Research in Science Education

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 675–698

Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Knowledge Development for Teaching a Novel Physics Curriculum



Matter and Interactions (M&I) has recently been adopted as a novel introductory physics course that focuses on the application of a small number of fundamental physical principles to the atomic and molecular nature of matter. This study investigated how five physics teaching assistants (TAs) developed professional knowledge for teaching from their teaching experiences. Specifically, we explored what experiences influenced their knowledge development for teaching the innovative introductory physics course, M&I. Through a qualitative, multiple case study research design, data was collected from multiple sources: non-participant observations, digitally recorded video, semistructured interviews, TAs’ written reflections, and researchers’ field notes. As TA’s progressed through the semester, two experiences emerged as having a significant role in their development of knowledge for teaching M&I: (1) setting teaching, learning, and curriculum goals for their classes; and (2) encountering dilemmas of teaching and learning. The results of this study will contribute to future preparation of the innovative introductory physics course as well as other college level science courses.


Knowledge for teaching Knowledge development Reflection Physics teaching assistant Matter and interactions Class goal 


  1. Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media casebased instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82, 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association of Physics Teachers. (2003, November). Proceedings of the 2003 Introductory Calculus-Based Physics Course Conference. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  4. American Institute of Physics Statistical Research Center (2005). Enrollment and degrees report. Retrieved November 18, 2005 from
  5. Barnes, D. (1992). The significance of teachers’ frames for teaching. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 9–32). New York: Falmer.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, J. (1969). Videotape and the vitalization of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 311–315. doi:10.1177/002248716902000307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryan, L. A., & Recesso, A. (2006). Promoting reflection among science student teachers using a Web-based video analysis tool. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23, 31–39.Google Scholar
  9. Bryan, L., Recesso, A., & Seung, E. (2008). An evidential reasoning approach to analysis of science teaching practices using a web-based video analysis tool. In L. Yew-Jin & T. Aik-Ling (Eds.), Science Education at the nexus of theory and practice (pp. 159–180). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Calderhead, J. (1988). The development of knowledge structures in learning to teach. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 51–64). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006a). Matter and interactions: Vol 1. Modern mechanics. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006b). Matter and interactions: Vol 2. Electric and magnetic interactions. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2007, March). Matter & interactions. In E. F. Redish, & J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university physics (Issue 1). Retrieved May 17, 2007 from
  15. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419–441. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cochran, K. F., & Jones, L. L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707–718). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272. doi:10.1177/0022487193044004004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 174–198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology.Google Scholar
  21. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teacher College.Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). Kidlington: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Grove, R. W. (1988). An analysis of the constant comparative method. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1, 273–279.Google Scholar
  24. Kelsay, K.L. (1992, April). A qualitative study of reflective teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Koballa, T., Upson, L., Minchew, C., Parlo, A., & Inyega, J. (2005, January). Using technology to support evidence-based science teaching and mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Colorado Springs, CO.Google Scholar
  26. LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39, 146–154. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (Eds.) (1993). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data. In Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed., pp. 234–278). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Llinares, S. (2002). Participation and reification in learning to teach: The role of knowledge and beliefs. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 195–209). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370–391. doi:10.1002/tea.20007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 39–52). Washington: Falmer.Google Scholar
  32. Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82, 197–214. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:2<197::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 767–790. doi:10.1002/tea.20073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  35. Pea, R., & Hoffert, E. (2007). Video workflow in the learning sciences: Prospects of emerging technologies for augmenting work practices. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 427–460). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Recesso, A., & Hannafin. (2003). Evidence-based technology enhanced alternative curriculum in higher education (ETEACH). Proposal submitted to the US Department of Education Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology. Award, P342, A030009.Google Scholar
  37. Recesso, A., Hannafin, M. J., Wang, F., Deaton, B., Shepherd, C., & Rich, P. (2009). Direct evidence and the continuous evolution of teacher practice. In P. Adamy, & N. Milman (Eds.), Evaluating electronic portfolios in teacher education (pp. 23-47). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  38. Ross, D. D., Johnson, M., & Smith, W. (1992). Developing a PROfessional TEACHer at the University of Florida. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education: Case and critiques (pp. 24–39). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  39. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1991). Reframing: The role of experience in developing teachers’ professional knowledge. In D. A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 164–187). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  40. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769–802). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.Google Scholar
  44. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  46. Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 99–110. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90011-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 225–242. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572–590. doi:10.1002/sce.10010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretation of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, E. R. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  52. Winn, W. (1974). Videotaping teaching practice: strengths and weaknesses. Audiovisual Instruction, 19, 18–20.Google Scholar
  53. Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2005). Too close for comfort: real-time science teaching reflections via digital video editing. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 351–375. doi:10.1007/s10972-005-1105-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and PhysicsIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Curriculum & Instruction and PhysicsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations