Skip to main content

Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Components

Journal of Science Teacher Education volume 27, pages 495–532 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

The purpose of this case study is to delve into the complexities of how preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations, viewed as an interrelated set of beliefs, interact with the other components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Eight preservice science teachers participated in the study. Qualitative data were collected in the form of content representation, responses to an open-ended instrument, and semi-structured interviews. Preservice teachers’ orientation and PCK were analyzed deductively. Constant comparison analysis of how their orientation interacted with other PCK components revealed three major themes: (1) one’s purpose for science teaching determines the PCK component(s) with which it interacts, (2) a teacher’s beliefs about the nature of science do not directly interact with his/her PCK, unless those beliefs relate directly to the purposes of teaching science, and (3) beliefs about science teaching and learning mostly interact with knowledge of instructional strategies. Implications for science teacher education and research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405–1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2015). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21271

    Google Scholar 

  • Avraamidou, L. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’ science teaching orientations and experiences that impacted their development. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1698–1724. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.708945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: A case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 615–624. doi:10.1039/C3RP00095H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin, S., Demirdöğen, B., Akin, F. N., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Tarkin, A. (2015). The nature and development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydın, S., Demirdöğen, B., Tarkın, A., Kutucu, S., Ekiz, B., Akın, F. N., … Uzuntiryaki, E. (2013). Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term professional development as learners of science teaching. Science Education, 97, 903–935. doi:10.1002/sce.21080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on CoRes and PaP-eRs as a framework for articulating and developing pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 42, 1027–1047. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9227-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesdorfer, S. (2015). Using teachers’ choice of representations to understand the translation of their orientation towards science teaching to their practice. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/13871/9357

  • Boesdorfer, S., & Lorsbach, A. (2014). PCK in action: Examining one chemistry teacher’s practice through the lens of her orientation toward science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2111–2132. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.909959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boz, Y., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1647–1667. doi:10.1080/09500690500439132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P., & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 133–155. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9312-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<121:AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-U

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Longhurst, M., Duffy, A. M., Wolf, P. G., & Shelton, B. E. (2013). Science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 2035–2057. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9342-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Zuwallack, R., Longhurst, M., Shelton, B. E., & Wolf, P. G. (2014). An examination of the changes in science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in the context of professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1815–1848. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.879622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., & Wei, B. (2015). Examining chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: In view of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 260–272. doi:10.1039/C4RP00237G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & De Ruiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Cooper, R., Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2015). Understanding sophisticated practice. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 60–74). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Hug, B., Nelson, M., Beyer, C., Schwarz, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). MoDeLS: Designing supports for teachers using scientific modeling. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO.

  • Demirdöğen, B., Aydın, S., & Tarkın, A. (2015a). Looking at the mirror: A self-study of science teacher educators’ PCK for teaching teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11, 189–205. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2015.1315a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2015b). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z. (Advance online publication).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Balboa, J. M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 293–306. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00030-A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383. doi:10.1002/tea.20283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. (2005). A substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 218–244. doi:10.1002/tea.20046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., Lankford, D., Brown, P., Pareja, E., Volkmann, M., & Abell, S. K. (2007). The PCK of future science teachers in an alternative certification program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.

  • Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376. doi:10.1002/sce.20428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3–17). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 145–167. doi:10.1002/sce.20404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1321–1342. doi:10.1080/09500690802187017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578. doi:10.1002/tea.10036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., & Upson, L. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of the nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521. doi:10.1002/tea.10034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83. doi:10.1002/tea.21125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). New York, NY: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Retrieved from http://www.scholarlyexchange.org/ojs/index.php/EJSE/article/download/7794/5561

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11. doi:10.1177/002248719004100302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, G. B., & Rossman, C. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mthethwa-Kunene, E., Onwu, G. O., & de Villiers, R. (2015). Exploring biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching of genetics in Swaziland science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1140–1165. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1022624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musikul, K., & Abell, S. K. (2009). Professional development for elementary teachers of science in Thailand: A holistic examination. Paper presented at the annual international meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, K., Ponce-de-Leon, A. M., Rembado, F. M., & Garritz, A. (2008). Undergraduate professors’ pedagogical content knowledge: The case of “amount of substance”. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1389–1404. doi:10.1080/0950069080218703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, K., & van Driel, J. (2011). The relationships between PCK components: The case of quantum chemistry professors. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 367–378. doi:10.1039/C1RP90043A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 922–941. doi:10.1002/tea.21022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, T. R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views on cognition. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemma in science education (pp. 27–54). Barcecome: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). It’s the nature of the beast: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205–236. doi:10.1002/tea.10021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and training: Foundations of the new reform. Hardward Educational Review, 57, 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, E. M. (2013). The influence of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching macroevolution on student outcomes in a general education biology course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education, Bulent Ecevit University, 67300, Kdz. Eregli, Turkey

