educational innovation
Henze-Rietveld, F.A.
Citation
Henze-Rietveld, F. A. (2006, November 21). Science teachers' knowledge development in
the context of educational innovation. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/8476
Version:
Corrected Publisher’s Version
License:
Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the
Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden
Chapter 6
The aim of the research presented was to examine the concept of teacher knowledge in the context of the introduction of Public Understanding of Science as a new syllabus in Dutch secondary education. To this end, we followed nine experienced science teachers over a period of three years in their natural settings. Specific interventions were not conducted. W e investigated the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge, PCK of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’, and subject matter knowledge of this topic. W e also investigated their personal knowledge and beliefs about the learning and teaching of models and modelling in the new syllabus, and their own perceptions of their learning in the context of teaching PUSc. W e applied multiple instruments (interview, Repertory grid technique, metaphors, questionnaire, and Story-line method) at different moments over the period of investigation. In this final chapter, we discuss the main results and conclusions of our research. Implications with regard to the new syllabus of Public Understanding of Science are discussed, as are suggestions for future innovations and future research.
6.1 Main results of the four studies
6.1.1 Results of the first study
In the first study (2002), we aimed to identify possible patterns in the content and structure of science teachers’ knowledge, at a point in time when they still had little experience in teaching the new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science. To this end, we investigated three domains of teacher knowledge: pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and subject matter knowledge. Two types of teacher knowledge emerged: Type A and Type B. In both types, PCK was found to be consistent with general pedagogical knowledge. Subject matter knowledge, however, was not specific in either type, and was not directly related to the other knowledge domains. The main focus in the PCK of teachers representing Type A was on model content. The most developed element in their PCK was the knowledge about instructional strategies, and their main perspectives in general pedagogical knowledge were behaviourist and cognitive. Teachers T1, T2, T7, T8, and T9 were found to represent Type A of teacher knowledge. Teachers who represented knowledge Type B had developed PCK that was focused on model content, model production, and thinking about models. Type B of teacher knowledge was more extended in terms of PCK than Type A, and the main perspectives in the general pedagogical knowledge of teachers representing knowledge Type B were cognitive and constructivist. Teachers T3, T5, and T6 represented Type B of teacher knowledge. T4 did not fit in either type.
Table 6.1 A and B of teacher knowledge (2002) Main perspective in the general pedagogical knowledge
Most developed element(s) of the pedagogical content knowledge of ‘Models of the Solar System’
Main focus in the pedagogical content knowledge of ‘Models of the Solar System’
Type A T1, T2, T7, T8, T9 Behaviourist / cognitive Knowledge about instructional strategies Model content Type B T3, T5, T6 Cognitive / constructivist Knowledge about instructional strategies, about students’ understanding, and about ways to assess students
Model content, Model production, and Thinking about models
6.1.2 Results of the second study
In Study 2, we aimed to investigate the development of science teachers’ personal knowledge about the learning and teaching of models and modelling in Public Understanding of Science. To this end, we followed the same teachers during the first years of the implementation of the new syllabus. Data collection consisted of the repeated administration (2002 and 2004) of a Repertory Grid instrument. Three different types of personal knowledge were identified, each of which showed significant development over time. In Type 1, the learning of model content was combined with critical reflection on the role and nature of models in science. Type 2 combined modelling as an activity undertaken by students with the learning of specific model content. In Type 3, the learning of model content involved both students’ production and revision of models, and a critical examination of the nature of scientific models in general. Teachers T1 and T7 represented knowledge Type 1. Teachers T2, T4, and T8 represented knowledge Type 2. Finally, teachers T3, T5, T6, and T9 represented knowledge Type 3. See Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Personal knowledge Types 1, 2, and 3 Type 1
T1, T7
In Type 1, the learning of model content was combined with critical reflection on the role and nature of models in science
Type 2 T2, T4, T8
Type 2 combined modelling as an activity undertaken by students with the learning of specific model content
Type 3 T3, T5, T6, T9
6.1.3 Results of the third study
In Study 3 (2004), we aimed to explore science teachers’ learning in the context of the introduction of the new syllabus, from their points of view. To this end, we used the Story-line method to elicit the science teachers’ own perceptions of their learning from experiences at work in their first few years of teaching the new syllabus, in retrospect. We found two different types of learning: Type I and Type II. Teachers representing learning Type I appeared to have been involved in a revolutionary development through engagement in mainly individual activities in the working context. They had insufficient competences in the subject of PUSc. in general and the specific subject of ‘the Universe’ at the start of teaching PUSc. Finally, they introduced and improved teaching methods characterized by the use of concrete materials, and subject matter in real-life contexts.
Teachers representing Type II of learning appeared to have been involved in an evolutionary development through participation in individual and collaborative activities in the working context. They already had sufficient competences in the subject of PUSc. in general and the specific subject of ‘the Universe’ when PUSc. was introduced. They developed competences in connecting teaching methods with specific subject contents and adapting these methods to students of different ages and levels of education, and students with different interests. Finally, they introduced and improved teaching methods characterized by many ways of collaboration and discussion between students. See Table 6.3. Teachers T1 and T2 represented learning Type I. Teachers T3, T5, T6, and T9 represented learning Type II.
T4 and T8 did not fit into either type of learning. T7 had stopped teaching PUSc. just before we conducted the Story-line method.
Table 6.3 Learning Types I and II Type Course of development Competences at the start Teaching methods Type I T1, T2 Revolutionary; Individual learning
Insufficient Concrete materials; real- life contexts Type II T 3, T5, T6, T9 Evolutionary; Individual and collaborative learning
Sufficient Collaboration and discussion between students
6.1.4 Results of the fourth study
It appeared that not only the content of the two types of PCK was different, but also the way they developed over time. Teachers T1, T2, T4, T7, and T8 represented Type A of PCK development. Teachers T3, T5, T6, T9 represented Type B of PCK development. See Table 6.4
Table 6.4 Types of PCK development (from 2002 to 2004)
PCK development Orientation Most developed PCK element Type A
T1, T2, T4, T7, T8
Model content Knowledge about instruction Type B
T3, T5, T6, T9
Model content Model production
Thinking about the nature of models
Knowledge about instruction Knowledge about students’ understanding
Knowledge about assessment
In Table 6.5 we present an over view of the results of the studies.
Table 6.5 Overview of the results of the research
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4
Teacher Type A Type B Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type I Type II Type A Type B
T1 x x x x T2 x x x x T3 x x x x T4 --- --- x --- --- x T5 x x x x T6 x x x x T7 x x o o x T8 x x --- --- x T9 x x x x
---: this teacher’s knowledge (Study 1) or learning (Study 3) did not fit in the constructed types o: this teacher was not included in the particular study (Study 3)
6.2 General Conclusion
From the overview of the results (Table 6.5), we conclude that the participants can be divided into two groups with regard to their knowledge (development) in the context of the introduction of the new syllabus. Table 6.5 shows that the knowledge of Teacher 4 did not fit into the types of teacher knowledge identified in Study 1, and his learning also did not fit into the learning types identified in Study 3. Teacher 4, therefore, is not included in the groups of teachers described below.
6.2.1 Two groups of teachers
beliefs. The development of new teaching methods was also related to the goals of the new syllabus, particularly the ideas of concrete and context-based instruction, and the combination of students’ development of general skills (computer skills, language skills) with the learning of science contents. The teachers learned and developed new instructional methods mainly individually, sharing ideas, materials, good practices, and help with other teachers at their schools, and at professional conferences. In developing knowledge about new ways of instruction, they also reflected (individually) upon their students’ results in exams. With regard to the learning and teaching of models and modelling in PUSc., they combined a mainly positivist epistemological view with the use of models in the classroom to describe and explain phenomena. In general, students’ learning of model content was combined with model production or with reflection on the nature of models. With regard to models of the solar system and universe, they focused on the learning and teaching of model content (especially the content of the heliocentric model of the solar system). The teachers learned new concrete subject matter with regard to the syllabus of Public Understanding of Science mainly by experiencing natural phenomena and computer simulations, in combination with the reading of teaching methods and manuals, newspapers, and professional journals. Their development in the context of the innovation was revolutionary and required much effort.
6.3 Discussion of the main results
The results of the study indicate that the teachers’ knowledge (development) was not directly related to their disciplinary backgrounds: both groups of teachers mentioned above were heterogeneous. The first group (T1, T2, T7, T8) consisted of one former teacher of physics, two former teachers of chemistry, and one teacher of biology. The other group of teachers (T3, T5, T6, T9) consisted of two former teachers of biology, one teacher of chemistry, and one teacher of physics. Teachers’ knowledge development seemed to be more related to their school context: teachers who were teaching at the same school appeared to have (developed) similar teacher knowledge. A possible explanation is that teachers shared ideas, materials, etcetera (see Study 3) while learning. They probably shared things, firstly, with their colleagues at school. Another explanation can be found in the influence of the pedagogical or organizational school context on the teachers’ knowledge development. (A lack of) relevant subject matter knowledge does seem to be related to the teachers’ knowledge and competence development (see Studies 2, 3, and 4) but, since the content of Public Understanding of Science is different (e.g., more integrated and more context bound) from the contents of the disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology, teachers’ general knowledge of the subject matter of PUSc. is obviously not directly related to their disciplinary backgrounds.
The results of the study also indicate that the teachers’ knowledge (development) was not directly related to years of teaching experience in their original disciplines (i.e., 9 to 26 years of experience, at the start of the study). We did not find any evidence for the occurrence of the phenomenon known as ‘knowledge concentration’: people gradually ‘feel more at home’ in an area that becomes smaller over the course of their careers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993), as a consequence of which it should become more and more difficult for an experienced teacher to move into an area of experience he is not familiar with. We did not find, for example, that Group I consisted of the teachers with the most teaching experience.
We argue that the teachers’ knowledge development in the context of the educational innovation was influenced by their initial knowledge and beliefs (pedagogical perspectives, ideas about the new syllabus, and (lack of) relevant subject matter knowledge), and personal factors such as predominant learning styles. In addition, the results of the study indicate that the teachers’ knowledge development was also influenced by contextual factors (colleagues, school organization). These conclusions are consistent with the theoretical models developed by Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko (1999, p. 98 and 99), based on Grossman (1990), of different domains in science teachers’ knowledge, and the components of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. Teachers’ disciplinary backgrounds or years of teaching experience in these disciplines did not appear to be relevant indicators for the teachers’ knowledge development in the context of the introduction of Public Understanding of Science.
6.3.1 Followers and leaders with regard to innovation
The teachers in Group I can be described, in a general way, as teachers who are focused on the teaching of knowledge and subject matter. They aim to get the best out of their students, to help them gain the highest qualification possible for future studies or employment. Their second important aim is the teaching of norms and values. This educational orientation is in line with the pedagogical climate at their schools.
Although they generally work autonomously, these teachers also behave like good colleagues, sharing teaching materials and good practices, and helping each other. Educational changes and innovations are discussed with colleagues, mostly during coffee breaks. The teachers are interested in their pupils, and give priority to keeping harmonious relationships and a good atmosphere in the school.
With regard to their professional development, they generally keep up their (subject matter) knowledge by reading daily newspapers and professional journals, and attending professional conferences. During educational change, they are selected by the school board to get involved in various activities. These teachers’ schools are not at the forefront of innovations. The teachers can usually be typified as ‘followers’ in this light. In general (i.e., not in the context of an innovation), they gradually pick up new materials and new ideas (implicitly), here and there, incorporating these in their existing practice (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999), while their knowledge evolves slowly. During innovations, they have to learn many new things at once, in a short time (cf., ‘revolutionary’, Study 3).
The teachers in Group II can be described as focused on students’ knowledge and understanding and personal development, as well as on preparing them for the future. This is, again, in line with the school’s pedagogical climate. Constructivist ways of learning (i.e., the use of activating teaching methods) are emphasized. Students should learn to think critically (i.e., form an opinion on the subject) and leave school prepared to become responsible citizens and life-long learners. Much attention is paid to self-regulated learning, allowing students much autonomy. Rules are stricter, however, for students who abuse this freedom.
The teachers are strongly in favour of good teamwork and close collaboration with colleagues. They are used to communicating and participating in nationwide networks, giving workshops at conferences, and sharing ideas with educational experts and scientists. Information from outside the school is seen as interesting, and is absorbed attentively.
6.3.2 Restricted and extended professional orientations
As teachers’ knowledge is the core of their professionalism or professionality (see Chapter 1.2), teachers’ knowledge development is strongly related to their ‘professional identity’ (cf. Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000) or ‘professional orientation’ (Van Veen, Sleegers, Bergen, & Klaassen, 2000). Professional orientation is generally understood as the teacher’s orientation towards professionality (i.e., what teachers consider important in their work). Van Veen et al. (2000) distinguished six types of teachers’ professional orientation, three of which are more or less ‘restricted’, and three of which are typified as more or less ‘extended’ in relation to instruction, educational goals, and school organization. The concept of professional orientation may be helpful for understanding the knowledge development of the teachers in our study.
Comparison of the descriptions of the different professional orientations in the literature with our portrayals of the teachers in the study shows that the professional orientation of Group I may be described as relatively ‘restricted’, that is, the teachers have mainly transmission and qualification orientations towards instruction. In addition, they are more focused on the classroom than on the school organization, that is, on collaboration with other teachers and participating in school decision-making processes. The professional orientation of the teachers in Group II may be described as more ‘extended’ with regard to instruction, that is, these teachers generally seem to favour more progressive forms of instruction, and are more learning oriented than transmission oriented. They also seem to have a more extended orientation towards school organization, collaborating with other teachers and the school management, and perceiving their own influence as important.
6.4 Implications of the study
6.4.1 Public Understanding of Science
One of the great advantages of the new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science is the way the subject is organized (SLO Voorlichtings brochure ANW, 1996). As PUSc. does not have a centralized, nation-wide, final examination, schools have some freedom of choice in developing a curriculum which reflects the interests of both teachers and students. For example, teachers may combine topics from Domains A to F (see Figure 2.1, Chapter 2.3.2, this thesis) according to their preferences. In addition, schools have the freedom to decide in which grades, from 10 to 12, PUSc. is taught. School exams developed by the teachers should, however, include a portfolio consisting of exams on science content (50%), and results of students’ inquiry (50%). In summary, the syllabus gives teachers (and schools) some room to adopt the curriculum in accordance with their knowledge and beliefs, personal factors, and the school context.
The results of our study suggest that this is what the participants in the study did. Teachers described as belonging to Group I probably designed a different curriculum from that designed by the teachers of Group II. The results of Study 5, for example, show that all the teachers had developed PCK of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ in which they had combined various program domains of the new PUSc. syllabus. However, the teachers who represented Type B of PCK integrated more domains of the curriculum than the teachers who represented Type A of PCK (see PCK Types A and B, Study 5).
Over the years, teachers and schools have designed curricula with regard to Public Understanding of Science showing great diversity in subjects and instruction methods (SLO, 2003). This is not in conflict with recent policy plans published by the Ministry of Education (2003). On the contrary: new proposals to re-organize secondary education (to be implemented between 2007 and 2010) put more emphasis on freedom of choice for schools, teachers, and students. The starting point is confidence in the ability of schools to find their own solutions, for example, for the workload of students and teachers (i.e., overload of the curriculum), or to meet particular students’ wishes with regard to the curriculum, in accordance with the features and capabilities of the school.
6.4.2 Future innovations in science education
Both above-mentioned groups of teachers would be able to implement these innovations in a meaningful way in accordance with their knowledge and beliefs and personal orientations.
New curricula should, therefore, be organized flexibly to leave room for individual teachers (and schools) to make their own choices. Teachers should preferably have the possibility of selecting domains of content, contexts, or instructional methods that they value or which they think are more relevant to their students (cf. Van Driel and Bulte, 2005).
In addition, a system of activities could be organized to support teachers in their professional development processes. Given our finding that teachers develop their knowledge in qualitatively different ways, interventions should take differences between teachers, in terms of preferred learning activities and already acquired competences, as a starting point, rather than adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach. In this light, we suggest that in-service training programmes be integrated with teachers’ personal professional development agendas (as part of a long-term school policy). An organization of regional networks of science teachers, designers of educational materials, teacher educators, and researchers offers possibilities of combining and aligning the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating new curricula together with research on teachers’ professional development processes. In the context of future innovations in science education, it would be particularly interesting to investigate differences and similarities between the professional development of general science teachers and those science teachers who are already qualified to teach the subject of Public Understanding of Science.
6.5 References
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
Beyaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 749-764.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher
practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, London: Teachers College Press.
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.
Ministry of Education (2003). Ruimte laten en keuzes bieden in de tweede fase van havo en vwo. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Ministry of Education.
SLO (2003). Vakdossiers 2003 Algemene Natuurwetenschappen. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO. SLO (1996). Voorlichtingsbrochure havo/vwo Algemene natuurwetenschappen [Information Brochure on
Thompson, C.L., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of
schooling. Education Technology Research & Development, 40, 81-92.
Van der Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Wegen van betrokkenheid: Reflecties op onderwijsvernieuwing. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Zwijssen.
Van Driel, J.H., Bulte, A.M.W., & Verloop, N. (2005). The conceptions of chemistry teachers about teaching and learning in the context of curriculum innovation. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 303-322.
Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Klaassen, C. (2003). Professional orientations of secondary school teachers towards their work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 175-194. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospects for
