Advertisement

Module-Phase-Dependent Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Replicating a Role-Change Approach in Pre-Service Teacher Education in an Outreach Lab

  • Franz-Josef ScharfenbergEmail author
  • Franz X. Bogner
Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

How pre-service teachers (PST) develop components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is an open question. Theoretically based on PCK and combined with student education in our outreach lab, we implemented a role-change approach in PST education. After theoretical and practical preparation, the PSTs change from the student role, to the tutor role, to the teacher role, on three subsequent days. As PCK components, our approach shifted the PSTs’ orientations toward teaching biology to a more student-centeredness. It also changed their views on student learning difficulties (SLD) and instructional strategies for avoiding those (Scharfenberg and Bogner 2016). Seventy-two PSTs and 1413 students (82 classes) participated in our replication study. As direct replication, we monitored PCK components in pre- and delayed posttests. As conceptual replication, we examined the PSTs’ views on SLDs after practical preparation and after each role experienced, and observed their instructional changes (IC) as teachers. We content-analytically categorized and quantitatively analyzed the SLD statements and the ICs. Cluster-analytically, we compared the PSTs’ SLD view pattern. We directly replicated all the 2016 study results. Conceptually replicating, the PSTs module-phase dependently changed their SLD views (averagely medium effects) and presented ICs. Overall-oriented PSTs (seeing both hands- and minds-on-related SLDs), hands-on-oriented and minds-on-oriented PSTs (one dominating SLD view, each) arose after experiencing the tutor role. The overall-oriented PSTs only shifted their orientation to more student-centeredness. Our replication confirms the step-wise development of PSTs’ PCK. We discuss the relevance of the different module-phase-dependent experiences for science teacher education and future research.

Keywords

Science teacher education Pre-service teacher education Pedagogical content knowledge Outreach education Role-change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the teachers, the pre-service teachers and the students involved in this study for their cooperation. We appreciate the helpful and valuable discussion of earlier stages of the manuscript with M. Wiseman. This work was supported by the Oberfranken Foundation (02094/010807) and the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection (74a-U8793-2001/10-36).

Supplementary material

11165_2019_9887_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (206 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 205 kb)
11165_2019_9887_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (163 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 162 kb)
11165_2019_9887_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (222 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 222 kb)

References

  1. Akkus, H. (2013). Pre-service secondary science teachers’ images about themselves as science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12, 249–260.Google Scholar
  2. Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Bavarian Ministry of Education (2011). Welcome! The Bavarian school system. https://www.km.bayern.de/education-in-bavaria.html. Accessed 10 April 2019.
  4. Bektas, O., Ekiz, B., Tuysuz, M., Kutucu, E. S., Tarkin, A., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2013). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of the nature of science in the particle nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman, L., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. (2003). Studying individual development in an inter-individual context. A person-oriented approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 130–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bindernagel, J., & Eilks, I. (2009). Evaluating roadmaps to portray and develop chemistry teachers’ PCK about curricular structures concerning sub-microscopic model. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P., & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, K. K. H., & Anne Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 3–76). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Daehler, K., Heller, J. I., & Wong, N. (2015). Supporting growth of pedagogical content knowledge in science. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 45–59). London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  15. De Jong, O., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath & Co..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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 Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Großschedl, J., Harms, U., Kleickmann, T., & Glowinski, I. (2015). Preservice biology teachers’ professional knowledge: structure and learning opportunities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2016). Expertise amiss: Interactivity fosters learning but expert tutors are less interactive than novice tutors. Instructional Science, 44, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hock, M., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1999). Tutoring programs for academically underprepared college students: a review of literature. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science. Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Horton, P. B., McConney, A., Woods, A. L., Barry, K., Krout, H. L., II, & Doyle, B. K. (1993). A content analysis of research published in the journal of research in science teaching from 1985 through 1989. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hume, A. (2012). Primary connections: Simulating the classroom in initial teacher education. Research in Science Education, 42, 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karal, I. S., & Alev, N. (2016). Development of pre-service physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) throughout their initial training. Teacher Development, 20, 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kind, V. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations and beliefs about science. Science Education, 100, 122–152.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschner, S., Borowski, A., Fischer, H. E., Gess-Newsome, J., & von Aufschnaiter, C. (2016). Developing and evaluating a paper-and-pencil test to assess components of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 1343–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). A case study on German first year chemistry student teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching, and their comparison with student teachers from other science teaching domains. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2016). Teacher- or learner-centred? Science teacher beliefs related to topic specific pedagogical content knowledge: a south African case study. Research in Science Education, 46, 831–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit—capturing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 2836–2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Park, S., & Chen, Y. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Park, S., & Oliver, J. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park, S., Suh, J., & Seo, K. (2018). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ PCK for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education, 48, 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearson, K. (1904). On the theory of contingency and its relation to association and normal correlation. London, UK: Dulau.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, R., & Sahin-Pekmez, E. (2012). Scientific evidence as content knowledge: a replication study with English and Turkish pre-service primary teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 1–30.Google Scholar
  42. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). (2018). Replication studies – Improving reproducibility in the empirical sciences. Amsterdam: KNAW.Google Scholar
  43. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2011). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students' activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41, 505–523.Google Scholar
  44. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2013a). Teaching gene technology in an outreach lab: Students' assigned cognitive load clusters and the clusters' relationships to learner characteristics, laboratory variables, and cognitive achievement. Research in Science Education, 43 141–161.Google Scholar
  45. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2013b). Instructional efficiency of tutoring in an outreach gene technology laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43 1267–1288.Google Scholar
  46. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2016). A new role-change approach in pre-service teacher education for developing pedagogical content knowledge in the context of a student outreach lab. Research in Science Education, 46, 743–766.Google Scholar
  47. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2019). A role-play-based tutor training in pre-service teacher education for developing procedural pedagogical content knowledge by optimizing tutor-student interactions in the context of an outreach lab. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30, 461–482.Google Scholar
  48. Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F.X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28–39.Google Scholar
  49. Schmelzing, S., van Driel, J., Jüttner, M., Brandenbusch, S., Sandmann, A., & Neuhaus, B. J. (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 and Mathematics Education, 11, 1369–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: a review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81, 530–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stolarsky Ben-Nun, M., & Yarden, A. (2009). Learning molecular genetics in teacher-led outreach laboratories. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, J., Furtak, E., Kowalski, S., Martinez, A., Slavin, R., Stuhlsatz, M., & Wilson, C. (2016). Emergent themes from recent research syntheses in science education and their implications for research design, replication, and reporting practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1216–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thanheiser, E. (2018). The effects of preservice elementary school teachers' accurate self-assessments in the context of whole number. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas, J., Pederson, J., & Finson, K. (2001). Validating the draw-a-science-teacher-test checklist (DASTT-C): exploring mental models and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallace, C. (2013). Promoting shifts in preservice science teachers’ thinking through teaching and action research in informal science settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 811–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Witterholt, M., Goedhart, M., Suhre, C., & Streun, A. (2012). The interconnected model of professional growth as a means to assess the development of a mathematics teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wongsopawiro, D. S., Zwart, R. C., & van Driel, J. H. (2017). Identifying pathways of teachers’ PCK development. Teachers and Teaching, 23, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Math & Science Education, Department of Biology EducationUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations