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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath & Co..

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hume, A. (2012). Primary connections: Simulating the classroom in initial teacher education. Research in Science Education, 42, 551–565.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  32. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stolarsky Ben-Nun, M., & Yarden, A. (2009). Learning molecular genetics in teacher-led outreach laboratories. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 19–25.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz-Josef Scharfenberg.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 205 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 162 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 222 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scharfenberg, F., Bogner, F.X. Module-Phase-Dependent Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Replicating a Role-Change Approach in Pre-Service Teacher Education in an Outreach Lab. Res Sci Educ (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09887-9

Download citation

Keywords

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