Development of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through a PCK-based school experience course
Betul
Ekiz-Kiran
a,
Yezdan
Boz
*b and
Elif Selcan
Oztay
c
aDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, College of Education, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey
bDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, College of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: yezdan@metu.edu.tr
cDepartment of Elementary Education, College of Education, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey
First published on 22nd January 2021
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to improve the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of pre-service chemistry teachers using a school experience course enriched with PCK development tools such as CoRe as a lesson planning form, observations of mentor teachers’ teaching by using an observation form prepared based on PCK components, discussion sessions on these observations, and reflections on their teaching. Some valuable results of the study indicated that pre-service teachers' science teaching orientations did not change during the study. However, all participants' knowledge of learners and knowledge of instructional strategies improved by the end of the study. Knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of assessment are the components of PCK in which some pre-service teachers showed no improvement.
Introduction
Teachers play important roles in teaching students and how students learn. Therefore, they need to have the necessary knowledge and skills in several domains such as content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge to play an effective role in classrooms and schools (van Driel et al., 2002; Goodnough and Hung, 2009). PCK is an overarching element of knowledge base for teaching and is defined as the “special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). In other words, PCK is a special kind of knowledge that distinguishes a teacher from a content specialist (Shulman, 1987). This means that a teacher must have a well-developed PCK to teach a topic effectively and make it more understandable for students. In other words, PCK is teachers’ unique knowledge that they require to teach effectively and to support adequate student learning of particular content knowledge (Magnusson et al., 1999; Berry et al., 2016). Therefore, as educators, we must help pre-service teachers gain sound PCK in teacher education programs and meet their learning needs so that their PCK can affect the quality of their teaching and their future students’ achievement (Gess-Newsome, 1999). It is well known that pre-service or beginning teachers generally have little or no PCK (de Jong et al., 2002). Research on pre-service teachers’ professional development indicated that development in PCK is related to pre-service teachers’ teaching experiences during practicum and courses taken through teacher education programs (De Jong et al., 2005; Aydin et al., 2013). Therefore, this study focused on the school experience of pre-service chemistry teachers where they meet with mentor teachers and find opportunities to observe them on the way to become a teacher. The present study aimed to investigate how the development of pre-service chemistry teachers' PCK is affected by a school experience course enriched with reflection tools, content representations (CoRes), teaching practice for pre-service teachers, and observing mentor teachers using a structured observation form that was developed depending on PCK components.Theoretical framework
Nature and development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
PCK is one of the categories of knowledge base for teaching suggested by Shulman (1987) that inform us about the effectiveness of teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999; Park and Oliver, 2008). Although it includes the tips for using effective instructional decisions, it is difficult to be articulated due to its tacit nature (Loughran et al., 2004, 2008). Accordingly, it takes an effort to capture and portray and thus to improve teachers' PCK. As a result of these efforts, Loughran et al. (2004) designed CoRe as a tool to capture teachers’ PCK.Besides CoRe, scholars suggested varied ways to develop teachers’ PCK. In their review Evens et al. (2016) suggested reflecting on teaching, PCK courses, teaching experience, and contact with cooperating teachers were the most commonly used sources to develop pre-service teachers’ PCK. Courses with explicit PCK introduction, mentoring, and observations are listed as the other contributors to the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK.
The dynamic nature of PCK supports the development of PCK especially while planning, conducting and reflecting on an instruction (Nilsson and Loughran, 2012). The importance of reflection on pre-service teachers’ PCK development was emphasized by many researchers (Nilsson, 2008; Park and Oliver, 2008; Nilsson and Loughran, 2012; van Driel and Berry, 2012; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019). They suggested that pre-service teachers should reflect on their teaching experiences to solve their problems with teaching and learn from their experiences.
When we consider observation, it was identified as a major source for the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK by Grossman (1990). She claimed that observation of classes both as a student and a pre-service teacher can lead to improved knowledge of students’ conceptions and learning difficulties. Although observation was mentioned as being the method of developing PCK, the impact of observations and discussions about the mentors’ instruction was not assessed extensively in the related literature (Evens et al., 2016) and the need for focused observation is stated in many studies (Hagger et al., 1995; Brooks and Sikes, 1997). Hagger et al. declared that “unfocussed observation, without a clear purpose, is generally demoralising and counter-productive” (p. 40).
Since the concept of PCK was first coined by Shulman (1986), scholars have proposed different models of PCK over time (Grossman, 1990; Cochran et al., 1993; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park and Oliver, 2008; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Carlson and Daehler, 2019). One of the most widely used models in science education research studies is Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model. Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed that PCK consists of five components, namely orientations toward science teaching, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of science assessment, knowledge of science learners, and knowledge of instructional strategies. In the present study, we utilized the PCK model developed by Magnusson et al. (1999) but made some modifications to the science teaching orientations and knowledge of curriculum components to elicit pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK in greater depth and from a wider perspective. Friedrichsen et al. (2011) defined science teaching orientations as an interrelated set of beliefs that have three dimensions, namely beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching, beliefs about science teaching and learning, and beliefs about the nature of science. For this study, we used two of these dimensions: beliefs about the goals and purposes of science teaching and beliefs about science teaching and learning. For knowledge of curriculum based on Grossman (1990), we added a link to other topics and a link to other disciplines categories to the knowledge of curriculum. The PCK framework used in this study is shown in Table 1.
| Science teaching orientation (STO) | • Beliefs about the purpose of science teaching |
| • Beliefs about science teaching and learning | |
| Knowledge of curriculum (KOC) | • Knowledge of goals and objectives |
| • Link with other topics | |
| • Link with other disciplines | |
| Knowledge of learners (KOL) | • Misconceptions |
| • Learning difficulties | |
| • Prerequisite knowledge | |
| Knowledge of instructional strategies (KOIS) | • Knowledge of subject-specific strategies |
| • Knowledge of topic-specific strategies | |
| • Representations (e.g. Illustrations, examples, models, or analogies) | |
| • Activities (e.g. Problems, demonstrations, simulations, investigations or experiments) | |
| Knowledge of assessment (KOA) | • Knowledge of dimensions of science learning to assess (what to assess) e.g. conceptual understanding, interdisciplinary themes, nature of science, scientific investigation and practical reasoning |
| • Knowledge of methods of assessment (how to assess) | |
We chose chemical equilibrium as the topic to study. It is reported that due to its abstract nature students have various misconceptions and learning difficulties in this topic (Ganaras et al., 2008). All three levels of chemistry (e.g. macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic levels) could be emphasized in chemical equilibrium topic (Chiu et al., 2002). Thus, teachers may have various alternatives to concentrate on regarding especially instructional strategies and assessment methods during instruction. It increases participants’ chance to see a wide range of activities while observing their mentors and a flexible and wide working area while preparing their lesson plans. Therefore, it would be much easier to capture any changes in their PCK.
Research studies on pre-service teachers’ PCK development
There are many studies in the literature investigating pre-service science teachers’ PCK (Halim and Meerah, 2002; van Driel et al., 2002; de Jong and van Driel, 2004; Loughran et al., 2008; Nilsson, 2008; Kaya, 2009; Hume and Berry, 2011, 2013; Aydin et al., 2013; Großschedl et al., 2019; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019). Research on what and how pre-service teachers learn to teach generally focuses on the crucial role of structuring pre-service teachers’ practice. Most of these studies focused on the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK and presented various suggestions to promote this development.Reflecting on teaching played an important role in developing pre-service teachers PCK. Nilsson (2008) related reflection with teaching experience and claimed that reflecting on teaching has a vital role “for student-teachers in developing expertise in their practice, and is central to them accepting more responsibility for their actions” (p. 1284). Park and Oliver (2008) disclosed PCK as features of knowledge-in-action and knowledge-on-action such as that while the first one developed through reflection-in-action, the second one developed through reflection-on-action.
In the literature, CoRes are widely reported as being used as a lesson planning tool (Hume and Berry, 2011; Aydin et al., 2013). CoRes and Pedagogical and Professional-Experience Repertoires (PaP-eRs) were also utilized to portray pre- and in-service teachers’ PCK (Loughran et al., 2004). In several studies, these tools were used to enrich teachers’ PCK development (Rollnick et al., 2008; Hume and Berry, 2011; Williams et al., 2012; Aydin et al., 2013; Mavhunga and Rollnick, 2013; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019). For instance, in the study by Hume and Berry (2011), CoRes, PaP-eRs, and PCK were introduced as a scaffold to encourage pre-service teachers to design their own CoRes on different topics in small groups. It was found that construction of CoRes by means of scaffolding improved their PCK. In another study, Nilsson and Loughran (2012) used CoRes to capture the PCK development of pre-service teachers and they reported that both teaching experience and use of CoRes were beneficial in improving pre-service teachers’ PCK.
Research studies focusing on mentors (Nilssen, 2010; Nilsson and Van Driel, 2010) and mentoring (Appleton, 2008; Hanuscin and Hian, 2009; Aydin et al., 2013) show that they have been used as sources to develop pre-service teachers’ PCK. Mentoring can be considered as assisting pre-service teachers to learn how to teach (Zanting et al., 1998; Nilsson and van Driel, 2010). Zanting et al. (1998) mentioned that pre-service teachers are regarded “primarily as ‘learners’ of teaching rather than ‘performers’ of teaching” (p. 13). Therefore, the main goal of pre-service teachers during the school experience course is to learn from mentors’ teaching experiences through analysing their lessons and thinking about alternative teaching possibilities. Nilssen (2010) emphasized that the practice of cooperating teachers as mentors is an essential contributor to pre-service teachers’ interactive PCK development. She mentioned that school-based mentors serve as a model for pre-service teachers and show them how to integrate knowledge of students, knowledge of subject matter, and pedagogy into PCK during teaching. From a broad perspective, Nilsson and van Driel (2010) investigated the factors influencing both pre-service teachers and mentors’ professional knowledge. The results of the study indicated that pre-service teachers learn through observing their mentors’ teaching in terms of instructional knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge.
Another important factor that influenced the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK was observing. van Driel et al. (2002) investigated the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK in terms of one of the central issues in science teaching, namely relating macroscopic and sub-microscopic phenomena during a postgraduate teacher education program lasting one year. At the beginning of the program, the pre-service teachers mainly observed their mentors’ classes and discussed these observations in the workshop at the university. Later, they began to teach on their own while their instruction was observed by their mentors. The pre-service teachers discussed their lesson plans and evaluations of their teaching with their mentors. In addition, they attended a workshop at the university where they discussed literature related to students’ difficulties in learning macro and microdomains as well as observations of their mentors’ teaching. The results of the study indicated that three factors, namely classroom experiences, university-based workshops, and meetings with mentors contribute to improving pre-service teachers’ PCK. Likewise, Barendsen and Henze (2019) aimed to relate teachers’ PCK to their teaching practice utilizing classroom observation for which they developed an observation form to investigate teachers’ classroom actions.
In the present study, the researchers designed an observation form based on four PCK components, namely knowledge of learners, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of instructional strategies, and knowledge of assessment. The pre-service teachers focused on these components while observing their mentors. Science teaching orientation component was not included in the observation form. STO consists of complex belief structures (Friedrichsen et al., 2011), thus it would be difficult for the pre-service teachers to capture the mentor teachers’ STO only by observing. Based on the literature mentioned above, we also decided to use explicit introduction of the construct of PCK, actual teaching experience, CoRes, and reflection on teaching as well as discussion of observations to reveal how these tools affect the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK during a school experience course.
Significance of the study
As mentioned in the previous sections, different tools enhanced the growth of teachers’ PCK. These were actual teaching experience, reflections, CoRes, observing school-based mentors’ teaching, mentoring, and workshops. Evens et al. (2016) stated that “although several scholars have mentioned PCK sources, there is still little empirical evidence on how education can contribute to PCK development” (p. 2). Moreover, Evens et al. (2016) emphasized that as a contributor to PCK development, observation of classes both as a student and as a pre-service teacher was not included in research studies. Considering the studies conducted to investigate pre-service teachers’ PCK, few connections have been made between research on the role of the interactive relationship between mentor and student teachers, and the resulting development of their PCK (Nilssen, 2010; Nilsson and van Driel, 2010). Moreover, to develop pre-service teachers’ PCK, McDuffie (2004) suggested a way for instructors at universities to provide “opportunities to discuss in-depth the teaching and learning issues for special lessons to pose various problematic scenarios, both after teaching episodes as well in advance of lessons” (p. 56). In other words, observing a school-based mentor's teaching practice and analysing this practice considering PCK components allow field experiences to become a learning tool and contribute to the development of pre-service teachers' PCK. Meanwhile, in-depth discussions with instructors about teaching and learning played a crucial role in the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK (Van Driel and Berry, 2017). Therefore, there is a need for research that sheds light on the effect of working together with mentors in school placement on pre-service teachers’ PCK development (Van Driel and Berry, 2017). To address this, we developed an observation form for pre-service teachers to use while observing their mentor teachers’ teaching. The observation form is based on PCK components. Therefore, it helps pre-service teachers to decide where to focus on during observations in a structured way. Furthermore, discussions on the observation form with peers and instructors lead them to think more about PCK and begin to use the language of PCK. The present study is going to contribute to the related literature in this respect. Moreover, Magnusson et al. (1999) emphasized that science teaching orientations, knowledge of learners, knowledge of instructional strategies, knowledge of curriculum, and knowledge of assessment components of PCK may interact and teachers need to develop all components of PCK. Although there have been studies focusing on a few components of PCK in the related literature (Gunckel et al., 2018; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019), we concurrently investigated five components of Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model, namely science teaching orientations, knowledge of learners, instructional strategy, curriculum, and assessment. Considering all of the above, the research question that guided the current study was:• How did a school experience course enriched with reflection tools, content representations (CoRes), pre-service teachers' teaching practice, and observation of a mentor's PCK with an observation form affect pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK?
Methodology
Research design
Action research, which is a qualitative research method, was employed in this study. An action research study aims to solve an educational problem or to improve the quality of education depending on the goal of the researcher (Berg and Lune, 2012). According to Somekh (2005), action research consists of determining the issue, collecting data related to the selected issue, analysing and interpreting the collected data, acting to generate positive changes, and evaluating these changes through collecting data over again.In this study, the problematic issue is the content of the School Experience course. Previous cohorts of pre-service teachers enrolled on this course in the previous semesters complained about doing activities that do not contribute to their learning about teaching and the lack of clear focus on their observations in the cooperating high schools. To solve this problem, we collected their reflections to document pre-service teachers’ complaints to find a way to transform the School Experience course into a course involving more structured observation schedules for pre-service teachers. We utilized the PCK framework to replace the basic observational activities with more structured observations based on the components of PCK. We then collected further data to detect whether pre-service teachers' PCK developed with the effect of the revised course.
Participants
This study was conducted using the School Experience in Science Education course at a state university in Turkey. At the beginning of the study, we received permission from the ethics committee of Middle East Technical University to conduct the study. Then, pre-service teachers were informed about the aim of the research. Moreover, they were informed about their right to leave the study at any time. The participants were provided with a written consent form before the study began. Ten pre-service chemistry teachers were enrolled on the course offered in the 9th semester of a five-year chemistry teacher education program. Four female pre-service chemistry teachers (Berna, Oya, Selin, and Zehra) volunteered to participate in the study. Pseudonyms were used instead of their real names in the present study for reasons of confidentiality. Before the School Experience course, they took content-based courses such as general chemistry, analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, etc. and pedagogical courses such as introduction to education, educational psychology, methods of science teaching I, methods of science teaching II, instructional technology and material development, assessment and evaluation, and curriculum development in science education. Participants’ CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) scores were similar; the scores for Berna, Zehra, Oya, and Selin were 2.48, 2.44, 2.54, and 2.70 (out of 4.00) respectively.Context of the study
The present study took place in the context of a School Experience in Science Education course. The main purpose of the course is to enable pre-service teachers to understand the school environment, the teaching profession, and student profiles. For this purpose, pre-service teachers are placed at the cooperating high schools for four hours a week, totalling 40 hours for a semester. They are supposed to prepare reports of activities assigned to them six times during the semester. Besides school placements at high schools, pre-service teachers have a one-hour class session each week at the university. In these sessions, they discuss their observations and how they carry out the preceding activity with their peers and instructors. Brief information about the next activity is also provided for them in these sessions. In the previous semesters of this course, pre-service teachers complained about observing their mentors without any clear focus and writing reports on activities that do not contribute to their professional development. Another problem mentioned by pre-service teachers during previous semesters was that they did not know how to observe the mentors and the school environment. For example, they cannot determine what aspects to concentrate on while observing their mentors’ instruction. Bearing all these problems in mind, we started the present study with 10 pre-service chemistry teachers enrolled on the course. We wanted to explore their opinions as well to see whether they shared the same complaints as the pre-service teachers enrolled on the course in the previous semesters. Therefore, 10 pre-service teachers carried out the first three activities of the previous version of the course. Then we asked them to write their reflections about the problems of the course, if any. Similarly, we also asked them to give suggestions regarding how to improve the course. We analysed the pre-service teachers’ reflections on the course and we tried to see the problematic issues through the lens of the pre-service teachers. They stated that the content of the activities was too general and that they did not know what to focus on while observing the classes. They also mentioned that the activities were not effective for their professional development and were a waste of time. They suggested the activities be redesigned by including discussion of the important issues related to teaching (e.g. teaching strategies, student understanding). They thought that creating a clear focus for the activities would help them much while observing as well. Based on these critiques and suggestions, the course was redesigned around the PCK construct. The activities used in the previous and revised school experience courses are given in Table 2.| Activity numbers | Previous school experience course | Revised school experience course |
|---|---|---|
| Aim of the activitya | Aim of the activitya | |
| a Aims of activity 1, 2, and 3 were the same for the previous and revised versions of the school experience course. | ||
| Activity 1 | To observe mentors and interview them to get an idea about activities that teachers carry out in and out of the classroom | To observe mentors and interview them to get an idea about activities that teachers carry out in and out of the classroom |
| Activity 2 | To interview the head of the school about the physical and administrative structure of the school, its facilities, and its problems to understand the school environment | To interview the head of the school about the physical and administrative structure of the school, its facilities, and its problems to understand the school environment |
| Activity 3 | To observe mentors’ instruction by concentrating on their teaching methods and questioning techniques with the help of a pre-determined checklist | To observe mentors’ instruction by concentrating on their teaching methods and questioning techniques with the help of a pre-determined checklist |
| Activity 4 | To observe mentors’ classroom management skills by using the pre-determined observation checklist | To prepare a CoRe for the topic of chemical equilibrium |
| Activity 5 | To prepare a worksheet and evaluate its effectiveness by considering their experiences and students’ opinions | To observe mentors’ PCK by using the observation form prepared by the researchers and to write reflection papers regarding their observation of mentor's PCK |
| Activity 6 | To conduct group work and evaluate its effectiveness by discussing their experiences and problems while conducting it | To prepare a revised CoRe on factors affecting chemical equilibrium and deliver a one-hour lesson on school placement at a high school |
| Term project | To conduct a literature review of an aspect of teaching (e.g. how to motivate students, how to provide classroom management etc.) and to observe it during the school placement and compare their observations with the literature | To write reflections on their teaching experience and how their observation of their mentors impacted on the development of their PCK |
In the revised School Experience course, we first asked the pre-service chemistry teachers to be aware of PCK as a construct and to share a common language in terms of PCK. Then, we aimed to promote the development of their PCK in the teacher education program. During the course, we explicitly explained the nature of PCK, the difference between pedagogical knowledge and SMK, and components of PCK based on Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model. Since we aimed to promote pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK, we used CoRes developed by Loughran et al. (2004) as another tool in place of the lesson plans. Therefore, in the class, we explained what CoRes are and showed an example of a CoRe to the pre-service chemistry teachers. Next, the pre-service chemistry teachers prepared a pre-CoRe for the topic of chemical equilibrium. After the preparation of the pre-CoRes, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the pre-service chemistry teachers.
Moreover, for the revised School Experience course, an observation form based on PCK components (see Appendix B) was prepared by the researchers to guide the pre-service teachers while observing their mentors’ instruction. Afterwards, they discussed their observations with their peers and instructors during the class sessions at the university. In this way, the pre-service teachers evaluated their mentors’ PCK critically in the class. In this course, the pre-service chemistry teachers taught chemical equilibrium for an hour in high schools close to the end of the semester. They prepared a revised CoRe (post-CoRe) for chemical equilibrium before their instruction. All the participants were placed at the same high school and they taught different classes of 11th-grade students. After instruction, they reflected on their teaching as well as on the use of CoRes and observation forms on their professional development. Moreover, they were interviewed with respect to their PCK.
Instruments
Semi-structured interviews, content representation (CoRe), field notes, and reflection papers were used as data collection tools. The instruction at the university was conducted in English. The pre-service chemistry teachers prepared CoRes and reflection papers in English. However, they were interviewed in Turkish and field notes were taken in Turkish. Interview questions taken from the literature were in English. They were translated into Turkish by the authors of the present study who are fluent both in Turkish and English independently and the translations were compared and discussed until consensus was reached.Analysis of data
In this study, deductive analysis (Patton, 2002) was carried out to determine the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK by means of a school experience course enriched with the application of CoRes and observation forms. For this analysis, data gathered from CoRes and interviews were analysed with respect to the components of the modified version of Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model (Table 1). Data were coded under five PCK main components as well as sub-components for each component to portray participants’ PCK. For instance, pre-service teachers’ knowledge of assessment was categorized under the what to assess and how to assess sub-components. For example, the pre-service teachers’ statements regarding the assessment of students’ misconceptions and difficulties were categorized under the what to assess subcomponent. Furthermore, the how to assess sub-component included the participants’ responses mentioning methods of assessment such as the use of concept maps and informal questioning to assess students’ understanding. Moreover, classroom observations and field notes supplemented the interviews and data from the CoRes to reveal development in the pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK. For example, when the researchers observed that a pre-service chemistry teacher used real-world examples in her instruction, during the interviews she was asked to explain the reason behind the use of these examples.Semi-structured interviews and reflections were the main data sources to elicit the effect of the use of observation forms, CoRes, pre-service teachers' teaching experience, and reflections on teaching on pre-service teachers’ PCK development. These data were analysed by forming categories based on Magnusson's (1999) model, namely science teaching orientations, knowledge of learners, knowledge of assessment, knowledge of curriculum, and knowledge of instructional strategies.
To ensure reliability, data analysis was conducted by each of the two researchers independently. Then, categories were compared. In case of conflict between categories, the researchers discussed them together until a consensus was reached.
Results
In the Results section, findings on the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK are explained under the headings of Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK components.Science teaching orientations (STO)
The science teaching orientations of all participants did not show any change from the beginning to the end of the course. Their purposes of teaching chemistry and ideas of teacher and student roles remained exactly the same throughout the course. Participants pre- and post-purposes of teaching chemistry were presented in Table 3.| Oya | Berna | Selin | Zehra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Understand real-world events by the help of chemistry | Gain scientific perspective on real-world events | Gain scientific perspective on real-world events | Ideal: understand real-world events by the help of chemistry |
| Develop scientific literacy | Get prepared for the exams | Actual: get prepared for the exams | ||
| Post | Understand real-world events by the help of chemistry | Gain scientific perspective on real-world events | Gain scientific perspective on real-world events | Ideal: understand real-world events by the help of chemistry |
| Develop scientific literacy | Get prepared for the exams | Actual: get prepared for the exams | ||
At the beginning of the course, regarding the purpose of chemistry teaching, all participants had one similar goal, which is about the relationship between chemistry and real-world events. For instance, Oya explained her purpose:
Chemistry is part of our lives, actually I teach chemistry to help students find answers to daily life questions. For instance, think that he wants to dissolve sugar in water, by using chemistry knowledge he can say that “If I increase the temperature it dissolves quickly” and this will make his life easier… or there is something like greenhouse effect, it affects our lives, but what is the reason of it and how can we solve this problem. He can learn this from chemistry. (Oya, pre-interview)
Two participants, Selin and Berna, had one more aim for chemistry teaching. Selin's second aim for chemistry teaching was to prepare students for the exams while Berna's other aim was promoting students' scientific literacy. Selin explained her purposes of teaching chemistry as follow:
We teach chemistry so that students have a chance to get good scores from the university entrance exam and have a good future. While doing this, for sure, we need to be able to teach chemistry by adapting it to daily life. That's my purpose of teaching chemistry and my biggest effort will always be to apply them both together. (Selin, pre-interview)
Zehra emphasized her ideal and actual purposes of chemistry teaching. Her ideal purpose reflected what she wanted to do, however, had limited chance to do it in the classes, while her actual purpose reflected what she felt responsible to do even though she did not want to do it. For example, Zehra stated that even though the ideal purpose of teaching chemistry is to make students understand real-world issues, in reality, the actual purpose of teaching chemistry is to prepare students for exams. Zehra claimed:
We are teaching chemistry so that students can pass the university entrance exam but I want to teach it to help students understand the world and umm… learn that there is a resource they can always refer to when they need to make sense of the events around them. (Zehra, pre-interview)
From Zehra's explanations, we can conclude that her ideal and real purposes of teaching chemistry contradicted. She did not act as she wanted to while they were teaching. While her ideal purpose was related to the social benefits of learning chemistry, her actual purpose was related to her students' school achievement.
The participants explained their beliefs about science teaching and learning with respect to the teacher and student roles. Both at the beginning and at the end of the course, all the participants described the role of the teacher as a guide that helps students construct their knowledge and the role of the students as active participants in the learning process. For instance, Zehra explained her ideas about the student and teacher roles by linking the lesson to a game as follow:
Researcher: What do you think about the roles of the teacher and student in the classes?
Zehra: The student should be an active participant, the teacher should protect the authority but also should act with the students to guide them.
R: What do you mean by the student being active?
Z: They shouldn't sit down, listen and leave the class. Must be in the classroom mentally, mentally involve in the class. I always think of it as an interactive game. The guide is the teacher, students are the players. There is a script written by the teacher, they play together. No one has the leading role. To be more precise, I think the student should live in the game and feel the game while playing.
R: So what role do you think teachers play in this environment?
Z: The teacher knows how to play. The teacher also knows what to and what not to touch. Guiding is the teacher's mission in some way.
R: So what is the student's role again?
Z: to play the game and at the end, to realize why s/he is playing this game. (Zehra, post-interview)
Knowledge of curriculum (KOC)
All the participants’ knowledge of curriculum improved by the end of the course except for Selin. Both at the beginning and at the end of the course she stated that she had little and general knowledge about the objectives. Below conversation was from the interview conducted at the end of the course:Researcher: What do you know about the objectives related to chemical equilibrium indicated in the chemistry curriculum?
Selin: A little and in generally …
R: What do you know about them?
S: I learned them while preparing CoRe. I wrote what students would learn, what general and specific objectives should be. I know little about the factors affecting chemical equilibrium. Students should learn the effect of temperature on equilibrium and the effect of concentration. When we consider Le Chatelier's Principle, we understand what the objectives should be in general and what students would learn about them. (Selin, post-interview)
Both Zehra's and Berna's knowledge of curriculum improved especially with respect to understanding the objectives of the curriculum. At the beginning, they just stated the curriculum objectives without any understanding. However, at the end of the course, they were able to reflect on these curriculum objectives and they began to criticize them. For example, Berna stated:
Objectives in the curriculum are concentrated on lower levels, but they should be higher-level objectives. We should not just rely on these objectives; we should be able to insert new objectives that promote students’ understanding. (Berna, post-interview)
Regarding links with other topics, that is teachers’ knowledge about what learners have learned in the previous unit and what they will learn in subsequent units related to chemical equilibrium, both Zehra and Oya showed improvement. In her pre-CoRe, Zehra stated that she did not know anything about the prior and subsequent units of the chemical equilibrium unit. In other words, she was not aware of curriculum saliency. However, in her post CoRe, she mentioned reaction rates as a prior unit and solubility equilibrium as the subsequent unit for chemical equilibrium. Similarly, Oya's knowledge of curriculum improved specifically in terms of the knowledge relating to other topics and other disciplines. At the beginning, she stated chemical reactions and molarity as prior topics to chemical equilibrium and solubility equilibrium as a subsequent topic without providing any detailed explanations. However, at the end of the course, she gave detailed explanations and reasons for the topics that are scheduled before the chemical equilibrium topic:
Reaction rate comes before chemical equilibrium. Students should know reaction rate well because equilibrium is derived from the rate of reaction. (Oya, post-CoRe)
Moreover, she added that concepts of chemical reactions and collision theory were provide basis for the topic of chemical equilibrium and taught before it in the curriculum:
Students need to know molecules, how reactions occur, how molecules collide. They should know collision theory. (Oya, post-CoRe)
She also linked chemical equilibrium with biology and claimed that chemical equilibrium was related to some of the biology topics. As a result, Oya developed her knowledge of sequencing concepts for chemical equilibrium.
By contrast, Selin's knowledge of curriculum did not change by the end of the course. Her pre-CoRe, post-CoRe, and interviews indicated that she was aware of the objectives in the curriculum and curriculum saliency. At the beginning, she mentioned the prior topics of chemical equilibrium as reversible, irreversible reactions, concentration, and kinetic theory while she stated solubility equilibrium as a subsequent unit of chemical equilibrium. Her post-CoRe and interviews showed that similar to her initial ideas, she was aware of the topics taught before and after the chemical equilibrium topic.
When we examined which of the tools (the use of a reflection tool, CoRes, teaching practice of pre-service teachers and observing a mentor's PCK utilizing an observation form) affected the pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of curriculum, we found that use of both observation forms and CoRes enhanced the pre-service teachers’ knowledge of curriculum.
While observing their mentors, most of the time, pre-service teachers were not completely aware of curriculum goals or objectives students should gain at the end of the classes. The reason was that the mentor teachers teach without explicitly mentioning the objectives in the classes. Observing mentors with the observation form helped pre-service teachers consider and examine the elements of the curriculum (e.g. curriculum goals, objectives, purposes, connection between the chemistry topics or the other branches of science) by drawing their attention to those elements. Berna explained it:
With the help of the observation form, I observed different things, such as, whether the teacher knows and applies the curriculum goals, objectives, and purposes. I also paid attention to the connection between chemistry topics and the other branches of science. I didn’t think that knowing these can be important in teaching. But, now I do. (Berna, post-reflection paper)
In terms of the use of CoRe, all participants stated the efficiency of it on improving their knowledge of curriculum. For example, Zehra explained that by asking explicit questions about the curriculum, CoRe helped her consider the curriculum while planning her instruction. She claimed:
CoRe made me focus on the curriculum since CoRe (questions in the CoRe) asks for objectives and helps us make an efficient plan. When you answer all these questions, you know which points to consider during instruction. At this point it led us plan for the instruction using appropriate method and materials. (Zehra, post-reflection paper)
Knowledge of learners (KOL)
In terms of the prerequisite knowledge required for learners to learn chemical equilibrium topic, while Selin's and Berna's knowledge about prerequisite knowledge for learning chemical equilibrium was the same both in their pre- and post-CoRe. For instance, in the pre-interview, Selin explained the basic knowledge students should have to learn chemical equilibrium asThey should know how chemical reactions occur to understand reversible-irreversible reactions and the equilibrium state… and the activation energy concept, especially when we talk about the effect of catalyst on equilibrium, we should remind the activation energy concept to the students. If they didn’t know activation energy, they could not understand how catalysts work… and for sure they should know the rate of reaction as the primary knowledge to understand chemical equilibrium. (Selin, pre-interview)
Similarly, in the post-interview she stated chemical reactions, activation energy concept, and the rate of reaction as the pre-requisite knowledge student should have to learn chemical equilibrium, properly.
Both in the pre- and post-CoRe, Berna thought that students should know the rate of reactions, activation energy concept and mole concepts as the pre-requisite to learn chemical equilibrium. She focused on mathematical calculations of equilibrium reactions, thus she gave importance to mole concept as required pre-requisite knowledge to solve problems on chemical equilibrium.
Oya's and Zehra's knowledge regarding prerequisite knowledge improved by the end of the course. For example, at the beginning, Zehra mentioned only reactions and concentration as prerequisite knowledge for chemical equilibrium. She also emphasized that she could not state any more prerequisite knowledge due to her lack of SMK. Post-CoRe and interviews showed that besides chemical reactions and concentration, she added reaction rate as prerequisite knowledge for the chemical equilibrium by explaining:
Since the reaction rates of forward and reverse reactions become equal at the time of chemical equilibrium, students are required to learn about reaction rates before the chemical equilibrium topic. (Zehra, post-CoRe)
Similarly, at the pre-CoRe and interviews, Oya stated chemical reactions, molarity, energy concept (minimum energy, maximum entropy), and collision theory as prerequisite knowledge while she added the reaction rate concept as prerequisite knowledge for the chemical equilibrium in her post-CoRe.
