Science teachers' knowledge development in the context of
educational innovation
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background to the study
1993). In attempting to clarify the nature and features of PCK, various scholars (e.g., Cochran et al., 1993; Marks, 1990; Grossmann, 1990) elaborated on Shulman’s work and described PCK in different ways, that is, incorporating different attributes or characteristics (Van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos, 1998, p. 676). For example, Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko (1999, p. 99), based on Grossman (1990), developed a theoretical model of the components of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching, including knowledge about 1) instructional strategies concerning a specific topic in the curriculum; 2) students’ understanding of this topic; 3) ways to assess students’ understanding of this topic; and 4) goals and objectives for teaching the topic in the curriculum.
While PCK has been a subject of research since the 1980’s, and much has been written about its characterization and its importance as a foundational knowledge base for teaching, little is known about the process of PCK development in relation to other domains of teacher knowledge, especially in the context of educational reform. In the present study, we examined different domains of teacher knowledge (including pedagogical content knowledge) in the context of a broad innovation in secondary education, including the introduction of a new science syllabus, in the Netherlands. The aim of the study was to make a contribution to instruments and theory on the development of teacher knowledge in the context of educational reform. The outcomes of such research will lead to an understanding of how innovators and curriculum developers can take teacher knowledge into account in designing and implementing educational innovations.
The general research question was the following:
In what ways does the knowledge of experienced science teachers develop in the context of innovation in secondary education?
To answer this question, we formulated four specific questions, to be answered in different sub-studies, as explained in section 1.4.
1.2 Context of the study
The context of the study was the introduction of a new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science (Algemene Natuurwetenschappen) in Dutch secondary education (Grades 10 and 11, students of 15 to 17 years). Several important aspects of this innovation are discussed below.
Introduction
element. In this respect, the introduction of the new syllabus bears similarities to the vision on science education reform in other countries, such as Canada (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), the USA (AAAS, 1994), and the UK (NEAB, 1998). The present study is related to recent research in those countries, for instance, about students’ and teachers’ knowledge and beliefs with respect to the nature of science (e.g., Lederman, 1992), and about the role of models and the use of modelling in science education (Gilbert & Boulter, 1998; Justi & Gilbert, 2002; Van Driel & Verloop, 1999, 2002). The introduction of the new science syllabus coincides with the implementation of a constructivist-based model of learning and teaching, which is termed ’Studiehuis’, in upper secondary education in the Netherlands. Among other things, the purpose of this innovation is to stimulate self-regulated learning, and to decrease the emphasis on teacher-directed education (cf. Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). As a result, science teachers who start to teach Public Understanding of Science are expected to adopt pedagogical approaches in which facilitating students’ active learning process is more important than lecturing. The present study is, therefore, also related to recent studies in the Netherlands on the role and position of teachers in the context of the Studiehuis, for example, a study on secondary and higher education teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning (Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2006), and a broad project, still in progress, in which teachers’ ways of learning in the context of active and self-regulated learning are being investigated from different theoretical angles (Bakkenes, Hoekstra, Meirink, and Zwart, 2004).
1.3 Nature of the study
We used a multi-method design in the present study, including a semi-structured interview in combination with metaphors (taken from studies by Ebbens, 1994; Fox, 1983; and Martinez, 2001), a questionnaire (taken from a study by Van Driel & Verloop, 1999), the Repertory Grid technique (developed by Kelly, 1955), and the so-called Story-line method, which is a relatively new technique for investigating teachers’ knowledge about relevant experiences and events throughout a certain period of their careers (developed by Gergen, 1988). These instruments were applied to identify similarities and differences in the content and structure of science teachers’ knowledge (development). We did not intend to describe in detail the personal knowledge of each individual participant, but to chart the possible common patterns across the knowledge of different teachers (Verloop et al., 2001).
1.4 Overview of the study
The present study can be characterized as a descriptive, longitudinal study, including four sub-studies. We followed nine experienced science teachers over a period of three academic years in their natural setting, without conducting any intervention. To investigate the development of teacher knowledge, we administered a part of the above-mentioned instruments among the same group of teachers, at several moments over the period of study. We specified the general research question (section 1.1) by focusing on the development of science teachers’ knowledge in the context of the introduction of the new syllabus of Public Understanding of Science. In this light, we formulated four questions to be answered in different sub-studies.
