A frame for the development of preservice science teachers

Knowledge Domains for Teaching Science

Certain key ideas appear to be necessary for the development of preservice teachers regardless of the structure of the program in which they participate. As suggested by Gess-Newsome (1999) these include the integration of knowledge bases, informed decision-making, exposure to examples of teaching excellence and multiple and supported experiences. Teaching practice and university courses are widely accepted as important ways of supporting and modelling excellent teaching. However, there has been more variation in the research on the interpretation of how teachers integrate knowledge bases and make decisions. Some of the important knowledge bases for teaching science and how these can assist in the development of preservice science teachers are discussed below. The knowledge base for science teachers will be different from that of, for example, history teachers, as Shulman (1999) suggests:

…teaching, like research, is domain-specific. This implied that teaching as “the transformation of understanding” rested on depth, quality and flexibility of content knowledge and on the capacity to generate powerful representations and reflections on that knowledge. (pxi)

A number of different schemes have been proposed for articulating appropriate knowledge bases for science preservice teachers. For example, Tamir (1989) proposed six knowledge bases: subject matter, pedagogy, subject matter specific pedagogy, general liberal education, personal performance and foundations of teaching. From a different perspective, Koballa, Graber, Coleman & Kemp (1999) in an investigation of prospective chemistry teachers’ conception of the knowledge base for teaching chemistry at the German Gymnasium proposed a nested structure for participants’ conceptions where the different layers may be viewed as differing levels of personal experience. In this model, Koballa et al. suggest that preservice chemistry teachers perceive school chemistry knowledge and university chemistry knowledge as nested within multi-dimensional knowledge, which is itself nested within learner-orientation multi-dimensional knowledge. They hypothesise that:

The participants’ conceptions may represent different levels of personal experience that individuals accumulate when learning to teach chemistry. For example, it seems likely that prospective teachers experience university chemistry as important for chemistry teaching before considering knowledge of students or curriculum knowledge. (p283)

Personal experience becomes an important dimension here as the way preservice chemistry teachers have experienced their chemistry knowledge at school and university influences the knowledge they use for teaching.

In 1987 Shulman proposed seven domains of teacher knowledge which have contributed much to researching how knowledge bases are integrated by teachers and how they make decisions. The domains are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge of learners, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values.

There are obvious similarities between the knowledge bases provided in all these models, particularly Tamir’s and Shulman’s, despite their different perspectives. (Tamir and Shulman look at these knowledge bases from the view of the (science) teacher educator rather than from the perspective of Koballa et al., which takes the perspective of the preservice chemistry/science teacher). All three highlight the importance of knowledge of subject, while Tamir’s and Shulman’s models both additionally identify knowledge of pedagogy, and subject specific pedagogy. Koballa et al.’s model highlights the importance of personal experience, but this may not count as category of knowledge, but rather a factor that influences knowledge. Importantly, all these models support the notion that successful science teachers require knowledge beyond the level of subject matter alone.

While Shulman’s and Tamir’s models clearly identify both pedagogical knowledge and subject specific pedagogy, or as Shulman terms it, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as important domains of knowledge, Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999), in a discussion about the source of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and PCK, present facets of pedagogical knowledge that are essential to its development and also the relationship between Shulman’s seven knowledge domains. This is reproduced in a modified version in Figure 1 where Morine-Dershimer and Kent’s (1999) notions of facets of pedagogical knowledge and PCK have been combined into a single figure. The arrow linking these two diagrams (shown as a much thicker arrow) has been provided by the author, and while clearly providing a linkage between these two models, it also serves to emphasise the complex nature of these models. While Morine-Dershimer and Kent propose that context specific pedagogical knowledge is a precursor to pedagogical knowledge, this does not mean that pedagogical knowledge will be developed, and so the arrow representation is quite complex. For example, classroom management, instructional models and strategies and classroom communication and discourse all need to pay attention to educational goalsand assessment and evaluation as well as learners as important aspects of pedagogical practice.

Figure 1: Modified version of 2 models proposed by Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999.

Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999) suggest that it is the development of “context specific pedagogical knowledge that helps to guide teachers’ decisions and actions” (1999, p23) and provide the contextual basis for preservice science teachers’ consideration of educational goals and evaluation and knowledge of learners, which are important precursors in the development of pedagogical knowledge. For science teachers, considerations of these domains (pedagogical knowledge, educational goals, purposes, values and evaluation and knowledge of learners and learning) are also critical aspects in the development of PCK.

As Morine-Deshimer and Kent(1999) note there are three important points to note in this model: