • Learning to teach involves learning “correct” or “best” way • At worst, this is “tips for teachers”∂ or a “technical” approach • Knowledge transfer between topics /students/ schools isn’t automatic, but context-specific • “Best practice” is sought – but is this realistic? • Mechanism of “transformation” of knowledge components is not defined – is it definable? ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Integrative: Comments and Critique • Emphasises – development of knowledge components separately, then integration – learning classroom management, not just how to teach content • No role for “best practice” in learning to teach – individualised ∂ process, perhaps involving “case studies” showing combinations of knowledge bases in action in specific situations • Skills are transferred between contexts • Integration process needs to be explicit, not left to chance ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Different PCK models: Transformative or Integrative? Shulman 1987 Grossman 1990 Magnusson et al 1999 Marks 1990 Shulman’s basic components Purposes X ∂ X Curriular knowledge X SMK X X X Transformative or Integrative T T T I ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

What do these models mean in practice for …. • Pre-service science teachers’ (PST) PCK? ∂ • Experienced teachers’ PCK? • How a PST becomes an expert? ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Pre-service teachers’ PCK Van Driel et al (1999) Explored 12 pre-service teachers (PSTs) finding out how the macro-micro shift impacts on students’ learning chemistry ∂ Methodology: Qualitative, phenomenological 2 questionnaires for each PST Interviews with PSTs and their mentors Audio-recording of a workshop ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Findings: • Differences in SMK led to differences in PCK • Differences in development of PCK were due to mentor influence • Trainees realised need to be explicit in mentally shifting between macro and micro levels and to relate these to each other, using language∂carefully Strongest influences on changing practice: – classroom experience – University workshop – support from school-based mentors Transformative ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Experienced teachers’ PCK Arzi and White (2007) carried out a 17 -year longitudinal study of the knowledge science teachers use in their teaching Methodology: Mixed longitudinal ∂ two universities Interviews with teachers from Pre - and post – initial training 1985 – 1987 Post Year 1 of teaching Post Year 2 of teaching Late long follow up 2002 They collected retrospective data to fill in the gap ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Findings – unused content knowledge was forgotten – little new knowledge learned, but knowledge was better organised – school curriculum became organising force Teachers become better at teaching “school science” but lose knowledge ∂ Knowledge integrates with experience Integrative ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

How does a PST become an experienced teacher ? Geddis et al (1993) report how three teachers (two PST and one experienced) taught isotopes Methodology: Qualitative ∂ Interviews Field notes taken during lessons Critical incident sheets – used by PSTs to record events they thought were important ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Findings: PSTs • assumed tabula rasa, ignoring students’ prior knowledge • taught “what they knew” • found students struggled with mathematics and did not learn the concept The experienced teacher ∂ • adapted his SMK into a specific instructional strategy that accounted for students’ prior learning experiences Novices: attempted to transform their SMK Expert: had integrated his SMK ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Which model? An answer Evidence supports both viewpoints • PSTs seem to begin by transforming knowledge into PCK • Sense of struggle • Experienced teachers’ knowledge is integrated, PCK is ∂ one component Experienced teachers seem: • not to transform knowledge • to rely on curricular knowledge and skills built up over time • to lose curiosity and thirst for chemistry knowledge • to work in a “comfort zone” from which its hard to move ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

How should we train science teachers? Three components from research: - • “Good” subject matter ∂ knowledge (SMK) • Emotional attributes • Classroom experience ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

“Good” SMK Kind (2009) probed how “good” science graduates teach within and outside specialism Methodology: Mixed methods ∂ Closed, open and Likert scale questions Interviews Document analysis ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Findings • Some PSTs taught more effective lessons that were not in their specialism • Some specialist lessons were over-pitched • PSTs could not select appropriate SMK and ignored students’ needs ∂ Evidence suggests • PSTs don’t know that they should transform SMK • Mentor support was a strong positive influence on practice ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Emotional attributes: self-efficacy and self-confidence Jones and Carter (2007) say: • Better science knowledge means more time on teaching science ∂ confidence leads to less • Low science • High science self-efficacy links to fewer misconceptions • Self-efficacy is influenced by responses of others to a teacher’s teaching ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Self-confidence Kind and Kind (2009) investigated trainee science teachers’ self -confidence for teaching all science subjects and misconceptions in chemistry Findings • No correlations between level ∂of misconceptions and degree of self-confidence • Trainees with chemistry degrees had fewer misconceptions • Some very confident trainees had high levels of misconceptions So – • Chemistry could be taught by very confident biologists who know little about the subject ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Classroom experience Is regarded as a crucial component in learning to teach, but Russell and Martin (2007) argue • how PSTs learn from experience is poorly understood • school and university-based phases of training are out-ofstep ∂ • how science is learned at university and in school differ Luft, Roehrig and Patterson (2003) claim • PSTs need support from experienced mentors • Where this is effective, PSTs progress more rapidly ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

How to train? An answer To improve training experiences, make explicit • how and what science knowledge to transform • how to transform academic -> school science • how to transform school science SMK -> PCK ∂ • what to do with knowledge learned at university Assess trainees’ emotional attributes and use these to offer targeted support Ensure training is backed up by experienced mentoring ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Are science teachers born, or can they be made? What role is there for specialists? What happens when teachers don’t teach their specialism? ∂ How do science teachers develop their knowledge? ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Evidence (1): PSTs Kind and Kind (2009) studied chemistry misconceptions in 180 trainee science teachers and compared the results with their self-confidence Methodology: Mixed methods – quantitative and qualitative Findings – – – ∂ Chemists had fewer misconceptions Chemical bonding was the “hardest” topic for all About 10% were “super-confident” biologists with poor knowledge So – Chemistry could be being taught by non-specialists unaware of their personal misconceptions ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Evidence (2): Experienced teachers Sanders, Borko and Lockard (1993) studied how experienced science teachers taught within and outside specialism Findings • Teachers’ established knowledge ∂ provided a framework for teaching in both domains • Teachers acted like novices when subject matter was unfamiliar – Poor timing, student confusion, inconsistent, less risky activities, more teacher talk • Within specialism – teachers could “go with it” – Reflection on students’ understandings, questions answered ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Evidence (3): Novice – expert shift Arzi and White (2007) suggest a three phase model of teacher content knowledge development: 1 acquire academic details 2 aggregate knowledge with curriculum, pedagogical knowledge 3 make links between knowledge∂areas, develop patterns Links for quality teaching are deeper and wider than those resulting from teacher education programmes Teacher knowledge structures depend on how they were taught ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Q 3: Born or made? An answer • PSTs– “raw” material – Can train physicists and biologists to teach chemistry BUT – Be aware of emotional attributes – PCK develops over time – Requires SMK as starting point ∂ • Experienced teachers – “cooked” material – Hard to convert – Will need SMK, Classroom experience, support, • One-day one-off workshops are unlikely to be effective • Long term, supported, in-depth experiences more likely to be successful ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Conclusions Q 1: Which PCK model? Evidence supports both transformative and integrative Aim for quality teaching – to achieve “integrated” knowledge ∂ Be aware of “comfort zone” teaching Place for ongoing development of teachers’ science knowledge ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Q 2: How to train science teachers? Training programmes need To make integration explicit Take note of emotional attributes ∂ Consider school science knowledge – and transformation of academic knowledge ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Q 3: Are science teachers born or made? Some are born Most are made through a training process, however ∂ flawed Making some chemists from experienced biology or physics teachers is difficult but not impossible. ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

∂ ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

References Arzi, H. J. and White, R. T. (2007) Changes in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17 -year longitudinal study Science Education 92(2): 221 – 251 Deng, Z. (2007) Knowing the subject matter of a secondary school science subject Journal of Curriculum Studies 39(5): 503 – 535 Geddis, A. , Onslow, B. , Beynon, C. and Oesch, J. (1993) Transforming content knowledge: learning to teach about isotopes Science Education 77 (6): 575 – 591 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 Jones, M. G. and Carter, G. (2007) Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs Chapter 35 In: International Handbook of Science Education Eds Abell and Lederman New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Kind, V. (2009) A conflict in your head: An exploration of trainees’ subject matter knowledge development and its impact on teacher self-confidence International Journal of Science Education 31(11): 1529 – 1562 ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Kind, V. and Kind, P. M. (2010) Qualified to teach? How personal and academic characteristics of pre-service science teachers compare with their understandings of basic chemical ideas Under review, International Journal of Science Education Kind, V. and Wallace, R. (2009) Train, teach; taught? How the content of specific science subject matter knowledge sessions impacts on trainee teachers’ classroom practice and children’s learning Nordic Studies in Science Education 4(2): 151 – 167 Luft, J. , Roehrig, G. and Patterson, N. C. (2003) Contrasting Landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programmes in beginning secondary science teachers’ practices Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(1): 77 – 97 Russell, T. and Martin, A. K. (2007) Learning∂to Teach Science Chapter 37 In: International Handbook of Science Education Eds Abell and Lederman New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Sanders, L. R. , Borko, H. and Lockard, J. D. (1993) Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30: 723 – 736 Van Driel, J. , de Jong, O. and Verloop, N. (2002) The Development of Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Science Education 86: 572 – 590 ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010

Contact details Dr Vanessa Kind School of Education Durham University ∂ Road Leazes Durham DH 1 1 TA +44 191 334 8369 Vanessa. kind@durham. ac. uk ESERA Summer. School, Udine, 2010