In the first study (2002), we investigated three domains of teacher knowledge, that is, general pedagogical knowledge (i.e., teachers’ perspectives on learning and teaching), pedagogical content knowledge of models and modelling in the new syllabus, and relevant subject matter knowledge. A semi-structured interview with written metaphors, and a questionnaire were used. We aimed at identifying patterns in the content and structure of the teachers’ knowledge about teaching ‘models and modelling’ at a point in time when they still had little experience in teaching the new syllabus. The research question in this study was: W hat is the content and structure of the knowledge about teaching ‘models and modelling’ of experienced science teachers at a time when they still have little experience of teaching the new syllabus of Public Understanding of Science? We report on Study 1 in Chapter 2 of this thesis.
Introduction
develop as these teachers become more experienced in teaching this syllabus? We report on Study 2 in Chapter 3.
In the third study (2004), we viewed the development of teachers’ knowledge as teachers’ learning in the workplace (section 1.1). We used the Story-line method to elicit the teachers’ perceptions of their learning from experiences at work, in retrospect, in their first few years of teaching the new syllabus. This learning concerned the teaching of the syllabus of Public Understanding, in general, and not only the teaching of ‘models and modelling’ in the syllabus. We focused on three aspects of the teachers’ learning in the workplace, namely, activities in the working context that helped the teachers in their professional development, courses of development, and changed competences as perceived by the teachers themselves. The research question was: In what ways did experienced science teachers learn in the workplace, in the context of the implementation of the new syllabus of Public Understanding of Science? We report on Study 3 in Chapter 4.
In the fourth study, we focused on the development of one domain of teacher knowledge, that is, pedagogical content knowledge, and one specific topic in the new syllabus, that is, ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’. To this end, we conducted semi-structured interviews, in three subsequent academic years: 2002, 2003, and 2004. The research question was: How can science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of the learning and teaching of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ in the syllabus of Public Understanding of Science be typified at a time when they still have little experience of teaching PUSc., and how does this pedagogical content knowledge develop when teachers become more experienced in teaching this topic? We report on Study 4 in Chapter 5.
Table 1.1 Overview of the study
Finally, in Chapter 6, we return to the general research question. We discuss the conclusions obtained from the studies reported in Chapters 2 through 5.* Implications
for the syllabus of Public Understanding of Science as a new science subject are discussed, as are suggestions for future innovations and future research.
1.5 References
AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science) (1994). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aikenhead, G.S., & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument. Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491.
Bakkenes, I., Hoekstra, A., Meirink, J., & Zwart, R. (2004). Leren van docenten in de beroepspraktijk [Learning of teachers in practice]. Paper presented at the Onderwijs Research Dagen (ORD) 2004, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan. Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Cochran, F.K., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 261-272. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55 (5), 6-11.
De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public Understanding of Science as a separate subject in secondary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 711-719. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher
practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506.
Ebbens, S.O. (1994). Op weg naar zelfstandig leren, effecten van nascholing. [A way to self regulated learning, outcomes of continued professional training]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit-knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8 (2), 151-163. Gergen, M.M. (1988). Narrative structures in social explanation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing
social explanation (pp. 94-112). London: Sage, Hargreaves.
Gilbert, J.K., & Boulter, C.J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53-66). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, London: Teachers College Press.
Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in action. Milton Keynes: SHRE and Open University.
* The studies reported in these chapters have either been accepted for publication or have been submitted
Introduction
Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 123-136.
Justi, R.S., & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1273-1292.
Kagan, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419-469.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs, Vols. 1&2. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Inc. [Republished (1999) London: Routledge].
Kwakman, K. (1999). Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan.[Teacher learning during professional career]. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149-170.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (3), 3-11.
Martinez, M.A. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965 –977.
Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D.(1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 59-84.
NEAB (Northern Examinations and Assessment Board) (1998). Science for Public Understanding (syllabus). Harrogate, UK: NEAB.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning: An exploratory study in secondary and university education. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers' knowledge of teaching and learning models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education ,24 (12), 1255-1272.
Verloop, N. (1992). Praktijkkennis van docenten: een blinde vlek van de onderwijskunde. [Craft knowledge of teachers: A blind spot in educational research]. Pedagogische Studiën, 69, 410-423.
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441-461.
Vermunt, J.D, & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