All the participants’ knowledge of students’ difficulties and misconceptions improved by the end of the course. For example, at the beginning, even though all the participants listed students’ possible difficulties and misconceptions based on their experience, they could not give detailed explanations for the reasons for these. At the end of the course, they used both the related literature as well as their experiences to mention possible difficulties and misconceptions of the students. Moreover, they could give more meaningful explanations for the reasons for these. For example, at the beginning, Selin only stated that students’ inability to imagine the reactions at the sub-microscopic level was influential in forming these misconceptions. She could, however, elaborate on the sources of these difficulties and misconceptions more at the end of the course. She stated that the way that the topic of chemical reactions is taught may cause the students to have difficulty in understanding sub-microscopic representations.
If chemical reactions are not taught at the sub-microscopic level, they (students) cannot understand the collision of particles and how reactions occur. Therefore, they do not understand the reactions at the sub-microscopic level and the nature of equilibrium reactions. (Selin, post-interview)
Moreover, Selin stated that instruction in physics may be another source of these difficulties and misconceptions:
Equilibrium is taught to students as static equilibrium in physics classes, that is, something that does not move at all. That causes difficulty in understanding the dynamic equilibrium in chemistry. (Selin- post-interview)
In this study, we investigated which of the tools used during the study were responsible for the change in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of learners as well. We found out that the use of CoRes and observation forms enhanced participants’ knowledge of learners. All the participants agreed that observation forms enhanced their knowledge of learners. To illustrate, Berna explained the usefulness of the observation form on the knowledge of learners:
Before using the observation form, I didn’t know that I should be aware of students’ misconceptions. Therefore, I never thought about how to focus on them, either. But after using the observation form, even if I don’t observe anything (an attempt by the teacher to eliminate students’ difficulties and misconceptions), I begin to think about it and ask myself “If I were the teacher, what would I do about students’ difficulties and misconceptions?” (Berna, post-interview)
From this explanation, it is clear that observing the mentor teacher's instruction with the observation form enabled the pre-service teachers to gain a different point of view. They began to focus on actions they had never focused on before. They began to think like a teacher as well. They tried to find ways to detect and eliminate students’ possible misconceptions as if they were the teacher teaching in that class.
With respect to the use of CoRes, all the participants stated their contribution for enhancing their knowledge of learners. They learnt that to teach the content in a correct way they should consider students’ misconceptions, while they were planning instruction. For example, Selin described the importance of preparing CoRe in getting her to focus on students’ difficulties and misconceptions for instruction:
The content of CoRe forced me to focus on important points for instruction and design in an effective way. During the planning part, I saw the importance of students’ understanding. Before preparing CoRe, I was not aware of the fact that caring about misconceptions and students’ difficulties should be specified in advance. (Selin-post-reflection paper)
Similarly, Berna explained:
Before, I was only thinking about the content. For me, the most important thing was the content, not the misconceptions. I didn’t think that misconceptions would be so important. But now, I can see that in planning and teaching, considering them is so important. If I don’t know where students make mistakes, I cannot teach them perfectly.
Knowledge of instructional strategies (KOIS)
The data revealed that pre-service teachers’ subject-specific strategies did not show any changes at the end of the course. They all chose the 5E learning cycle model to teach the topic. This model consists of the engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation stages in a learning sequence. It starts with engaging students with a challenging situation and is followed by exploration and explanation of a phenomenon by students. Then, in the elaboration stage, students are expected to apply what they learned to new situations. Last, at the evaluation stage, students reflect on their knowledge or the learning process.Both at the beginning and the end of the course, the participants decided to use the 5E learning cycle model. However, their reasons for choosing the 5E model as well as how to implement it were expanded by the end of the course. For example, at the beginning of the course, although Zehra stated that she would use 5E, she did not give any detailed explanations about what will be done in each step of the 5E learning cycle model. However, at the end of the course, Zehra gave detailed explanations regarding each step of 5E in her post-CoRe:
In the engage step, I will ask why our teeth decay. Then I ask how to prevent tooth decay. I will also remind them of the emphasis of fluoride in toothpaste commercials, and the relationship of fluoride to the prevention of tooth decay. At the beginning, I want to make students curious and grab their attention. (Zehra, post-CoRe)
Moreover, they explained their reasons for choosing 5E in more detail at the end of the course. For example, at the beginning, Berna stated that she would involve students in the learning process by using the 5E model:
We ask questions and therefore students become involved in the learning process since these questions will help students think more on the topic. (Berna, pre-interview)
However, in her post-CoRe, she wrote three reasons for choosing 5E. In the interview, she explained these reasons as:
Researcher (R): Why did you choose 5E as a subject-specific strategy?
Berna (B): I ask several questions to elicit students’ misconceptions and I want to eliminate the misconceptions by 5E if they have any… In the explore step, there is an experiment. In the experiment, there was a colour change. I encourage the students to think about the experiment using questions (e.g. What do you expect to see? What do you observe? Why?) and we all discuss the experiment… They can understand the chemical equilibrium through discussions. In the elaborate step, I ask real-world examples so that students can link the topic with the real-world.
R: So, as far as I understand, I can say that you have three reasons for choosing 5E. The first one is to detect misconceptions and eliminate them. The second one is to link the topic with the real-world. And the third one is to make students understand chemical equilibrium better. Do you confirm this?
B: Yes, I confirm. (Berna, post-interview)
By the end of the course, all the participants enriched their instruction with respect to using topic-specific strategies. While Berna, Selin, and Zehra did not involve any real-world examples in their pre-CoRes, they enriched their instruction with real-world examples in their post-CoRes. For example, Berna stated that she would give real-world examples regarding the amount of haemoglobin in a mountaineer's body. Zehra would give the example of tooth decay. Though Oya used the same topic-specific strategies – experiment, simulation, analogy, and real-world examples – in both pre- and post-CoRe, she included the nature of science in her instruction by explaining the history of Le Chatelier's principle at her post-CoRe. She mentioned that one of the aspects of nature of science was that science can include cooperation between scientists by stating that Henry Louis Le Chatelier was famous for Le Chatelier's principle and he worked with his partner Jasper Rossi who contributed to Le Chatelier's principle.
At the beginning of the course, the participants’ explanations were more general, less-detailed, and they did not involve content-specific issues. However, by the end of the course, their explanations were more detailed and content-specific. For example, although Oya used the same topic-specific strategies, at the beginning of the course, she could not give detailed explanations regarding the use of analogy in her pre-CoRe: “I will use analogy and explain the similarities and differences between the concept and analogy to remove and prevent misconceptions.” At the end of the course her explanations were more detailed with respect to the use of analogy:
Imagine that you are sitting in the middle of a seesaw and the left side is study time and the right side is the time that you use for fun. While you study hard, it means a heavier left side, so you move to the right side and to regain your equilibrium of mind, you try to make enjoyable activities like going to the cinema or playing computer games and so on.
Study time ⇆ fun time (equilibrium at mind)
Study time: reactants, fun time: products,
Equilibrium: student's mental equilibrium (Oya, post-CoRe)
Similarly, at the beginning of the course, in the pre-CoRe, Berna wrote that she would use the 5E learning cycle method in her instruction as a topic-specific instructional strategy. In the engagement part, she added pictures or videos to the instruction to gain learners’ attention; she used experimental design for the exploration part and used animation for the explanation part. However, the contents of these topic-specific strategies were not explained in detail, they were unclear and rather general. In the interview, when we asked her to explain the reasons for using animation and how she would use it, she could not explain clearly what the animation would include. She said that she would use an animation to promote students’ understanding at the sub-microscopic level by giving general descriptions of the animation:
For example, when the temperature increases, the energies of molecules increase and they move faster. To make students visualize the molecules, I would use animation. (Berna, pre-interview)
In the post-CoRe, similar to the pre-CoRe, she stated the use of the 5E learning cycle method with the help of experiment, simulation, and real-world examples. However, for this time she gave detailed clear descriptions of the use of these instructional strategies. As an example, she explained the simulation she decided to use to show the collisions among the molecules by the increase in the concentration as:
The simulation is about the FeSCN 2+ ⇆ Fe 3+ + SCN − . When SCN − concentration is increased, the number of collisions between Fe 3+ and SCN − increases and this will cause the reaction to shift left to form more FeSCN 2+ . (Berna, post-CoRe)
Regarding pre-service teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies; observation forms, CoRes, teaching experience, and reflections on teaching all contributed to the pre-service teachers’ enhancement of their knowledge of instructional strategies. All the participants stated that observation forms were effective in focusing on their mentors’ knowledge of instructional strategies and that this helped them improve their knowledge of instructional strategies. For example, Berna explained:
Now I am able to notice the teaching methods the teacher is using. I can decide whether the method is appropriate for the lesson or if s/he could use another one. I learned that different methods can be used in different situations. (Berna, post-interview)
Similarly, Oya stated:
Thanks to the observation form, I could focus on the real-world examples and experiments the teacher is using while teaching. I became more knowledgeable about real-world examples, experiments, etc. relating to chemistry topics. This enhanced my knowledge of instructional strategies. (Oya, post-reflection paper)
By using observation forms, the pre-service teachers became aware of which of the instructional strategies the mentor teacher is using and how it is used while teaching. They realized that not every instructional strategy is suitable for every topic and began to think what they would do in different situations.
Regarding the use of CoRes, all the participants described how useful they were in improving their knowledge of instructional strategies. They realized that the key for increasing the quality of teaching is choosing and applying the correct instructional strategy. Most of the time, preparing CoRes helps them review their knowledge of instructional strategies and revise it if necessary. Thus, planning the instruction on CoRe before the class helps them not only make up their inadequate knowledge of instructional strategies but also concentrate more on choosing the correct strategy for teaching. For example, Selin explained the importance of preparing CoRe in improving her knowledge of instructional strategies:
The CoRe activity really helped me choose an instructional strategy and use it during teaching. With the help of CoRe, I noticed how using a correct strategy is necessary and how it affects the teaching process. To decide on a strategy, I needed to examine my knowledge of some specific strategies and it was some kind of a review and I had the opportunity to see my weaknesses and strengths in instructional strategies. (Selin, post-reflection paper)
Moreover, all the pre-service teachers mentioned how the teaching experience contributed to their knowledge of instructional strategies. They realized it is not always possible to teach in a way they planned and that they have to change the method and immediately find an alternative way to continue. To illustrate, Selin explained that before giving the lesson, she checked textbooks and internet sources to see which real-world examples, analogies, and experiments could be used in the chemical equilibrium topic. She then decided which ones were suitable for her instruction. However, during the instruction, she realized that some students could not understand the analogy and were confused. Therefore, she needed to clarify the analogy and gave another example to end the confusion.
Regarding the use of reflections, they enhanced the pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies. By reflecting on their instruction, they had the opportunity to criticize their performance in class. They were able to see their strengths and weaknesses and learn lessons for their future instruction to teach better than before. For example, Oya stated that reflections on teaching helped her improve her knowledge of instructional strategies:
In the lesson I taught, I just skipped the explanation of the Le Chatelier principle in connection with collision theory. I realized that when I reflected on my instruction. If I had the chance to turn back, I think I would like to add this explanation to my instruction because I believe that this explanation could be useful for students not only to help them remember but also to remove any misconceptions about the issue. (Oya, post interview)
Similar explanations were also made by Zehra in the post-interview: “Reflecting on my teaching made me realize that I did not explain enough at micro-level. Next time, I will give more importance to explaining at micro-level.”
Knowledge of assessment (KOA)
The participants’ knowledge of assessment was examined under the dimensions of what to assess and how to assess. With respect to the what to assess dimension, except for Zehra, the knowledge of all the participants developed. Zehra had consistent ideas in the pre- and post-Cores about assessing students’ content knowledge about chemical equilibrium by using formative assessment techniques, especially informal questioning.Different from Zehra's ideas, Berna, Selin and Oya developed their knowledge on what to assess in the course. At the beginning of the course, Berna stated that she would assess students’ understanding of content and their misconceptions regarding the topic of chemical equilibrium. However, by the end of the course, she also emphasized the importance of eliciting students’ prior knowledge at the beginning of the class:
Researcher (R): At the beginning of the class, you asked several questions such as “What is chemical equilibrium?” “Is chemical equilibrium static or dynamic?” “What are the factors influencing chemical equilibrium?” and “How do these factors influence chemical equilibrium?” What were the reasons for asking these questions?
Berna (B): For example, I asked whether chemical equilibrium is static or dynamic. I can understand their misconceptions with respect to this issue. I did not have any information about the students in the class I taught. Therefore, I needed to check the level of their prior knowledge, what they know, and what they do not know. (Berna, post-interview)
Similarly, Selin elaborated on what to assess in the post-CoRe. At first, she stated that she carried out assessments to reveal students’ understanding and difficulties. In her post-CoRe interview, she mentioned that her goal in assessment was to reveal students’ misconceptions, difficulties, and understanding. Moreover, another purpose of assessment is to elicit students’ understanding of the sub-microscopic level of chemical equilibrium:
I would ask interpretation questions to understand whether they just memorized the topic or they had a conceptual understanding, an understanding in the context of the sub-microscopic level. (Selin, post-interview)
Moreover, while Oya mentioned that she could only determine students’ content knowledge at the pre-CoRe, at the post-CoRe interview, Oya stated that she could now obtain information about students’ understanding of the content (chemical equilibrium and factors influencing chemical equilibrium etc.), students’ misconceptions, their understanding at the microscopic level and their application of this topic in the real world.
In terms of how to assess dimension, neither Zehra's nor Berna's knowledge showed any changes. For example, at the beginning and end of the course, Berna mentioned informal questioning during teaching and an exam that can be used at the end of the unit. Zehra stated the use of informal questioning during teaching and report of an experiment at the end of class. By contrast, both Selin's and Oya's knowledge of assessment developed with respect to how to assess dimension. Their assessment was general at the beginning but later it was topic-specific. For example, in the pre-CoRe, Selin stated use of formative assessment throughout the lesson with the help of open-ended questions and a concept map as well as summative assessment using a midterm exam at the end of the unit. At the beginning of the course, she could not give any content-specific examples of questions. However, at the end of the course, she stated the use of open-ended questions during teaching and a midterm exam and she could give specific examples for the questions, for example:
For the following reaction;
N 2 (g) + 3H 2 (g) ⇆ 2NH 3 (g) + 22.0 kcal
What happens to the equilibrium, concentration of N 2 , H 2 , and NH 3, and equilibrium constant when we add N 2 (g)? (Selin, post-CoRe)
For the development of participants’ knowledge of assessment, the pre-service teachers stated the effectiveness of both observation forms and CoRes. At the beginning of the course, pre-service teachers either omitted observing how mentor teachers assess students’ understanding or did not know its importance. Selin explained how she was able to understand the importance of teachers’ PCK in teaching and focus on knowledge of assessment with the help of the observation forms:
When I was filling in the observation form, I found an opportunity to focus on specific points. For example, before these observation forms, I was not aware of the importance of PCK; in particular, I did not try to observe the assessments applied by the teachers during the lesson. (Selin, post-reflection paper)
Similarly, observation forms helped Oya observe various issues with respect to knowledge of assessment. At the beginning of the observations, she was observing mentors depending on her pedagogical knowledge. She was not aware or interested in the elements of pedagogical content knowledge such as assessment. Observing with observation form gave her chance to focus on this especially this component:
Before the PCK observation, I only focused on classroom management skills and I never tried to observe the points mentioned on the observation form such as the application of assessments. I mean, this process gives me the opportunity to recognize the points I am not interested in before and profit from them. (Oya, post-interview)
With respect to the use of CoRes, Zehra stated she could plan her instructions in an organized way and using CoRe restrained her from omitting any of the components. She organized her instruction by considering components of PCK such as knowledge of learners, instructional strategy, and assessment:
With the help of the CoRe, I was able to prepare my instruction step by step considering such aspects as misconceptions, strategies, and assessments and at the end come up with a brief plan for teaching. (Zehra, post-reflection paper)
Oya discussed the benefit of using CoRe from a different point of view. She claimed that CoRe assisted her to realize recognizing her students’ needs especially in the assessment process.
I had difficulty in finding an appropriate assessment method while preparing CoRe. While planning assessment, I remember, some students never volunteered to answer questions, and some of them don’t like writing. I realized that I cannot assess them just by asking some questions. I have to find some other ways. CoRe informed me that a teacher should get to know her students very well. Because she cannot assess their understanding correctly without knowing their needs. (Oya, post-reflection paper)
Discussion
In the present study, we employed action research. First, we detected the problems with the School Experience course. Based on the complaints of the pre-service teachers, we aimed to enhance pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK during the School Experience course by means of a reflection tool, the CoRe, and observing mentors’ PCK using an observation form in combination with a teaching practice for the pre-service teachers. It was found that except for science teaching orientations, all knowledge components (knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of instructional strategies, knowledge of learners, and knowledge of assessment) improved for two participants, Berna and Oya. The finding that science teaching orientations of the participants did not show any change at the end of the course is in keeping with the related literature, which reports the difficulty in changing teachers’ science teaching orientations (Brown et al., 2013).In terms of knowledge of curriculum, all the participants except Selin showed improvement. Although the pre-service teachers could not evaluate the objectives in the curriculum critically at the beginning, by the end of the course, they could evaluate them with respect to their cognitive level and they stated that they did not rely solely on the objectives in the curriculum. Regarding the prior and subsequent topics that form the foundation for chemical equilibrium, as well as the link to other disciplines, the pre-service teachers gave detailed explanations about why those topics formed the foundation for chemical equilibrium. For example, by referring to her SMK, Oya explained why students should know the collision theory and reaction rate topics before being taught the topic of chemical equilibrium. This provides evidence that SMK influences the development of PCK, in this context, knowledge of curriculum. Several researchers have found a correlation between SMK and PCK (e.g.Kaya, 2009; Großschedl et al., 2014).
With respect to the participants’ knowledge of learners, both Oya's and Zehra's knowledge regarding the prerequisite knowledge required to learn chemical equilibrium improved by the end of the course although both Selin's and Berna's knowledge did not show any changes in this respect. For example, a lack of content knowledge prevented Zehra from listing the prerequisite knowledge necessary to learn chemical equilibrium at the beginning of the course. However, at the end of the course, she gave detailed explanations about the need to know the rate of reaction concept to learn chemical equilibrium.
SMK influences the development of pre-service teachers’ knowledge of learner component of PCK. All the participants’ knowledge about difficulties and misconceptions with respect to chemical equilibrium had improved by the end of the course. Although they could only list the possible misconceptions and difficulties at the beginning, by the end of the course they could explain the reasons for these misconceptions in detail. For instance, Selin stated that equilibrium taught in physics classes as a static process may be responsible for students not being able to visualize chemical equilibrium as a dynamic situation. Based on these findings, knowledge of curriculum (link with other disciplines) informed the knowledge of learners (misconceptions of students). Interrelations between knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of learners were also reported by Aydin et al. (2015).
In terms of instructional strategy, all participants’ knowledge was enhanced. Similarly, except for Zehra, all the pre-service teachers’ knowledge of assessment improved. Although the pre-service chemistry teachers’ explanations were general at the beginning of the course, they began to use PCK language more and gave more topic-specific explanations by the end of the course.
Related literature mentions the uneven development of PCK components, meaning that development in one component of PCK does not guarantee development in the other PCK components (Magnusson et al., 1999). Reportedly, the most easily developed PCK components are knowledge of learners and knowledge of instructional strategies (Park and Oliver, 2008). Furthermore, knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of assessment are the components that improve the least (Hanuscin and Hian, 2009). In our study, for some of the participants (Oya and Berna), all PCK components improved as a result of the course enriched by observing mentors’ PCK using the observation form developed by treating PCK components and CoRe as a lesson planning form. However, for Selin, we could not observe any improvement in her knowledge of curriculum. Similarly, for Zehra, there was no improvement with respect to knowledge of assessment. This may be due to the idiosyncratic nature of PCK. Aydin et al. (2015) also mentioned that the improvement in knowledge of curriculum is specific to each person.
The present study states that observing mentors’ instruction with the observation form based on PCK components was beneficial in terms of improving all components of pre-service teachers’ PCK. The observation forms provided a structured way to observe and allowed the pre-service teachers to observe each component of PCK that needs to be considered for effective instruction. Moreover, these observations were discussed critically during the university sessions in the present study. During these discussion sessions, the pre-service teachers had the opportunity to evaluate different mentors’ PCK critically. Nilsson and van Driel (2010) found that observing and reflecting on mentors’ instruction enabled pre-service teachers to think critically on their own instruction. Moreover, the importance of discussing pre-service teachers’ teaching and learning activities was stated (McDuffie, 2004; van Driel and Berry, 2017). In addition, the use of CoRes was effective in the improvement of all components of pre-service teachers’ PCK. Pre-service teachers stated that CoRe helped them plan their instruction in a more organized way by considering each component of PCK. Moreover, both teaching experience and reflection on teaching contributed to the enhancement of pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies. The present study contributes to the knowledge base of PCK as it provides evidence that pre-service teachers’ observations of their mentors’ PCK based on Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK components and critical evaluations of these observations led to improvement in the pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK. This finding is in line with the related literature (Bradbury and Koballa, 2007; Barnett and Friedrichsen, 2015), which states the need for research to shed light on the effect of mentors in school placements on pre-service teachers’ PCK development.
Implications
The present study has several implications for teacher education programs. This study revealed that a school experience course that is based on the observation form developed by considering PCK components and enriched by the application of CoRe helped improve all PCK components for most of the participants. Findings in the literature reveal that pre-service chemistry teachers have weak PCK (e.g., Loughran et al., 2004; Friedrichsen et al., 2007). However, this study revealed that their PCK can be improved in cases where students are given the necessary support in teacher education programs. For example, in this study, the application of CoRe helped pre-service chemistry teachers to consider each aspect of instruction such as students’ difficulties, misconceptions, curriculum, etc. Therefore, like the previous researchers, we would also suggest the use of CoRes to promote professional development in pre-service teachers.Similarly, the use of observation forms based on PCK components and the discussions of these observations helped students observe in a more structured way and become aware of the essential aspects of good instruction. Therefore, we would recommend that pre-service chemistry teachers should evaluate their mentors’ instruction through the use of observation forms designed considering PCK components. Moreover, discussions of these evaluations in the class helped the pre-service teachers understand which components good instruction should include. Mentioning PCK explicitly in teacher education programs makes pre-service teachers aware of the PCK construct and lets them design their instruction according to the PCK components.
Limitations of the study
The present study has several limitations. First of all, this study was limited to four pre-service chemistry teachers in the chemical equilibrium topic. Further studies could explore improvement in pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK in other topics.Another limitation of the present study was that pre-service teachers taught chemical equilibrium topic for just one class hour. For future studies, pre-service teachers should be given more opportunities to practice their instruction.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendix A
| Lesson planning form | |||
| Chemistry topic/content area: | Grade level: | Curriculum objectives to be addressed: | |
| 1. What concepts/big ideas do you intend students to learn? | |||
| 2. What do you expect students to understand about this concept and be able to do as a result? | |||
| 3. Why is it important for students to learn this concept? (Rationale) | |||
| 4. As a teacher, what should you know about this topic? | |||
| 5. What difficulties do students typically have about each concept/idea? | |||
| 6. What misconceptions do students typically have about each concept/idea? | |||
| 7. Which teaching strategy and what specific activities might be useful for helping students develop an understanding of the concept? | |||
| 8. In what ways would you assess students’ understanding or confusion about this concept? | Formative assessment: | ||
| Summative evaluation: | |||
| 9. What materials/equipment are needed to teach the lesson? | |||
Appendix B
Teacher observation form*
| *Students were required to provide detailed explanations for the questions in the observation form. | |
|---|---|
| Observer: | Date: |
| Teacher observed: | Unit observed: |
| School: | Topic observed: |
| Pedagogical content knowledge dimensions | |
| Knowledge of learners | Does the teacher elicit students’ prior knowledge? |
| Does the teacher remember/mention pre-requisite knowledge for learning the new topic? | |
| Does the teacher realize that students’ may have misconceptions and/or difficulties related to the topic taught? | |
| Knowledge of instructional strategies | Does the teacher use any subject-specific strategy? (i.e. 5E, conceptual change, inquiry) |
| Does the teacher use any topic-specific strategy? (i.e. Analogy, models, simulations, daily-life example, demonstration, discussion, questioning). | |
| Knowledge of curriculum | Does the teacher know goals, objectives, and purposes stated in the curriculum? |
| Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in the same grade? | |
| Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in the previous and next grade? | |
| Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in physics and biology? | |
| Knowledge of assessment | What does the teacher assess? (e.g. Knowledge, application of knowledge taught, nature of understanding of science, science process skills, etc.) |
| How does the teacher assess students’ understanding? (i.e. Quiz, informal questioning, etc.) | |
| When does the teacher assess students’ understanding? (i.e. At the beginning of the lesson, during the lesson, at the end of the lesson) | |
| Subject matter knowledge | Does the teacher know the content s/he is teaching? Please give specific examples. |
| Does the teacher answer the questions that students ask about the content s/he is teaching? Please give examples. | |
| Does the teacher mention the Nature of Science (NOS) during his/her instruction? Please give examples. | |
| Does the teacher mention the history behind the topic taught? Explain how? Please give examples. | |
References
- Appleton K., (2008), Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 19, 523–545.
- Aydin S., Demirdogen B., Tarkin A., Kutucu S., Ekiz B., Akin F. N., … and Uzuntiryaki E., (2013), Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term professional development as learners of science teaching, Sci. Educ., 97(6), 903–935.
- Aydin S., Demirdogen B., Akin F. N., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E. and Tarkin A., (2015), The nature and development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in practicum, Teach. Teach. Educ., 46, 37–50.
- Barendsen E. and Henze I., (2019), Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observation, Res. Sci. Educ., 49(5), 1141–1175.
- Barnett E. and Friedrichsen P. J., (2015), Mentor advice giving in an alternate certification program for secondary science teaching: Opportunities and roadblocks in developing a knowledge base for teaching, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 26, 647–668.
- Berg B. L. and Lune H., (2012), Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 8th edn, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
- Berry A., Depaepe F. and van Driel J., (2016), Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education, in Loughran J. and Hamilton M. L. (ed.), International handbook of teacher education, Singapore, Springer, pp. 347–386.
- Bradbury L. U. and Koballa T. R., (2007), Mentor advice giving in an alternate certification program for secondary science teaching: Opportunities and roadblocks in developing a knowledge base for teaching, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 18, 817–840.
- Brooks V. and Sikes P., (1997), The good mentor guide: Initial teacher education in secondary schools, Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Brown P., Friedrichsen P. and Abell S. K., (2013), The development of prospective secondary biology teachers’ PCK, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 24(1), 133–155.
- Carlson J. and Daehler K. R., (2019), The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education, in Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers' knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 77–92.
- Chiu M. H., Chou C. C. and Liu C. J., (2002), Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39(8), 688–712.
- Cochran K. F., DeRuiter J. A. and King R. A., (1993), Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation, J. Teac. Educ., 44, 263–272.
- de Jong O. and van Driel J. H., (2004), Exploring the development of student teachers’ PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry topics, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 2(4), 477–491.
- de Jong O., Veal W. R. and van Driel J. H., (2002), Exploring chemistry teachers’ knowledge base, in Gilbert J., de Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. and van Driel J. (ed.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 369–390.
- de Jong O., van Driel J. H. and Verloop N., (2005), Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(8), 947–964.
- Evens M., Elen J. and Depaepe F., (2016), Pedagogical content knowledge in the context of foreign and second language teaching: A review of the research literature, Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 26, 187–200.
- Friedrichsen P. M., Lankford D., Brown P., Pareja E., Volkmann M. and Abell S. K., (2007), The PCK of future science teachers in an alternative certification program, Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 15–18, 2007.
- Friedrichsen P. J., Van Driel J. H. and Abell S. K., (2011), Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations, Sci. Educ., 95, 358–376.
- Ganaras K., Dumon A. and Larcher C, (2008), Conceptual integration of chemical equilibrium by prospective physical sciences teachers, Chem. Educ.: Res. Pract., 9, 240–249.
- Gess-Newsome J., (1999), Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction, in Gess-Newsome J. and Lederman N. G. (ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 51–94.
- Gess-Newsome J., (2015), A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, London: Routledge, pp. 28–42.
- Goodnough K. and Hung W., (2009), Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science, Teach. Educ., 20(3), 229–242.
- Grossman P., (1990), The making of a teacher, New York: Teachers College Press.
- Großschedl J., Mahler D., Kleickmann T. and Harms U., (2014), Content-related knowledge of biology teachers from secondary schools: Structure and learning opportunities, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 36(14), 2335–2366.
- Großschedl J., Welter V. and Harms U., (2019), A new instrument for measuring pre-service biology teachers' pedagogical content knowledge: The PCK-IBI, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 56, 402–439.
- Gunckel K. L., Covitt B. A. and Salinas I., (2018), Learning progressions as tools for supporting teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge about water in environmental systems, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 55(9), 1339–1362.
- Hagger H., Burn K. and McIntyre D., (1995), The school mentor handbook: Essential skills and strategies for working with student teachers, London: Kogan Page.
- Halim L. and Meerah S. M. M., (2002), Science trainee teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 20(2), 215–225.
- Hanuscin D. and Hian J., (2009), Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: Insights from mentor-mentee relationship, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
- Hume A. and Berry A., (2011), Constructing CoRes-a strategy for building PCK in pre-service science teacher education, Res. Sci. Educ., 41(3), 341–355.
- Hume A. and Berry A., (2013), Enhancing the practicum experience for pre-service chemistry teachers through collaborative CoRe design with mentor teachers, Res. Sci. Educ., 43(5), 2107–2136.
- Kaya O. N., (2009), The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31 (7), 961–988.
- Loughran J., Mulhall P. and Berry A., (2004), In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice, J. Res. Sci. Teach.. 41, 370–391.
- Loughran J., Mulhall P. and Berry A., (2008), Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1301–1320.
- McDuffie A. R., (2004), Mathematics teaching as a deliberate practice: An investigation of elementary pre-service teachers' reflective thinking during student teaching, J. Math. Teach. Educ., 7(1), 33–61.
- Magnusson S., Krajcik J. and Borko H., (1999), Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching, in Gess-Newsome J. and Lederman N. G. (ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, Boston: Kluwer, pp. 95–132.
- Mavhunga E. and Rollnick M. (2013) Improving PCK of Chemical Equilibrium in Pre-service Teachers, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Sci. Technol. Educ., 17(1–2), 113–125.
- Nilssen V. L., (2010), Guided planning in first-year student teachers' teaching, Scand. J. Educ. Res., 54(5), 431–449.
- Nilsson P., (2008), Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in preservice education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1281–1299.
- Nilsson P. and Karlsson G., (2019), Capturing student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) using CoRes and digital technology, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41 (4), 419–447.
- Nilsson P. and Loughran J., (2012), Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 23(7), 699–721.
- Nilsson P. and Van Driel J., (2010), Teaching together and learning together e Primary science student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint teaching and learning in the primary classroom, Teach. Teach. Educ., 26, 1309–1318.
- Park S. and Oliver J. S., (2008), Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals, Res. Sci. Educ., 38(3), 261–284.
- Patton M. Q., (2002), Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Rollnick M., Bennett J., Rhemtula M., Dharsey N. and Ndlovu T., (2008), The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: a case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1365–1387.
- Shulman L. S., (1986), Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res., 15(2), 4–14.
- Shulman L. S., (1987), Knowledge and training: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev., 57(1), 1–22.
- Somekh B., (2005), Action research: a methodology for change and development: a methodology for change and development, McGraw-Hill Education.
- Williams J., Eames C., Hume A. and Lockley J., (2012), Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 30(3), 327–343.
- van Driel J. H. and Berry A., (2012), Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge, Educ. Res., 41(1), 26–28.
- van Driel J. H. and Berry A., (2017), Developing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, in Clandinin D. J. and Husu J. (ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 561–576.
- van Driel J. H., De Jong O. and Verloop N., (2002), The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, Sci. Educ., 86(4), 572–590.
- Zanting A, Verloop N., Vermunt J. D. and van Driel J. H., (1998), Explicating Practical Knowledge: an extension of mentor teachers’ roles, Eur. J. Teac. Educ., 21(1), 11–28.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021 |