    Betül Demirdöğen

Authors
  1. Betül Demirdöğen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Betül Demirdöğen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Views About Science Teaching

1. PART: Goals or Purposes of Science Teaching (Friedrichsen et al., 2011)

  1. 1.

    What is the purpose of science education?

  2. 2.

    Why do you teach science?

  3. 3.

    What do students know and be able to do when they learn science? What is your purpose when you teach science? What can of knowledge and capabilities do your students achieve when you teach science to them?

  4. 4.

    What kind of instruction do you design to achieve your purposes and goals of science teaching?

2. PART: Science Teaching and Learning (Luft & Roehrig, 2007)

  1. 1.

    What is the role of teachers in science teaching?

  2. 2.

    What is the role of students in science teaching?

  3. 3.

    How should science teaching be? What is the best way to teach science? How do you assure that students learn science well?

3. PART: Translation of Orientation to Lesson Planning (CoRe)

  1. 1.

    How did you translate your purposes and goals for teaching science to your planning?

    1. (a)

      Did you purposefully consider that your objectives reflect your purposes and goals of science teaching?

    2. (b)

      Did you purposefully consider that your students’ difficulties and misconceptions related to your purposes and goals of teaching science?

    3. (c)

      What kind of instructional strategies did you use to achieve your purposes and goals of science teaching?

    4. (d)

      Did you specifically assess whether your students achieved your purposes and goals of science teaching?

Appendix 2

An Example of a Participant’s (Easter) Core

Science topic/content area: light Grade level: 4 Curriculum objectives to be addressed:
2. Regarding light sources, students
 (i) Observe that some objects emit light to their surroundings,
 (ii) Give examples of different light sources, and
 (iii) Classify light sources as natural and artificial
1. What concepts/big ideas do you intend students to learn? Concept and/or important idea #1: Concept and/or important idea #2:
Light Light source
2. What do you expect students to understand about this concept and be able to do as a result? Energy that helps us to see the objects in the dark is called light Everything that lightens its surrounding by emitting light is light source
We need light to be able to see (i.e., no light, no sight) An object that emits light by itself and is not produced by humans is called as natural light source
It gets harder to see the objects in dark An object that is produced by humans to see their surrounding and lightens in the dark is called as artificial light source
There are different light sources of which have different brightness Light sources are used after the sun goes down
The suns, star, and lightening are examples of natural light sources
Light bulb, candle, gaslight chandelier, and torch are artificial light sources
Students should be able to identify artificial and natural light sources by differentiating between the two
3. Why is it important for students to learn this concept? (Rationale) When students learn this topic, they can more meaningfully learn the following topics about light (i.e., enlightening technologies from past to present, the effect of enlightening technologies in our life, and light pollution) in the fourth grade, dispersion of light, interaction of light with matter, and shadow in fifth grade, reflection of light in the sixth grade, and absorption and refraction of light in seventh grade
Since students encounter light visually during their daily life, students should learn the concept of light When students learn this topic they will be able to use appropriately use light sources when they stay in dark
Students should learn the concept of light to meaningfully learn light sources
4. As a teacher, what should you know about this topic? As a teacher I should know the concepts of dark/ness and light and light sources. Also, I should review the curriculum to precisely learn about the objectives that I should achieve about the concepts I am teaching and to construct vertical and horizontal relations across topics and grades. In this plan, I focused on light sources. Therefore, I should know what students should have already learned about light and darkness beforehand. I should know the difficulties and misconceptions that students may have about darkness, light, and light sources. I should know different strategies to teach the concepts meaningfully and to eliminate the difficulties and misconceptions that students may have. I should know daily life examples
5. What difficulties do students typically have about each concept/idea? The concept of energy might be difficult for students to understand since they haven’t learned about it before If students do not learn the concept of light and dark/ness meaningfully they may have difficulty in understanding light sources
If students have dark/ness phobia it may be an obstacle for me to conduct the activities and for students to learn the concept Students may have difficulty in differentiating natural and artificial light sources
Students may confuse light reflection with emission of light
6. What misconceptions do students typically have about each concept/idea? Our eyes produce light so we can see things Objects that reflect are sources of light (e.g., the Moon)
Light is not necessary to see since we can see a little in a dark room
7. Which teaching strategy and what specific activities might be useful for helping students develop an understanding of the concept? Predict–observe–explain activity will be used to teach the concept of light. Also, this activity will elicit students’ possible misconceptions (#1 Our eyes produce light so we can see things, #2 Light is not necessary to see since we can see a little in a dark room.) if any. During prediction phase students will be make a prediction about how they see an apple in dark. They will make choose a prediction among the several alternatives including students’ possible misconceptions. In the predict phase, students will be distributed an activity sheet, which is provided below: To teach light sources, first, I will ask students to give examples of light sources that we use in our daily life. Hence, I will elicit their misconceptions about light sources if any (i.e., Objects that reflect are sources of light (e.g., Moon)). I will get students’ answers and explanations by using an activity sheet, which is provided below
Apple in the dark Light sources in our life
Imagine you are sitting at a table with a red apple in front of you. Your friend closes the door and turns off all the lights. It is totally dark in the room. There are no windows in the room or cracks around the door. No light can enter the room. Circle the statement you believe best describes how you would see the apple in the dark: 1. Look at the pictures given below and circle the light sources on both pictures. Explain your choices
 A. You will not see the red apple, regardless of how long you are in the room Picture 1
 B. You will see the red apple after your eyes have had time to adjust to the darkness
 C. You will see the red apple after your eyes have has time to adjust to the darkness, but you will not see the red color Picture 2
 D. Our eyes produce light so we can see the apple in dark
 E. You will see only a faint outline of the apple after your eyes have had time to adjust the darkness
Describe your thinking. Provide an explanation of your answer 		Give examples of light sources that do not take place in the pictures and explain why they are sources of light
After students completed their predictions by writing their explanations, I will conduct a whole class discussion on students’ alternative responses and hence elicit different misconceptions, if any. Then students will observe how they will see an apple in the dark. During observation phase, I enable students to make their observations in a completely dark place with no slightest amount of light. If I will not be able to find a complete dark place I will bring several black boxes including an apple in it and having a small hole on it to the class and make students observe the apple in the box. After students make their observations, I will ask them to compare their observations with their predictions and to provide an explanation if there is a match or mismatch. I conduct a whole class discussion to elicit students’ misconceptions about “light” and “seeing.” During this discussion I ask several questions such as “If our eyes produce light would not we able to see the apple in the box?” “When the lights are turned off in your room at night, is your room completely dark or is there a slight light coming from your surrounding?” “What does complete darkness mean?” “When you see the objects in dark is the environment completely dark or is there a light slightly coming from somewhere around you?” After students completed the activity sheet I will conduct a whole class discussion to elicit students’ conceptions about light source. Then I will explain the concept of light source by showing their pictures (i.e., sun, candle, light bulb, lightening, stars, gaslight chandelier, and torch). Explanation: Light source is the source that emits light to enlighten its surrounding. Also, I explain why the Moon is not a light source. Moon reflects the light that comes from the Sun and therefore it is not a light source. A light source should produce energy as light to be counted as light source. Reflecting the light coming from another source does not count to be a light source since the light is not produced rather it is reflected. I will ask students to explain whether the light source examples have the same characteristics in terms of emitting light or not. Hence, I elicit students’ conceptions about artificial and natural light sources. After taking students ideas about characteristics of light sources I will explain natural and artificial light sources by giving examples for each of them. Explanation: Sources that produce light by themselves are natural light sources such as the Sun, stars, and lightening. Manmade sources that produce light are artificial light sources such as candle, light bulb, gaslight chandelier, and torch
In the explanation phase, first of all, I will show some pictures (i.e., miners using headlights to see underground, cars with turned on lights in the dark, and lighthouse enlightening the see and environment for the sailors) where light is used to see the objects in the dark. I explain the concept of light by relating their experiences they get from the activity and their daily life. Explanation: Light is a kind of energy that helps us to see. When there is no light there is no sight. That is we are not able to see in the complete darkness. However, during night when we turned the lights off in our home we can see the objects since the environment is not completely dark. There is slight light coming from somewhere around us After explaining light sources, I will use a predict–observe–explain activity to elicit and overcome students’ difficulty (i.e., objects that reflect light sources). In the predict phase, I will ask students to identify the light source among several materials, such as a flashlight, aluminum foil, a metal spoon, a mirror, rubber, and newspaper. Also, I will ask them to explain their choices (i.e., why does each object behave as a light source or not?) Students may identify aluminum foil, metal spoon, and mirror as light source since they reflect light. In the observe phase, students will observe whether the objects produce light or reflect light. During observation, I will guide them by reminding the definition of light source and focusing on the question of would some objects (i.e., aluminum foil, metal spoon, and mirror) seem to produce light if you do not direct light on them using a flashlight. After observation phase, students will explain what they predict and what they observe. Then, I will explain the difference between natural light sources and light reflecting objects by having students watch a video
8. In what ways would you assess students’ understanding or confusion about this concept? Formative assessment: Formative assessment:
The activity sheet in the predict phase (Apple in the Dark) The activity sheet in the first predict phase (Light Sources in our Life)
The questions in the observe phase: The questions in the second predict phase
“If our eyes produce light would not we able to see the apple in the box?” Identify the light source among several materials, such as a flashlight, aluminum foil, a metal spoon, a mirror, rubber, and newspaper
“When the lights are turned off in your room at night, is your room completely dark or is there a slight light coming from your surrounding?” Why does each object behave as a light source or not? Explain
“What does complete darkness mean?”
“When you see the objects in dark is the environment completely dark or is there a light slightly coming from somewhere around you?”
Summative evaluation:
I will ask students to draw a concept map using the concepts of light, energy, light source, artificial, and natural by giving examples for light sources

Appendix 3

Coding Scheme

Orientation dimension Instance PCK component that interacted with orientation and its’ place in CoRe
Goals or purposes of science teaching If a preservice teachers attempts to teach his/her goals or purposes (e.g., scientific skill development) in his/her lesson by including objectives specific to these purposes (e.g., draw) in her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of curriculum (Curriculum objectives to be addressed prompt and prompt 3 in CoRe)
Goals or purposes of science teaching If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have difficulties and misconceptions related to his/her goals or purposes (e.g., scientific skill development), as indicated in her CoRe, and designs his/her teaching by considering this difficulty (i.e., students may have difficulty in drawing electric circuits) Knowledge of learner
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
Goals or purposes of science teaching If a preservice teacher attempts to assess whether students achieved his/her goals or purposes of science teaching (e.g., scientific skill development) throughout the lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of assessment (Prompt 7—explanations about teaching—and specifically prompt 8)
Beliefs about nature of science If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have misconceptions in NOS as indicated in her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) and is teaching for eliminating one of the myths about NOS (e.g., hierarchical relationship between theory and law) in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of learner
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
Beliefs about nature of science If a preservice teacher uses implicit or explicit approach to teach NOS in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of instructional strategy
(Prompt 7 in CoRe)
Beliefs about nature of science If a preservice teacher makes an assessment to reveal students’ misconceptions about NOS at the beginning and/or to reveal whether students overcome misconceptions about NOS s/he communicated this in his/her lesson plan at the end (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of assessment (Prompt 7—explanations about teaching—and specifically prompt 8)
Beliefs about science teaching and learning If a preservice teacher is aware that students may have difficulties his/her beliefs (e.g., reform-based) as indicated in her CoRe and designs his/her teaching by considering this difficulty (i.e., students may have difficulty in being active) Knowledge of learner
(Prompt 3 for prerequisites and prompts 5–6 for difficulties and misconceptions)
Beliefs about science teaching and learning If a preservice teacher attempts to reflect his/her beliefs about science teaching and learning (e.g., reform-based) in his/her lesson by including objectives from the curriculum specific to these beliefs (i.e., writing higher level objectives that keep students active) in his/her lesson plan (i.e., CoRe) Knowledge of curriculum (Curriculum objectives to be addressed prompt and prompt 3 in CoRe)
Beliefs about science teaching and learning If a preservice teacher attempts to design a lesson (i.e., CoRe) to achieve his/her beliefs about science teaching and learning (e.g., reform-based) by using a reform-based subject and/or topic specific instructional strategy Knowledge of instructional strategy
(Prompt 7 in CoRe)

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demirdöğen, B. Interaction Between Science Teaching Orientation and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Components. J Sci Teacher Educ 27, 495–532 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9472-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9472-5

Keywords

  • Science teaching orientation
  • Pedagogical content knowledge
  • Case study
  • Preservice science teachers
  • Deductive
  • Constant comparison analysis