View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D2RP00159D (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2023, 24, 624-636

Revealing the development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in teaching chemical equilibrium

Elif Selcan Oztay *a, Betul Ekiz-Kiran b and Yezdan Boz c
aVan Yuzuncu Yil Unıversity, College of Education, Dept. of Elementary Edu., Van, Turkey. E-mail: selcan.kutucu@gmail.com
bTokat Gaziosmanpasa University, College of Education, Dept. of Maths. & Sci. Edu., Tokat, Turkey
cMiddle East Technical University, College of Education, Dept. of Maths. & Sci. Edu., Ankara, Turkey

Received 3rd June 2022 , Accepted 31st December 2022

First published on 9th January 2023

Abstract

This study aimed to capture the development of interaction among the components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK throughout the school experience course. Data were collected from four pre-service teachers using content representation (CoRe), observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews. Secondary analysis was conducted by re-analyzing the pre-existing data for the previous study (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. Pract., 22(2), 415–430.) from a different perspective to find out the interaction among the components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK. In order to analyze data, we used three approaches: an in-depth analysis of explicit PCK, an enumerative approach, and the constant comparative method. Results were presented as PCK maps, and results indicated that the development of the integration of the PCK components was idiosyncratic. Moreover, the most significant development was seen in the connections between knowledge of curriculum and other components, especially knowledge of assessment. Additionally, knowledge of instructional strategy (KoIS) was the most frequently integrated component with the other PCK components. Implications for research and science teacher education are included.

Introduction

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was presented by Shulman (1987) as a component of the knowledge base for teaching that is unique for teachers. Since then, research has focused on developing teachers’ PCK and scholars have identified many ways to develop it [e.g., Aydin et al. (2013) with mentoring and Nilsson and Loughran (2012) with teaching practice]. Abell (2008) suggested that to evaluate and develop teachers’ PCK, it is crucial to identify the relationship among the components of their PCK. A number of empirical studies (e.g., Park and Chen, 2012; Aydin and Boz, 2013; Chan and Hume, 2019) revealed that interactions among PCK components are a requirement for a well-developed and complicated PCK. Besides a well-developed PCK, how components of teachers’ PCK are integrated into each other is highly related to their teaching effectiveness (Park and Oliver, 2008a; Chan and Hume, 2019). Park and Chen (2012) suggested that to provide quality teaching, “it is necessary to investigate how all components interact with one another and how they are integrated into PCK that enables a teacher to transform content knowledge into instructional events from a more holistic perspective” (p. 923).

Despite the fact that PCK interaction has been extensively studied in the literature, in the current study, we aim to capture interactions among pre-service chemistry teachers' PCK components using the recently proposed Refined Consensus Model (Carlson and Daehler, 2019) considering their enacted PCK. In this manner, we are able to gain a comprehensive understanding of how pre-service teachers engage with PCK during their teaching practice in a teacher preparation program guided by the most recent PCK model. Moreover, by examining interaction among pre-service teachers’ PCK components, we aim to provide implications for teacher education programs. To illustrate, we would understand which part of the school experience course was helpful or not helpful to enhance the interaction. We would also decide which PCK components we need to improve by examining the least interacted components. For this aim we used their content representations (CoRes) which are used as lesson plans, teaching experience, and interviews conducted before and after their teaching experience. The research question that directed this study was:

How are pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK components integrated before and after a school experience course?

Theoretical background

Conceptualization of PCK

The concept of PCK was suggested by Shulman in 1986 as a sub-category of content knowledge and revised in 1987 as a special blend of content and pedagogical knowledge. Since then, PCK has been studied by many researchers resulting in different PCK models (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park and Oliver, 2008a, 2008b; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Carlson and Daehler, 2019). For instance, science educators are highly interested in Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model in which PCK is composed of five components: knowledge of learner (KoL), knowledge of curriculum (KoC), knowledge of instructional strategy (KoIS), knowledge of assessment (KoA) and science teaching orientations (STO) Detailed information about the components and sub-components of Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model can be seen in Table 1. Among five components, STO is portrayed as the overarching component which influences and is influenced by the other components.
Table 1 PCK framework used in this study
PCK components Sub-components Examples of responses
Science Teaching Orientation (STO) Beliefs about the purpose of science teaching Chemistry is part of our lives, actually I teach chemistry to help students find answers to daily life questions
Beliefs about science teaching and learning
Knowledge of Curriculum (KoC) Knowledge of goals and objectives Understanding the equilibrium concept is necessary to understand the next subject that is Solubility Equilibrium.
Link with other topics
Link with other disciplines
Knowledge of Learners (KoL) Misconceptions Students may have the difficulty to understand chemical equilibrium as a dynamic process.
Learning difficulties
Prerequisite knowledge
Knowledge of Instructional Strategies (KoIS) Knowledge of subject-specific strategies
Knowledge of topic-specific strategies
Representations (e.g., Illustrations, examples, models, or analogies) I used 5E learning cycle model.
Activities (e.g., Problems, demonstrations, simulations, investigations, or experiments) I used daily life examples, e.g., decay of tooth.
Knowledge of Assessment (KoA) Knowledge of dimensions of science learning to assess (what to assess) e.g., conceptual understanding, interdisciplinary themes, nature of science, scientific investigation, and practical reasoning I asked questions during instruction in order to assess students’ misconceptions and learning difficulties.
Knowledge of methods of assessment (how to assess)

Park and Oliver (2008b) noted that “individuals within any group of educational stakeholders, researchers, teacher educators, teachers or others, are likely to interpret the nature of PCK differently, thus engendering a variety of meanings” (p. 262). Therefore, they proposed a pentagon (2008a) and hexagon model (2008b) to clarify the idiosyncratic nature of the PCK concept. These models of PCK were different from Magnusson et al.'s linear model in terms of showing the interactions among PCK components. The Pentagon Model (2008a) placed five components at the ends of a pentagon relating them through reflection. In the hexagon model (2008b), teacher efficacy was added to the model in addition to the five components. Reflection is given special importance in these models that continuous rearrangement of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action needs to be satisfied for the integration of PCK components (Park and Oliver, 2008b).

In 2012, PCK researchers came together in the first PCK Summit to discuss the differences in how PCK is interpreted and understood in various PCK models (Carlson et al., 2015). As a result, a new model of teacher professional knowledge and skills, including PCK, was created and named the Consensus Model (CM) (Gess-Newsome, 2015). In 2016, at the second PCK Summit, the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK was developed from the CM. Three fields of PCK, collective PCK (cPCK), personal PCK (pPCK), and enacted PCK (ePCK), were the key features of the RCM of PCK. While cPCK was “the specialised professional knowledge held by multiple educators in a field”, pPCK stands for “the personalised professional knowledge held by an individual teacher in science” (Carlson and Daehler, 2019, p. 82). ePCK is the “subset of knowledge that a teacher draws on to engage in pedagogical reasoning during the planning of, teaching of, and reflecting on a lesson” (p. 82). Depending on the definition of ePCK, Alonzo et al. (2019) suggested that ePCK existed in planning (ePCKp), teaching (ePCKt), and reflecting (ePCKr). In this study, pre-service teachers’ ePCK in school experience course was observed and analyzed to examine the integration of PCK components proposed by Magnusson et al. (1999)'s PCK model.

Review of literature

Research on the integration among the PCK components

Interactions among PCK components were first emphasized by Grossman (1990), claiming that PCK “components are less distinct in fact than in theory” (p. 9). Since then, these interactions have attracted colleagues’ attention as they are critical to the effectiveness of teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999; Park and Oliver, 2008a). In an empirical study, Henze et al. (2008) investigated the development of nine science teachers’ PCK teaching ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ topic in a new syllabus. They focused on the interaction among four components: knowledge about goals and objectives of the topic, knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS), knowledge of learner (KoL) and knowledge of assessment (KoA). As a result of the study, they identified two types of PCK, Type-A and Type-B and all participants developed their PCK. However, developments differed qualitatively considering the interactions among PCK components. In Type-A, teachers' KoIS grew in line with their knowledge of curriculum goals and objectives and interacted with their KoL. In addition, the development of teachers' KoL was linked to their KoA and KoA was found to interact with KoIS. In Type-B, the teachers' KoIS grew in parallel with their KoL and knowledge of curriculum goals and objectives. Furthermore, teachers' KoA improved in line with their KoL and KoIS.

Constructing PCK maps to identify the interactions among PCK components is widely used in the literature. Researchers used PCK maps to visualize and quantify the interactions among PCK components. One of the pioneer studies was conducted by Park and Chen (2012) in which they investigated the nature of interactions between components of teachers’ PCK in photosynthesis and heredity. They defined the PCK map approach as gateway into investigating PCK-related research problems that have remained unanswered due to a lack of suitable approach. They collected data mainly through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and lesson plans. They analyzed them using various approaches such as in-depth analysis of explicit PCK, enumerative approach, and constant comparative method. Results revealed that the interaction of the PCK components was idiosyncratic and topic-specific. While KoL and KoIS were connected with the other components the most, KoC and KoA connected with them the least. Considering the STO of the teachers, their didactic orientations directed KoIS by limiting its interaction with other PCK components.

Similar to Park and Chen (2012), Aydin and Boz (2013) conducted a study with two experienced chemistry teachers on redox reactions and electrochemical cells. In this study, researchers used content representations (CoRes) as a tool to uncover teachers PCK. CoRes provide an overview of how to teach a topic considering sub-components of PCK (Loughran et al., 2004). Besides CoRes, the card-sorting activities, interviews, and observations were used to collect data. After the analysis of the whole data the researchers constructed PCK maps showing the frequencies of the interactions among PCK components. Besides similar results were reported with the study of Park and Chen (2012) (e.g., idiosyncratic and topic specific nature of the interactions, frequent interaction between KoL–KoIS and rare interaction between KoA–KoC). Moreover, results of this study revealed that STO was the overarching component of PCK and it shaped teachers’ instructional decisions.

In another study with chemistry teachers, Akin and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci (2018) constructed PCK maps for three chemistry teachers who had different levels of teaching experience in two different topics, rate of reaction and chemical equilibrium. They explored that while the PCK maps of the one novice teacher were fragmented, the experienced teachers’ PCK maps were integrated. Moreover, unlike novice teachers, most of the time, experienced teachers integrate more than two PCK components into their teaching. Moreover, the most frequent interactions occurred among KoIS, KoC and KoL in all PCK maps.

Unlike the aforementioned studies, a few studies indicated that pre-service teachers could integrate PCK components (Aydin et al., 2015; Sæleset and Friedrichsen, 2021). Aydin et al. (2015) studied with three pre-service chemistry teachers to identify the interactions among their PCK components in the rate of reaction topic. Researchers constructed PCK maps of the participants before and after a 14 week practicum course by using their CoRes and interview data. As a result of the study, they found that interactions among PCK components were idiosyncratic. At the end of the study, interactions of knowledge of curriculum (KoC) with the other components of PCK developed the most and knowledge of assessment (KoA) did not interact with knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS) in any map.

As the overarching component of PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999; Friedrichsen et al., 2011), STO and its interaction with the PCK components are also studied widely in the literature (Demirdogen, 2016; Suh and Park, 2017). For instance, Suh and Park (2017) aimed to find common patterns in the PCK of three experienced 5th grade teachers who used an argument-based inquiry approach. They investigated interactions between teachers’ orientations and components of PCK to see how they were related to their implementation of the argument-based inquiry approach by using PCK mapping. Considering the interactions among PCK components, the results of this study revealed that STO was the most frequently interacted component with the other components and the strongest interactions occurred among three components: STO, KoL, and KoIS. As in previous studies, KoC and KoA were the least interacted components in this study.

Considering the aforementioned studies, different results were found regarding the interaction among PCK components. In the present study, we aimed to explore the development of the interaction among pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK components throughout the school experience course. For this aim, content representation (CoRe) was used to plan lessons by pre-service teachers as it provided opportunity to plan an instruction by putting emphasis on the components of PCK during a teaching session. In the PCK literature, it was widely used as a written material to capture teachers’ PCK. For instance, while some studies drew CoRes on to capture pre-service teachers’ PCK (e.g., Aydin et al., 2013; Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019), some others used it to reveal the interactions among the PCK components (e.g., Akin and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2018; Mavhunga, 2020). Moreover, in the present study, an observation form that helped to observe and evaluate mentors’ instruction was used as another tool to develop PCK. Nilsson and van Driel (2010) stated that observations of mentors’ instruction were useful in enhancement of pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge. Similarly, teaching practice and reflections on teaching were the other ways of developing PCK used in this study.

Significance of the study

Researchers who study PCK have reached a consensus that teachers should integrate PCK components in the planning and enacting instruction for effective science teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999; Abell, 2008; Park and Chen, 2012). Abell (2008) pointed out that “[t]eachers not only possess PCK, but they also employ the components of PCK in an integrated fashion as they plan and carry out instruction” (p. 1047). In a recent review of studies investigating interactions between PCK components, Chan (2022) recommended that “the value of the PCK map approach lies in its unpacking of a teacher's PCK that is closely linked to his/her decisions/actions in the classroom” (p. 509) throughout the pedagogical cycle of planning, enactment, and reflection. Moreover, Park and Suh (2019) mentioned that to use this approach, study design must include observations and interviews based on these observations as data sources. In the current study, all pedagogical cycles as planning (CoRe), classroom observation, and interviews were included to elicit how pre-service teachers develop strength and quality of PCK component integrations throughout the course.

Although there have been studies investigating the strength and quality of PCK component integrations (Aydin et al., 2015; Akin and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2018; Sæleset and Friedrichsen, 2021), there is still a need for more research (Park and Chen, 2012; van Driel et al., 2014; Sæleset and Friedrichsen, 2021; Chan, 2022) in mainly including actual teaching practices (Carlson and Daehler, 2019). van Driel et al. (2014) emphasized that there are still unanswered questions about PSTs’ PCK and the interaction between their PCK and practice. Thus, studies are limited regarding the development of PCK integration during teacher education programs (Mavhunga, 2020; Sæleset and Friedrichsen, 2021). Mavhunga (2020) studied with 15 pre-service teachers, and they used multiple components of PCK in interaction when planning their instruction on chemical equilibrium. The limitation of this study was the lack of teaching experience and enacted PCK of pre-service teachers. Furthermore, Sæleset and Friedrichsen (2021) investigated the nature of PSTs’ PCK integration between only two components of PCK, namely knowledge of students’ understanding and instructional strategies. Based on the results of the study, they emphasized a need to investigate integration among the remaining PCK components.

Considering these gaps and depending on the consensus model we aimed to investigate the nature of the integration among the components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK before and after school experience course (student teaching course). In this way, we will understand how pre-service teachers integrate various kinds of knowledge (i.e., PCK components) to make instructional decisions during their instruction in the real classroom environment (Chan et al., 2021). Hence, understanding the development of PCK integration informs the redesign of the teacher education programs to contribute to PCK integration.

Methodology

Research design

Qualitative research methodology was used in the present study. Original data was rich enough to answer another research question. Therefore, we conducted secondary analysis (Heaton, 2008) by re-analyzing the pre-existing data for the previous study (Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021) from a different perspective to find out the interaction among the components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK. Since the authors of the present study were also involved in developing the instruments, collection, and analysis of data for the previous study, they were aware of the context and data. It substantially eliminates “the problem of not having been there” (Heaton, 2008, p. 40).

In the original study, based on the problematic issues mentioned by pre-service chemistry teachers, we redesigned a PCK-based school experience course by involving content representations (CoRes), pre-service teachers' teaching practice, reflection tools, and an observation form based on PCK components of Magnusson et al. (1999) in the revised course. Moreover, we investigated the effect of the revised school experience course on the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK. For the present study, we explored the influence of a PCK-based school experience course on the interactions among PCK components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ enacted PCK. The research design of this study was informed by the research conducted by Park and Chen (2012).

Participants

At the beginning of the study, we received ethical approval and permission from the ethics committee of Middle East Technical University to conduct the study. After taking the necessary permission from the university's ethics committee, we explained the purpose of our research and their right to leave the study at any time to the pre-service chemistry teachers. The participants were provided with a written consent form before the study began. Participants in the present study were enrolled in the School Experience in Science Education course offered in the 9th semester of a five-year chemistry education program. Data collected for this study were not part of the course grading.

Among ten pre-service chemistry teachers, four of them volunteered to participate in the study constituted the participants. Before the study, we collected a written consent form from them. To be graduated from the chemistry teacher training program in Turkey, students need to take content courses (e.g., general chemistry, analytical chemistry), pedagogical courses (e.g., educational psychology, classroom management) and pedagogical content knowledge courses (e.g., methods of chemistry teaching, laboratory experiments in chemistry education). In addition to these courses, students complete two teaching practicum courses, firstly school experience course and then practice teaching course. Students were placed in high schools for 40 and 72 hours in a 14 week period semester for the school experience course and practice teaching course respectively. The participants in the present study took most of the subject-matter courses such as general chemistry, analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, etc., and pedagogical courses such as introduction to education, educational psychology, and pedagogical content knowledge courses as two science methods courses, instructional technology and material development, assessment and evaluation, and curriculum development in science education. They were taking the first teaching practicum course, school experience course, at the time of the study. Pseudonyms are used in this study to preserve the confidentiality of the participants. Throughout the manuscript, we used pseudonyms (Sandra, Olivia, Zoey, and Brook) instead of their real names. All the participants were female. CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) scores for Brook, Zoey, Olivia, and Sandra were 2.48, 2.44, 2.54, and 2.70 (out of 4.00), respectively.

Context of the study

The School Experience in Science Education course was the context of the study. The purpose of this course was to help pre-service teachers get an idea of the teaching profession, school, classroom environment, and the profile of students. Another aim of this course was to develop pre-service teachers’ PCK by enabling them to evaluate their cooperating teachers’ PCK (KoL, KoC, KoIS, and KoA) by making observations based on an observation form. We also aimed to improve pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK through the use of CoRes and pre-service teachers’ teaching practice. For this aim, pre-service teachers were placed in high schools for 4 hours a week for ten weeks. In addition, they had one class hour session in the university where they discussed their observations in high school. For the integration of the PCK framework into the course, first, we aimed to make the PCK construct explicit to the participants. Therefore, we explained the nature of the PCK construct, the PCK components based on Magnusson et al. (1999)’s model, and how PCK differed from general pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge. Then, we explained the structure of the CoRe and how to construct it by showing a CoRe example already formed. We also described the relationship between PCK and CoRe. Throughout the study, we wanted pre-service teachers to construct two CoRes (a pre-CoRe at the beginning of the course and a post-CoRe towards the end of the course) and teach a chemistry topic to students at cooperating high school for one hour.

Another tool used in the course to develop pre-service teachers’ PCK was the observation form based on PCK components (Appendix) Throughout the course, pre-service teachers observed their cooperating teachers’ instruction and evaluated their PCK using an observation form. These observations were discussed in the one-class hour sessions held at the university throughout the course.

In addition to using observation forms and CoRes, pre-service teachers experienced teaching that would help promote their PCK. They taught chemical equilibrium topic to a class of grade 11 students in a high school. Though they were placed at the same high school for the school experience course, they taught in different classes. They also reflected on their teaching through semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants.

Instruments

We collected data with the help of content representations (CoRes), observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews.
CoRe. A CoRe is a matrix with rows and columns involving big ideas/concepts of the topic and some questions regarding instructional decisions such as learners’ difficulties, instructional strategies, and ways of assessing students to teach these big ideas/concepts of the topic. Originally, Loughran et al. (2004) developed the CoRe to reveal teachers' PCK. The CoRe that was revised for pre-service chemistry teachers by Aydin et al. (2013) was used in the current study. Utilizing CoRes, we aimed to understand pre-service chemistry teachers’ planning phase of enacted PCK (ePCKp) for the topic of chemical equilibrium. For this purpose, pre-service chemistry teachers prepared a pre-CoRe regarding the chemical equilibrium topic at the beginning of the course while they prepared a post-CoRe concerning the same topic at the end of the course.
Observation and field notes. For the purpose of revealing pre-service chemistry teachers’ teaching phase of enacted PCK (ePCKt), we observed each participant's instruction about chemical equilibrium topic to a class of 11th-grade students in a high school. Their instruction was audio-taped, and field notes were taken by two of the authors of the present study. Field notes were mainly based on the PCK components mentioned by Magnusson et al. (1999). To illustrate, while observing pre-service teachers’ instruction, we concentrated on whether or not they considered students’ difficulties and misconceptions, how they used instructional strategies and activities, how they assessed students’ understanding, etc.
Semi-structured interviews. In order to reveal pre-service chemistry teachers’ reflecting phase of enacted PCK (ePCKr), we conducted semi-structured interviews with each pre-service teacher. They were interviewed twice. After preparing the pre-Core, participants were interviewed to get detailed information about PCK components and their reasoning behind instructional decisions mentioned in the pre-CoRe. On the other hand, second interviews took place after pre-service teachers prepared the post-CoRe and taught chemical equilibrium in the high school to reveal their PCK, reasoning, and reflection on their instructional decisions. Examples for interview questions were: “Why did you choose this particular teaching strategy”, “Could you please evaluate the effectiveness of using simulation in your instruction on your students’ understanding?” etc. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes, and all the interviews were audio-taped and transcribed.

Data analysis

For data analysis, we utilized the components of PCK proposed by Magnusson et al. (1999). Then, the frequency of connection between components of PCK were indicated in an analytic device, namely PCK map mentioned by Park and Chen (2012).

As Park and Suh (2019) stated:

However, for the PCK map approach to depict ePCK as interactions of PCK constituent components, the RCM needs to specify components that constitute ePCK, which it does not. In this regard, it seems methodologically reasonable to use the five components from the pentagon model as a means to capture ePCK through the PCK map approach (p. 188).

In order to analyze data, we used three approaches, which were in-depth analysis of explicit PCK (Park and Oliver, 2008b), enumerative approach (LeCompte and Preissle as cited in Park and Chen, 2012), and constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). For the in-depth analysis of explicit PCK, we first read all the data obtained from the CoRe, observation notes, and semi-structured interviews. While reading, we labeled PCK components by using “Table 1” (Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021, p. 416), which described the descriptions and categories of PCK components.

We determined PCK episodes where there were two or more components of PCK. For example, in the PCK episode, “In the summative assessment part, I used open-ended questions including the effect of concentration on Le Chatelier principle [KoA] to identify the students’ misconceptions or difficulties in examining the effect of the change in concentration to the chemical equilibrium [KoL]” there were two PCK components. We employed the same procedure until we finished reading all the data. For reliability (Miles and Huberman, 1994), two of the authors independently coded the data to identify PCK episodes and PCK components in these episodes by considering Table 1. Afterward, they came together to discuss these codes. There was an agreement for most of the codes. However, in case of conflicts, discussion occurred until a consensus was reached. The inter-rater reliability to determine consistency among PCK maps was calculated utilizing Miles and Huberman (1994) formula, which is:

Agreement % = Number of agreements/(Total number of agreements + disagreements) × 100.
Inter-rater reliability was found 0.89 indicating a good level of agreement based on Miles and Huberman (1994), that was higher than 0.80 value. After identifying PCK episodes and PCK components, we employed the enumerative approach (LeCompte and Preissle as cited in Park and Chen, 2012) to find out the number of connections among PCK components. Each connection was assumed to have the same strength and counted as “1”. To illustrate, for the PCK episode above, a pre-service chemistry teacher's KoA informed her KoL. Therefore, for this PCK episode, we could state that there was an interaction between KoA and KoL. PCK map for this episode was given in Fig. 1.


image file: d2rp00159d-f1.tif
Fig. 1 Example of the first step of the enumerative approach.

In order to construct a pentagonal PCK map, we counted the number of connections between PCK components for the other PCK episodes. If we explored the interaction between the components, we indicated this connection on the maps. Through the analysis, all the interactions were summed up to determine the frequency of the interactions between PCK components. Pre- and post-PCK maps were formed for all participants (see Fig. 2). For instance, at the end of the analysis, in Zoey's pre-map, we identified one interaction between knowledge of curriculum and assessment, two interactions between science teaching orientation and knowledge of instructional strategy, two interactions between knowledge of learner and instructional strategy and one interaction between knowledge of assessment and instructional strategy. The number between PCK components indicated how many times any of the PCK components were interacted.”


image file: d2rp00159d-f2.tif
Fig. 2 PCK Map for each pre-service teacher regarding the topic of chemical equilibrium.

After constructing pre and post PCK maps, we used a constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to identify common patterns resulting from the data regarding the interaction among PCK components without using any prior categories or codes. The comparison of the results of the constant comparative method with the PCK maps revealed four prominent assertions, which were explained in the results Section. This also provided the triangulation of the methodology (Patton, 2015).

Results

Before and after the school experience course, each pre-service teacher's PCK maps for teaching chemical equilibrium topic were summarized in Fig. 2.

Our analysis of the PCK maps revealed four distinct patterns:

1. The development of integration of the components was idiosyncratic.

2. The interplay among PCK components was initially fragmented but integrated at the end of the course.

3. The most significant development was seen in the connections between KoA and the other components.

4. KoIS was the most frequently integrated component with the other PCK components.

In the following, the findings derived from the interviews and CoRes were presented in detail.

Assertion 1: the development of the integration of the PCK components was idiosyncratic

As seen in Fig. 2, although pre-service teachers taught the same topic, namely chemical equilibrium, their PCK maps showed differences regarding the degree of connections due to idiosyncratic nature of the interactions among the PCK components as exemplified below. For instance, STO had fewer connections with the other PCK components in participants' pre-maps. Moreover, the frequency of connections was fewer. However, in post-maps, all participants indicated an increased integration in terms of integrating STO with the other PCK components. This improvement was unique to each pre-service teacher. For instance, while Zoey, Olivia, and Brook integrated STO with KoIS prominently in the post-map, Sandra related STO with KoIS and KoA in the same frequency.

Another example that indicated the idiosyncratic nature of this development was that only Olivia could connect STO with KoC in post-map while others did not integrate KoC with STO on any map. In the post-interview, Olivia explained that her purpose in chemistry teaching was “to help students utilize chemistry in their daily lives. Chemistry is in our life, so I teach chemistry to help students solve and explain daily life problems they come across.” In her instruction, she explained the hemoglobin and oxygen equilibrium to lead students to apply their knowledge to a daily life situation. In the post-interview, she explained the reason for this as follows:

My initial goal was to explain the hemoglobin and oxygen equilibrium to the students and make them aware that biology and chemistry are related [KoC]. Secondly, I want to explain why our faces turn red in high altitudes because we will encounter this in our daily lives [STO]. Thirdly, I want to attract their attention.

Another example could be presented pertaining to KoC. While Sandra, Zoey, and Olivia indicated improvement in terms of relating KoC with other components and frequency of relations, Brook showed no improvement. In other words, there was no difference between Brook's pre- and post-map regarding KoC component. For example, Sandra, Zoey, Brook and Olivia connected KoC with KoA once in the pre-map at the beginning of the course. However, at the end of the course, Zoey, Olivia, and Sandra related these components three, three, and five times, respectively, in the post-maps. In Sandra's post CoRe, she stated that she would ask a question including all factors affecting equilibrium utilizing the Haber process [N2(g) + 3H2(g) ↔ 2NH3(g)] in parallel with the main concepts she determined to teach and the objectives presented in the national curriculum (i.e., students should be able to explain the factors affecting the chemical equilibrium). This indicated that Sandra utilized the objectives stated in the curriculum [KoC] to decide how to assess students’ knowledge [knowledge of assessment]. An example of her assessment was as follows:

Complete the following chart by writing “left, right or none” for equilibrium shift, and “decreases, increases or remains the same” for the concentrations of reactants and products, and the value of K while the reaction was disturbed by the given stress (Fig. 3).


image file: d2rp00159d-f3.tif
Fig. 3 An example of a participant's (Sandra) post-CoRe.

In addition, all pre-service teachers indicated improvement in terms of interactions among PCK components, but each teacher's improvement showed variances for the chemical equilibrium topic. For instance, while Brook and Zoey indicated similar improvement, Sandra indicated drastic improvement in integrating PCK components. The frequency of total interactions among PCK components for chemical equilibrium topic was presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The frequency of total interactions among PCK components for chemical equilibrium topic
Pre-service teacher Pre-map Post-map
Olivia 11 18
Brook 6 15
Zoey 6 16
Sandra 13 30

Assertion 2: the interplay among PCK components was fragmented initially but integrated at the end of the school experience course

Pre-maps showed that pre-service teachers were quite similar in emphasizing and integrating all PCK components; they could not utilize and integrate all PCK components. Compared to the post-maps, pre-maps presented missing integrations, and the frequency among components of PCK was less. For instance, there were six connections in total in Brook's pre-map while there were 15 in her post-map. Similarly, there has been improvement in all pre-service teachers’ PCK maps throughout the school experience course. Olivia, Sandra, and Zoey's connections increased from 11 to 18, 13 to 30, and 6 to 16 as seen in Table 2.

Furthermore, pre-maps indicated that KoIS and KoL were the prevailing PCK components in terms of integration. On the other hand, post-maps indicated integration among almost all PCK components.

For instance, in Brook's pre-map STO component interacted only with KoIS, but she related STO with other components (i.e., knowledge of assessment, KoL) at the end of the course. In the interview, she mentioned the following:

I thought we teach chemistry to help learners solve the problems they come across in their daily lives. Also, the chemical equilibrium topic is significant for students to explain the daily life problems [STO], such as why climbers need more oxygen at high altitudes? They [students] could answer this question by utilizing their knowledge about the equilibrium between hemoglobin and oxygen [KoL].

Similarly, while Zoey's pre-map did not include any connections between KoC and KoIS, in the post-map she utilized and related these two components by focusing on Le Chatelier's principle and the factors affecting the equilibrium. In her CoRe, after discussing with the whole class what is happening at equilibrium when it is disturbed in the explanation phase of the 5E learning cycle, she explained the Kc and Qc concepts and utilized mathematics to decide which side the equilibrium will shift. In this example, she related KoC to KoIS.

Zoey also indicated an improvement in the interplay between KoA and other PCK components. She connected KoA only with the KoC and KoIS once in the pre-map. However, in the post-map, she could relate assessment component with all components nine times. In her CoRe, she stated that during her lecture, she would use informal questioning such as “how fast do reactants turn to products for high concentrations vs. low concentrations” or “how does the equilibrium rate change when catalyst is added” in order to assess students’ understanding [knowledge of assessment] in line with curriculum objectives [examine the factors affecting equilibrium] [KoC]. In the interview, she explained the reason for asking questions as “I asked these questions to understand whether students learn or not [knowledge of assessment], by this way utilizing this feedback I could evaluate students’ misunderstanding [KoL] and organize my following lesson [KoIS]”. Zoey's pre- and post-PCK maps indicated the improvements in terms of interaction among PCK components. While at the beginning of the course, her limited knowledge and experience might prevent her from interacting PCK components, at the end of the course, the interaction among components increased both quantitively and qualitatively so she could utilize most of the PCK components and integrate them more coherently. As the quotation indicated, Zoey identified her students’ understanding to tailor her instructional strategy.

Olivia also indicated an improvement through the school experience course. Although the integrations among components were similar on her pre- and post-map, the frequency of connections increased by the end of the course.

Assertion 3: the most significant development was seen in the connections between knowledge of curriculum and other components

At the beginning of the course, KoC was rarely connected to other components in all participants' maps. In Sandra and Olivia's pre-maps, KoC interacted with KoA, KoIS, and KoL. In Brook's pre-map KoC was connected with knowledge of leaner and assessment, while it was connected with only KoA in Zoey's pre-map. The frequency of connections between KoC and other components increased at the end of the course. Furthermore, new interactions between KoC and other components took place. For example, KoC and KoA interacted once in all participants' pre-maps. However, the number of connections between these components increased except Brook's post-map in the post-maps. In the post-maps, the interplay between KoC and assessment occurred five times in Sandra's, three times in Zoey's, and three times in Olivia's. In Sandra's post-CoRe, she prepared questions for both formative and summative assessments, as mentioned in Assertion 1. She explained the reason for doing a summative assessment as the following:

R: Why did you do a summative assessment?

S: I do a formative assessment to assess students’ misconceptions and learning difficulties during lessons. But I do summative to assess the whole lesson [knowledge of assessment]. For instance, students misunderstood some concepts, or there were missing parts in their minds regarding the topic.

R: What kind of knowledge did you derive from a summative assessment?

S: By summative assessment, I examined whether students could connect the topic with the following topic or the previous one. For instance, I taught chemical equilibrium. Could students relate previously acquired conceptions about the rate of reaction with conceptions of chemical equilibrium? or Were students prepared to learn the following topic? Is there any missing concept that would prevent students from learning the following topic? [KoC] By doing the summative assessment, I would find answers to these questions and organize my instructions based on this.

Furthermore, new interactions occurred among KoC and other components in Zoey's and Olivia's post-maps. For example, Zoey integrated KoC with KoIS in her post-map, as mentioned in Assertion 2. In her post-CoRe she mentioned, “Change in concentration affects the equilibrium state mentioned” as one of her core concepts to teach parallel with curriculum and in her post-interview she mentioned that she preferred to use simulations to lead students to examine the effect of the change in concentration to the chemical equilibrium during her instruction. In addition, she stated that she made the concepts more concrete for students by utilizing simulation due to viewing microscopic level. In her post-CoRe, she explained an episode from her instruction as follows:

I ask what they know about ammonia and how it was produced. Then I bring the discussion to the Haber Process. Provide the reaction and inform them about Haber, his works, and the importance of this process. Then I ask if this is the reaction, what kind of changes we can make related to their concentrations and give them time to think about it. Then I go step by step to decrease and increase product and reactants concentrations. Then guide them by asking questions like; what if I reduce nitrogen, what do you expect, why do you expect, how about the increase in ammonia, etc. I get their expectations and learn about their reasoning. I briefly go over my questions and, this time, explain whether their expectations or reasoning were true using Le Chatelier's principle. While doing this, I show a simulation [KoIS] that they can observe the effect of concentration change [KoC].

Olivia's post-map also indicated a new integration between KoC and STO, as mentioned in Assertion 1. However, Zoey and Brook did not show any development concerning the integration of KoC with KoL.

Assertion 4: knowledge of instructional strategy was the most frequently integrated component with the other PCK components

In all participants, in both pre- and post-PCK maps, KoIS was mostly connected to other PCK components compared to the other components of PCK. Furthermore, regarding frequency, KoIS mostly integrated with either KoL or STO regarding the number of connections in post-maps. Owing to the idiosyncratic nature of PCK, Brook connected KoIS mostly with knowledge of leaner (five out of nine connections of KoIS), while Zoey's KoIS integrated mostly with STO.

Pertaining to the connection between KoIS and KoL, in Brook's post-map, the number of connections between KoIS and KoL was five out of nine. In Sandra's post-map, the number of connections between KoIS and KoL was eight out of 15. As it is presented in Brook and Sandra's PCK maps, the strong interaction between KoIS and KoL indicated that they were using their knowledge of student's understanding to inform their instructional decisions. For example, in the pre-interview, Brook mentioned that she had interacted knowledge of learner and instructional strategy by utilizing 5E learning cycle to address students’ possible learning difficulties related to the topic. During her teaching sections, it could be observed that she utilized her knowledge of instructional strategy to deficit students’ pre-knowledge, possible misconceptions and learning difficulties regarding chemical equilibrium topic. In the post-interview, Brook explained the underlying reason for her instructional strategy choices as the following:

I thought that teachers generally prefer to explain the topic while explaining the topic. However, students had difficulty imaging and understanding the topic logically, so they [students] had to memorize. During my instruction, I want to help students imagine chemical equilibrium in their minds, so that I would use microscopic representations via simulations. In addition, I would use 5E learning cycle in order to diagnose and remedy misconceptions regarding chemical equilibrium.

Regarding the integration between KoIS and STO, Olivia and Zoey integrated KoIS mostly with STO. In Zoey's post-map, the number of connections between STO and KoIS was four out of nine connections of KoIS, while in Olivia's maps, the number of connections was three out of 10 connections of KoIS. This indicated that pre-service teachers’ STO was important in their preference of instructional strategy. For instance, Zoey stated:

I taught chemistry because chemistry is everywhere. When I connect daily life with chemistry, they [students] would understand that chemistry is the primary source of solving the problems in our daily life. For example, why all the leaves on the tree turned yellow in spring could be explained by chemistry.

Due to her STO during her instruction, she preferred 5E learning cycle, and she utilized daily life problems in the engagement and elaborations phases. Zoey emphasized this integration in her post-CoRe as the following:

In the elaboration phase of 5E learning cycle, I will turn back to the decay of tooth discussion [KoIS]. Give students the equilibrium reaction that occurs during decay and expect them to realize the increase in acid results with shift of reaction to the products, which means decomposition of tooth according to Le Chatelier's Principle. Then I give them another equilibrium reason: the turning of hydroxyapatite that covers our tooth to flour apatite, which is a more enduring substance than hydroxyapatite. According to principle, focus on the shift of equilibrium due to a change of fluoride concentration. Then I ask them how it could be beneficial to know about the concentration effect if we consider Haber's process. Furthermore, what other examples do they think of in real life related to concentration change in an equilibrium reaction [STO].

On the other hand, pre-service teachers’ KoIS interacted less with KoA and KoC. To illustrate, Brook's post-map revealed no interaction between KoIS and KoC at all. Compared to the other participants, Zoey and Sandra's development regarding the integration between KoIS and KoC was more. For example, Sandra stated that she would want her students to design an experiment [KoIS] to show that increasing pressure or decreasing volume will favour the reaction direction that minimizes the number of moles of gas formed [KoC], which is one of the objectives she mentioned. Similarly, post-maps also revealed less interaction between participants’ KoIS and KoA. Only one interaction (out of 15 interactions) between KoIS and KoA occurred in Sandra's post-map. In the case of Brook, KoIS and KoA interacted once out of nine interactions.

Discussion

This study aimed to address a need in the related literature pertaining to pre-service teachers’ enacted PCK and integration among PCK components. This case study utilized Magnusson et al. (1999) PCK model and data collection tools, namely CoRe, semi-structured interviews, and observations. We will discuss each assertion in the following.

First, this study showed that the development of the integration of the PCK components was idiosyncratic. This result was parallel with previous studies (Park and Chen, 2012; Aydın et al., 2015; Demirdogen, 2016; Soysal, 2018). In this study, the development of interaction among PCK components was specific to participants, especially in the interaction between STO and KoC components and other PCK components. Regarding KoC, while three participants demonstrated improvement in relating KoC with other components and frequency of relations, one participant showed no improvement regarding the KoC component. For instance, three participants' maps indicated development in the interaction between KoC and KoA, but only one did not indicate an improvement. Moreover, regarding STO, while all participants indicated improvement in interacting with other PCK components, only one participant [Olivia] could connect STO with KoC in post-map. In this study, the participants’ grade level, teaching experience, topic, and the courses they participated in during the teacher education program were the same. Hence, the differences specific to participants may pertain to the person-specific nature of PCK (Hashweh, 2005). Participants’ science teaching orientations and personal characterises as well as students’ personal characterises may influence the idiosyncrasy of the pre-service teachers’ PCK (Park and Oliver, 2008b). Although the teaching environment were similar, the interaction between students and teachers might be different due to personal differences. Another explanation for this may be the level of content knowledge. Kind (2009) mentioned that having deep understanding of science CK plays an essential role in improving and changing teachers’ instructional practices.

As mentioned before, this study aims to investigate the interaction of pre-service teachers’ PCK components. As it was known, pre-service teachers have little or lack PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999; van Driel et al., 2002). Likewise, the interplay among PCK components was fragmented initially and participants were not able to utilize and integrate all PCK components. However, there has been improvement in all pre-service teachers’ PCK maps at the end of the school experience course. Throughout the school experience course, pre-service teachers were enriched with observing mentors’ PCK utilizing an observation form, teaching a chemistry topic in a real classroom environment, and preparing CoRe and reflection. Based on the results, these valuable PCK-based experiences provided through the school experience course have the potential to contribute to the development of participants’ interaction among PCK components to some extent. Parallel to the studies that emphasized the importance of reflection in improving teachers’ PCK (Aydın et al., 2015; van Driel and Berry, 2017; Alonzo et al., 2019), in this study discussing pre-service teachers’ reasoning behind instructional decisions mentioned in their CoRes facilitated the translation of their fragmented PCK to integrated PCK. In addition to reflection, observing mentor's PCK with PCK-based observation form and critically discussing this observation provided an opportunity for pre-service teachers to evaluate their mentors’ and their own instruction (Nilsson and van Driel, 2010; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021). In the light of the results, reflection, personal teaching, and learning experiences (Sæleset and Friedrichsen, 2021), observing mentors’ PCK may be sources for the development of integration among PCK components.

Moreover, according to the results of this study, the most significant development was seen in the connections between KoC and other components, especially KoA. They could use their KoC to determine assessment methods and strategies. At the beginning of the school experience course, participants made a few connections between KoC and other PCK components. However, except Brook, the number of connections between KoC and the other components increased at the end of the course. In the case of Olivia, the number of connections increased, and a new interaction between KoC and STO occurred. A similar situation was observed in the case of Zoey; however, at this time, the new interaction was between KoC and KoIS. Though this finding contradicts the other studies (Park and Chen, 2012; Aydin and Boz, 2013; Suh and Park, 2017), it is consistent with the research of Aydin et al. (2015). The design of a PCK-based school experience course may have an influence in the development of interactions between KoC and other PCK components. Until the school experience course, pre-service chemistry teachers did not prepare any CoRes and did not have any teaching experience in a class environment in a high school. Both teaching experience and preparation of CoRes may have caused the development of the interaction of KoC with the other PCK components. Another reason may be using observation forms used to observe their mentors’ PCK and discussions of their observations.

Another finding of this study was that KoIS was the most frequently integrated component with the other PCK components. This finding is consistent with the other research studies (Park and Chen, 2012; Aydin and Boz, 2013; Gao et al. 2021). KoIS was the mostly connected component with the other PCK components in both pre- and post-maps. For most participants, except Zoey, post-maps revealed that KoIS was more related to KoL. We can say that pre-service teachers could use their KoL to inform their instructional strategy. Moreover, their STO shaped their instructional strategies in all the participants' maps. Other research studies (e.g., Aydin and Boz, 2013; Friedrichsen and Dana, 2005; Suh and Park, 2017) also revealed the overarching effect of STO in influencing teachers’ instructional decisions. On the other hand, we observed that KoIS was rarely connected to KoA and KoC in the participants’ post-maps. Pre-service teachers could not use their KoA to inform their instructional strategy. Moreover, they could not relate their KoC to decide on instructional strategies. The lack of pre-service teachers’ teaching experience may have caused less interplay between KoIS and KoA, and KoC. Friedrichsen et al. (2009) stated the importance of teaching experience in enhancing the interplay among PCK components. Moreover, reflection on pre-service teachers’ instruction, especially thinking about their use of assessment methods and strategies in their instruction and how these should inform their instructional decisions, would help pre-service teachers enhance the interaction between KoA and KoIS (Aydin et al., 2015). Similar reflection on how pre-service teachers’ KoC should inform their choice of instructional strategies can be made to provide the interplay between KoC and KoIS. In the present study, pre-service teachers reflected on their teaching; this was not enough to provide the interaction between these components. They just evaluated their instruction in terms of separate PCK components. To clarify, they evaluated their instruction with respect to their knowledge of assessment. They did not think about how their knowledge of assessment should inform their knowledge of instructional strategy. Therefore, we would suggest explicit reflection considering the interaction of PCK components in order to enhance the interplay between PCK components.

Another interesting finding was that though Sandra's KoC did not develop by the end of a PCK-based school experience course as presented in previous study (Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021), integrations between her KoC and other PCK components enhanced substantially at the end of the course. Similarly, Zoey's KoA did not improve by means of a PCK-based school experience course. However, the school experience course helped Zoey relate her KoA with other PCK components. Therefore, lack of development in a PCK component may not mean lack of development in the interaction of that component with the other PCK components.

Implications and limitations

The present study revealed that the integration among PCK components was enhanced at the end of the school experience course. Teaching experience, preparation of CoRes, and observation of pre-service teachers’ mentors regarding PCK components by means of observation form may have caused the increase in the integration. Therefore, we suggest integrating CoRes as a component of teacher training programs. Pre-service chemistry teachers should be encouraged to prepare CoRes for different chemistry topics. Moreover, we suggest the use of the observation form based on PCK components to evaluate the mentors’ instruction in teacher training programs. By this way, pre-service teachers would assess their mentors’ PCK explicitly and this would help to develop their PCK. However, this study also showed that there were less interactions among some PCK components, such as KoIS and KoA, KoIS and KoC. In order to enhance the interplay, we suggest more teaching experience in high schools for pre-service teachers. In the present study, pre-service teachers only taught once for the school experience course. They should be encouraged to teach chemistry more time in their school placement. Moreover, explicit reflection with respect to interaction of PCK components may increase the pre-service teachers’ PCK. As another suggestion, we would recommend using video stimulated recall interviews via recorded videos of pre-service teachers’ instruction since it helps to make pre-service teachers aware of their PCK and reflect on their instruction more (Jensen and Winitzky, 2002; Oztay and Boz, 2022).

In terms of limitations, this study was limited to the chemical equilibrium topic. More research is needed to determine the interactions among PCK components for the other chemistry topics. We could mention number of participants as another limitation. The study was limited to four participants. The same study could be replicated with more participants. Another limitation was that each link among the PCK components was considered to have the same strength, and 1 point was given to each connection. In future studies, the quality of each connection for students’ learning may be considered, and different points can be given according to the quality of connection, and PCK maps can be formed accordingly.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

TEACHER OBSERVATION FORM*
Observer: Date:
Teacher observed: Unit observed:
School: Topic observed:
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE DIMENSIONS
Knowledge of learners Does the teacher elicit students’ prior knowledge?
Does the teacher remember/mention pre-requisite knowledge for learning the new topic?
Does the teacher realize that students may have misconceptions and/or difficulties related to the topic taught?
Knowledge of instructional strategies Does the teacher use any subject-specific strategy? (ex. 5E, conceptual change, inquiry)
Does the teacher use any topic-specific strategy? (ex. Analogy, models, simulations, daily-life example, demonstration, discussion, questioning).
Knowledge of curriculum Does the teacher know goals, objectives, and purposes stated in the curriculum?
Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in the same grade?
Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in the previous and next grade?
Does the teacher relate the topic to the other topics in physics and biology?
Knowledge of assessment What does the teacher assess? (e.g. Knowledge, application of knowledge taught, nature of understanding of science, science process skills, etc.)
How does the teacher assess students’ understanding? (ex. Quiz, informal questioning, etc.)
When does the teacher assess students’ understanding? (ex. At the beginning of the lesson, during the lesson, at the end of the lesson)
Subject matter knowledge Does the teacher know the content s/he is teaching? Please give specific examples.
Does the teacher answer the questions that students ask about the content s/he is teaching? Please give examples.
Does the teacher mention the Nature of Science (NOS) during his/her instruction? Please give examples.
Does the teacher mention the history behind the topic taught? Explain how? Please give examples.

*Students were required to provide detailed explanations for the questions in the observation form.

References

  1. Abell S. K., (2008), Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1405–1416 DOI:10.1080/09500690802187041.
  2. Akin 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 10.1039/C7RP00165G.
  3. Alonzo A. C., Berry A. and Nilsson P., (2019), Unpacking the complexity of science teachers’ PCK in action: enacted and personal PCK, in Hume A. C., Cooper R. and Borowski A. (ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 271–286.
  4. Aydin S. and Boz Y., (2013), The nature of integration among PCK components: a case study of two experienced chemistry teachers, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 14(4), 615–624 10.1039/C3RP00095H.
  5. Aydin S., Demirdogen B., Tarkin A., Kutucu E. S., Ekiz B., Akin F., et al., (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), 903e935 DOI:10.1002/sce.21080.
  6. 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 DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.008.
  7. Carlson J. and Daehler K. R., (2019), The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education, in Hume A. C., Cooper R. and Borowski A. (ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 77–92.
  8. Carlson J., Stokes L., Helms J., Gess-Newsome J. and Gardner A., (2015), The PCK Summit: a process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions, Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, Routledge, pp. 24–37.
  9. Chan K. K. H., (2022), A critical review of studies using the pedagogical content knowledge map approach, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 44(3), 487–513 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2022.2035011.
  10. Chan K. K. H. and Hume A., (2019), Towards a consensus model: literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated, in Hume A., Cooper R. and Borowski A. (ed.), Repositioning PCK in Teachers’ Professional Knowledge for Teaching Science, Springer, pp. 3–76.
  11. Chan K. K. H., Xu L., Cooper R., Berry A. and van Driel J. H., (2021), Teacher noticing in science education: do you see what I see? Stud. Sci. Educ., 57(1), 1–44.
  12. Demirdogen B., (2016), Interaction between science teaching orientation and pedagogical content knowledge components, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 27(5), 495–532.
  13. 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. Pract., 22(2), 415–430.
  14. Friedrichsen P. M. and Dana T. M., (2005), Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers' science teaching orientations, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(2), 218–244.
  15. Friedrichsen P. J., Abell S. K., Pareja E. M., Brown P. L., Lankford D. M. and Volkmann M. J., (2009), Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers' prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(4), 357–383.
  16. Friedrichsen P., van Driel J. H. and Abell S. K., (2011), Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations, Sci. Educ., 95(2), 358–376.
  17. Gao S., Damico N. and Gelfuso A., (2021), Mapping and reflecting on integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching natural selection: a case study of an experienced middle-school science teacher, Teach. Teach. Educ., 107, 103473.
  18. 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, London: Routledge.
  19. Glaser B. G. and Strauss A. L., (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
  20. Grossman P. L., (1990), The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education, New York: Teachers College Press.
  21. Hashweh M. Z., (2005), Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge, Teach. Teach. Theory practice, 11, 273–292 DOI:10.1080/13450600500105502.
  22. Heaton J., (2008), Secondary analysis of qualitative data: an overview, Historical Soc. Res., 33(3), 33–45 DOI:10.12759/hsr.33.2008.3.33-45.
  23. 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, 1321–1342 DOI:10.1080/09500690802187017.
  24. Jensen J. W. and Winitzky N., (2002), Exploring preservice teacher thinking: a comparison of five measures, New York: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
  25. Kind V., (2009), Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress, Studies Sci. Educ., 45(2), 169–204 DOI:10.1080/03057260903142285.
  26. 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.
  27. 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: Springer.
  28. Mavhunga E., (2020), Revealing the structural complexity of component interactions of topic specific PCK when planning to teach, Res. Sci. Educ., 50(3), 965–986 DOI:10.1007/s11165-018-9719-6.
  29. Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M., (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  30. Nilsson P. and Göran Karlsson G., (2019), Capturing student teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) using CoRes and digital technology, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41(4), 419–447 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2018.1551642.
  31. Nilsson P. and Loughran J., (2012), Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 23(7), 699e721 DOI:10.1007/s10972-011-9239-y.
  32. 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(6), 1309–1318.
  33. Oztay E. S. and Boz Y., (2022), Interaction between pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge in electrochemistry, J. Pedagogical Res., 6(1), 245–269.
  34. Park S. and Chen Y. C., (2012), Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching photosynthesis and heredity, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49(7), 922–941 DOI:10.1002/tea.21022.
  35. Park S. and Oliver J. S., (2008a), National Board Certification (NBC) as a Catalyst for Teachers' Learning about Teaching: The Effects of the NBC Process on Candidate Teachers' PCK Development, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(7), 812–834.
  36. Park S. and Oliver J. S., (2008b), 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.
  37. Park S. and Suh J. K., (2019), The PCK map approach to capturing the complexity of enacted PCK (ePCK) and pedagogical reasoning in science teaching, in Hume A., Cooper R. and Borowski A. (ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Singapore: Springer, pp. 185–197.
  38. Patton M. Q., (2015), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
  39. Sæleset J. and Friedrichsen P., (2021), Pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge integration of students’ understanding in science and instructional strategies, Eurasia J. Mathematics, Sci. Technol. Educ., 17(5), 1–18 DOI:10.29333/ejmste/10859.
  40. Shulman L., (1986), Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res., 15(2), 4–14.
  41. Shulman L. S., (1987), Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educ. Rev., 57(1), 1–23.
  42. Soysal Y., (2018), An exploration of the interactions among the components of an experienced elementary science teacher's pedagogical content knowledge, Educ. Studies,44(1), 1–25 DOI:10.1080/03055698.2017.1331839.
  43. Suh J. K. and Park S., (2017), Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach, Teach. Teach. Educ., 64, 246–259.
  44. Van Driel J. H. and Berry A., (2017), Developing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, in Clandinin D. J. and Husu J. (ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education, Sage, pp. 561–576.
  45. 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 DOI:10.1002/sce.10010.
  46. Van Driel, J. H., Berry, A. and Meirink, J., (2014), Research on science teacher knowledge, in Lederman N. G. and Abell S. K. (ed.), Handbook of research on science education, Routledge, vol. 2, pp. 848–870.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.