Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring†
Dizem
Can-Kucuk
a,
Sinem
Gencer
b and
Huseyin
Akkus
*c
aRepublic of Turkey Ministry of National Education, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: dizecan@gmail.com
bDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education – Chemistry Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: sinemuner@gazi.edu.tr
cDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education – Chemistry Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: akkus@gazi.edu.tr
First published on 10th March 2022
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) regarding atoms and the periodic table via mentoring. Two pre-service chemistry teachers with different levels of academic achievement participated in the study. The development of the participants’ PCK was investigated in terms of the following components: orientations toward science teaching, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of instructional strategies, knowledge of learners, and knowledge of assessment. The data of this study were collected over four months using multiple data collection tools, including semi-structured interviews, observations, content representations, card-sorting activities, and field notes. The results of this study provided evidence for the relationship between the development of PCK and mentoring. However, as a result of the mentoring, it was determined that the improvements in the PCK components did not occur at the same levels for these participants. One of the participants had an advanced level of improvement in all PCK components through mentoring, while the other participant had varying levels of improvement in PCK components. It was found that the more academically successful participant had more advanced development in all components of PCK as a result of mentoring. For the other participant with lower academic achievement, there was no improvement in some respects of PCK components. According to the results of this study, it can be said that the development of PCK can be fostered through mentoring in pre-service chemistry teacher education. In light of the results of this study, implications are stated for in-service chemistry teacher education, pre-service chemistry teacher education, and chemistry education researchers.
Introduction
Teachers play crucial roles in teaching because they can affect students’ learning, understanding, and success (Lumpe, 2007; Park and Suh, 2015). Therefore, it can be said that effective teaching is a difficult and demanding process that only well-trained teachers can perform properly (Shulman, 2015). Well-trained teachers need to have well-developed subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Van Driel et al., 2002). According to Shulman (1986), PCK, which is a type of knowledge specific to the teaching of the topic area, is knowledge that enables the use of analogies, examples, explanations, presentations, and demonstration methods that represent the concepts in the best way to ensure an understanding of the topic.The teaching profession has a complex nature consisting of many types of knowledge and skills. Previous studies have shown that, due to the complex nature of the teaching profession, pre-service teachers and novice teachers need support and guidance for PCK development during the first few years of their careers (Stansbury and Zimmerman, 2000; Nam et al., 2013). According to Stein (2006), content-based courses are not sufficiently combined with pedagogical courses during the undergraduate education of pre-service teachers, and this causes pre-service teachers to have difficulties in integrating their knowledge. In order to train well-equipped teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills for teaching, educators should support pre-service teachers with learning opportunities that will help them master the aspects of SMK, PK, and PCK in their pre-service careers (Schneider and Plasman, 2011; Hume and Berry, 2013).
Generally, different methods such as classroom practices, observation of field experts, and micro-teaching are used in order to improve pre-service teachers’ PCK levels, which are usually low (De Jong and van Driel, 2001; Loughran et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2007; Henze et al., 2008; Park and Oliver, 2008; Aydin et al., 2014). Another effective method in the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK is mentoring. In particular, the importance of pedagogical mentoring in developing pre-service teachers' teaching practices is widely recognized in science teacher education studies (Stansbury and Zimmerman, 2000; Bradbury, 2010; Feiman-Nemser, 2012; Achinstein and Fogo, 2015). Furthermore, studies focusing on the professional development of pre-service teachers have found that the professional experiences of pre-service teachers in the courses in teacher education programs are directly related to the development of PCK (De Jong et al., 2005; Aydin et al., 2013). According to Ekiz-Kiran et al. (2021), pre-service teachers’ PCK can be developed in cases where they are given the necessary support in teacher education programs. For the reasons mentioned above, in this study, within the scope of a course on special teaching methods in a chemistry teacher education program, the effect of mentoring on the PCK development of two pre-service chemistry teachers on the topic of atoms and periodic table was examined.
Theoretical framework
Shulman (1986) defined PCK as the knowledge necessary for teaching that distinguishes the field educator and the field expert from each other. Shulman's idea of PCK opened a new pathway in educational studies and many researchers working on PCK have used this idea as their framework (Van Driel et al., 1998; Magnusson et al., 1999; Borko, 2004; Schneider and Plasman 2011; Aydin, 2012; Depaepe et al., 2013). Many researchers have conducted studies examining the nature and components of PCK (Grossman, 1990; Carlsen, 1993; Gess-Newsome, 2015). Studies in the literature examining the PCK structure of science teachers or pre-service science teachers have developed different models to understand and analyze PCK and have evaluated different knowledge dimensions (Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Veal and MaKinster, 1999; Appleton, 2008; Lee and Luft, 2008; Henze et al., 2008; Kapyla et al., 2009; Jang, 2011; Brown et al., 2013; Gess-Newsome, 2015).In the model frequently used in science education studies, developed by Magnusson et al. (1999), PCK is defined to have five components [orientations toward science teaching (OST), knowledge of curriculum (KoC), knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS), knowledge of learners (KoL), and knowledge of assessment (KoA)]. In this PCK model, OST has the role of interacting with other PCK components and directing them. OST consists of the knowledge and beliefs of the teacher regarding the aims and objectives of science teaching for a certain grade level. Magnusson et al. (1999) described the following nine orientations related to the targets of science teaching and the general characteristics of teaching: (1) process, (2) academic rigor, (3) didactic, (4) conceptual change, (5) activity-driven, (6) discovery, (7) project-based science, (8) inquiry, and (9) guided inquiry. According to Friedrichsen et al. (2011), science teaching orientations as an inter-related set of beliefs that have three dimensions. These dimensions are beliefs about science teaching and learning, beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching, and beliefs about the nature of science. KoC consists of the goals and objectives determined in the curriculum and information about the special program and materials related to the program. KoIS consists of a teacher's knowledge about science-specific strategies and topic-specific strategies. KoL consists of information about the requirements for learning certain science concepts and the areas where students have difficulty. Finally, KoA consists of two components: the knowledge that teachers have about the assessed points and the knowledge that teachers have about the assessment methods (Magnusson et al., 1999). According to Magnusson et al.'s PCK model, content and pedagogy are integrated and transformed into classroom practice (Lee and Luft, 2008).
A recent model of teachers’ professional knowledge and skills was proposed, the Consensus Model of PCK (Gess-Newsome, 2015). PCK is situated within that model and defined as topic-specific professional knowledge. Moreover, PCK-in-action and PCK-on-action are defined in this new model. It is stated that PCK-on-action is the knowledge of, reasoning behind, and planning for teaching a particular topic. On the other hand, PCK-in-action is defined as the act of teaching a particular topic. After the Consensus Model of PCK, the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK was presented by Carlson and Daehler (2019). The RCM of PCK is centred around the practice of science teaching. This model represents the complex layers of knowledge and experiences that shape and inform teachers’ science practice (Carlson and Daehler, 2019). In the RCM, the realms of PCK are described as enacted PCK (ePCK), personal PCK (pPCK), and collective PCK (cPCK). According to this model, these realms are explained as: a teacher utilises ePCK when engaging in the practice of science teaching, a teacher's pPCK is the cumulative and dynamic PCK and skills of an individual teacher, and cPCK is a specialised knowledge base for science teaching that has been articulated (Carlson and Daehler, 2019). In this study, it was specifically aimed to investigate the effect of mentoring in terms of PCK components. The discrete components of the PCK model proposed by Magnusson et al.'s (1999) provide useful tools for science researchers and a framework for examining the individual PCK components possessed by science teachers (Abell, 2008; Soysal, 2018). Therefore, Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model was used in this study. Moreover, the RCM of PCK had not yet been published when the current study was designed, and the data collected and analyzed. On the other hand, the Consensus Model of PCK (Gess-Newsome, 2015) includes components like the components in Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model. Moreover, multiple data collection tools were used in this study to try and capture both PCK-on-action and PCK-in-action, which are mentioned in the Consensus Model of PCK.
In the present study, Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model was modified in light of the literature. For OST, Friedrichsen et al.'s (2011) two dimensions (beliefs about science teaching and learning and beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching) were examined in this study. Moreover, for KoA, purpose of assessment (Aydin et al., 2014) was added as a sub-dimension. Additionally, for KoC, based on the work of Grossman (1990) and Friedrichsen et al. (2007), vertical and horizontal relations were added as sub-dimensions.
Development of pedagogical content knowledge
The effect of reflection on pre-service teachers’ PCK development is emphasized by many researchers (Park and Oliver, 2008; Van Driel and Berry 2012; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019). When a pre-service teacher is planning, conducting, and reflecting on instruction, the development of PCK is supported by PCK's dynamic nature (Nilsson and Loughran, 2012). In other words, a teacher or pre-service teacher's personal PCK evolves as they make personalized improvements to in-class practices (Kind and Chan, 2019). Developing pre-service teachers’ PCK helps them regulate their teaching and provides opportunities to realize self-organizing reflective practices (Kind, 2009). Intervention tools that can be included in PCK development programs to contribute to the development of the PCK of pre-service teachers need to be specifically addressed (Barut and Wijaya, 2020). Evens et al. (2015) recommended reflection, PCK courses, teaching experience, and communication with experienced teachers as well as the use of content representations (CoRes) as resources that can be widely used to improve pre-service teachers’ PCK.According to Appleton (2008), mentoring practices that include the support of in-class practices are required for professional development within the teaching profession. In traditional mentoring models, the mentor provides emotional and technical support to the mentee, while the mentee is expected to apply methods and techniques in a masterful way. However, although this situation meets immediate needs, it is not sufficient for long-term development (Franke and Dahlgren, 1996; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Wang and Odell, 2002; Norman and Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Bradbury, 2010). On the other hand, in educative mentoring suggested by Feiman-Nemser (1998), the mentors help mentees develop the ability to learn from and in their own practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Educative mentoring in the context of teacher training is defined as a process where experienced teachers support, encourage, and help novice teachers become better (Portner, 2008). It can be said that mentoring assists pre-service teachers to learn how to teach (Nilsson and van Driel, 2010). Moreover, Nilssen (2010) emphasized that practices carried out in cooperation with experienced teachers as a guide made an important contribution to the PCK development of pre-service teachers. Since the educative mentoring is based on an explicit vision of good teaching and an understanding of teacher learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), this approach helps pre-service science teachers improve their PCK (Hanuscin and Hian, 2009; Nilssen, 2010; Nilsson and van Driel, 2010; Aydin et al., 2013; Abed and Abd-El-Khalick 2015; Aydin et al., 2015). In other words, educative mentoring can support pre-service teachers develop more sophisticated PCK (Barnett and Friedrichsen, 2015a). Because of this reason, in the present study, educative mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) was used to develop pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK.
CoRes and Pedagogical and Professional-Experience Repertoires (PaP-eRs) have also been used to describe pre-service and in-service teachers’ PCK and to enrich their PCK development (Loughran et al., 2004; Rollnick et al., 2008; Hume and Berry, 2011; Williams and Lockey 2012; Aydin et al., 2013; Mavhunga and Rollnick, 2013; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019). For example, Hume and Berry (2011) indicated that with appropriate and timely scaffolding the process of CoRe construction has the potential for PCK development among novice teachers. In another study, Nilsson and Loughran (2012) used CoRes to track pre-service teachers’ PCK development, emphasizing that both teaching experience and the use of CoRes are beneficial in improving pre-service teachers’ PCK.
According to Park and Oliver (2008), the integration of PCK components is critical in developing PCK. Moreover, Abell (2008) emphasized that PCK is more than the sum of PCK components. However, while investigating the components of PCK in this study, the interaction of the PCK components was not investigated. According to the related literature, pre-service or novice teachers usually have little or no PCK and do not make all interaction among PCK components (De Jong and van Driel, 2001; De Jong et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2007; Akın and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2018). It can be stated that teaching experience in classrooms might help pre-service teachers develop the integration of PCK components (Karal and Alev, 2016; Akın and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2018). In their study, Aydin et al. (2015) found that pre-service chemistry teachers enriched their PCK components, but the interactions between some of these components were lacking. Moreover, the findings of Karal and Alev (2016) showed that pre-service teachers’ PCK components developed independently of each other and the interaction between the PCK components did not develop without actual classroom teaching. Therefore, considering the context of this study, the duration of mentoring (approximately two months), and the fact that the participants were pre-service chemistry teachers, the interaction between the PCK components could not be included in the study, since it was thought that no interaction could develop between the components based on the studies in the literature.
Literature review
Studies conducted on PCK have two inclusive goals: to determine the PCK levels of teachers or pre-service teachers and to examine their PCK development over time. In many studies conducted in science education, teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ determinations of their current situations regarding PCK have been observed (Aydin et al., 2013; Mavhunga and Rollnick, 2013; Großschedl et al., 2015; Fraser, 2016; Gencer and Akkus, 2021). Some studies state that experienced teachers have advanced levels of PCK while the PCK of novice teachers is limited and undeveloped (Lee et al., 2007; Henze et al., 2008). When the relevant literature was reviewed, studies examining the effects of problem- and project-based learning, reflection, school-based mentoring, and CoRe use on the PCK development of pre-service science teachers were found (De Jong and van Driel, 2004; Hume and Berry, 2011; Garritz, 2013; Adadan and Oner, 2014; Aydeniz and Kirbulut, 2014; Demirdöğen et al., 2016; Boz and Belge-Can, 2020).Researchers have often used CoRes and/or PaP-eRs to improve the PCK of teachers and pre-service teachers (Loughran et al., 2008; Hume and Berry, 2011; Aydin et al., 2013; Lehane and Bertram, 2016). For example, Cebesoy (2017) examined the effect of CoRes on the PCK of five pre-service science teachers with educative mentoring practices and found that using educative mentoring and CoRes was effective in improving their PCK. Lee et al. (2011) concluded in their study with four pre-service chemistry teachers that, as a result of the PCK training given to those pre-service teachers by a mentor, who was a professor, their knowledge of PCK components increased and their classroom practices developed in that direction. Mavhunga and Rollnick (2013) determined that the PCK quality of pre-service chemistry teachers related to the topic of chemical equilibrium improved at the end of their study aimed at developing the PCK of those pre-service chemistry teachers on that topic. Nilsson and Karlsson (2019) monitored PCK development with the use of video recording and CoRes in order to determine the professional practice skills of pre-service science teachers and found that the pre-service teachers structured their teaching practices and associated them with PCK components.
Significance of this study
It is known that the PCK of pre-service teachers is often limited (De Jong and van Driel, 2001; Lee et al., 2007). Therefore, educators training teachers need to help pre-service teachers develop strong PCK because the PCK of pre-service teachers directly affects the quality of their future teaching and the success of their students (Gess-Newsome, 1999). Longitudinal studies investigating the PCK development of teachers and pre-service teachers require more effort and longer duration (Ozcan, 2013; Inaltekin, 2014; Ayoubi et al., 2017). Furthermore, the available literature shows that, despite many studies on PCK, little is still known about the development process of PCK (Henze et al., 2008). Nilsson and Loughran (2012) emphasized that the use of CoRes is beneficial in improving the PCK of pre-service teachers. However, in studies examining PCK development (e.g.Aydin et al., 2015; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021), it is observed that pre-service teachers generally experience direct CoRe intervention and other similar methods without identifying their initial PCK status. On the other hand, mentoring is seen as one of the most important ways to help pre-service teachers learn how to teach and improve their PCK (Zanting et al., 1998; Nilssen, 2010; Nilsson and van Driel, 2010). Identification of the possible factors that are expected to affect the professional careers of pre-service teachers in educative mentoring and professional development courses followed by intervention should be included in teacher training programs. However, one of the important questions that arise in studies on mentoring is who should provide the mentoring. It will be more effective if the mentors are selected from among a group that is knowledgeable about many issues, such as teaching strategies, curriculum, and the needs of pre-service teachers (Aydin et al., 2015).Considering the above, the important points that distinguish this study from the current studies in the literature are as follows: (i) at the beginning of the study, without any intervention, we identify the PCK of two pre-service chemistry teachers studying at the same university, in the same department, and in the same year, but with different levels of academic achievement; (ii) we then apply an mentoring program that includes certain intervention methods (e.g., CoRe, reflection) for these pre-service chemistry teachers and identify their PCK at the end of this application; (iii) we provide the opportunity to examine the effect of mentoring on PCK development by comparing these two pre-service chemistry teachers who have different levels of academic achievement; (iv) we examine the PCK of these pre-service chemistry teachers with the five components of OST, KoIS, KoL, KoC, and KoA from the PCK model of Magnusson et al. (1999); (v) the mentoring in this study is carried out by a professor working in the chemistry teacher training program, a doctoral research assistant who researched the PCK of chemistry teachers for her dissertation, and a chemistry teacher with 12 years of experience in secondary education who was continuing her doctorate in chemistry education; and (vi) we examine the PCK of pre-service chemistry teachers on a chemistry topic (atoms and the periodic table) that has not been researched before.
For the reasons described above, it is thought that this study will fill the gaps mentioned in the literature. The results of this study will help reveal the effect of mentoring on the development of PCK, as it will provide an opportunity to compare the PCK status of pre-service chemistry teachers. In this study, mentoring was provided from different sources (a professor, a research assistant, and an experienced chemistry teacher), which made the mentoring more effective. Moreover, this study contributes to the related literature in terms of examining the PCK of two pre-service chemistry teachers with different levels of academic achievement. Examining the PCK of pre-service chemistry teachers in terms of the components in the model of Magnusson et al. (1999) enables the evaluation of the PCK development of pre-service teachers with a holistic approach. Therefore, it is thought that the results of this study will contribute to chemistry teacher training programs and professional development processes of chemistry teachers. The research question guiding this study is as follows:
• How did pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK on the topic of atoms and the periodic table develop through mentoring?
Methodology
Design of the study
This study is a qualitative case study. Case studies seek answers to questions of why and how and examine one situation or more in detail (Creswell, 1994). Yin (2009) defined the case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 18). According to Merriam (2009), “for it to be a case study, one particular program or one particular classroom of learners (a bounded system) or one particular older learner selected on the basis of typicality, uniqueness, success, and so forth would be the unit of analysis” (p. 41). This study presents the characteristics of the case study: a case (pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK in the topic of atoms and periodic table), multiple data collection tools (card-sorting activity, interview, observation, field note, and reflection paper), a bounded system (during the period of mentoring about PCK in the Special Teaching Methods-II course), holistic nature (studying every component of PCK for each participant), and in-depth examination.Participants
This study was carried out in the chemistry teaching program of the faculty of education of a state university within the scope of the Special Teaching Methods-II course. Ten pre-service teachers were taking this course during the period of study. While determining the participants, attention was paid to the fact that their grade point averages were different. Two third-year female pre-service chemistry teachers, Ela and Gaye, voluntarily participated in this study. Ela and Gaye's grade point averages were 3.69 and 2.58 out of 4.00, respectively. The participants were selected with convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is used when it is not possible for researchers to use other sampling methods due to limitations such as time, money, or labor (Patton, 2002). Before this course, the participants had taken content-based courses such as inorganic chemistry and analytical chemistry and pedagogical courses such as measurement and evaluation, teaching principles and methods, and special teaching methods-I.Ethical considerations
At the beginning of the study, the participants were informed about the content of the study, that participation in the study would be voluntary, and that they could leave the study at any time. Written consent of the participants was obtained before the study began. Both participants participated in the study voluntarily and pseudonyms were used for the participants to keep their identities confidential.Chemistry topic examined in this study
A unit on atoms and the periodic table was selected to examine the PCK of the participants before and after mentoring. Although the topic of atoms and the periodic table constitutes a basis for many other chemistry topics, this topic was selected for the present study since there are limited studies examining the PCK development of pre-service teachers in this regard. The topic of atoms and the periodic table is included in the 9th grade national chemistry curriculum. Chemistry science is addressed before this topic in the chemistry curriculum and afterwards are interactions between chemical species, states of matter, and nature and chemistry. The unit on atoms and the periodic table includes the subtopics of atomic models, atomic structure, and the periodic table. Examples of the goals and objectives specified in the curriculum for this topic are as follows: “Explain Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr atomic models” and “Classify elements according to their places in the periodic table”. Limitations and warnings about atoms and the periodic table are also included in the curriculum. One of the limitations in the curriculum for this topic is as follows: “The process of finding the charges and masses of electrons, protons, and neutrons and the average atomic mass in isotope atoms is not included”. Furthermore, teaching strategies that can be used during the teaching of the goals and objectives in the curriculum are also included. For example, the statement “Information technologies (animation, simulation, video, etc.) are used in the explanation of atomic models” is included as a target for teaching about atoms and the periodic table.Data collection tools
Multiple measurements with different data collection tools are required in order to more easily capture the complex nature of PCK (Park and Suh, 2015). Therefore, the data in this study were collected by way of observation, semi-structured interviews, a card-sorting activity, and CoRe. Data triangulation was provided in this way. The data collection tools used to detect the PCK components and the application stages are shown in Table 1.| Data collection tool | Determined PCK component | Application stage |
|---|---|---|
| Card-sorting activity | OST | Pre-mentoring |
| Post-mentoring | ||
| CoRe | OST | Mentoring stage |
| KoC | Post-mentoring | |
| KoIS | ||
| KoL | ||
| KoA | ||
| Observation and field notes | OST | Throughout the entire study |
| KoC | ||
| KoIS | ||
| KoL | ||
| KoA | ||
| Semi-structured interviews | OST | Throughout the entire study |
| KoC | ||
| KoIS | ||
| KoL | ||
| KoA |
Context of the study
The present study took place in the context of a Special Teaching Methods-II course in chemistry teacher training program. This course is a compulsory chemistry education course in the 6th semester of the four-year teacher education program. Special Teaching Methods-II course is about applying different teaching approaches, methods, and techniques while teaching chemistry. Pre-service chemistry teachers give lectures using different teaching approaches, methods, and techniques for a chemistry topic in the chemistry curriculum within the scope of this course. In addition, this course is the first course in which pre-service chemistry teachers experience the teaching.The data collection process in this study, which lasted four months, comprised three stages. The first stage of the study lasted about two months, and the second and third stages lasted two months. In the first stage, before the mentoring, a card-sorting activity and semi-structured interview were conducted to determine the participants’ perspectives on chemistry teaching and their general PCK status. CoRe was not employed in the first stage of the study as it could have caused the development of PCK by creating awareness. The participants planned lessons on the topic of atoms and the periodic table by following the order of goals and objectives specified in the national curriculum and conducted their pre-mentoring lessons. During these lessons, their lessons were recorded with a video camera and field notes were taken by the researchers. Before mentoring, each participant gave lessons five times to their peers and researchers. Interviews were held with the participants before and after the lessons. No intervention or mentoring was conducted for participants before, during, or after these lessons. In the second stage, during mentoring, the participants were mentored by the researchers. During the mentoring process, general information about PCK and PCK components was given to the participants and explanations were made about how these components could be effectively reflected in the lesson. Examples of effective reflection of PCK components in the lesson were given for different chemistry topics. At the beginning of this stage, a total of 18 hours of mentoring was carried out; 10 hours of mentoring on theoretical information about PCK and PCK components was provided by the professor and doctoral research assistant and eight hours of mentoring was provided by the experienced chemistry teacher on the topic of atoms and the periodic table. 10 hours of mentoring on theoretical information about PCK and PCK components was provided during regular class time for the entire class. Eight hours of mentoring was provided outside of the regular class time, in which only participants attended. During this mentoring process, sections from the pre-mentoring lessons on this topic were watched together with the participants and the points they missed were brought to their attention. Afterwards, CoRe was introduced to the participants. A sample CoRe prepared for a different chemistry topic (chemical reactions) was provided for the participants to examine and another sample CoRe was then prepared together by Ela and Gaye, accompanied by a mentor. In this mentoring process, the participants were mentored about which PCK components they needed to eliminate their deficiencies for in order to develop their lessons on the topic of atoms and the periodic table and how they could establish an effective connection between the PCK components. After mentoring, the participants gave lessons to their peers and the researchers again on the topic of atoms and the periodic table by following the order of goals and objectives specified in the national curriculum. The participants planned and implemented their lectures for different goals and objectives in the curriculum in both pre-mentoring and post-mentoring lessons. The post-mentoring lessons were also recorded with a video camera. The mentoring process continued before, during, and after these lessons. The participants were asked to prepare CoRes before the lessons that they would teach at this stage and then interviews were held about the CoRes that they prepared and individual feedback was given. Before and after the lessons, semi-structured interviews were carried out individually with the participants about what they would do and had done in the lesson. In the final stage, a card-sorting activity and semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to determine the perspectives of the participants on chemistry teaching after mentoring and their general PCK status. The mentoring process of this study was given in Table 2.
| Activity numbers | Activities | Aim of the activity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Giving information about PCK and PCK components to the participants | To raise awareness about PCK in the participants |
| 2 | Giving examples of effective reflection of PCK components in the lesson | To enable the participants to realize the reflection of PCK components in the lesson |
| 3 | Watching participants’ pre-mentoring lessons and discussing in terms of each PCK components together with the participants on the topic of atoms and periodic table | To enable the participants to realize the missing points in terms of PCK components in their pre-mentoring lessons on the topic of atoms and periodic table |
| 4 | Introducing CoRe to the participants and discussing them about CoRe | To enable the participants to prepare CoRes for their post-mentoring lessons on the topic of atoms and periodic table and to reflect on the PCK components and plan how they will be used in the lessonTo detect the development of participants’ PCK via CoRe |
| 5 | Examining the CoRes prepared by the participants on the atoms and periodic table and giving feedback to them | To provide opportunities for participants to recognize and correct their shortcomings before their lessons |
| 6 | Observing the post-mentoring lessons of the participants on the atoms and periodic table | To determine the reflection of the change in the participants' PCK components to the lesson |
| 7 | Giving individual feedback to the participants after each post-mentoring lessons | To enable participants to realize their deficiencies in PCK components |
| 8 | Discussing the mentoring process with the participants | To detect reflections on how the mentoring impacted on the development of participants’ PCK |
Data analysis
The data obtained from the study were analyzed using the deductive method. In this study, the data were first transcribed, and then the observation notes and interview transcriptions were read. Data were coded after an examination conducted in accordance with the five components and sub-components in the PCK model of Magnusson et al. (1999). New codes revealed during the analysis stage were added to the code list. The data were read at length several times, and coding was checked. The codes were then collected within the relevant categories for each participant and labeled with themes according to their common characteristics. For instance, participants’ KoC was categorized under the goals and objectives of the curriculum, limitations and warnings in the curriculum, vertical and horizontal relations, and connections with other disciplines sub-components. For example, participants’ explanations about the connections with the chemistry topics from before and after the unit on atoms and the periodic table and participants’ statements mentioning the curricula at previous and next grade levels were categorized under the vertical and horizontal relations sub-component. Furthermore, the participants were asked to explain the reasons behind the use of these relations and their answers were categorized under this sub-component.At the end of the analysis, the data and the participants’ statements were translated into English from another language. The appropriateness of the translation was examined by a philologist. The findings are described in detail and presented with direct quotations.
To ensure reliability, two researchers coded the data independently. The categories were then compared, and inconsistencies were discussed until a consensus was reached. Moreover, long-term interaction and data triangulation were employed for credibility. Participants were also asked to confirm the comments made by the researchers. The findings are described below in detail and presented with direct quotations.
Results
In this section, the pre-mentoring and post-mentoring PCK statuses of the participants are discussed. Findings on the PCK of Ela and Gaye are presented under headings, supported by direct quotations in terms of PCK components.Results about OSTs
When the findings regarding participants’ OSTs (Table 3) are examined, a change in Ela's orientation with the effect of mentoring is observed. On the other hand, Gaye's orientation was the same before and after mentoring.| Participant | The purposes of chemistry | |
|---|---|---|
| Before mentoring | After mentoring | |
| Ela | Convey to the facts of science to the students | Involve the students into the lesson actively |
| Get prepared for the university entrance exam | Guide students as they construct their knowledge | |
| Gaye | Convey to the facts of science to the students | Convey to the facts of science to the students |
| Get prepared for the university entrance exam | Get prepared for the university entrance exam | |
It was determined that Ela's main aim in teaching chemistry before mentoring was to convey the facts of science to students, and she taught through lecturing and conducted her lessons by reading the presentations that she had prepared. In interviews, she often stated that she had goals such as “to convey information/inform the students”. In lesson observations, it was determined that she assumed the role of knowledge transmitter. She constantly emphasized the university entrance exam in her pre-mentoring classes. She stated in the interviews that her main purpose was to enable students to answer the chemistry questions on the university entrance exam. A quote from the interview conducted with Ela was given below:
Ela: My aim is to convey the development process of atom models to students… Questions come up on this topic during the university entrance exam. I want students to prepare for the exam by answering questions similar to those asked on the university entrance exam. (Interview about 1st teaching practice before mentoring)
In her post-mentoring lessons, instead of giving direct answers to the questions asked by the students, Ela made the students think by asking questions that created cognitive contradictions, making them question by giving examples that created contradictions and enabling them to find the answers. In doing so, she took on the role of a guide, abandoning her former position as the transmitter of knowledge. For example, she conducted one of her post-mentoring lessons using the conceptual change text in the literature on the misconception that the atom is alive. The dialogue that took place in the lesson before Ela gave the conceptual change text to the students was given below:
Ela: You [the students] just told me that atoms are alive. What are the common characteristics of living things?
Students: Living things are born, grow…, move, reproduce, and die…
Student 1: All living things need energy.
Student 2: They perform processes such as respiration and excretion.
Ela: Well, when you consider all the features you have mentioned, do these features exist in the atom?
Student 1: It's as if the atom doesn't have these features… Isn’t the atom alive then?
Ela: But you [the students] just said atoms are alive.
Student 2: But it is as if the atom possesses some of the properties we have listed and does not possess some of them. Then I guess we can’t say it's alive… But it moves… I mixed it up thoroughly.
Student 3: Is the atom non-living thing? I'm confused too.
Ela: Now I will give you [the students] a text, read the text first please. Then let's continue the discussion together… (Observation note about 1st teaching practice after mentoring)
In the interviews held after the mentorship, Ela stated that she aimed to actively involve the students in the lesson while teaching chemistry. For example, it was observed that Ela, in one of her post-mentoring lessons, asked her students to form hypotheses, collect data, conduct experiments, record data, and make inferences. A quote from one of her post-mentoring lessons and a quote from card-sorting activity were given below:
Ela: You [the students] saw Dalton atomic model and Thomson atomic model in our previous lesson… We will now look at a simulation of the Rutherford's alpha-particle scattering experiment. Please don't forget to save the experiment results in the simulation… Based on your prior knowledge and these simulation results, if you were in Rutherford's place, how would your proposed atomic model be? You will then share your proposed atomic model and your reasons with me and your friends… (Observation note about 2nd teaching practice after mentoring)
Ela: My aim while teaching chemistry; it is to ensure that the student is active and participates in the lesson at every stage of the lesson. The student should discover the knowledge himself while learning chemistry. (Card-sorting activity after mentoring)
By contrast, Gaye's orientations remained exactly the same throughout the study. Before and after mentoring, one of her aims of chemistry teaching was to convey the facts of science. It was observed that Gaye was teacher-centered, taught her lessons through lecturing, and assumed the role of knowledge transmitter while giving students questions without waiting for answers. She was worried that students would ask her questions because she felt lacking in her SMK; therefore, she could not reflect a student-centered perspective in her lessons because of her anxiety of not being able to control the class. She explained this as follows:
Gaye: I have a deficiency in my SMK, I’m aware of that. That's why when there are questions that I can’t explain, I skip them. I stop asking questions so that I won’t receive more. I directly explain the topic. (Interview about 1st teaching practice after mentoring)
Gaye's second aim for chemistry teaching was to prepare the students for the university entrance exam. She stated that she tried to teach in a way that would prepare students for the university entrance exam and that she planned accordingly. The following are Gaye's statements regarding this situation:
Gaye: Questions about the atoms and the periodic table are included on the university entrance exam. In order to prepare students for the university entrance exam starting from now on, I also ask the questions that I find from the source books in the class. Furthermore, modern atomic theory is not in the curriculum, but I will talk about it because it will be included on the university entrance exam. (Interview about 1st teaching practice before mentoring)
Researcher: How did you determine the aims of teaching this topic?
Gaye: I looked at the topics in the university entrance exam preparation books. (Interview about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd teaching practice before mentoring)
Gaye: The university entrance exam determines the fate of the student, so as a teacher, I must be exam-oriented. (Card-sorting activity after mentoring)
Results about KoC
Both participants’ KoC improved after mentoring. It was found that both Ela and Gaye had inadequate knowledge of the goals and objectives of the curriculum before mentoring. Moreover, before mentoring, their unawareness of limitations and warnings in the curriculum were determined. Even though it is stated in the curriculum as a limitation that “mathematical operations related to laws are not mentioned in the part on basic laws of chemistry”, Ela and Gaye answered questions with mathematical operations regarding the laws in their pre-mentoring lessons. A quote from the interview conducted with Gaye was given below:Gaye: I reviewed the curriculum. Since the topic of atoms and periodic table is in the 9th grade, I tried to learn how limited I should be by following the curriculum, but I couldn’t see any limitations in the curriculum. (Interview about 1st teaching practice before mentoring)
It was determined that, before mentoring, Ela and Gaye had limited knowledge about vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines on the topic of atoms and periodic table. For example, Ela said that she did not think about making connections with other lessons. Furthermore, it was observed that Ela tried to establish connections with the chemistry topics from before and after the unit on atoms and the periodic table, but she did not make enough connections in the lessons because she did not have comprehensive knowledge on the curriculum. The superficial horizontal and vertical relations that Gaye established on the topic of atoms and the periodic table were as follows:
Gaye: [Before the experiment] You saw the materials we will use here in the previous unit. (Observation note about 1st teaching practice before mentoring)
Gaye: You have seen the element symbols in the previous unit. (Observation note about 3rd teaching practice before mentoring)
Both Ela's and Gaye's KoC improved in terms of goals and objectives of the curriculum and limitations and warnings in the curriculum after mentoring. They stated that they realized how they could benefit from the curriculum besides examining the goals and objectives. They examined the previous and new 10th, 11th, and 12th grade chemistry curricula as well as the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade science curricula. Gaye's explanations about this situation were given below:
Researcher: In the lesson, you said to the students “You know the topic of atoms and periodic table from middle school; you will see it in more detail in the 11th grade in the future”. Can you explain why you made warnings like this to the students?
Gaye: Reminding the students what they know helps them to concentrate on the topic during the lesson. I reviewed the previous curricula. There, such limitations were determined and reminders were made, and I found it appropriate to tell the students… I know that this topic was explained to the students in the previous academic year. (Interview about 3rd teaching practice after mentoring)
In the lessons after the mentoring, Gaye's knowledge about vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines did not change after the mentoring. She established superficial relations, as in her pre-mentoring lessons. By contrast, after mentoring, Ela established more vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines. For example, she linked atomic radius with mathematics and reminded her students how the radius of the circle was determined. The following explanations took place in Ela's post-mentoring lessons:
Ela: You [students] learned frictional electrification in the 7th grade science course, and you will see it next year in the 10th grade physics course. (Observation note about 1st teaching practice after mentoring)
Ela: Actually, you have been aware of the existence of electrons since 7th grade science course. (Observation note about 2nd teaching practice after mentoring)
Results about KoIS
The data revealed that Ela's science-specific and topic-specific strategies improved after mentoring. Ela did not use science-specific strategies in her pre-mentoring lessons. Instead, she used lecturing and question-and-answer methods and she did not involve students in the lesson process. In the interviews conducted before the pre-mentoring lessons, Ela stated that she was planning to use science-specific strategies. However, she could not carry out her lesson as planned, and she continued by lecturing. Before mentoring, similarly to her science-specific strategies, with topic-specific strategies, Ela included the strategies that she thought of using in the lesson plan, but either she never used those strategies, or she used them insufficiently during the lesson. Furthermore, it was seen that her topic-specific strategies were weak and not effective in increasing student learning. She planned the lessons thinking that models, simulations, analogies, cartoons, and role-playing should be used, but she could not use those strategies appropriately during the application process. For example, although there were many pictures and cartoon images on the slides that she prepared for lecture presentations, she did not dwell on them, did not associate them with the lesson, and merely showed the images to the students. She explained her use of topic-specific strategies as follows:Ela: I tried to use different strategies in the lesson. I used cartoons to get attention. I also included animations and analogies in the lesson. I included visuals of the atom models on the slides and drew them myself. However, I am not sure how effective it was. It was as if the students’ minds were confused. (Interview about 2nd teaching practice before mentoring)
After mentoring, Ela effectively used science-specific strategies such as guided inquiry, conceptual change, and argumentation in her lessons. A quote from one of the post-mentoring lessons of Ela was given below:
Ela: Rutherford designs an experiment to examine the validity of Thomson's atomic model. In this experiment, he sends alpha particles onto the gold foil. If you were in Rutherford's place, what result would you get when you did this experiment? Write down your hypotheses by discussing them in groups.
[After the student groups write their hypotheses, the groups make their explanations.]
Student Group 1: In the Thomson's atomic model, since the positive charge spreads over the entire atom, all the positively charged alpha particles sent will be returned.
Student Group 2: Alpha particles are positively charged, and the positive charge is spread throughout the atom. In this case, the positive charge repels the positive charge, and all the particles return.
Student Group 3: Most of the particles return, and a small number of them can deviate if they hit a negative charge.
[Ela shows the students a simulation of the Rutherford's alpha-particle scattering experiment and asks them to record the data.]
Ela: What did you see in the simulation?
Students: Most of the particles passed with almost no deflection, some deflected, and only a few returned in the same direction.
Ela: Well, discuss these observations with your group mates. How do you interpret the data obtained as a result of the experiment? What are the points where it is consistent or inconsistent with the hypotheses you have established? Then, please share with us your decision, reasons, and conclusions as a result of the group discussion.
[After the students discussed the results of the experiment in groups, the groups explained their conclusions.]
Student Group 1: We think that where there are particles passing through without deflection, there is no particle, it is an empty space. Also, some of the particles returned in the same direction, so we guess there's a positive charge in that area.
Student Group 2: We think that there are empty spaces in the structure of the atom, since there are particles that pass without deflection. We thought that the deviated particles passed near the negative charge or the positive charge. There were also a small percentage of those who returned in the same direction, we think that they directly hit the positive charge.
Student Group 3: Since most of the particles pass with almost no deflection, we thought there were empty spaces in the atom. Since a few of them are deviated, they may also be deviated by hitting a negative or positive charge.
Ela: The experiment we just watched is the Rutherford's alpha-particle scattering experiment. I will share Rutherford's conclusions about this experiment with you. Are there any points that coincide or do not coincide with your inferences? Let's interpret and discuss together…
(Observation note about 2nd teaching practice after mentoring)
Moreover, after mentoring, Ela used topic-specific strategies such as simulations, models, daily life examples, and videos in accordance with her purpose, explaining the connection with the lesson while using the strategies and following the steps of those strategies one after the other. Moreover, she explained her reasons for choosing these strategies in more detail after mentoring. A quote from the CoRe prepared by Ela was given below:
Big idea in the CoRe stated by Ela: Students can explain that atoms are not living things, but they are in all living things.
Question in the CoRe: What teaching methods/techniques will you use and what will be the specific reasons for using these methods?
Ela: Since the idea that the atom is alive is a common misconception among students, I aim to eliminate this misconception. For this reason, I will try to eliminate the misconceptions of the students by using the conceptual change text. In this technique, students will become dissatisfied with the idea that the atom is alive, and thus the student will need to change their previous idea. (2nd CoRe after mentoring)
By contrast, no change was observed in Gaye's science-specific strategies as a result of the mentoring process, while a change was observed in her topic-specific strategies. Gaye did not use science-specific strategies in her lessons before and after mentoring; she used lecturing and question-and-answer methods.
Before mentoring, Gaye planned to use problems, models, and simulations as topic-specific strategies in her pre-mentoring lessons and added them to her lesson plans, but she could not use those strategies effectively during the application process. For example, in one of her pre-mentoring presentations, she showed a simulation of Rutherford's alpha-particle scattering experiment, but she did not provide sufficient explanation about it. However, her topic-specific strategy diversity increased after mentoring. Moreover, she explained her reasons for choosing these strategies more detail after mentoring. A quote from the CoRe prepared by Gaye was given below:
Big idea in the CoRe stated by Gaye: Students will be able to relate Dalton's and Thomson's atomic models to what was known at the time these models were valid.
Question in the CoRe: What teaching methods/techniques will you use and what will be the specific reasons for using these methods?
Gaye: Since the topic is abstract, I can facilitate the student's understanding of the topic with analogies and examples from daily life. (2nd CoRe after mentoring)
Results about KoL
In terms of the pre-requisite knowledge required for learners to learn the topic of atoms and periodic table, Ela's and Gaye's knowledge regarding pre-requisite knowledge improved as a result of the mentoring. For example, before mentoring, Gaye emphasized that she could not state any pre-requisite knowledge. Ela thought that students should know electron and proton as the pre-requisite knowledge to learn atomic models. After mentoring, they mentioned pre-requisite knowledge for atoms and periodic table in more detail. An example was given below:Gaye: Before classifying elements, students are required to learn about element's place in the periodic table is related to its electron configuration. (3rd CoRe after mentoring)
Both participants’ knowledge of students’ difficulties and misconceptions improved after mentoring. Before mentoring, they did not have any knowledge about the learners’ difficulties and misconceptions about atoms and the periodic table, and they did not notice difficulties and misconceptions among the students during pre-mentoring lessons or did not make any efforts to correct them if they did notice. For example, in a pre-mentoring lesson of Gaye, a student stated that when coal burned, ash was formed, what entered the reaction and what was formed were not the same in mass. Gaye was not even aware that this student's statement contained a misconception. Her explanations were given below:
Gaye: I didn’t have any knowledge of the misconceptions. I couldn’t understand that what the student said was a misconception. I could not look at the misconceptions in the literature about atoms and the periodic table. (Interview about 1st teaching practice before mentoring)
After mentoring, Ela and Gaye listed possible difficulties and misconceptions based on the related literature and warned their students about these misconceptions. Moreover, they gave more explanations for the reasons of these difficulties and misconceptions. Examples from CoRes prepared by Ela and Gaye were given below:
Ela: Students find it difficult to understand that the attraction force between electron and proton differs according to the orbital of the electron. For this reason, students think that as the number of electrons in the atom increases, the radius of the atom will always increase. (4th CoRe after mentoring)
Gaye: When students encounter the concept of atom for the first time in previous years, they learn this concept by analogy with the concept of cell. Therefore, they may have the misconception that “atoms are like cells with a membrane and a nucleus”. When they first encounter the concept of orbit in the Bohr model of the atom, they may also misunderstand the concept of orbit as “a shell protecting the atom from the outside”. (3rd CoRe after mentoring)
Results about KoA
The participants’ KoA was examined under the dimensions of what to assess, how to assess, and why to assess. In terms of what to assess dimension, Ela and Gaye developed their knowledge after mentoring. Before mentoring, they stated that they would assess students’ understanding of content. Moreover, in their pre-mentoring lessons, they assess student understanding by asking questions that required the exact repetition of the information in their lessons and they did not assess high-level conceptual understanding. However, the points that the participants assess after mentoring were students’ understanding of content, prior knowledge, and students’ misconceptions regarding the topic of atoms and periodic table. A quote from the CoRe prepared by Ela was given below:Ela: At the beginning of the lesson, I will determine the prior knowledge that the students have. In this evaluation I will make, I will ask the students to draw the atom in their minds and discuss their drawings with them. Thus, I will both determine their prior knowledge and understand whether they have misconceptions. (2nd CoRe after mentoring)
With respect to the how to assess dimension, both Ela's and Gaye's KoAs developed after mentoring. For example, before mentoring, they used informal questioning, homework, and looking in students’ eyes while making their assessments. However, after mentoring, they used both traditional and alternative assessment methods such as open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, diagnostic trees, structured grids, word matching, crosswords, peer assessment, and self-assessment while making assessments. Moreover, they gave detailed explanation of the use of these assessment methods. A quote from CoRe prepared by Ela was given below:
Ela: In this lesson, I expect students to explain the Thomson's atomic model and point out the shortcomings of this model. At the end of this lesson, I will use a diagnostic tree to see if they can compare the Thomson's atomic model with past topics, such as Dalton's atomic model and the Ancient Greek idea of atom. (3rd CoRe after mentoring)
In terms of why to assess dimension, Ela and Gaye developed their knowledge after mentoring. Before mentoring, the only approach that they adopted was summative assessment. For example, Ela stated that she saw assessment only as an activity “to grade”, “to be done at the end of the lesson”, or “to see what the student understands”. After mentoring, they made diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments to evaluate the whole class. For example, in her 3rd CoRe after mentoring, Gaye stated use of diagnostic assessment at the beginning of the lesson and formative assessment throughout the lesson and summative assessment using an exam at the end of the topic. Moreover, she emphasized that the exam included different kinds of questions such as concept map, diagnostic tree, true/false questions, and multiple-choice questions. In addition, after mentoring, Ela and Gaye could give specific examples for the questions on the topic of atoms and periodic table and gave more detailed explanation. A quote from the CoRe prepared by Ela was given below:
Ela: For diagnostic assessment, I will ask students for their estimates of how the atomic radius changes in the periodic table and the reason for their estimates. Thus, I will have determined their prior knowledge. Also, if they have misconceptions about atomic radius, I will have detected it. (4th CoRe after mentoring)
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, the effect of mentoring on the PCK development of pre-service chemistry teachers regarding the unit on atoms and the periodic table was examined. Data in the current study provided evidence for the relationship between mentoring and the development of PCK.In terms of OST, it was found that the participants’ main aims in teaching chemistry before mentoring were to convey the facts of science and to get students prepared for the university entrance exam. According to Gess-Newsome (2015), topic-specific professional knowledge turns into personal PCK, which is reflected in classroom practice after passing through the teacher's orientation and context filters. The university entrance exam, as one of the most important features of participants’ specific contexts, seems to have affected their OSTs. In the literature, it is stated that beliefs are robust and resistant to change (Brown et al., 2013; Friedrichsen, 2015). However, in the present study, Ela's OST changed through mentoring. According to Gess-Newsome (2015), learning from the act of teaching is an important aspect of the teaching profession, teachers may change their beliefs by trying new practices and considering what occurs in the classroom. In this study, the participants had the opportunity to try new practices for the topic of atoms and the periodic table, to think about these applications and to receive mentorship about their teaching. It seems that Ela became aware of her own beliefs about chemistry teaching during the mentoring process and could change these beliefs. Moreover, Ela has a higher-grade point average than Gaye. According to Park (2019), the PCK development should be viewed as continual change across a broad span of time. In this study, the mentors and the participants worked collaboratively together, rather than as expert and novice. During the educative mentoring process, the mentors helped the participants to realize their strengths and weaknesses in terms of PCK components and make changes in these components. It can be concluded that the intensive mentoring process in this study may have been sufficient in terms of the change in OST. Considering the effect of SMK and the intensive mentoring process, the idiosyncratic nature of PCK and the malleability of beliefs, even if it is difficult, it seems that there might be a change in OST. While Ela's OST changed after mentoring, Gaye's OST did not show any change. This seems to be due to the idiosyncratic nature of PCK. PCK, a type of knowledge specific to teachers, has a unique nature due to the synthesis of PK and SMK (Cochran et al., 1991) and for being specific to the topic, context, and person (Cooper et al., 2015). It is likely that Gaye's OST did not change because of her SMK inadequacy. This situation was described by Gaye as “the panic caused by not having a good control over the topic”. In similar studies, it was stated that SMK affects the development of PCK and that this is the individual nature of PCK (Van Driel et al., 2002; Park and Chen, 2012; Aydin et al., 2013).
With respect to the participants’ KoC, their knowledge showed improvement after mentoring, in keeping with the related literature (Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021). Although Ela and Gaye were not aware of the goals and objectives of the curriculum and limitations and warnings in the curriculum at the beginning, they realized how they could benefit from the curriculum after mentoring. It is thought that the situation at the beginning was due to their inexperience in the use of the curriculum. Similarly, in many studies, it was seen that teachers do not have enough knowledge about their teaching programs (Weiss, 1987). After mentoring, Ela's knowledge about vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines improved. However, Gaye's knowledge about vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines did not change after the mentoring. It seems that as a result of Gaye's lower academic achievement, her KoC in terms of vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines did not change. According to Ekiz-Kiran et al. (2021), SMK influences the development of PCK in the context of KoC.
In terms of KoIS, Ela's knowledge of science-specific strategies enhanced although Gaye's knowledge did not change in this respect after mentoring. Mentoring in this study was carried out in the topic of atom and periodic table. Since topic-oriented mentoring was carried out, the development of knowledge of science-specific strategies was not an expected situation. However, Ela's knowledge of science-specific strategies improved. In the Consensus Model of PCK (Gess-Newsome, 2015), knowledge of instructional strategies is proposed as topic-specific professional knowledge and includes determining effective instructional strategies. The data for Ela's knowledge of instructional strategies in this study supports that aspect of the Consensus Model of PCK. In addition, considering that Ela's OST changed as a result of mentoring, it is thought that this situation is also reflected in the development of knowledge of science-specific strategies. Because the OST directly influences a teacher's decisions about teaching and learning, such as instructional strategies (Borko and Putnam, 1996; Magnusson et al., 1999; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Demirdöğen, 2016). Park and Oliver (2008) stated that KoIS is one of the most easily developed PCK components. However, Gaye's KoIS had not improved in all respects. Carlsen (1993) stated that teachers mostly use lecturing when explaining topics for which their own SMK is lacking. It can be said that due to Gaye's lack of SMK, she conducted her lessons with lecturing. This inference coincides with the conclusion of the study conducted by Smith and Neale (1989) that teachers’ SMK is effective in determining the teaching strategies that they will use in teaching their lessons. After mentoring, both participants’ KoIS enhanced in terms of knowledge of topic-specific strategies. Moreover, they explained their reasons for choosing these strategies in more detail after mentoring. For instance, Gaye stated that she used analogies to facilitate students' understanding, since the topic of atomic models is an abstract topic. Similarly, Barnett and Friedrichsen (2015b) found that educative mentoring can help pre-service science teachers develop knowledge of topic-specific strategies.
In terms of KoL, both Ela's and Gaye's knowledge regarding pre-requisite knowledge required to learn atoms and periodic table and knowledge about difficulties and misconceptions with respect to this topic had improved after mentoring. Moreover, after mentoring, the participants could explain the reasons for difficulties and misconceptions in detail. The findings about KoL of this study are in keeping with the related literature (Brown et al., 2013; Canbazoğlu-Bilici and Yamak, 2014; Inaltekin, 2014; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021). According to Park and Oliver (2008), KoL is one of the most easily developed PCK components.
Findings in the literature revealed that KoA needs more time to develop rather than the other PCK components (e.g.Henze et al., 2008; Hanuscin et al., 2011). Moreover, Hanuscin and Hian (2009) stated that KoA is one of the PCK components that improve the least. However, in this study, with respect to the participants’ KoA, their knowledge showed improvement after mentoring. In this study, the participants had the chance to do teaching practices repeatedly. During the mentoring process, the KoA was clearly discussed with the participants with explicit examples of the purpose of the assessment, the points assessed, and the assessment methos. According to Aydin-Gunbatar and Akin (2022), teaching experience may have the potential to improve pre-service teachers’ KoA by giving a chance to them to integrate assessment into their planning and teaching. It can be said that the KoA of the participants in this study developed through mentoring and teaching practices. This finding is similar to the results of studies conducted by Barnett and Friedrichsen (2015a), Ekiz-Kiran et al. (2021), and Yılmaz (2019). Before mentoring, they only aimed to assess the students’ understanding of content; they did not perform diagnostic and formative assessments in line with specific plans. Instead, they only made summative assessments. The pre-mentorship KoA status of the participants was consistent with their OSTs. Ela and Gaye, who had didactic and exam-focused OSTs, did not use different measurement tools or assessment methods in their pre-mentoring lessons. According to Kaya (2009), pre-service teachers are more inclined toward traditional assessment methods due to the exam-oriented approach that they have gained in their own learning experiences. After mentoring, Ela and Gaye performed assessments of prior knowledge, students’ understanding of content, scientific process skills, and students’ misconceptions regarding the topic of atoms periodic table and by using informal questioning, observations of students’ performances, concept maps, and exams; they used many alternative assessment methods while making diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments. Moreover, they could give specific examples for the questions on the topic of atoms and periodic table and gave detailed explanation of the use of these assessment methods.
This study provides evidence that mentoring led to improvement in the pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK on the topic of atoms and periodic table. It was found that except for OST, all knowledge components (KoC, KoL, KoIS, and KoA) improved for the participants after mentoring. However, for Gaye, we could not observe any improvement in some respects of KoC and KoIS. There was no improvement with respect to her knowledge about vertical and horizontal relations and connections with other disciplines, and her knowledge of science-specific strategies. This finding is similar to the results of study conducted by Ekiz-Kiran et al. (2021). This seems to be due to the idiosyncratic nature of PCK. Similarly, Aydin et al. (2015) stated that the improvement in KoC is person-specific.
The results of the studies (e.g.Loughran et al., 2004; Friedrichsen et al., 2007) in the literature show that pre-service chemistry teachers have not sophisticated PCK. However, the present study revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK can be developed in cases when the necessary support is provided to them. The support in this study was provided through mentoring. The findings showed that there was an improvement even in PCK components that were very difficult to change.
Implications and limitations
This study has several implications for future research and science teacher education. It has been revealed that the mentoring application used here, which was developed considering the PCK components and supported by the CoRe application, helped these pre-service chemistry teachers develop their PCK components. Considering the effect of the pre-service teachers’ SMK on PCK, the teaching practices in teacher training programs of universities should be reviewed in an integrated way with SMK, PK, and teaching experience courses. There are undoubtedly many difficulties and barriers in arranging programs in this way. However, it is thought that making this arrangement as much as possible, especially in the field education courses, may make great contributions to improving the PCK of pre-service teachers. Furthermore, a program can be prepared in which mentoring will be applied for pre-service teachers in small groups, as mentoring that includes all students will be very intensive and difficult, with different topics and expected achievements in special teaching methods and school experience courses. In such a program, it is recommended to introduce the definition of PCK to pre-service teachers and examine their PCK statuses together before an intervention, and then to provide information on the instructional strategies unique to the science and topic, how to benefit from the curriculum for that specific topic, the learner's prerequisite knowledge regarding the topic, the misconceptions in the literature and how to correct them, assessment methods that can be used for that topic, and the effective usage of different assessment methods as well as planning for lessons, preparing a CoRe and reviewing it with the mentor each week, and making assessments after lessons. As a result of such a mentoring program prepared with consideration of the difficulties experienced by pre-service teachers in putting their SMK into practice and their deficiencies in terms of PCK, pre-service chemistry teachers should be provided with the opportunity to overcome these deficiencies and improve themselves.In this study, it was observed that the use of CoRe was effective on pre-service chemistry teachers’ discovery and development of PCK components. The use of CoRe affected their teaching objectives and increased their awareness. It is recommended that pre-service teachers prepare lesson plans with CoRes in addition to classical lesson plans, as that will increase their awareness and support their PCK development. Furthermore, this study was carried out on atoms and the periodic table with two pre-service chemistry teachers with different levels of academic achievement in the third year of the chemistry teacher training program. It is recommended to conduct studies on different chemistry topics with different qualified pre-service chemistry teachers and in-service teachers. In this study, the same topic and expected goals and objectives were examined before and after mentoring and PCK development was examined. In future studies, before and after mentoring, different chemistry topics can be discussed and development can be examined by determining the PCK. Moreover, the qualities of factors that support and hinder this development can be examined. Thus, it can be revealed whether there is any difference due to disciplines. Further research is recommended to explore why PCK components do not change or improve after mentoring.
Despite the strong points, this study has several limitations. One of the limitations of the present study was the lack of examination of the interaction between the PCK components. However, in the light of the related literature (e.g., De Jong and van Driel, 2001; Karal and Alev, 2016; Akın and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2018), it can be said this limitation was due to the nature of this study (e.g., the participants, the context, and the duration of mentoring). Considering the role of interactions in the development of PCK, it is recommended to investigate the effect of mentoring on the development of interactions between the PCK components in future studies. Another limitation was that this study was limited to two pre-service chemistry teachers in the atoms and periodic table topic. Chemistry education researchers, in future studies, may employ studies to examine the PCK improvement of a larger group of pre-service chemistry teachers via mentoring in other chemistry topics.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.References
- Abed O. H. and Abd-El-Khalick F., (2015), Jordanian preservice primary teachers' perceptions of mentoring in science teaching, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37(4), 703–726.
- Abell S. K., (2008), Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1405–1416.
- Achinstein B. and Fogo B., (2015), Mentoring novices' teaching of historical reasoning: opportunities for pedagogical content knowledge development through mentor-facilitated practice, Teach. Teach. Educ., 5, 45–58.
- Adadan E. and Oner D., (2014), Exploring the progression in preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge representations: The case of “behavior of gases”, Res. Sci. Educ., 44, 829–858.
- Akın F. N. and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E., (2018), The nature of the interplay among components of pedagogical content knowledge in reaction rate and chemical equilibrium topics of novice and experienced chemistry teachers, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(1), 80–105.
- Appleton K., (2008), Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 19, 523–545.
- Aydeniz M. and Kirbulut Z. D., (2014), Exploring challenges of assessing pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), Asia-Pacific J. Teach. Educ., 42(2), 147–166.
- Aydin S., (2012), Examination of chemistry teachers’ topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge in electrochemistry and radioactivity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
- 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.
- Aydin S., Demirdöğen B., Tarkın A., Kutucu S., Ekiz B., Akın F. N., Tuysuz M. 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., Friedrichsen P. M., Boz Y. and Hanuscin D. L. (2014), Examination of the topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge in teaching electrochemical cells and nuclear reactions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(4), 658–674.
- Aydin-Gunbatar S. and Akin F. N., (2022), Pre-service chemistry teachers’ use of pedagogical transformation competence to develop topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for planning to teach acid-base equilibrium, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(1), 137–158.
- Ayoubi Z., El Takach S. and Rawas M., (2017), Improving the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) among cycle 3 in-service chemistry teachers attending the training program at the faculty of education, Lebanese University, J. Educ. Sci., Environ. Health, 3(2), 196–212.
- Barnett E. and Friedrichsen P. J., (2015a), Educative mentoring: How a mentor supported a preservice biology teacher's pedagogical content knowledge development, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 26(7), 647–668.
- Barnett E. and Friedrichsen P. J., (2015b), 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.
- Barut M. E. O. and Wijaya A., (2020), Facilitating pedagogical content knowledge development through professional development intervention, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1581, 1–8.
- Borko H., (2004), Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain, Educ. Res., 33(8), 3–15.
- Borko H. and Putnam R. T., (1996), Learning to teach, in Berliner D. C. and Calfee R. C. (ed.), Handbook of educational psychology, New York: Macmillan, pp. 673–708.
- Boz Y. and Belge-Can H., (2020), Do pre-service chemistry teachers’ collective pedagogical content knowledge regarding solubility concepts enhance after participating in a microteaching lesson study?, Sci. Educ. Int., 31(1), 29–40.
- Bradbury L. U., (2010), Educative mentoring: promoting reform-based science teaching through mentoring relationships, Sci. Educ., 94, 1049–1071.
- 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.
- Canbazoğlu-Bilici S. and Yamak H., (2014), Teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi temelli bir araştırmada öğretmen adaylarının mikroöğretim hakkındaki görüşleri [Pre-Service teachers’ opinions about microteaching in a tpack-based research], Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 40–61.
- Carlsen W. S., (1993), Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 30(5), 471–481.
- Carlson J. and Daehler K. R., (2019), The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education, in Hume A., Cooper R., and Borowski A. (ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 77–92.
- Cebesoy Ü. B., (2017), The role of mentoring in developing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
- Cochran K. F., King R. A. and Deruiter 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.
- Cooper R., Loughran J. and Berry A. (2015), Science teachers’ PCK: Understanding sophisticated practice, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 60–74.
- Creswell J. W., (1994), Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- De Jong O. and van Driel J., (2001), The development of prospective teachers’ concerns about teaching chemistry topics at a macro-micro-symbolic interface, in Behrednt H., Dahncke H., Duit R., Graber W., Komorek M., Kross A. and Reiska P. (ed.), Research in science education: Past, present and future, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, pp. 271–276.
- 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., 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.
- 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.
- Demirdöğen B., (2016), Interaction between science teaching orientation and pedagogical content knowledge components, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 27(5), 495–532.
- Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin D., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E. And Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Res. Sci. Educ., 46, 575–612.
- Depaepe F., Verschaffel L. and Kelchtermans G., (2013), Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research, Teach. Teach. Educ., 34, 12–25.
- Ekiz-Kiran B., Boz Y. and Oztay E. S., (2021), Development of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through a PCK-based school experience course, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 22(2), 415–430.
- Evens M., Elen J. and Depaepe F., (2015), Developing pedagogical content knowledge: Lessons learned from intervention studies, Educ. Res. Int., 1–23.
- Feiman-Nemser S., (1998), Teachers as teacher educators, European J. Teach. Educ., 21, 63–74.
- Feiman-Nemser S., (2001), Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher, J. Teach. Educ., 52, 17–30.
- Feiman-Nemser S., (2012), Teachers as learners, Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
- Franke A. and Dahlgren L. O., (1996), Conceptions of mentoring: An empirical study of mentoring during the school based teacher education, Teach. Educ., 12, 627–641.
- Fraser S. P., (2016), Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Exploring its usefulness for science lecturers in higher education, Res. Sci. Educ., 46(1), 141–161.
- Friedrichsen P. J., (2002), A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
- Friedrichsen P., (2015), My PCK research trajectory: A purple book prompts new questions, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, New York: Routledge. pp. 147–161.
- Friedrichsen P. M. and Dana T. M., (2003), Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 14(4), 291–309.
- Friedrichsen P., Lankford D., Brown P., Pareja E., Volkmann M., and Abell S., (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.
- 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.
- Garritz A., (2013), PCK for dummies, Educ. Quím., 24(2), 462–465.
- Gencer S. and Akkus H., (2021), The topic-specific nature of experienced chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the topics of interactions between chemical species and states of matter, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(2), 498–512.
- 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, New York: Routledge. pp. 28–42.
- Grossman P. L., (1990), The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education, New York: Teachers College.
- Großschedl J., Harms U., Kleickmann, T. and Glowinski, I., (2015), Preservice biology teachers’ professional knowledge: Structure and learning opportunities, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 26(3), 291–318.
- 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.
- Hanuscin D. L., Lee M. H. and Akerson V. L., (2011), Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science, Sci. Educ., 95(1), 145–167.
- Henze I., van Driel J. H. and Verloop N., (2008), Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1321–1342.
- 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.
- Inaltekin T., (2014), Problem tabanlı öğrenme uygulamalarının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgilerinin gelişimine etkisi [The impact of problem based learning (pbl) practices on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development of preservice science teachers], (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Istanbul: Marmara University.
- Jang S. J., (2011), Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher's pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument, Higher Educ., 61(6), 663–678.
- Kapyla M., Heikkinen J. P. and Asunta T., (2009), Influence of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge: The case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31(10), 1395–1415.
- Karal I. S. and Alev N., (2016), Development of pre-service physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) throughout their initial training, Teach. Development, 20(2), 162–180.
- Kaya O. N., (2009), The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31(7), 961–988.
- Kind V., (2009), Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress, Stud. Sci. Educ., 45(2), 169–204.
- Kind V. and Chan K. K., (2019), Resolving the amalgam: connecting pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41(7), 964–978.
- Lee E., Brown M., Luft J. A. and Roehrig G., (2007), Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results, School Sci. Math., 107(2), 418–426.
- Lee E. and Luft J. A., (2008), Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1343–1363.
- Lee S-Y., Min H-J., Won J-A. and Paik S-H., (2011), The change in pre-service chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring, J. Korean Association Sci. Educ., 31(4), 621–640.
- Lehane L. and Bertram A., (2016), Getting to the CoRe of it: A review of a specific PCK conceptual lens in science educational research, Educ. Quím., 27(1), 52–58.
- 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.
- Lumpe A. T., (2007), Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 18(1), 125–128.
- 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, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 95–132.
- Mavhunga E. and Rollnick M., (2013), Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers, African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 17(1–2), 113–125.
- Merriam S., (2009), Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Nam J., Seung E. and Go M., (2013), The Effect of a collaborative mentoring program on beginning science teachers' inquiry-based teaching practice, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 35(5), 815–836.
- Nilssen V. L., (2010), Guided planning in first-year student teachers’ teaching, Scand. J. Educ. Res., 54(5), 431–449.
- 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 - Primary science student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint teaching and learning in the primary classroom, Teach. Teach. Educ., 26, 1309–1318.
- Norman P. J. and Feiman-Nemser S., (2005), Mind activity in teaching and mentoring, Teach. Teach. Educ., 21, 679–697.
- Ozcan H., (2013), Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen içeriği ile ilişkilendirilmiş bilimin doğası konusundaki pedagojik alan bilgilerinin gelişimi [Development of pre-service science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science embedded into science content], (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ankara: Gazi University.
- Park S., (2019), Reconciliation between the refined consensus model of PCK and extant PCK models for advancing PCK research in science, in A. Hume, R. Cooper and A. Borowski (ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 117–128.
- Park S. and Chen Y. C., (2012), Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49, 922–941.
- 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.
- Park S. and Suh J. K., (2015), From portraying toward assessing PCK: Drivers, dilemmas, and directions for future research, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 104–119.
- Patton M. Q., (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Portner H., (2008), Mentoring new teachers, 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.
- Schneider R. M. and Plasman K., (2011), Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development, Rev. Educ. Res., 81(4), 530–565.
- Shulman L. S., (1986), Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res., 15(2), 4–14, retrieved from http://www.fisica.uniud.it/URDF/masterDidSciUD/materiali/pdf/Shulman_1986.pdf.
- Shulman S., (2015), PCK: Its genesis and exodus, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 3–13.
- Smith D. C. and Neale D. C., (1989), The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching, Teach. Teach. Educ., 5(1), 1–20.
- Soysal Y., (2018), An exploration of the interactions among the components of an experienced elementary science teacher's pedagogical content knowledge, Educ. Stud., 44(1), 1–25.
- Stansbury, K. and Zimmerman, J., (2000), Lifelines to the classroom: Designing support for beginning teachers [knowledge brief], San Francisco: WestEd.
- Stein M., (2006), Elementary teachers’ acquisition of science knowledge: Case-studies and implications for teaching preparation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), New York: University of Rochester.
- 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., De Jong O. and Verloop N., (2002), The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, Sci. Educ., 86(4), 572–590.
- Van Driel J. H., Verloop N. and De Vos W., (1998), Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 673–695.
- Veal W. R. and MaKinster J. G., (1999), Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies, Electron. J. Sci. Educ., 3(4), available at https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7615.
- Wang J. and Odell S. J., (2002), Mentored learning to teach according to standards based reform: A critical review, Rev. Educ. Res., 72, 481–546.
- Weiss I. R., (1987), Report of the 1985–86 national survey of science and mathematics education, Paper prepared for National Science Foundation, Research Triangle Inst., Durham, NC.
- Williams J. and Lockey J., (2012), Using CoRes to develop the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of early career science and technology teachers, J. Technol. Educ., 24(1), 34–53.
- Yılmaz, P., (2019), Kimya öğretmen adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgilerinin geliştirilmesi ve sürecin değerlendirilmesi [Developing and evaluating pre-service chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge] (Unpublished master's thesis), Trabzon: Trabzon University.
- Yin R. K., (2009), Case study research: Design and methods, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Zanting A, Verloop N., Vermunt J. D. and van Driel J. H., (1998), Explicating practical knowledge: An extension of mentor teachers’ roles, Eur. J. Teach. Educ., 21(1), 11–28.
Footnote |
| † This study has been developed from the doctoral thesis conducted by the first author under the supervision of last author. |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2022 |