 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 12, Issue 1, Article 1
(Jun., 2011) |
|
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 12, Issue 1, Article 1
(Jun., 2011) |
Grossman attributes the development of PCK in teachers to a number of factors which include observation of classes, courses in teacher education and classroom teaching/learning experiences (1990). But Marks (1990) takes a much more integrated view of the development of PCK and states that the development of PCK revolves around interpretation of subject matter knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge. Others such as Cochran, DeRuiter & King (1993), Fernandex-Balboa & Stiehl (1995) have taken some elements of the original seven elements of the “knowledge base for teaching” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9) as constituting the source of PCK. It is only later that reflective practice and action research were also conceptualized as a form of professional development that contributed to the development of PCK (Appleton, 2008; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). In science education the nexus between PCK and action research has been explored from different perspectives (Goodnough, 2008, 2009; Nilsson, 2008; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Pedretti & Hodson, 1995). However, there have been calls to move the work on PCK forward towards a deeper focus on specific topic areas in science (Bergendahl, V. C. B., 2003; Bucat, 2004; Hashweh, 2004; Mulhall, Berry & Loughran 2003). An accumulation of science topic specific development of PCK will help to remove the “professional amnesia” (Bucat, 2004, p. 225) in science teachers by carefully documenting through research the teaching strategies of competent science teachers.” However, it is important to note that research on general aspects of PCK development in science has identified a number of generic features too that require careful assessment.
For example Goodnough (2008) examines six primary school teachers’ learning of inquiry mode of teaching science within an action research community of practice using pedagogical content knowledge as the framework for analysis. She finds that science teachers who used very traditional and teacher-centered methods of teaching science struggled to use the inquiry approach. They found it very challenging in “‘letting go’ of the control of the learning environment and allowing the children to take greater responsibility of their learning” but were later “pleasantly surprised by how positively the students responded to their shifting roles” (p. 30-31). Goodnough also studied the implementation of problem-based learning in the context of science through action research conducted by five elementary teachers. She found that the, development of PCK in each science teacher developed with different knowledge bases for teaching and hence their enhancement of their PCK varied. In other words, “each teacher has a unique PCK profile and how this changes as a result of new experiences will depend on prior experiences, contextual factors and readiness to adopt new teaching approaches”(p. 239).
Ponte, Beijaard & Ax (2004) as part of large research project facilitated seven groups of teachers in six schools to undertake action research over a period of two years. The purpose was to develop professional knowledge of teachers. The findings indicate that action research program for professional development has the best chance of success if the team of teachers and teacher educators have a shared understanding and input in the program. An important aspect of PCK development of teachers has been highlighted by the same team in another paper (Ponte, Ax, Beijaard & Wubbels, 2004) They report that unless facilitators intervened the teachers tended to focus much more on the technological domain of knowledge and did not give sufficient attention to the ideological and empirical domains. The researchers concluded that despite development of professional knowledge, “we could assume that daily practice tempts teachers to seek immediate technical solutions” (p. 587).
Peters (2004) as part of the action research-based professional development project in Australia that worked with 14 institutions found that action research supports the development of the ability to reflect and understand one’s own practice. The teachers participating in the study, “Felt they were more aware of their practice and of the thinking that informed the decisions they made and that this, in turn, led to some changes in thinking and practice. There was also evidence that, through the opportunities for professional discourse in the project, the teachers became more aware of their colleagues’ thinking and practices” (p. 551).
Pardhan (2005) has researched the development of PCK of science teachers to promote science teaching in the context of Pakistan. Her findings support collaborative action research and critical reflection for improved development of PCK and also find that with support teachers can build a community of learners. However, the formation of community and developing trust takes time at least in the context of Pakistan where such collaborations are rare and novel and are generally not supported by school management. Ashraf and Rarieya (2008) who worked in a similar environment as Pardhan in Pakistan supported reflection in the form of reflective conversations for the development of teachers. They also presented the tensions involved in developing trust and open-mindedness. In particular open-mindedness requires an acknowledgement that there are multiple ways of viewing events and to develop this world view was a time consuming process.
Soonye & Oliver (2008) too found that PCK developed through reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action among other factors such as students’ misconceptions and teacher efficacy that shaped this development process. They drawing on literature on PCK identified five components of PCK for science teaching (a) orientation to science teaching, (b) knowledge of students’ understanding in science, (c) knowledge of science curriculum, (d) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching science, and (e) knowledge of assessment of science. These five concepts were used as a heuristic device to analyze and generate an understanding of Khan’s PCK development while undertaking action research. The analysis showed that all of these elements supported and shaped the development of PCK for Khan, however, the data was also very clear that management of the classroom and resources contributed to the development of a special kind of knowledge that helped his teaching. Analysis of Khan’s study provided an opportunity to explore the PCK development in a specific topic area of the Pakistani physics curriculum (heat and temperature). Secondary science curriculum of Pakistan includes thermal physics in the curriculum that constitutes key concepts of thermal equilibrium, flow of heat energy and the differentiation between heat and temperature (AKU-EB, 2004). Students when encountering these notions often have great difficulty in distinguishing between heat and temperature (Carlton, 2000). However, it has also been seen that when these topics are approached with hands-on inquiry based activities followed by discussions the students are able to acquire the science concepts being taught (Mustafa & Omer, 2007; Pathare & Pradhan, 2010). Hence, Khan decided to devise inquiry-based hands-on activities to teach the section of thermal physics in grade 9 textbook being used by the school to teach the students.
Copyright (C) 2011 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 12, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2011). All Rights Reserved.
