Advertisement

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF A PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIST AS A BEGINNING TEACHER

  • Carmel M. Diezmann
  • James J. WattersEmail author
Article

Abstract

One method of addressing the shortage of science and mathematics teachers is to train scientists and other science-related professionals to become teachers. Advocates argue that as discipline experts these career changers can relate the subject matter knowledge to various contexts and applications in teaching. In this paper, through interviews and classroom observations with a former scientist and her students, we examine how one career changer used her expertise in microbiology to teach microscopy. These data provided the basis for a description of the teacher’s instruction which was then analysed for components of domain knowledge for teaching. Consistent with the literature, the findings revealed that this career changer needed to develop her pedagogical knowledge. However, an interesting finding was that the teacher’s subject matter as a science teacher differed substantively from her knowledge as a scientist. This finding challenges the assumption that subject matter is readily transferable across professions and provides insight into how to better prepare and support career changers to transition from scientist to science teacher.

Key words

beginning teachers career change contextual knowledge pedagogical content knowledge science teaching scientist STEM subject matter knowledge 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. C. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M. & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, B., Daughtrey, A. & Wieder, A. (2009). Teaching effectiveness and the conditions that matter most in high-needs schools: A policy brief. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L. & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 1–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02474.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.Google Scholar
  9. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25–29.Google Scholar
  10. Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, H., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  15. Ingersoll, R. M. & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. doi: 10.3102/0034654311403323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawrence, C. & Green, K. (2005). Perceiving classroom aggression: The influence of setting, intervention style and group perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 587–602. doi: 10.1348/000709905x25058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Original work published 1962.Google Scholar
  18. Loughran, J., Berry, A. & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  19. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K. & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199–1224. doi: 10.1002/tea.20444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luft, J. A. & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38–63.Google Scholar
  21. Morris, N. R. C. (Ed.). (2000). Attracting science and mathematics Ph.D.s to secondary school education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Park, S., Jang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-C. & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245–260. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9163-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Piburn, M. & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observational protocol (RTOP): ACEPT Technical Report IN00-3. Retrieved 21/07/2013 from http://www.public.asu.edu/~anton1/AssessArticles/Assessments/Chemistry%20Assessments/RTOP%20Reference%20Manual.pdf.
  25. Reilly, M. (2009). Opening spaces of possibility: The teacher as bricoleur. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richardson, L. & Simmons, P. (1994). Self-Q research method and analysis, teacher pedagogical philosophy interview: Theoretical background and samples of data. Athens, GA: Department of Science Education, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  27. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A. & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roehrig, G. H. & Luft, J. A. (2004). Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: The role of knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1510–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sternberg, R. J. & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189x024006009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trigwell, K. (2011). Scholarship of teaching and teachers’ understanding of subject matter. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2008). Learning from “Didactikids”: An impetus for revisiting the empty number line. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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(2), 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watters, J.J. & Diezmann, C. M. (2012). Identity development in career-changing beginning teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming school teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 13–17 April 2012, Vancouver Convention Center, Vancouver. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49569/.
  37. Watters, J. J. & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Recruiting career-change professionals as teachers: The challenge of socialisation into teaching. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Conference April 27-May 1, San Francisco.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.BrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations