Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in a collaborative school-based professional development program for inquiry-based science teaching

The lessons learned from this study have important implications for in-service professional development. They demonstrate that collaborative school-based professional development that involves the development of learning communities within schools, in partnership with TEs, could be an effective means to develop a greater degree of PCK ownership among teachers, and such communities could supplement, if not replace, traditional workshop-based in-service teacher training activities.

As this study proves, a framework of professional development goals that focuses on SMK and PCK development is useful in helping teachers to embrace inquiry-based science teaching. This framework should lead teachers to seek answers to three important questions: (1) what do teachers need to know about the topics concerned and the scientific inquiry process? (2) what do students know about the topics, and how do they reason through inquiry activities? (3) what instructional strategies are effective in leading students through scientific inquiry? Whereas the planning stage is useful in eliciting and developing teachers’ SMK and knowledge of students, the implementation phase is more effective in facilitating their understanding of students’ reasoning ability and the development of teaching strategies to further this ability. Engaging teachers in collaborative development that focuses on the construction of PCK also allows the TE to develop a better understanding of teachers’ needs and how they can be met.

If one of the goals of professional development for science teachers is to enhance their knowledge base, particularly their PCK, for teaching through inquiry, then there is a need to further conceptualize how that base is developed. The working model shown in Figure 1 is based on the insights developed in this study combined with previous research.

This model uses a micro-perspective to depict the interrelationship between PCK and other knowledge bases, and the development of PCK as a cyclic event in the teaching cycle. When planning a lesson, the teacher needs to integrate different types of knowledge, and then transform them into PCK for inquiry-based instruction for that particular topic. This PCK can be further differentiated into knowledge and knowing. Initially, the knowledge aspect is generated as the outcome of the transformation process in the planning stage and comprises the baseline knowledge on which the teacher plans his or her lesson. As the lesson proceeds, it becomes highly fluid and dynamic as the teacher interacts with students and reflects continuously on these interactions. He or she may experience cognitive dissonance in the process, thus rendering his or her existing knowledge aspect of PCK problematic or insufficient. This reflection process, which constitutes the knowing aspect of PCK, is not restricted to the aftermath of the lesson, but also takes place throughout it and influences it in two ways. First, it informs the knowledge aspect of PCK, and, second, it results in the ad hoc adjustment, as far as the situation allows, of the teacher’s instructional strategies.

This knowing aspect of PCK further extends the notion of pedagogical content knowing (PCKg) in Cochran et al. (1993), which emphasizes PCK as active processes of knowledge construction rather than as a static body of knowledge, and Appleton’s (2006) idea of transforming existing PCK into experiential PCK. It is also in line with Van Driel & Beijaard’s idea about the development of PCK as a result of external input, collegial interactions and experimentation in practice (2003). Differentiating between the knowledge and knowing aspects of PCK facilitates teachers’ awareness of its developmental nature. The relationship between the two aspects is analogous to that between content and processes in science. Any new understanding generated from different sources of input may be applied to the teaching of the same topic or to the wider context of science teaching. For instance, teachers may develop new content knowledge as a byproduct of student queries, and this may be applied to the teaching of other topics. Teachers’ reflections on the nature of scientific inquiry may also stimulate them to rethink the purpose of the primary science curriculum, thus leading to a more in-depth understanding of science education. Furthermore, certain inquiry-based strategies, such as videotaped demonstrations, that have proved to be effective in a current application could be applied to other science topics or even other subjects, eventually becoming integrated into teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge. The knowing aspect of PCK can be regarded as an integral part of Shulman’s (1987) generic notion of pedagogical reasoning. Teachers should be encouraged to recognize the usefulness of the PCK cycle construct and then develop the disposition to reflect on their own PCK cycles, thus making them increasingly effective. This cyclic PCK model can be adopted as a transition model for inquiry-based instruction to pave the way for the development of a more mature and comprehensive model as more research evidence becomes available.

As this study was necessarily restricted to one academic year because of funding constraints, future research could cover a longer time span to trace teacher development in subsequent teaching cycles. Finally, a number of questions have been raised by this study that need to be addressed in future research: what kinds of input from the TE can better facilitate teachers’ learning through the teaching cycle? what specific strategies can facilitate the reconstruction of knowledge bases through reflection? how far can this mode of teacher training go toward supplementing existing in-service or even pre-service teacher training approaches?