Revealing the Structural Complexity of Component Interactions of Topic-Specific PCK when Planning to Teach
- 43 Downloads
Teaching pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) at a topic-specific level requires clarity on the content-specific nature of the components employed, as well as the specific features that bring about the desirable depth in teacher explanations. Such understanding is often hazy; yet, it influences the nature of teacher tasks and learning opportunities afforded to pre-service teachers in a teaching program. The purpose of this study was twofold: firstly, to illuminate the emerging complexity when content-specific components of PCK interact when planning to teach a chemistry topic; and secondly, to identify the kinds of teacher tasks that promote the emergence of such complexity. Data collected were content representations (CoRes) in chemical equilibrium accompanied by expanded lesson outlines from 15 pre-service teachers in their final year of study towards a first degree in teaching (B Ed). The analysis involved extraction of episodes that exhibited component interaction by using a qualitative in-depth analysis method. The results revealed the structure in which the components of PCK in a topic interact among each other to be linear, interwoven, or a combination of the two. The interwoven interactions contained multiple components that connected explanations on different aspects of a concept, all working in a complementary manner. The most sophisticated component interactions emerged from teacher tasks on descriptions of a lesson sequence and a summary of a lesson. Recommendations in this study highlight core practices for making pedagogical transformation of topic content knowledge more accessible.
KeywordsTopic-specific pedagogical content knowledge Component interactions Chemical equilibrium Pre-service teachers Transformation of content knowledge
- Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2018). The refined consensus model of PCK. In A. Hume, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in teachers’ professional knowledge (in press).Google Scholar
- 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Garritz, A., & Ortega-Villar, N. A. (2012). Interview and content representations for teaching condensed matter bonding: an affective component of PCK? Paper presented at the The annual National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis,USA.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). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lehane, L., & Bertram, A. (2016). Getting to the CoRe of it: a review of a specific PCK conceptual lens in science educational research. Educacion Quimica, 27(1), 52–58.Google Scholar
- Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. G. Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics. Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 113–125.Google Scholar
- Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2017). Implementing PCK topic by topic in methodology courses - a case study in South Africa. In A. Sickel, & S. Witzig (Eds.), Designing and teaching the secondary science methods course: An international perspective (pp. 149–168). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nezvalová, D. (2011). Researching science teacher pedagogical content knowledge. In Problems of Education in the 21st Century (Vol. 35, pp. 104–118). www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol35/104-118.Nezvalova_Vol.35. Accessed 12 Jan 2018.
- Schmelzing, S., Driel, J., Jüttner, M., Brandenbusch, S., Sandmann, A., & Neuhaus, B. (2013). Development, evaluation, and validation of a paper-and-pencil test for measuring two components of biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge concerning the “cardiovascular system”. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1369–1390.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. http://www.ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7615. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- Witzig, S. B., & Sickel, A. J. (2017). Setting the landscape: focusing on the methods course in secondary science teacher education. In S. B. Witzig & A. J. Sickel (Eds.), Designing and teaching the secondary science methods course: an international perspective (pp. 1–8). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar