J Sci Teacher Educ DOI 10.1007/s10972-016-9472-5
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Components Betu¨l Demirdo¨g˘en1
The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2016
Abstract The purpose of this case study is to delve into the complexities of how preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations, viewed as an interrelated set of beliefs, interact with the other components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Eight preservice science teachers participated in the study. Qualitative data were collected in the form of content representation, responses to an open-ended instrument, and semi-structured interviews. Preservice teachers’ orientation and PCK were analyzed deductively. Constant comparison analysis of how their orientation interacted with other PCK components revealed three major themes: (1) one’s purpose for science teaching determines the PCK component(s) with which it interacts, (2) a teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science do not directly interact with his/her PCK, unless those beliefs relate directly to the purposes of teaching science, and (3) beliefs about science teaching and learning mostly interact with knowledge of instructional strategies. Implications for science teacher education and research are discussed. Keywords Science teaching orientation Pedagogical content knowledge Case study Preservice science teachers Deductive Constant comparison analysis
Introduction Orientation guides teachers in their decisions about content, instructional strategies, and assessment (Abell, 2008; Aydın et al., 2013; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Moreover, according to various pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) scholars (e.g., Abell, 2007; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park & Chen, 2012), orientation is a component of PCK, which is one of the & Betu¨l Demirdo¨g˘en
[email protected] 1
Department of Science Education, Bulent Ecevit University, 67300 Kdz. Eregli, Turkey
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
primary factors that influences teachers’ practices (Abell, 2007; Aydin et al., 2013; Gess-Newsome, 1999). PCK is a knowledge base that enables teachers to make content understandable for their students (Shulman, 1986). Although several scholars (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 2015; Magnusson et al., 1999; Shulman, 1986) have formulated various PCK models, few of them have explicitly defined orientation or considered its role in PCK and teachers’ practices. While presenting her new PCK model, Gess-Newsome (2015) described teachers’ orientations as one of the amplifiers and filters that mediate teachers’ translations of topic-specific professional knowledge to their classroom practice. Moreover, orientation forms a lens through which teachers personalize their PCK. Similarly, Magnusson et al. (1999) included science teaching orientation as an overarching component of PCK, arguing that it shapes the other components without explicitly defining what ‘‘shape’’ means. Science teacher educators widely use Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model to investigate science teachers’ PCK in different areas: chemistry (e.g., Chen & Wei, 2015), physics (e.g., Alonzo & Kim, 2015), biology (e.g., Mthethwa-Kunene, Onwu, & de Villiers, 2015), nature of science (NOS) (e.g., Demirdo¨g˘en, Hanuscin, Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, & Ko¨seog˘lu, 2015), and teaching teachers (e.g., Demirdo¨g˘en, Aydın, & Tarkın, 2015). However, in their extensive research on orientations, Friedrichsen, van Driel, and Abell (2011) asserted that In most research using the Magnusson et al. PCK model, the relation of orientations with the other PCK components remains unclear [italics added] and/or is not empirically investigated. In particular, the role of orientations as ‘‘shaping’’ other PCK components is rarely made explicit or supported by empirical evidence (p. 367). Considering the essential role of orientation in instruction, there is a need for empirical studies delving into the complexities of the nature of orientation (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005)—especially how orientation interacts with other PCK components (Friedricshsen et al., 2011). The literature has also provided evidence of the relationship between students’ learning and teachers’ orientation and PCK (Kember & Gow, 1994; Walter, 2013). Moreover, a better understanding of preservice teachers’ orientations and their relation to PCK components might be fruitful in designing teacher education courses and professional development programs that enable teachers to address goals of reform (Luft & Roehrig, 2007; Musikul & Abell, 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate how preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientation interacts with their knowledge of curriculum, learner, instructional strategies, and assessment.
Theoretical Framework Pedagogical Content Knowledge Shulman (1986) first conceptualized PCK: pedagogical professional knowledge for teachers (Abell, 2007; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Shulman, 1986). This refers to the knowledge that differentiates a scientist from a science teacher (National Research
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
Council [NRC], 1996). After the works of Shulman (1986, 1987), researchers have carried out various studies on the components of PCK (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 2015; Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park & Chen, 2012). Because studies on several topics provide empirical support for the use of Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model, it serves as the foundation of this study (e.g., Alonzo & Kim, 2015; Chen & Wei, 2015). The PCK model by Magnusson et al. (1999) is also a theoretical framework that enables researchers to capture teachers’ knowledge of teaching (Abell, 2008). Although a new consensus-reached model for teacher knowledge and skills, including PCK (Gess-Newsome, 2015), now exists in the literature to investigate the interaction between orientation and other PCK components, the model was not published elsewhere during the time of this study. Therefore, it was not available for use in designing, collecting, and analyzing the data. This recent model defines PCK as topic-specific professional knowledge, skill, and enactment. It includes knowledge components (e.g., knowledge of instructional strategies) similar to those found in Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model. However, it separates orientations and beliefs from PCK, labeling them as amplifiers and filters. Both models clearly refer to orientations and beliefs as influential factors on PCK. Therefore, this study has the potential to contribute to both models of PCK in terms of how orientation, as an interrelated set of beliefs, filters teachers’ topic-specific professional knowledge (e.g., knowledge of students’ understanding). Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model includes five components: science teaching orientation, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of learner, knowledge of instructional strategy, and knowledge of assessment. It defines orientation as teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about their goals and purposes of teaching science at a particular level. Orientation directly influences teachers on what to teach, how to teach, and how to assess. Magnusson et al. (1999) also advocated a reciprocal relationship between orientation and other PCK components; however, they did not specifically define the nature of this relationship. Although Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model constitutes the framework of this study, the researcher defined orientation (see the following section) using Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) model, for two reasons. First, Friedrichsen et al. (2011) roots teachers’ orientations in their belief systems, which are more complex than was originally proposed. Second, Magnusson et al. (1999) defined orientations and their accompanying instructional strategies, but not the other dimensions of orientation, such as beliefs about the NOS. The final terms to be clarified are those of the specific knowledge areas. A teacher with a robust knowledge of curriculum should know the mandated goals and objectives in the curriculum, horizontal and vertical relations among the topics and grades, and particular curricular programs related to the topic they are teaching. Regarding their knowledge of learner, teachers should know the requirements of science learning and students’ difficulties, including their misconceptions. Knowledge of instructional strategy requires teachers to know and use subject-specific (e.g., argumentation) and topic-specific (e.g., analogies, models, and graphs) instructional strategies. Finally, teachers’ knowledge of assessment consists of teachers’ knowledge about what to assess (e.g., science concepts and NOS) and how to assess (e.g., concept map or open-ended questions).
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
Science Teaching Orientation Until the work of Magnusson et al. (1999), there were various terms for ‘‘orientation’’ in use: conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter (Grossman, 1990), purposes for math instruction (Marks, 1990), educational goals and purposes (Cochran, King, & De Ruiter, 1991), and teaching purposes (Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995). Park and Oliver (2008) refined the term ‘‘orientation’’ in their model of PCK. They conceptualized orientation as consisting of three sub-dimensions, namely beliefs about purposes of learning science, decision-making in teaching, and beliefs about the NOS. The most recent PCK model (Gess-Newsome, 2015) identifies orientation as one of the amplifiers that enables teachers to pass their topic-specific professional knowledge through their lenses, in conjunction with their beliefs, prior knowledge, and context. GessNewsome (2015) gives brief examples of each amplifier (e.g., beliefs, such as ‘‘teaching is about the actions of the teacher’’). However, neither Park and Oliver (2008) nor Gess-Newsome (2015) explicitly and specifically describe what each dimension means. Friedrichsen et al. (2011) did a comprehensive review on orientation and addressed several issues—multiple definitions and unclear use of orientation, ignoring the relationship between orientation and other PCK components, and fully assigning teachers to one of the nine orientations proposed by Magnusson et al. (1999) instead of trying to understand orientation’s multidimensional nature. To help researchers find their focus, Friedrichsen et al. (2011) proposed a multidimensional definition for orientation based on the empirical work available in the literature. They defined science teaching orientation as ‘‘consisting of [an] interrelated set of beliefs that teachers hold in regard to the dimensions…; beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching, (the nature of) science, and science teaching and learning’’ (p. 372). Beliefs about the goals or purposes of science answer questions such as ‘‘Why do I teach science to students?’’ Common answers include everyday coping and intellectual development. The phrase ‘‘nature of science’’ typically refers to the epistemology of science (i.e., science as a way of knowing) or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). From this point of view, beliefs about various dimensions of science (e.g., scientific knowledge and scientific method) equate to teachers’ beliefs about (the nature of) science, or more commonly, simply ‘‘teachers’ beliefs about science’’ (Friedrichsen et al., 2011, p. 372). This, for instance, includes ‘‘an individual’s beliefs concerning whether or not scientific knowledge is amoral, tentative, empirically based, a product of human creativity, or parsimonious reflect that individual’s conception of the nature of science’’ (Lederman, 1992, p. 331). Finally, teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning include their beliefs about the role of the teacher, the role of the learner, how students learn science, and how science can be taught to make it attractive and comprehensible. The researcher used Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) definition of orientation in this study because its multidimensional nature deals with different aspects of teacher beliefs, which in turn affect teacher practice. Moreover, literature has provided evidence for the applicability of this definition (Avraamidou, 2013;
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
Boesdorfer & Lorsbach, 2014; Campbell, Longhurst, Duffy, Wolf, & Shelton, 2013; Campbell, Zuwallack, Longhurst, Shelton, & Wolf, 2014).
Literature Review Although multiple studies in the last decade focused on interplay among PCK components (e.g., Aydın, Demirdo¨g˘en, Akin, Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, & Tarkin, 2015; Henze, van Driel, & Verloop, 2008) using Magnusson et al.’s framework, few explicitly presented findings about the relationship between orientation and other PCK components. The findings that do exist have evidenced several key points: orientation shapes what to teach (Padilla, Ponce-de-Leon, Rembado, & Garritz, 2008); there is consistency between orientation and knowledge of instructional strategy (Henze et al., 2008; Padilla & van Driel, 2011); orientation is linked to knowledge of learner (Aydın et al., 2015; Padilla & van Driel, 2011); didactic orientation inhibits the interaction between instructional strategy and other PCK components (Park & Chen, 2012); and didactic orientation influences teachers’ selection of instructional activities for remedying student misconceptions (Aydın et al., 2013). The aforementioned studies on the interplay between PCK components conceptualize orientation as ‘‘beliefs about the goals and purposes of teaching science’’ (e.g., Aydın et al., 2013; Padilla & van Driel, 2011) and interpret only how this dimension of orientation influences other PCK components. Those studies are attempts to understand the nature of the relationship between orientation and PCK components. However, there need to be more studies that view orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs and study the interactions of these interrelated beliefs with all PCK components (Friedrichsen et al., 2011). Recent studies in this vein have focused on prospective elementary teachers’ orientations and the experiences that affect their orientation development (Avraamidou, 2013), alignment of secondary science teachers’ instructional activities with orientation (Boesdorfer & Lorsbach, 2014), and the change in the orientations of in-service science teachers during technology-enhanced professional development (Campbell et al., 2014). These studies indicated that background experiences, attitudes toward science, and university experiences influence the orientation development of prospective elementary teachers (Avraamidou, 2013). Secondary science teachers chose instructional activities that aligned with their beliefs about their goals or the purpose of science teaching (Boesdorfer, 2015; Boesdorfer & Lorsbach, 2014). After participating in technology-enhanced professional development, the orientation of in-service teachers moved toward more standards-based reform orientation (Campbell et al., 2014). Because these studies were the first to consider orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs, the existing literature does not yet show how these interrelated beliefs relate to PCK components. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to begin to investigate the interaction between orientation as defined by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) and other PCK components (Magnusson et al., 1999).
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
Methodology Research Design This research is qualitative-interpretive (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) because PCK is tacit in nature (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004). Case study, one of the qualitative research traditions, guided the design, data collection, and analysis. Yin (2009) advocated this research method as the best for investigation when ‘‘a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control’’ (p. 13), and the researcher had no control over how the orientation of preservice teachers interacted with their other PCK components. A case study also aims to expand and generalize theories (Yin, 2009). This case study strives to broaden the theory of orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs (Friedrichsen et al., 2011) and PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999). Yin (2009) defined the case study as ‘‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’’ (p. 13). Meaningful opportunities provided in this study were designed to trigger preservice teachers’ PCK development. The researcher theorized that supplying enough time for them to put their PCK into play might be pertinent to the interaction between orientation and other PCK components. Thus, this study exhibited four key characteristics of case studies: a bounded system (meaningful opportunities and sufficient time), a case (preservice science teachers receiving the opportunity to put their PCK into play), holistic nature (studying every orientation dimension for each participant and comparing them in their totality), and multiple sources of data (open-ended instruments, interviews, and lesson plans) (Punch, 2005). Participants Eight preservice science teachers (five females and three males) participated in the study. They were volunteers and information-rich cases. Their ages ranged between 22 and 24. They were in their last semester of a science teacher education program that qualifies participants for teaching science at the middle school level (grades 5–8). Participants had completed similar coursework, including science courses (e.g., General Physics and General Chemistry), pedagogical courses (e.g., Measurement and Evaluation), and subject-specific pedagogical courses (e.g., Methods of Science Teaching and Nature of Science). A case may be an individual, a role, a small group, etc. (Creswell, 2007). Each of the eight preservice science teachers constituted a case in this study. The selection of a case is not based on its representativeness but its uniqueness (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). These participants did not learn about PCK and CoRe during a mainstream, specific teacher education course; rather the researcher introduced PCK and CoRe uniquely to those who volunteered to learn about these concepts and to be involved in research. First, participants were asked to reflect about the knowledge that a science teacher needs in order to ensure students’ meaningful learning of the
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
topic, the differences between a scientist and a science teacher, and what makes an effective teacher. Second, preservice teachers were introduced to the PCK construct with topic-specific examples for each component. Third, participants were instructed about how to use Content Representation (CoRe) (Loughran et al., 2004), as a lesson-planning tool to uncover their PCK. During CoRe instruction, a CoRe designed for sixth-grade students on the particulate nature of matter was distributed. The researcher focused on each dimension of the CoRe, discussing with the preservice teachers their understanding of each dimension and CoRe preparation. Fourth, preservice teachers worked collaboratively in groups of four to design their own CoRe on topics they selected (i.e., mixtures) over the course of a week. The researcher provided scaffolding to the groups during CoRe design to stimulate preservice teachers’ PCK development and the translation of their PCK into CoRe. After the completion of the group CoRes, each group presented its CoRe and a whole-group discussion was conducted on its efficiency and sufficiency in terms of PCK. This was possible because a reasonable level of PCK had been achieved before each participant designed his/her own CoRe. The author collected data after all participants had been introduced to PCK and its components. Data Collection Sources This study relied on qualitative data sources to gain in-depth information about the phenomenon being investigated, as summarized in Fig. 1. Open-ended questions and associated semi-structured interviews were used to reveal participants’ science teaching orientations. The researcher formulated some of the open-ended questions while some were drawn from the literature, based on the framework proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) (see ‘‘Appendix 1’’ for selected questions). Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) definition of orientation included three dimensions of belief: (1) the goals or purposes of science teaching (‘‘purposes of science teaching’’ will be used in this study to avoid redundancy), (2) the NOS, and (3) science teaching and learning. Regarding the first dimension, participants were asked about their purposes of teaching science to middle school students. A questionnaire was used to investigate preservice science teachers’ beliefs about the NOS. It included questions about nature of both scientific enterprise and scientific knowledge. The researcher formed the questionnaire using various NOS assessment instruments in the literature: Views on Nature of Science Questionnaire Form C (VNOS-C, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002), Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI, Schwartz, Lederman, & Lederman, 2008), and Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI, Lederman et al., 2014). For the third dimension, participants were asked to define the role of the teacher and the learner, to explain how students learn science, and to explain how to teach it in ways that make it attractive and comprehensible. During the semi-structured interviews, they were encouraged to elaborate on these three dimensions of orientation. Each participant interview lasted approximately an hour and a half. To reveal how orientation interacts with other PCK components, the researcher used CoRes and associated semi-structured interviews as primary data sources. Loughran et al. (2004) developed CoRe (‘‘Appendix 2’’) as a tool to represent
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
PCK and CoRe Introduction PCK Introduction
CoRe Introduction
Open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews about orientation dimensions Beliefs about goals or purposes of science teaching
Beliefs about (the nature of) science
Beliefs about science teaching and tearning
CoRe preparation supported with mentoring in a week Semi-structured interviews for interaction between orientation and PCK
Fig. 1 Flowchart for data collection
teachers’ PCK in relation to a particular science topic. Numerous studies demonstrate that CoRes and associated interviews are useful tools to elicit and portray teachers’ PCK (e.g., Aydın et al., 2013; Bertram & Loughran, 2012; Park & Chen, 2012). CoRe exemplifies teachers’ thinking about the knowledge they need when teaching a particular topic and grade level. Moreover, it leads teachers to think about what they are doing—and how and why (Cooper, Loughran, & Berry, 2015). The researcher used the revised version of CoRe (Aydın et al., 2013) because it includes a new prompt, ‘‘curriculum objectives to be addressed,’’ for the curriculum component of PCK. After being introduced to PCK and CoRe, participants prepared a CoRe on a science topic of their choice. Although PCK is topic specific (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998), the science teaching orientation component of PCK is course specific, not topic specific (Aydin & Boz, 2013; Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Magnusson et al., 1999). Therefore, preservice teachers did not prepare their CoRes on the same topic. In addition, assigning a particular topic might not capture a preservice teacher’s orientation, since a possible deficiency in subject matter knowledge in the assigned topic would inhibit explicating that teacher’s PCK and the interaction between their orientation and PCK. Preservice science teachers prepared their CoRes in 1 week, utilizing several sources. The researcher mentored preservice teachers to help them intentionally plan their CoRes to best ensure students’ meaningful learning. No directive questions were asked during mentoring; rather, guiding questions were used to help them meaningfully address the prompts. For instance, when a preservice teacher used general terms to define her instructional process (i.e., the seventh prompt in CoRe: Which teaching strategy and what specific activities might be useful for helping students develop an understanding of the concept?), the researcher asked her to elaborate on her instruction and rewrite this prompt in detail. After the preparation of the CoRes, associated semi-structured interviews with each participant revealed the reasoning involved in the planning. The researcher specifically asked all participants to reflect
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
on how their orientation interacted with their other PCK components as they prepared a CoRe. These interviews lasted approximately 1 h per participant. Data Analysis Analysis of the data obtained from open-ended questions, CoRes, and semistructured interviews took place in two phases: deductive and inductive data analysis (Patton, 2002). In the deductive phase, the researcher analyzed preservice science teachers’ orientations, including all sub-dimensions, and other PCK components. The relationship between orientation and other PCK components was analyzed inductively using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In the deductive phase, the researcher examined the data using a preexisting framework (Patton, 2002). Preservice science teachers’ CoRes and semi-structured interviews were analyzed using Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model to investigate participants’ other PCK components. Orientation was defined as an interrelated set of beliefs in this study, so participants’ responses to open-ended questions and semistructured interviews were analyzed under three dimensions: (1) beliefs about the purposes of science teaching, (2) beliefs about the nature of science, and (3) beliefs about science teaching and learning. Analysis of each dimension of orientation was deductive in nature. The researcher analyzed teachers’ beliefs about the purposes of science teaching using a curriculum emphasis proposed by Roberts (1988, 2007), who defined seven curriculum aspects that reflect the purposes of science education (Table 1). Beliefs about science teaching and learning cover the roles of the teacher and learner, how students learn science, and how to teach it. The researcher used the categorization proposed by Luft and Roehrig (2007) and utilized by others (e.g., Campbell et al., 2014) to analyze this dimension of orientation (Table 2). NOS refers to the epistemology and sociology of science—science as a way of knowing and the values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development (Lederman et al., 2002). Deductive analysis of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the NOS involved a categorization proposed by Khishfe and Abd-ElKhalick (2002), who contend that students’ NOS views continually change. Preservice science teachers’ NOS beliefs, therefore, were categorized as naı¨ve (i.e., no meaningful view with respect to a particular aspect in any context), transitional (i.e., meaningful view of a particular aspect in some contexts but not the others), or informed (i.e., meaningful view related to a particular aspect in all contexts). Following individual data analysis of orientation and PCK components, the interactions between them were analyzed deductively. In order to decide whether an interaction existed between orientation and another component, the researcher utilized a coding scheme (see ‘‘Appendix 3’’ for scheme and Table 3 for selected data analysis examples) for analyzing open-ended questions, CoRes, and semistructured interviews. The author developed the coding scheme by relying on PCK literature (Aydin & Boz, 2013; Aydin, Demirdo¨g˘en, Akin, Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, & Tarkin, 2015; Park & Chen, 2012). An expert, who had researched PCK and NOS
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en Table 1 Curriculum emphasis defined by Roberts (1988, 2007) and used as coding scheme in this study for beliefs about goals or purposes of science teaching Curriculum emphasis
Goals and purposes for science education
Examples
Everyday coping
Students use science to comprehend everyday objects and events
The purpose of teaching science is to help students to understand the daily life, nature, and events…help students to explain events in nature and to solve daily life problems (Randy, first interview)
Structure of science
Students understand how science functions as an intellectual enterprise
Science, technology, and decisions
Students understand the interrelationship between science, technology, and society and hence make informed decision-making about socio-scientific issues
When students learn science they learn the relationship between science, technology, and society…. Students are more sensitive in their decisions about a scientific issue in their lives (Brenda, first interview)
Scientific skill development
Students acquire conceptual and manipulative scientific process skills
One of the purposes is teaching scientific process skills. When students learn science, they learn scientific process skills (e.g., conducting an experiment, observe, inference, and prediction) (Charlotte, first interview)
Correct explanation
Students learn the ends of scientific inquiry, which are concepts, theories, laws, models, etc., in a scientific discipline
The purpose of science teaching is to…learn scientific concepts….correctly explain the meaning of scientific concepts (Emily, first interview)
Self-asexplainer
Students understand their effort to explain phenomena by appreciating the conceptual underpinnings that influenced scientists when they are in the process of developing explanation
When students learn science they learn scientific process skills and understand scientific concepts…. They behave like scientists; knowledge seekers and inquirers… Students are aware that they are influenced by several factors like scientists (Margaret, first interview)
Solid foundation
Students use science to get ready for the stuff they are going to learn next year
The purpose of teaching science is to help students…. to get high scores in nation wide examinations (Brenda, first interview)
in her PhD and several articles, then reviewed this coding scheme. The researcher and this research consultant negotiated incongruities through discussion. Patton (2002) describes inductive analysis as ‘‘discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s data’’ (p. 453). In the inductive phase, the researcher used the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to identify patterns and regularities without a pre-established system of codes. This method involves comparing two segments of data to determine similarities and differences (Merriam, 2002). Then the data are grouped under similar dimensions. Constant comparison of each participant’s data for interactions between each dimension of orientation and PCK component yielded three assertions.
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and… Table 2 Categorization (Luft & Roehrig, 2007) used for analyzing beliefs about science teaching and learning Category
Teaching and learning process
Example
Traditional
Focus on information, transmission, structure, or sources
Instructive
Focus on providing experiences, teacher focus, or teacher decision
Transitional
Focus on teacher/student relationships, subjective decisions, or affective response
Supportive
Focus on teaching ways to communicate, summative feedback from teacher or self, creating opportunities for knowledge development
Responsive
Focus on collaboration, feedback, or knowledge development
When teaching science, teaching should be learner-centered. Teacher is a guide…. Teacher gives feedback and necessary information to students throughout instruction. Students should be cognitively and physically active…. Students should be able to ask questions for learning the concept meaningfully (Brenda, open-ended questions)
Reformbased
Focus on mediating student knowledge or interactions
The role of the teacher is not to transmit the information. Teacher’s role is to be a guide in helping students learns science. Students are active…. They evaluate what they learn, observe, and infer. Students construct their knowledge by making sense…. For instance, for teaching neutralization I ask students to design experiments and make experiments in groups (Charlotte, open-ended questions)
During science teaching, teacher is the guide and student is active. I motivate students to learn…. I use various activities that attract students. I ask students to give examples for the concept…. I create a class environment where students and teachers interact with each other (Daniel, open-ended questions)
A four-step coding procedure was employed. In the first step, the researcher and an expert on PCK and NOS independently analyzed a participant’s entire dataset. They compared and contrasted codes, resolving discrepancies between them. A second round of coding was employed for another participant’s data. The researcher and the expert consultant again compared codes by negotiating discrepancies. In a third round, another participant’s data were coded. The researcher analyzed the remaining data, after ensuring consensus. Interrater reliability was calculated for NOS, each dimension of orientation, PCK, and interaction between orientation and PCK. It ranged from 84 to 92 % (corresponding kappa values were 0.68 and 0.84, respectively), which is acceptable (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en Table 3 Examples from coding scheme describing instances of interaction between orientation and other PCK components Orientation dimension
Instance
Example from CoRe, interview, and open-ended data
Goals or purposes of science teaching
If a preservice teacher attempts to teach his/her goals or purposes (e.g., scientific skill development) in his/her lesson by using a subject (e.g., 5E learning cycle) or topic specific (e.g., activity) instructional strategy, this indicates an interaction between goals or purposes of science teaching and knowledge of instructional strategy
Emily designed her CoRe on series and parallel circuits. Her CoRe included three scientific skill development objectives, which are 3. Related to the connection of light bulbs (circuits), students 3.1. Show series and parallel light bulbs (circuits) by connecting the components of an electric circuit, 3.2. Explore the differences between series and parallel light bulbs (circuits) by making an experiment, and 3.3. Draw a schematic diagram for both series and parallel light bulbs (circuits) Emily used the 5E learning cycle that includes an exploration for students in which they design an experiment for objective indicated with number ‘‘3.2’’ above
Beliefs about nature of science
If a preservice teacher attempts to teach NOS by explicitly including objectives in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe), this indicates an interaction between beliefs about NOS and knowledge of curriculum
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
If a preservice teacher attempts to assess whether his/her teaching aligns with her beliefs about science teaching and learning (e.g., reform-based), this indicates an interaction between beliefs about science teaching and learning and knowledge of assessment
123
Easter has responsive beliefs about science teaching and learning. In her responses to open-ended questions, she stated, ‘‘Teacher should be guide, keep students’ curiosity alive…. Student should be active’’ Easter focused on teaching light sources in her CoRe. She knew that students might think that all sparkling things are also light sources. In her CoRe, Easter preferred to use a predict–observe– explain (POE) activity to reveal and eliminate this possible misconception. She asked students to define which one is the light source by giving several materials such as flashlight, aluminum foil, metal spoon, mirror, rubber, and newspaper. After prediction, students observed which one of the objects emits light. In interview, Easter explained, ‘‘I made students … observe and classify light sources…. Hence, I tried to assess whether they are active…. I mean both hands-on and
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and… Table 3 continued Orientation dimension
Instance
Example from CoRe, interview, and open-ended data minds-on. Concept mapping is also useful for this purpose.’’ During explanation phase of POE, Easter focused on the difference between natural light sources and sparkling objects by making students watch a video. She asked students to give examples of different light sources for assessment purpose. Sample question: Give examples of sparkling objects and natural/artificial light sources by defining them. She asked students to draw a concept map including light source-related concepts
Credibility Issues of the Study In this study, the researcher used triangulation, prolonged engagement, peer debriefings, and member checks to ensure credibility. Both triangulation of sources and analyst/investigator triangulation increased credibility (Patton, 2002). Data from multiple sources (e.g., VNOS-C, VOSI, VASI, CoRe, and interviews) were used to achieve triangulation of sources in the current study. Analyst/investigator triangulation requires multiple analysts instead of one. During the data analysis stage, therefore, two analysts independently coded the data. Being present in the research site for an extended period of time achieves prolonged engagement. The researcher spent 8 weeks within this research setting and with these participants. Peer debriefing involves locating a person who is willing to review and ask questions about the study, usually qualitative (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The investigator consulted a colleague who had experience in qualitative research and was studying NOS and PCK for feedback during collection, coding, analysis, and interpretation of the data. The researcher raised several methodological questions to this expert colleague during the design of the study and collection of data (e.g., whether participants should be assigned a specific science topic or not). I utilized the experience of an expert on both PCK and NOS during coding and analysis of data (see ‘‘Data Analysis’’ section). For interpretation of data, I discussed the findings with the expert on orientation. Other peers in my field also served as sounding boards for confusing issues. Member check is the most essential technique for establishing the credibility of a study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It refers to having the participants of the study check the data, categories, and interpretations (Creswell, 2007). After the completion of the data analysis findings (including orientation, interaction between orientation and PCK components, and assertions) were printed out, and the participants checked the data, categories, and interpretations. Throughout this process, the researcher asked participants whether
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
or not the findings and assertions made sense and whether or not the evidence sufficiently supported them (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Participants agreed with the findings, assertions, and the evidence used to validate them.
Findings Through constant comparison analysis of preservice teachers’ CoRes, responses to open-ended questions, and semi-structured interviews, this study revealed three major assertions related to how orientation interacts with other PCK components. The assertions are as follows: (1) one’s purpose for science teaching determines the PCK component(s) with which it interacts; (2) a teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science do not directly interact with his/her PCK, unless those beliefs relate directly to the purposes of teaching science; and (3) beliefs about science teaching and learning mostly interact with knowledge of instructional strategies. The findings are illustrated in Fig. 2 and are explained in detail through examples from CoRes and interviews in the following section. Assertion 1 One’s purpose for science teaching determines the PCK component(s) with which it interacts. Analysis of the data indicated that participants had several purposes for teaching science. They each included everyday coping (i.e., students’ explanation of daily life phenomena using scientific knowledge) as a purpose. Most of the participants also selected scientific skill development and correct explanations (i.e., students knowing the scientifically accepted definitions of concepts). However, the way each purpose interacted with other PCK components differed to a certain degree. Table 4 shows how different purposes for science teaching influenced PCK components. First, all purposes related to teaching science content (i.e., correct explanation and solid foundation) interacted with all other PCK components: knowledge of curriculum, instructional strategies, learner, and assessment. The participants, who focused on objectives in the curriculum and considered horizontal and vertical relations throughout grades and topics, were aware of the difficulties and misconceptions students might have. They used a purposeful instructional strategy to assess what they planned to teach, teach the concept, and address difficulties, and assessed what they planned to teach. For instance, Easter, who prepared her CoRe on light sources, included curriculum objectives that indicated her knowledge of curriculum: ‘‘students (1) observe that some objects emit light to their surrounding, (2) give examples of different light sources, and (3) classify light sources as natural and artificial.’’ Regarding the difficulties in the second and third objectives, she wrote that students might think that all objects reflecting light are also light sources (knowledge of learner). In her CoRe, Easter chose to use a predict–observe–explain (POE) activity to reveal and eliminate this possible misconception (knowledge of instructional strategy). During her interview, Easter explained, ‘‘I specifically focused on students’ misconceptions, since students can not learn the correct explanations of concepts if I do not eliminate their misconceptions.’’ She planned to ask students to identify the light source among several materials, such as a
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and… ORIENTATION
PCK COMPONENTS
Beliefs about (the nature of) science
Knowledge of learner
when related interact with Beliefs about goals or purposes of science teaching
type determines the interaction with
Knowledge of curriculum
Knowledge of assessment
Knowledge of instructional strategy
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
interacts with
Fig. 2 Representation of assertions regarding interaction between orientation and other PCK components
flashlight, aluminum foil, a metal spoon, a mirror, rubber, and newspaper in the predict phase. After prediction, Easter designed an activity in which students were asked to observe which of the objects emits light. Then, she provided an explanation about the difference between natural light sources and objects reflecting lights by having students watch a video. She designed an assessment in which students were asked to give examples of different light sources (knowledge of assessment). Second, the belief that the purpose of science teaching is to develop students’ everyday coping skills was related to curricular knowledge in terms of objectives, use of topic-specific instructional strategies (knowledge of instructional strategy), and assessment knowledge, especially in terms of what to assess. For instance, Margaret prepared her CoRe on simple machines. She included the objective (knowledge of curriculum) ‘‘students give examples of simple machines from daily life (e.g., scissors, wheelbarrow, and adze).’’ At the beginning of her instruction, she prepared an activity sheet asking students to list machines that make life easier (knowledge of assessment). Throughout her instructional process, she included various examples, such as a tire, screw, and bottle opener, for simple machines that students encounter in their lives (knowledge of instructional strategy). Margaret designed an assessment activity in which students were asked to select the simple machines among various machines utilized in daily life (knowledge of assessment). She never considered that students might have misconceptions or difficulties in understanding examples of simple machines in daily life. When asked during the interview, she further elaborated that Students should be able to explain daily life phenomena using their science knowledge. It’s an important goal of my science teaching. Therefore, I wrote an objective about it [knowledge of curriculum] and tried to teach it with some activities and examples [knowledge of instructional strategy]. I have never thought that students might have difficulty [knowledge of learner] in
123
123
X
Correct explanation
Eric
Brenda
Easter
Charlotte
Daniel
X
Solid foundation
Scientific skill development
X
X
Science, technology, and decisions
X
X
Everyday coping
X
Everyday coping
X
Scientific skill development
X
X
Correct explanation
Everyday coping
X
Correct explanation
X
X
Solid foundation
Everyday coping
X
Scientific skill development
X
Everyday coping
X
X
Correct explanation
Self-as-explainer
Correct explanation
Scientific skill development
Everyday coping
X
Scientific skill development
Margaret
X
Everyday coping
Randya
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Difficulties and misconceptions
Prerequisites
Objectives
Horizontal and vertical relations
Learner knowledge
Curriculum knowledge
Goals and purposes of science teaching
Participant
Table 4 Interaction between beliefs about goals and purposes of science teaching and other PCK components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Subject specific
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Topic specific
Instructional strategies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
What to assess
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
How to assess
Assessment knowledge
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
X
Correct explanation
X
X
X
X X
X
Subject specific X
Topic specific
Instructional strategies
X: Indicates the existence of interaction between orientation dimension in the column and PCK dimension in the row
All names of the participants are pseudonyms
Science, technology, and decisions
X
a
X
Everyday coping
Scientific skill development
Emily
Difficulties and misconceptions
Prerequisites
Objectives
Horizontal and vertical relations
Learner knowledge
Curriculum knowledge
Goals and purposes of science teaching
Participant
Table 4 continued
X
X
X
What to assess
X
X
How to assess
Assessment knowledge
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
understanding daily life examples since for me it was something that helps them to understand the concept…. When I think now, if students did not really understand the basics of simple machines, they might suppose that all the machines that make our life easier are simple machines. Third, the purpose of scientific skill development interacted mostly with knowledge of curriculum (objective subcomponent) and knowledge of subjectspecific strategies (i.e., 5E learning cycle). There were three participants whose scientific skill development-related purposes were also related to what and how they assessed (knowledge of assessment). Additionally, of these three, two preservice teachers considered students’ difficulties in relation to scientific skills. In other words, there were only two participants (Charlotte and Emily) whose belief in scientific skill development was explicitly related to all PCK components. For instance, Emily designed her CoRe on series and parallel circuits. Her CoRe included three scientific skill development objectives (knowledge of curriculum): 3.
Related to the connection of light bulbs (circuits), students. 3:1. 3:2. 3:3.
Show series and parallel light bulbs (circuits) by connecting the components of an electric circuit, Explore the differences between series and parallel light bulbs (circuits) by making an experiment, and Draw a schematic diagram for both series and parallel light bulbs (circuits).
Emily used the 5E learning cycle, including an exploration in which students design an experiment (knowledge of instructional strategy) (objective 3.2). For difficulties, she stated in her CoRe that students might not be able to design an experiment since they are not used to doing so (knowledge of learner). Therefore, after teaching series and parallels by giving daily life examples (e.g., flashlights and light bulbs in house), Emily planned to ask questions to guide students in their experiment design. ‘‘What is an independent variable? What is a dependent variable?’’ During her interview, she elaborated on her CoRe Developing students’ scientific process skills is important to me as a teacher. Therefore, I focused on these objectives [indicating the objectives in her CoRe] [knowledge of curriculum]…. I planned to use 5E [knowledge of instructional strategy] since it enables students’ use of scientific process skills. I am aware that students may have challenges when designing an experiment [knowledge of learner], and so I found using guiding questions useful during experiment design. Also, I planned to utilize [the] exploration phase as an assessment of to what degree students could design the experiment [knowledge of assessment]. Finally, belief that the purpose of science education is to create a self-asexplainer did not interact with other PCK components. The preservice teacher whose chosen purpose was science, technology, and decisions only included one
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
objective in her CoRe regarding that purpose (i.e., students investigate and present the effects of scientific and technological developments on diagnosis and treatment of genetic disease) (knowledge of curriculum), which shows a limited relation between purpose and curricular knowledge. Assertion 2 A teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science do not directly interact with his/her PCK, unless those beliefs relate directly to the purposes of teaching science. Almost all preservice teachers had sophisticated views about the NOS. They all had just completed the Nature and History of Science course (see Table 5), and they all were able to define what science is and how it differs from other human endeavors. For instance, regarding science, Easter explained that Science is a human endeavor to understand nature and [the] universe, which is sensible and not sensible. Science is not only a collection of knowledge but also a process of producing it. Science constructs explanations for phenomena using experimental or observational data. Science is different from other endeavors, such as religion and philosophy, since it gives priority to evidence and scientific argumentation. Also, scientific knowledge is tentative while religious knowledge is not. Preservice teachers also had sophisticated beliefs about scientific knowledge. For example, Charlotte stated that Scientists interpret the data they obtained through experiments and observations. They observe the phenomena in nature such as float and sink. This reality occurs in nature and is not the knowledge itself. Rather scientists observe and collect data about this reality to infer about scientific knowledge that explains it. They produce answers. Scientists provide evidences. They also are affected by various factors such as theories in their mind when producing knowledge and their creativity. Participants correspondingly had well-developed beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge. For instance, Randy elaborated on his definition, saying, Nature and universe is like a black box for us. We can never know how it works for sure. Scientific knowledge is the possible true explanations about how the universe—which is sensible and not sensible—is. Scientific knowledge is tentative. It can change with new data or reinterpretation of existing data. It is also theory laden since scientists are affected by their existing knowledge, prejudices, and theories they believe. Also, scientists use their imagination and creativity when producing scientific knowledge. All these factors contribute to existence of multiple knowledge and tentative nature of it. Although they had highly developed NOS beliefs, only two of the preservice science teachers (Margaret and Easter) attempted to teach the NOS implicitly in their CoRes. Even they did not state any objectives related to the NOS, consider
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en Table 5 Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about nature of science NOS aspects
Participant Randy
Margaret
Daniel
Charlotte
Easter
Brenda
Eric
Emily
Scientific knowledge is tentative
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Science is based on observations and experiments
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
Scientific knowledge is based on inferences as well as observations
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Scientific theories and laws have different roles in science
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
Scientific knowledge is theory laden and includes subjectivity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Creativity and imagination plays a major role in science
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Social and cultural factors affect science
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Science and technology are not the same thing
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
There is no universal and step-by-step scientific method
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
Serendipity plays a role in science
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scientific investigations all begin with a question and do not necessarily test a hypothesis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inquiry procedures can influence results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
Explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and… Table 5 continued NOS aspects
Recognition and handling of anomalous data
Participant Randy
Margaret
Daniel
Charlotte
Easter
Brenda
Eric
Emily
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
I informed view, T transitional view, N naive view
students’ difficulties or misconceptions about the NOS, conduct an explicitreflective discussion, or assess NOS topics. During the interviews, two salient features of the ‘‘belief about NOS’’ dimension of orientation came out. First, beliefs about NOS do not interact with other PCK components unless it relates to purposes of science teaching. Six of the participants’ CoRes, open-ended instruments, and interview data failed to provide any evidence that teaching NOS is among their purposes for science teaching. Second, when an interaction exists between beliefs about NOS and purposes for science teaching, beliefs about NOS implicitly relate to knowledge of instructional strategy. For instance, Margaret used an activity in which students examine various simple machines (e.g., tire, screw, pulley) to understand how they make life easier (knowledge of instructional strategy). During the interview, Margaret explained that I learned and know about nature of science. Also, I intended to teach in my lesson. I asked students to examine several simple machines. I also asked them to think about how they make our life easier [knowledge of instructional strategy]. Hence, I supposed that they understand what technology is…. I was not explicit. I did not ask any specific questions that make students think. I did not know how to teach and assess it [knowledge of assessment]. I did not think that it is something that I should write an objective about [knowledge of curriculum]. Margaret’s interview revealed that, even though she intended to teach about the NOS, her undeveloped pedagogical knowledge for how to teach and assess NOS posed an obstacle for her to translate her orientation into her CoRe. Assertion 3 Beliefs about science teaching and learning mostly interact with knowledge of instructional strategies. All participants defined students’ roles as ‘‘active’’ and the teacher’s role as ‘‘guide’’ during instruction in a classroom setting. One participant believed in the transitional science teaching and learning process. Three preservice teachers preferred to use reform-based teaching processes, and four used responsive teaching processes. Participants’ beliefs about science teaching and learning were consistent with other dimensions of their science teaching orientations. For instance, Eric, who intended to adopt a reform-based process, had sophisticated views about science and believed the purposes of teaching science were everyday coping and scientific skill development.
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
When the interactions between preservice teachers’ PCK components and their beliefs about science teaching and learning were examined, it seemed initially that beliefs were only related to knowledge of instructional strategies. Randy’s instructional strategies exemplify this connection. His CoRe focused on the concept of force, and he had reform-based beliefs about science teaching and learning. The objectives in his CoRe were related to defining force in terms of its effect on objects, explaining the characteristics of force (e.g., magnitude and direction), stating and using Newtons as the unit of force, measuring force with a dynamometer, and identifying the direction of a force acting upon an object by drawing it. Consistent with his beliefs, Randy used a 5E learning cycle instructional strategy (subjectspecific sub-component of knowledge of instructional strategy). However, he demonstrated no evidence of his reform-based beliefs in his knowledge of curriculum, assessment, or learner. Randy explained that I focused on the instructional strategy that I used during planning. My aim was to keep students active. I did not think that I could write objectives [knowledge of curriculum] [that] related my beliefs [student: active, teacher: guide] or I should assess it…. I did not think that students might have difficulties [knowledge of learner] during this kind of teaching also. In two cases, participants’ beliefs about science teaching interacted with their curricular (Margaret and Easter) and assessment knowledge (Brenda and Easter). Margaret and Easter purposely considered whether the objectives taken from the curriculum in their CoRes were keeping students active during their teaching (knowledge of curriculum). They included verbs such as observing, giving examples, classifying, predicting, and testing in their objectives. Similarly, Brenda’s and Easter’s data indicated that they purposefully designed assessments to determine their students’ active engagement. For instance, Brenda, whose CoRe was designed to teach cell division, planned to ask students to compare and contrast mitosis and meiosis by giving examples of each. During the interview, Easter explicitly explained her beliefs about science teaching and learning during CoRe design as active: I believe that students should be active. Not only hands on but also minds-on. When I design my CoRe, I reconsidered my beliefs. Therefore, I tried to write those kinds of objectives [knowledge of curriculum]…. I also tried to assess whether they are active or not [knowledge of assessment].
Discussion The purpose of this case study was to shed light on how orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs interacts with other PCK components using Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) orientation model and Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model. Interviews, responses to open-ended instruments, and lesson plans in the form of CoRes revealed three assertions related to how orientation interacts with knowledge
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
of curriculum, learner, instructional strategies, and assessment. I will discuss each assertion in the following section. First, I found that one’s purpose for science teaching determines the PCK component(s) with which it interacts. Participants had multiple purposes and goals for teaching science, which is consistent with the literature (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005). However, only content-related purposes (e.g., correct explanation) interacted with all other PCK components. Although preservice teachers are known for undeveloped PCK (van Driel et al., 1998), the relatively developed PCK evidenced in this study is understandable, considering their meaningful and explicit experiences with PCK throughout the study (Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Aydin & Boz, 2013). Another explanation for this finding may be related to their subject matter knowledge. Adequate subject matter knowledge is a prerequisite for a developed PCK (Abell, 2008; Magnusson et al., 1999). The preservice teachers in this study designed their CoRes on a topic in which they felt confident in terms of their subject matter knowledge and were given a week to strengthen it utilizing several sources. Though content-related purposes had the most interactions, purposes related to everyday coping and scientific skill development were related to participants’ knowledge of curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment. However, the number of preservice teachers with interactions between those purposes and components was low. There may be several explanations for this low interaction. First, some goals and purposes may be central, while others are peripheral (Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005). Central goals related to content might dominate the instructional decision-making process and hence influence all PCK components. However, other goals (e.g., scientific skill development) might be less influential and therefore interact with fewer PCK components. Second, the disciplinespecific nature of PCK may explain why preservice teachers were less successful in translating their scientific skill development goals into their other PCK components. Davis et al. (2008) argued that ‘‘[w]hile PCK is typically conceptualized as topic-specific, teachers also need discipline-specific knowledge about how a discipline works’’ (p. 6). Preservice teachers’ undeveloped discipline-specific PCK may be preventing their discipline-specific orientation from interacting with their various PCK components. Margaret evidenced this situation during her interview. She stated that she did not know how to teach and assess the NOS, although she intended to teach it. The literature also supports this argument. Lack of PCK for NOS has been found to impede teachers’ translation of their NOS understandings into classroom settings (Hanuscin, Lee, & Akerson, 2011). The second assertion of this study is that preservice teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science do not directly interact with his/her PCK, unless those beliefs relate directly to the purposes of teaching science. This assertion is compatible with the finding that teachers’ intentions for teaching NOS are an important factor that mediates teachers’ translation of their beliefs about NOS into their teaching practices (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). This finding provided some of the first
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
evidence for the interrelated nature of science teaching orientation proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2011). Unless teachers’ beliefs about the NOS relate to their purposes, they do not attempt to teach the NOS. However, when they do attempt to teach the NOS, several other factors (i.e., knowledge for teaching the NOS) came into prominence, demonstrating how their NOS beliefs relate to other components of PCK. Since preservice teachers learned about NOS from a learning perspective rather than as teachers, their undeveloped PCK for NOS played a role as an inhibiting factor (Demirdo¨g˘en et al., 2015). Third, beliefs about science teaching and learning mostly interacted with knowledge of instructional strategies. Given the nature of this dimension of orientation (Friedrichsen et al., 2011), this finding is not surprising. Additionally, in a few cases, preservice teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning related to their knowledge of curriculum and assessment. Those preservice teachers attributed this interaction to having reflected on their orientation. This finding is compatible with the idea that PCK has two dimensions, knowledge and enactment, and that reflection is key for transformation from knowledge-based PCK to enacted PCK (Park & Oliver, 2008). Most of the preservice teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning were responsive and reform-based, which is also consistent with their sophisticated NOS understanding (Luft & Roehrig, 2007). However, as discussed above, their beliefs about NOS did not translate into their planning because they did not interact with their goals and purposes of science teaching. Another well-known feature of PCK was also evidenced in this study: its idiosyncratic nature. Although there were similarities between participants in terms of how their orientation interacted with PCK components, they were different in terms of the type and number of PCK components that interacted with orientation, even regarding the same purposes. For instance, Randy’s stated purpose of scientific skill development was related only to his knowledge of curriculum and instructional strategies, while Charlotte’s same purpose interacted with all PCK components. This is compatible with findings that the interplay between components for both topic- and discipline-specific PCK is idiosyncratic (Demirdo¨g˘en et al., 2015; Park & Chen, 2012). This research attempted to discover how the gap between orientation and other PCK components could be closed to achieve the goals of reform (i.e., scientific literacy). This study indicated that reflection (Boz & Uzuntiryaki, 2006; Park & Oliver, 2008) and explicit use of PCK (Aydin et al., 2013) might be fruitful in resolving these issues. Considering the tacit nature of teachers’ knowledge and belief systems (Loughran et al., 2004), teachers should explicitly reflect on both the interrelations among the dimensions of their orientation and the relationship between their orientation and pedagogical knowledge base (and vice versa) (see Fig. 3). The outer elliptic in Fig. 3 represents teachers’ science teaching orientation (Friedrichsen et al., 2011). Double arrows between the dimensions of orientation (i.e., beliefs about goals or purposes of science teaching, NOS, and science teaching and learning) emphasize its interrelated nature. The inner elliptic represents the four
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
REFLECTION
REFLECTION
Beliefs about (the nature of) science
Beliefs about goals or purposes of science teaching
Knowledge of learner
Knowledge of instructional strategy
Knowledge of curriculum
Knowledge of assessment REFLECTION
REFLECTION
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
Fig. 3 Purposeful interaction between orientation and other PCK components
PCK components (i.e., knowledge of learner, curriculum, instructional strategy, and assessment) and the interplay among them. Double arrows between the two elliptical spheres indicate mutual interactions between orientation and other PCK components. That is, a teachers’ orientation may influence his/her PCK components and vice versa. Placing the term ‘‘REFLECTION’’ in each quadrant between elliptical spheres in the figure indicates that reflection is required for stimulating the interrelated nature of orientation and the interaction between orientation and PCK components. If preservice and in-service teachers hope to implement reform goals in their classroom, they should explicitly and reflectively consider their belief and knowledge system (Bryan & Abell, 1999).
Implications for Research and Teacher Education The present study was one of the first to take science teaching orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs and examine how orientation interacts with other PCK components. However, participants were preservice teachers rather than in-service teachers. Preservice teachers have relatively undeveloped PCK (van Driel et al., 1998). Nevertheless, when provided with meaningful opportunities, preservice teachers might develop richer PCK (Aydın et al., 2013; Demirdo¨g˘en et al., 2015; Friedrichsen et al., 2007). Based on this recognition, several efforts to promote and increase PCK were made in this study. First, the researcher explicitly introduced PCK and CoRe to participants. Then, preservice teachers prepared their CoRe over a week, which provided enough time to put all PCK components into play. Finally,
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
the researcher provided mentoring, with no directive questions, to participants throughout their CoRe preparation. Although this study may have the potential to benefit teachers’ knowledge, especially preservice teachers, a longitudinal investigation of in-service teachers’ orientations and practices may provide additional information for a broader participant base. The findings of this study have valuable implications for teacher education and research. Preservice teachers enter teacher education programs with various beliefs (Putnam & Borko, 1997), as this study also reveals. The preservice science teachers in this study exhibit various beliefs, some more reform-based than others. To help them to align their beliefs with their practice and to revise their beliefs to include reform-based ideas (e.g., scientific literacy and NOS), teacher educators should devise ways to make their beliefs explicit. Also, preservice teachers need to be knowledgeable about their professional knowledge base (i.e., PCK), their orientation within their knowledge base, and how their orientation relates to their PCK. They should be asked explicitly to think about each of the three dimensions of their orientation (Friedrichsen et al., 2011) and the ways they translate these dimensions into their instructional practices. If preservice teachers need to revise their orientations, teacher educators should guide that conceptual change (Koballa, Glynn, & Upson, 2005). Furthermore, some participants explained that they did not make a point to translate their beliefs into all dimensions of teaching (e.g., assessment and instructional strategy). To stimulate interaction between their orientation and other PCK components, teacher educators should ensure that reflection occurs in various settings, such as the Science Teaching method course, NOS course, and Practicum. Explicit and reflective thinking may be more fruitful in helping preservice teachers to realize their orientations. To provide a clearer picture of these interactions and their implications, the dimensions and sub-dimensions of orientation should be theoretically defined and empirically supported. For instance, the goals or purposes of science teaching need clear definition. What kind of categorizations could be used to describe the goals and purposes of science teaching? What are the roles of central and peripheral goals? Also, what precisely do beliefs about science teaching and learning mean and which categorization helps to define them? Moreover, the interrelated nature of science teaching orientation needs to be investigated in detail. Friedrichsen et al. (2011) advocated that science teaching orientation acts as an interrelated set of beliefs. However, how those beliefs (i.e., goals or purposes of science teaching, NOS, and science teaching and learning) are interrelated with each other and how the interrelated nature of orientation should be examined were not explicitly presented in their study. Data collection instruments, which were used to investigate beliefs forming orientation in this study, did not include questions about the interrelatedness of orientation; along those lines, this study revealed that excepting beliefs about the NOS and purposes of science teaching, there is no evidence of interrelatedness between other dimensions of orientation. There may be several explanations for this. First, measuring orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs is difficult. I focused
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
primarily on individual beliefs and still found evidence regarding interrelations between two dimensions of orientation during data analysis. However, more purposeful and careful consideration of the interrelated nature of orientation might yield different results in terms of how dimensions of orientation interrelate and then interact with PCK components. A second explanation might be related to investigating PCK through the use of lesson preparations. Only interrelations between beliefs about NOS and goals or purposes of science teaching were indicated in these lesson plans, and thus, it is possible that Friedrichsen et al.’s (2011) multidimensional and interrelated definition of orientation might only hold in enacted PCK. Future studies should consider these issues. Researchers should design their study by explicitly and purposefully measuring interrelatedness of orientation and include in-service science teachers as participants in their study. Finally, studying science teachers from different disciplines (e.g., chemistry and physics) at a secondary level may contribute to understanding whether the nature of orientation is grade-level specific or discipline specific. Through extensive study of PCK, orientation, and their interrelated components, teacher educators can promote more explicit teaching and stronger knowledge bases among preservice teachers.
Limitations of the Study Several limitations were inherent to this study. First, these findings are limited to the group of participants. However, the purpose of this case study was not to generalize the assertions made. Instead, this was one of the initial attempts to expand the theory of science teaching orientation proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) and to understand the interactions between orientation and other PCK components. Another limitation might arise from drawing conclusions about PCK from one CoRe per participant. Providing meaningful experiences to preservice teachers, having them complete their CoRes over a week instead of a single day, and providing mentoring to put their PCK into play by utilizing several sources compensated for this limitation. Also, the preservice teachers chose the science topic for their CoRe, which enabled them to reflect their orientation within their CoRe, as suggested by others (Friedrichsen, personal communication, February 5, 2015). For example, Eric stated that he selected the ‘‘Electricity in our Life’’ topic to reflect his ‘‘everyday coping’’ purpose during the interview after CoRe. Considering the topic-specific nature of PCK (van Driel et al., 1998), allowing participants to prepare their CoRes on different topics might seem to be a limitation for this study. However, the science teaching orientation component of PCK is course specific, not topic specific (Aydin & Boz, 2013; Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Magnusson et al., 1999). Although it seems that CoRe preparation limited the data—and some may argue that CoRe reflects preservice teachers’ planned PCK (i.e., PCK that though indicated in lesson plans may not translate into classroom practice) rather than enacted PCK—teacher educators have
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
demonstrated the applicability of the lesson-preparation method (e.g., Brown, Friedrichsen, & Abell, 2013) in investigating teachers’ espoused PCK. There is also a risk that participants gave what they assumed were the socially desired answers to open-ended and interview questions, especially for the NOS. However, this was largely compensated for. The researcher of this study was not the instructor of any of their courses. Preservice teachers were informed about the purpose of the study clearly (i.e., to understand their reasoning when they plan their teaching). They were not obliged to participate in the study for grading or any gain from the instructor. Finally, because their anonymity and confidentiality were ensured, the researcher could expect a certain level of candor and honesty.
Appendix 1 Views About Science Teaching 1. PART: Goals or Purposes of Science Teaching (Friedrichsen et al., 2011) 1. 2. 3.
4.
What is the purpose of science education? Why do you teach science? What do students know and be able to do when they learn science? What is your purpose when you teach science? What can of knowledge and capabilities do your students achieve when you teach science to them? What kind of instruction do you design to achieve your purposes and goals of science teaching?
2. PART: Science Teaching and Learning (Luft & Roehrig, 2007) 1. 2. 3.
What is the role of teachers in science teaching? What is the role of students in science teaching? How should science teaching be? What is the best way to teach science? How do you assure that students learn science well?
3. PART: Translation of Orientation to Lesson Planning (CoRe) 1.
How did you translate your purposes and goals for teaching science to your planning? (a) (b)
123
Did you purposefully consider that your objectives reflect your purposes and goals of science teaching? Did you purposefully consider that your students’ difficulties and misconceptions related to your purposes and goals of teaching science?
Light source
Light
3. Why is it important for students to learn this concept? (Rationale)
2. What do you expect students to understand about this concept and be able to do as a result?
Concept and/or important idea #2:
Concept and/or important idea #1:
1. What concepts/big ideas do you intend students to learn?
Curriculum objectives to be addressed:
An object that emits light by itself and is not produced by humans is called as natural light source An object that is produced by humans to see their surrounding and lightens in the dark is called as artificial light source Light sources are used after the sun goes down
We need light to be able to see (i.e., no light, no sight) It gets harder to see the objects in dark There are different light sources of which have different brightness
Since students encounter light visually during their daily life, students should learn the concept of light
When students learn this topic they will be able to use appropriately use light sources when they stay in dark
When students learn this topic, they can more meaningfully learn the following topics about light (i.e., enlightening technologies from past to present, the effect of enlightening technologies in our life, and light pollution) in the fourth grade, dispersion of light, interaction of light with matter, and shadow in fifth grade, reflection of light in the sixth grade, and absorption and refraction of light in seventh grade
Students should be able to identify artificial and natural light sources by differentiating between the two
Light bulb, candle, gaslight chandelier, and torch are artificial light sources
The suns, star, and lightening are examples of natural light sources
Everything that lightens its surrounding by emitting light is light source
Energy that helps us to see the objects in the dark is called light
(iii) Classify light sources as natural and artificial
(ii) Give examples of different light sources, and
(i) Observe that some objects emit light to their surroundings,
2. Regarding light sources, students
Grade level: 4
Science topic/content area: light
An Example of a Participant’s (Easter) Core
Appendix 2
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
123
123
7. Which teaching strategy and what specific activities might be useful for helping students develop an understanding of the concept?
Predict–observe–explain activity will be used to teach the concept of light. Also, this activity will elicit students’ possible misconceptions (#1 Our eyes produce light so we can see things, #2 Light is not necessary to see since we can see a little in a dark room.) if any. During prediction phase students will be make a prediction about how they see an apple in dark. They will make choose a prediction among the several alternatives including students’ possible misconceptions. In the predict phase, students will be distributed an activity sheet, which is provided below:
Light is not necessary to see since we can see a little in a dark room To teach light sources, first, I will ask students to give examples of light sources that we use in our daily life. Hence, I will elicit their misconceptions about light sources if any (i.e., Objects that reflect are sources of light (e.g., Moon)). I will get students’ answers and explanations by using an activity sheet, which is provided below
Objects that reflect are sources of light (e.g., the Moon)
Students may confuse light reflection with emission of light
Students may have difficulty in differentiating natural and artificial light sources
If students have dark/ness phobia it may be an obstacle for me to conduct the activities and for students to learn the concept
Our eyes produce light so we can see things
If students do not learn the concept of light and dark/ness meaningfully they may have difficulty in understanding light sources
The concept of energy might be difficult for students to understand since they haven’t learned about it before
5. What difficulties do students typically have about each concept/idea?
6. What misconceptions do students typically have about each concept/idea?
As a teacher I should know the concepts of dark/ness and light and light sources. Also, I should review the curriculum to precisely learn about the objectives that I should achieve about the concepts I am teaching and to construct vertical and horizontal relations across topics and grades. In this plan, I focused on light sources. Therefore, I should know what students should have already learned about light and darkness beforehand. I should know the difficulties and misconceptions that students may have about darkness, light, and light sources. I should know different strategies to teach the concepts meaningfully and to eliminate the difficulties and misconceptions that students may have. I should know daily life examples
4. As a teacher, what should you know about this topic?
Students should learn the concept of light to meaningfully learn light sources
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
D. Our eyes produce light so we can see the apple in dark
C. You will see the red apple after your eyes have has time to adjust to the darkness, but you will not see the red color
B. You will see the red apple after your eyes have had time to adjust to the darkness
A. You will not see the red apple, regardless of how long you are in the room
Imagine you are sitting at a table with a red apple in front of you. Your friend closes the door and turns off all the lights. It is totally dark in the room. There are no windows in the room or cracks around the door. No light can enter the room. Circle the statement you believe best describes how you would see the apple in the dark:
Picture 2
Picture 1
Light sources in our life 1. Look at the pictures given below and circle the light sources on both pictures. Explain your choices
Apple in the dark
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
123
After students completed the activity sheet I will conduct a whole class discussion to elicit students’ conceptions about light source. Then I will explain the concept of light source by showing their pictures (i.e., sun, candle, light bulb, lightening, stars, gaslight chandelier, and torch). Explanation: Light source is the source that emits light to enlighten its surrounding. Also, I explain why the Moon is not a light source. Moon reflects the light that comes from the Sun and therefore it is not a light source. A light source should produce energy as light to be counted as light source. Reflecting the light coming from another source does not count to be a light source since the light is not produced rather it is reflected. I will ask students to explain whether the light source examples have the same characteristics in terms of emitting light or not. Hence, I elicit students’ conceptions about artificial and natural light sources. After taking students ideas about characteristics of light sources I will explain natural and artificial light sources by giving examples for each of them. Explanation: Sources that produce light by themselves are natural light sources such as the Sun, stars, and lightening. Manmade sources that produce light are artificial light sources such as candle, light bulb, gaslight chandelier, and torch After explaining light sources, I will use a predict–observe–explain activity to elicit and overcome students’ difficulty (i.e., objects that reflect light sources). In the predict phase, I will ask students to identify the light source among several materials, such as a flashlight, aluminum foil, a metal spoon, a mirror, rubber, and newspaper. Also, I will ask them to explain their choices (i.e., why does each object behave as a light source or not?) Students may identify aluminum foil, metal spoon, and mirror as light source since they reflect light. In the observe phase, students will observe whether the objects produce light or reflect light. During observation, I will guide them by reminding the definition of light source and focusing on the question of would some objects (i.e., aluminum foil, metal spoon, and mirror) seem to produce light if you do not direct light on them using a flashlight. After observation phase, students will explain what they predict and what they observe. Then, I will explain the difference between natural light sources and light reflecting objects by having students watch a video
In the explanation phase, first of all, I will show some pictures (i.e., miners using headlights to see underground, cars with turned on lights in the dark, and lighthouse enlightening the see and environment for the sailors) where light is used to see the objects in the dark. I explain the concept of light by relating their experiences they get from the activity and their daily life. Explanation: Light is a kind of energy that helps us to see. When there is no light there is no sight. That is we are not able to see in the complete darkness. However, during night when we turned the lights off in our home we can see the objects since the environment is not completely dark. There is slight light coming from somewhere around us
Give examples of light sources that do not take place in the pictures and explain why they are sources of light
After students completed their predictions by writing their explanations, I will conduct a whole class discussion on students’ alternative responses and hence elicit different misconceptions, if any. Then students will observe how they will see an apple in the dark. During observation phase, I enable students to make their observations in a completely dark place with no slightest amount of light. If I will not be able to find a complete dark place I will bring several black boxes including an apple in it and having a small hole on it to the class and make students observe the apple in the box. After students make their observations, I will ask them to compare their observations with their predictions and to provide an explanation if there is a match or mismatch. I conduct a whole class discussion to elicit students’ misconceptions about ‘‘light’’ and ‘‘seeing.’’ During this discussion I ask several questions such as ‘‘If our eyes produce light would not we able to see the apple in the box?’’ ‘‘When the lights are turned off in your room at night, is your room completely dark or is there a slight light coming from your surrounding?’’ ‘‘What does complete darkness mean?’’ ‘‘When you see the objects in dark is the environment completely dark or is there a light slightly coming from somewhere around you?’’
Describe your thinking. Provide an explanation of your answer
E. You will see only a faint outline of the apple after your eyes have had time to adjust the darkness
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
123
8. In what ways would you assess students’ understanding or confusion about this concept?
Why does each object behave as a light source or not? Explain
‘‘When the lights are turned off in your room at night, is your room completely dark or is there a slight light coming from your surrounding?’’
I will ask students to draw a concept map using the concepts of light, energy, light source, artificial, and natural by giving examples for light sources
Summative evaluation:
‘‘When you see the objects in dark is the environment completely dark or is there a light slightly coming from somewhere around you?’’
‘‘What does complete darkness mean?’’
The questions in the second predict phase Identify the light source among several materials, such as a flashlight, aluminum foil, a metal spoon, a mirror, rubber, and newspaper
‘‘If our eyes produce light would not we able to see the apple in the box?’’
The activity sheet in the first predict phase (Light Sources in our Life)
The activity sheet in the predict phase (Apple in the Dark)
The questions in the observe phase:
Formative assessment:
Formative assessment:
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en
(c) (d)
What kind of instructional strategies did you use to achieve your purposes and goals of science teaching? Did you specifically assess whether your students achieved your purposes and goals of science teaching?
Appendix 3 Coding Scheme
Orientation dimension
Instance
PCK component that interacted with orientation and its’ place in CoRe
Goals or purposes of science teaching
If a preservice teachers attempts to teach his/her goals or purposes (e.g., scientific skill development) in his/her lesson by including objectives specific to these purposes (e.g., draw) in her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of curriculum (Curriculum objectives to be addressed prompt and prompt 3 in CoRe)
Goals or purposes of science teaching
If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have difficulties and misconceptions related to his/her goals or purposes (e.g., scientific skill development), as indicated in her CoRe, and designs his/her teaching by considering this difficulty (i.e., students may have difficulty in drawing electric circuits)
Knowledge of learner
Goals or purposes of science teaching
If a preservice teacher attempts to assess whether students achieved his/her goals or purposes of science teaching (e.g., scientific skill development) throughout the lesson plan (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of assessment (Prompt 7— explanations about teaching—and specifically prompt 8)
Beliefs about nature of science
If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have misconceptions in NOS as indicated in her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) and is teaching for eliminating one of the myths about NOS (e.g., hierarchical relationship between theory and law) in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of learner
Beliefs about nature of science
If a preservice teacher uses implicit or explicit approach to teach NOS in his/ her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of instructional strategy
Beliefs about nature of science
If a preservice teacher makes an assessment to reveal students’ misconceptions about NOS at the beginning and/or to reveal whether students overcome misconceptions about NOS s/he communicated this in his/her lesson plan at the end (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of assessment (Prompt 7— explanations about teaching—and specifically prompt 8)
123
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
(Prompt 7 in CoRe)
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and…
Orientation dimension
Instance
PCK component that interacted with orientation and its’ place in CoRe
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have difficulties his/her beliefs (e.g., reform-based) as indicated in her CoRe and designs his/her teaching by considering this difficulty (i.e., students may have difficulty in being active)
Knowledge of learner
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
If a preservice teacher attempts to reflect his/her beliefs about science teaching and learning (e.g., reform-based) in his/ her lesson by including objectives from the curriculum specific to these beliefs (i.e., writing higher level objectives that keep students active) in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe)
Knowledge of curriculum (Curriculum objectives to be addressed prompt and prompt 3 in CoRe)
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
If a preservice teacher attempts to design a lesson (i.e., CoRe) to achieve his/her beliefs about science teaching and learning (e.g., reform-based) by using a reform-based subject and/or topic specific instructional strategy
Knowledge of instructional strategy
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
(Prompt 7 in CoRe)
References Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405–1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041 Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2015). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/ tea.21271 Avraamidou, L. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’ science teaching orientations and experiences that impacted their development. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1698–1724. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.708945 Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: A case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 615–624. doi:10. 1039/C3RP00095H Aydin, S., Demirdo¨g˘en, B., Akin, F. N., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Tarkin, A. (2015). The nature and development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.008 Aydın, S., Demirdo¨g˘en, B., Tarkın, A., Kutucu, S., Ekiz, B., Akın, F. N., … Uzuntiryaki, E. (2013). Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term professional development as learners of science teaching. Science Education, 97, 903–935. doi:10.1002/sce. 21080 Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on CoRes and PaP-eRs as a framework for articulating and developing pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 42, 1027–1047. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9227-4 Boesdorfer, S. (2015). Using teachers’ choice of representations to understand the translation of their orientation towards science teaching to their practice. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/13871/9357
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en Boesdorfer, S., & Lorsbach, A. (2014). PCK in action: Examining one chemistry teacher’s practice through the lens of her orientation toward science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2111–2132. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.909959 Boz, Y., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1647–1667. doi:10.1080/ 09500690500439132 Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P., & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 133–155. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9312-1 Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2\121:AID-TEA2[3.0.CO;2-U Campbell, T., Longhurst, M., Duffy, A. M., Wolf, P. G., & Shelton, B. E. (2013). Science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 2035–2057. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9342-x Campbell, T., Zuwallack, R., Longhurst, M., Shelton, B. E., & Wolf, P. G. (2014). An examination of the changes in science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in the context of professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1815–1848. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.879622 Chen, B., & Wei, B. (2015). Examining chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: In view of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 260–272. doi:10.1039/C4RP00237G Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & De Ruiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Cooper, R., Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2015). Understanding sophisticated practice. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 60–74). New York, NY: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Hug, B., Nelson, M., Beyer, C., Schwarz, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). MoDeLS: Designing supports for teachers using scientific modeling. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO. Demirdo¨g˘en, B., Aydın, S., & Tarkın, A. (2015a). Looking at the mirror: A self-study of science teacher educators’ PCK for teaching teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11, 189–205. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2015.1315a Demirdo¨g˘en, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Ko¨seog˘lu, F. (2015b). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z. (Advance online publication). Ferna´ndez-Balboa, J. M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 293–306. doi:10.1016/0742051X(94)00030-A Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383. doi:10. 1002/tea.20283 Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. (2005). A substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 218–244. doi:10.1002/tea.20046 Friedrichsen, P. M., Lankford, D., Brown, P., Pareja, E., Volkmann, M., & Abell, S. K. (2007). The PCK of future science teachers in an alternative certification program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376. doi:10.1002/sce.20428
123
Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and… Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. GessNewsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3–17). Boston, MA: Kluwer. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Reexamining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York, NY: Routledge. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 145–167. doi:10.1002/sce. 20404 Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1321–1342. doi:10.1080/09500690802187017 Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58–74. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiryoriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578. doi:10.1002/tea.10036 Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., & Upson, L. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 287–308. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290404 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of the nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521. doi:10.1002/tea.10034 Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83. doi:10. 1002/tea.21125 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). New York, NY: Sage. 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, 370–391. doi:10.1002/tea.20007 Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.scholarlyexchange.org/ojs/index.php/EJSE/article/download/7794/5561 Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11. doi:10.1177/002248719004100302 Marshall, G. B., & Rossman, C. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mthethwa-Kunene, E., Onwu, G. O., & de Villiers, R. (2015). Exploring biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching of genetics in Swaziland science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1140–1165. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1022624 Musikul, K., & Abell, S. K. (2009). Professional development for elementary teachers of science in Thailand: A holistic examination. Paper presented at the annual international meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
123
B. Demirdo¨g˘en National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Padilla, K., Ponce-de-Leon, A. M., Rembado, F. M., & Garritz, A. (2008). Undergraduate professors’ pedagogical content knowledge: The case of ‘‘amount of substance’’. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1389–1404. doi:10.1080/0950069080218703 Padilla, K., & van Driel, J. (2011). The relationships between PCK components: The case of quantum chemistry professors. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 367–378. doi:10.1039/ C1RP90043A Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 922–941. doi:10.1002/tea.21022 Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Putnam, T. R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views on cognition. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemma in science education (pp. 27–54). Barcecome: Falmer Press. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). It’s the nature of the beast: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205–236. doi:10.1002/tea.10021 Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and training: Foundations of the new reform. Hardward Educational Review, 57, 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199808)35:6\673:AID-TEA5[3.0.CO;2-J Walter, E. M. (2013). The influence of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching macroevolution on student outcomes in a general education biology course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, USA. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
123
