Abstract
This paper presents the findings of a group of teacher candidates with undergraduate degrees in a STEM discipline who were followed through an intensive 1-year preparation program and their 1st year of teaching. We report on the affordances and challenges participants’ discipline knowledge presented to developing pedagogical content knowledge during their student teaching experience and their 1st year of teaching. The participants were interviewed at 3 different times: the start of their teacher preparation program, the end of a year-long clinical teaching experience, and the end of their 1st year of teaching. Their mentor teachers were interviewed at the end of the participants’ year of student teaching. Each semi-structured interview included questions regarding the participants’ discipline backgrounds and transition to teaching. The interviews were coded and analyzed to identify emergent themes. We found that having mathematics or science discipline knowledge allowed for several affordances: participants could focus on teaching, readily provide alternative explanations, and incorporate additional resources into lessons. A challenge of their discipline knowledge, possibly exacerbated by biased views of their disciplines, was making content accessible to students. We consider these findings in light of a framework we have developed for mathematics and science teacher pedagogical content knowledge. We suggest teacher preparation programs for teacher candidates with mathematics and science undergraduate degrees need not only devote specialized attention to connecting that content knowledge to teaching but also engage these prospective teachers in situations that purposefully make evident to them the need to attend to student thinking.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224 87108324554.
Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402. Retrieved from http://nrich.maths.org/content/id/9968/Cuoco_etal-1996.pdf.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2015). The knowledge base of subject matter experts in teaching: A case study of a professional scientist as a beginning teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1517–1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9561-x.
Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20428.
Goos, M. (2013). Knowledge for teaching secondary school mathematics: What counts? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44, 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.826387.
Grier, J. M., & Johnston, C. C. (2008). STEM career-changers transition to teaching: I have to become a student again? Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/record Detail?accno=ED501492.
Grier, J. M., & Johnston, C. C. (2009). An inquiry into the development of teacher identities in STEM career changers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9119-2.
Grier, J. M., & Johnston, C. C. (2011). STEM professionals entering teaching: Navigating multiple identities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9260-1.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledgebase for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31, 3–15.
Horn, I. S., (2009). The development of pedagogical content knowledge in collaborative high school teacher communities. Paper presented at the Psychology in Mathematics Education Annual Meeting, Atlanta.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62eb/a3fb558446a652222515d542f1db53dd34a6.pdf.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062002129.
Lannin, J. K., Webb, M., Chval, K., Arbaugh, F., Hicks, S., Taylor, C., & Bruton, R. (2013). The development of beginning mathematics teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9244-5.
Latterell, C. (2009). Interesting science and mathematics graduate students in secondary teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18257.x.
Lawrenz, F., Bowe, A., Braam, M., Kirchhoff, Liou, P., & Madsen, C. (2009). University of Minnesota evaluation of the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Final summary report. Retrieved at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/EdPsych/NOYCE/Reports/default.html
Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot study results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52–60.
Lee, E., & Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1343–1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187058.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002248719004100302.
McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject matter knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 316–334. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283 12028002316.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/02 72-7757(94)90003-5.
Nathan, M. J., Koedinger, K. R., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Expert blind spot: When content knowledge eclipses pedagogical content knowledge. In L. Chen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on cognitive science (pp. 644–648). Beijing: University of Science and Technology of China Press.
Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Education Research Journal, 40, 905–928. Retrieved from http://pact.cs.cmu.edu/pubs/2001_NathanEtAl_ICCS_EBS.pdf.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, TX: National Science Teachers Association.
National Science Teachers Association. (2004). Science teacher preparation. Available at http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/preparation.aspx
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X01500200.
Snyder, C., Oliveira, A. W., & Paska, L. M. (2013). STEM career changers’ transformation into science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 617–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9325-9.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vierra, V. A. (2011). A comparison study of the pedagogical content knowledge of single subject mathematics credential candidates (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved from http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/2596936441/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=yN%2BRjynKVAyejYnroJ5lpARpxT4%3D (UMI No. 3495767).
Wilson, S. (2011). Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K–12 Schools, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/ documents/webpage/dbasse_072640.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This material is based upon work supported by the Ohio University Baker Fund and Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Organization. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ohio University or the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Organization.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 54 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hallman-Thrasher, A., Connor, J. & Sturgill, D. Strong Discipline Knowledge Cuts Both Ways for Novice Mathematics and Science Teachers. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 253–272 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9871-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9871-x