A frame for the development of preservice science teachers

Given the parameters under which this course has been constructed as outlined in the “Studying this unit” section of the unit guide, how successful has the unit been in developing the following knowledge domains in your opinion (course evaluation document).

Their response are summarised in Table II where 1=strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = don’t know, 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly disagree. N/R represents no response.

Prior to their completion of the course evaluation, a review session where the aim was to develop a shared meaning of what was meant by each of the seven knowledge domains listed was conducted. This was to planned to reduce some of the ambiguity that might arise from the use of these terms. The lecturer’s explanation of these terms was also included in the “Studying the Unit” section of the Unit Guide that all students received at the commencement of the course.

The development of subject matter knowledge is not perceived as being developed by 40% of preservice teachers with an additional 15% unsure. However, there are 45% of students who do believe that subject matter is developed to some extent (20% strongly agree that it is developed) within the course.

These perceptions are interesting as all preservice chemistry teachers entering this course have at least a two year university sequence of study in chemistry, so their background subject matter knowledge is considerable. Many have indeed more than this with some Chemistry PhD and Masters degrees as part of their chemistry backgrounds.

Table II: Preservice chemistry teachers’ responses to their perceptions of the success of the course in developing different knowledge domains (N=20).

Given this background it is assumed (by the author as the lecturer) that much of the preservice chemistry teachers’ subject matter knowledge is developed as part of their own school and university courses. This assumption may need some further consideration. There is some further development of subject matter knowledge as content areas such as acid/base chemistry, stoichiometry, atomic theory, the concept of substance and chemical reactions are some of the content areas used as contexts and on-going themes for developing understanding of teaching strategies.

In addition, specific attention is given to exploring the nature of science and the values inherent within science and science education. However, preservice chemistry teachers do not perceive an exploration of the nature of science as part of their subject matter knowledge. Their definition of this domain relates specifically to knowing chemistry content.

Koballa et al (1999) in their study of preservice chemistry teachers found that there were four major conceptions prevalent amongst the group they studied. The first conception was university chemistry knowledge. Some preservice teachers believed that knowledge of the discipline of chemistry taught at university provided the most important prerequisite for effective chemistry teaching. This type of knowledge as garnered from the preservice teachers collective responses in interviews was of three types: chemistry facts and concepts; chemical theories, and laboratory and problems solving skills. Koballa et al make the suggestion that:

… the notion of knowledge of chemistry as the only essential for secondary teaching has associated with it the belief that good chemistry teaching is directly related to one’s understanding of chemistry content as presented at university (p277).

From my own experience with preservice chemistry teachers, this is often the perception at the beginning of the course, particularly from those preservice chemistry teachers with higher degree chemistry qualifications and some experience of tutoring in university. However, the responses from the preservice chemistry teachers above indicate that the assumption that preservice chemistry teachers have significant chemistry knowledge on entry and its relevance to teaching needs to be explored further. It may be that at the end of the chemistry education course, the students’ perception of what is appropriate chemistry knowledge has changed throughout the year.

Analysis of the data presented in Tables 1 and 2 indicate some agreement across other knowledge domains. Preservice chemistry teachers appear to agree that the course has successfully begun the development their pedagogical knowledge, PCK and knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values. There is some uncertainty for some students in terms of the successful development of knowledge of learners and curriculum knowledge.

Knowledge of educational contexts, which preservice chemistry teachers have defined as knowing how schools function day-to-day, the philosophy of the school, its facilities and approaches to teaching, reflects again the lack of emphasis in this knowledge domain of the coursework component of the course, with some 35% of students uncertain and 25% disagreeing about the development of this knowledge domain in this course. On the other hand some 40% of preservice chemistry teachers either strongly agreed or agreed that this knowledge domain was successfully developed. These responses to the development of knowledge of educational contexts continue to highlight the gap between linking theory and practice.

Responses from preservice chemistry teachers’ learning logs however, indicate that the link between theory and practice might be better than at first anticipated. From these learning logs, it has become clear that some preservice chemistry teachers, who according to Furlong and Maynard’s model would be in the Stages 4 or 5 – moving on to student engagement, are indeed linking their theory and practice.

I started to see the “light” about concept maps. Until now I just could not see how I was going to use them in teaching… I had lots of reservation. What is a good concept map? How to evaluate a concept map? …After the tutorial I was convinced that it can be used and I am going to try to use it. The practical application in my classroom helped me to understand, plus the ideas[on] how to evaluate them. I was very satisfied as this discovery made my day. It crystallized in me that concept maps will be part of my teaching repertoire and evaluation of students’ understanding. I will have to plan in advance and polish my ideas of how to introduce concept maps to students if they do not already know them. (Harry – learning log)

While Harry’s comment is just an example of many similar comments from preservice chemistry teachers, it was clear that the students making such comments were generally beyond Furlong & Maynard’s Stage 3 “dealing with difficulties” of their preservice teacher development, while those who were at Stages 1-3 did not make these links as often, if at all. When preservice teachers are focuses on student engagement and have ‘mastered’ many of the technical components of teacher, they are able to reflect on what they have learnt and relate it to what they are teaching, such as in the above example using concept maps.

From the preservice chemistry teachers’ data it has become evident that they have found it incredibly helpful to have the intentions of the course explicitly articulated. In knowing the intention and purpose for the course, the preservice chemistry teachers have felt they have more control over their experiences and learning. The use of learning logs has been an invaluable tool for promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ responsibility for their own learning, gaining insights into and monitoring their learning as they interact with course materials, each other, schools and experienced teachers.

Preservice chemistry teachers commented that they found the concept of PCK difficult, but after examining experienced teachers’ examples of PCK, combined with the school experience, they began to recognise the benefits in developing this type of knowledge as shown below by this artefact from one student’s (Ross- a pseudonym) chemistry teaching portfolio.

‘The concept of pedagogical content knowledge fascinates me. I had always thought of teaching as getting up in front and my words would just flow and the students would learn! ………… I feel that my PCK is very immature at the moment. I say this because I think I am still in the process of learning what is really involved in the transformation of my CK [content knowledge] into PCK.’

‘I am aware that my CK plays a big part in this transformation and I am still learning other aspects of pedagogy that will assist me in a knowledgeable transformation.’

(Ross, 2005)

When I wrote this reflection I was uncertain as to the reasoning and necessity of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Upon further reading and reflection on this I realised that I was subconsciously making a serious assumption about teaching and learning. I had assumed that there was one type of teaching and one type of learning. This line of thought obviously simplifies the concepts of and transformation of CK and PCK, but in reality this is not the case. There are many different teaching styles and learning styles which make the transformation of my CK into PCK crucial in teaching efficiently and effectively.

I now visualise PCK as being the medium that bridges the gap between my knowledge of chemistry and efficient and effective teaching and learning of chemistry. The greater the depth of knowledge I have of the chemistry content the greater the potential to develop and implement different teaching and learning strategies for all my students. (Ross – chemistry teaching portfolio)

The development of a chemistry teacher portfolio, with myself as their chemistry education lecturer as an informed reader, has also been beneficial in the development of themselves as chemistry teachers:

The development of a portfolio of pieces of work, resources and other articles relating to teaching has enhanced my understanding of my own learning and development. Being able to easily view previous efforts and contrast these with newer items is a great aid to reflection, and offers encouragement through the obvious progress that has been achieved. The subjective nature of the collection of portfolio items results in a very individual and personalized piece. (Richard – learning log)

My chemistry portfolio was a piece that contributed to the developing of my own role as a person and as a teacher (my inner core and outer concentric rings). Before the portfolio, I had some confusion in my own mind about what I represented as a chemistry teacher and a person. I knew that the inner core was ‘me’ - All that I have become from all that I have experienced. The outer, the medium, between me, society, and the students was hazy and fragile in its structure. The portfolio allowed me to realise that my professional knowledge, professional experience and professional evaluation form concentric rings around my ‘me’ core. It is through these concentric rings that I see the strategies of teaching & learning. It is through these concentric rings that my focus on students and the outside world will be forever visualised. And as time goes by and I develop my own teaching experiences these concentric rings will become firm structures that will eventually wrap tightly around the inner ‘me’ core – new concentric rings will present themselves but all I have experienced as a teacher and a person will become part of me, part of my learning and always part of my reflections. (Fred- learning log)

Such a portfolio is different from those normally constructed for example for employment purposes. The informed readership is a critical factor in these portfolios as the students know me as their lecturer and I know them and their abilities from both their coursework and professional experiences. These portfolios are about students articulating all the ideas they have about what it means to them to be a chemistry teacher, and what is important, and requires them to put some cohesive structure into this thinking. They have become important tools for helping students reflect on what they have learnt and what they believe about chemistry teaching and requires them to articulate these ideas. The importance of reflecting on and articulating your ideas is an important part of the process in developing chemistry teachers.

Knowledge Domains	1	2	3	4	5	N/R
Subject matter knowledge	5	4	3	8
Pedagogical knowledge	6	13	1
Knowledge of educational contexts	4	4	7	5
Knowledge of learners	6	9	4			1
Curriculum knowledge	7	8	3	2
Pedagogical content knowledge	7	10	1	1		1
Knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values	11	8	1

Preservice chemistry teachers responses