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 doctoralthesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden
Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/8476
Science teachers’ knowledge
development in the context of
educational innovation
Ineke Henze
Science teachers’ knowledge
development in the context of
educational innovation
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van
de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus Dr. D.D. Breimer,
hoogleraar in de faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen en die der Geneeskunde,
volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 21 november 2006
klokke 15.00 uur
door
Francina Adriana Henze-Rietveld
Promotiecommissie Promotor Prof. dr. N. Verloop Co-promotor Dr. J.H. van Driel Overige leden
Dr. M. Brekelmans (referent), Universiteit Utrecht Prof. dr. H.M.C. Eijkelhof, Universiteit Utrecht Prof. dr. H. Hulshof, Universiteit Leiden Prof. dr. J.W. Kijne, Universiteit Leiden
Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching
This research was carried out in the context of the Interuniversity Center for Educational Research.
The research reported in this thesis was funded by the Netherlands Association for Scientific Research (grant number: 411-21-201)
ISBN-10: 90-9021200-0 ISBN-13: 978-90-9021200-5
Title: Science teachers’ knowledge development in the context of educational innovation
Titel: De ontwikkeling van praktijkkennis van bètadocenten in de context van onderwijsvernieuwing
© 2006, Ineke Henze, Leiden University All rights reserved
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background to the study 2
1.2 Context of the study 3
1.3 Nature of the study 4
1.4 Overview of the study 5
1.5 References 7
Chapter 2 Science teachers’ knowledge about
teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on Public
Understanding of Science 11
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Teacher Knowledge 13
2.3 The context of the study 14
2.4 Method and procedure 19
2.5 Analysis 23
2.6 Results and discussion 25
2.7 Conclusions and Implications 33
2.8 References 35
Chapter 3 The development of science teachers’
personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science
education reform 39
3.1 Introduction 40
3.3 Context of the study 42
3.4 Method and procedure 44
3.5 Analysis 50 3.6 Results 51 3.7 Conclusions 63 3.8 Discussion 65 3.9 References 66 Appendix 69
Chapter 4 Experienced science teachers’ learning in
the context of educational innovation 71
4.1 Introduction 72
4.2 Workplace learning 73
4.3 Methodology and research design 75
4.4 Analysis 78 4.5 Results 82 4.6 Conclusions 95 4.7 Discussion 96 4.8 References 99 Appendix I 102 Appendix II 103
Chapter 5 The development of experienced science
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of ‘Models of the Solar System and the
Universe’ 105
5.3 Context of the study 108
5.4 Method and research design 110
5.5 Analysis 112
5.6 Results and conclusions 114
5.7 Discussion 124
5.8 References 125
Chapter 6 General discussion 129
6.1 Main results of the four studies 130
6.2 General Conclusion 133
6.3 Discussion of the main results 135
6.4 Implications of the study 137
6.5 References 139
Nederlandse samenvatting 141
Publications 147
Short curriculum vitae 149
PhD dissertation series 151
Chapter 1
1.1 Background to the study
It has widely been acknowledged that teachers play an important role during curriculum innovations (Duffee & Aikenhead, 1992). Teachers shape the curriculum designed by policymakers and curriculum developers in their classrooms. To understand the role of teachers with respect to educational innovation, it has been argued that their knowledge and beliefs about subject matter, teaching, children, and learning (Tobin & McRobbie, 1996) must be analysed. As they are directly related to the teachers’ behaviour in classrooms (Verloop, 1992), teachers’ knowledge and beliefs exert a major influence on the way teachers respond to educational reform. In recent decades, following the cognitive ‘revolution’ in psychology (Clark & Peterson, 1986), the focus in educational research has shifted towards the cognitions or thoughts that underlie a teacher’s (and a learner’s) actions. It has been argued that, to understand the complex process of teaching, it is necessary to understand the knowledge teachers build and use “in action” (cf. Schön, 1983). The concept of teacher knowledge summarizes a large variety of cognitions, from conscious and well-balanced opinions to unconscious and unreflected-upon intuitions (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). In addition, teacher knowledge can be seen as the core of a teacher’s professionalism. The most important features of this knowledge are a) it is action-oriented knowledge (Carter, 1990); b) it is person- and context bound (Johnston, 1992); c) it is (to a great extent) tacit knowledge (Eraut, 1994); d) it is integrated from different sources (Handal & Lauvas, 1987; Calderhead, 1996); and e) teachers’ beliefs play an important role in building this knowledge (Pajares, 1992). The building of teacher knowledge is seen as a gradual process of “tinkering and experimenting with classroom strategies, trying out new ideas, refining old ideas, problem setting and problem solving” (Wallace, 2003, p. 8). This process has been found to be highly implicit and reactive, and can be understood as ‘professional development’ or ‘workplace learning’ (Eraut, 2000; Kwakman, 1999; Schön, 1987). From a situative view on cognition, knowing and learning is assumed to be integrally and inherently situated in the everyday world of human activity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Within this view, teachers’ learning in the workplace can be described as teachers’ engagement in those individual and collaborative activities in the working context that help them in their professional development (cf. Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kwakman, 2003; McLaughlin, 1997).
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.
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
Because of the personal and situative character of teacher knowledge, some authors argue that research on this topic can only yield a series of descriptions of individual cases. According to others, including us in the present study, the idiosyncratic level can be overcome by looking for similarities in the knowledge of different teachers. Although teacher knowledge is strongly related to individual experiences and circumstances, we assume there are aspects which are shared by groups of teachers in similar situations with regard to variables such as subject matter, level of education, and age group of students (Meijer et al., 1999).
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: What 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.
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.
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.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1997). Rebuilding teacher professionalism in The United States. In A. Hargreaves, R. Evans (Eds.), Beyond educational reform (pp. 77-93). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Basic Books. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational review, 57, 1-22.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Cultural myths and constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223-241.
Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W., (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 673-695.
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.
Chapter 2
Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching
models and modelling in the context of a new
syllabus on Public Understanding of Science
* Abstract: As teachers’ knowledge determines to a large extent how they respond to educational innovation, it is necessary for innovators to take this knowledge into account when implementing educational changes. This study aimed at identifying patterns in the content and the structure of science teachers’ knowledge, at a point in time when they still had little experience in teaching a new subject, that is, Public Understanding of Science. We investigated three domains of teacher knowledge: teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), subject matter knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge. A semi-structured interview and a questionnaire were used. From the analysis of the data, two types of teacher knowledge emerged. One of the types was more integrated and more extended in terms of PCK. Teachers who represented this type of knowledge had developed PCK that connected the various programme domains of the new science subject. In both types, PCK was found to be consistent with general pedagogical knowledge. In both types, however, subject matter knowledge was similar, and not directly related to the other knowledge domains. Implications for the implementation of the new subject are discussed.
2.1 Introduction
We know from previous research (Duffee & Aikenhead, 1992) that teachers’ knowledge determines largely how teachers react to educational reform. Little is known, however, about the specific content and structure of this knowledge and about its exact impact. The innovation in this study concerned the introduction of Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.) as a new science subject for all students in upper secondary education in the Netherlands. PUSc. (in Dutch: ANW) is intended to help students to put science and technology into a wider cultural perspective, and to gain insight into the relations between scientific knowledge and other important aspects of our civilization. Students should gain a clear understanding of a scientist’s activities, for example, designing and using models, developing theories, and carrying out experiments (De Vos & Reiding, 1999). In this respect, the introduction of PUSc. bears similarities to the vision on science education reform in many other countries, such as Canada (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), the USA (AAAS, 1994), and the UK (NEAB, 1998), which requires students be knowledgeable in varied aspects of scientific inquiry and the nature of science. The introduction of PUSc. coincides with a broad revision of 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. Science teachers, therefore, are not only confronted with a new syllabus and new content, but are also expected to adopt new pedagogical approaches, that is, guiding and supervising students’ learning processes rather than lecturing, and the use of new media. These ideas correspond closely to current international innovations which are aimed, among other things, to help students develop rich understandings of important content, think critically, synthesize information, and leave school prepared to be responsible citizens and life long learners (Putnam & Borko, 1997). PUSc. was introduced in 1999, and is taught by teachers who are experienced in teaching biology, chemistry, or physics. To become qualified to teach the new science subject, the teachers took part in a one-year course, which was conducted nationwide.
2.1.1 Aim of the study
In the last twenty years, following the cognitive shift in psychology, research on teachers and teaching has increasingly focused on the knowledge and beliefs that underlie teachers’ classroom practice, rather than their behaviour. The underlying assumption is that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are critically important determinants of how teachers teach (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986; Verloop, 1992). It is necessary that innovators realizing educational changes take these knowledge and beliefs into account.
science subject. 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, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). From the results of the study, ideas should be generated to enhance a successful implementation of the new subject.
2.2 Teacher Knowledge
In the literature about teacher knowledge, various labels have been used, each indicating a relevant aspect of this knowledge. Together, these labels give an overview of the way in which teacher knowledge has been investigated to date (Verloop et al., 2001). The most commonly used labels are “personal knowledge” (e.g., Connely & Clandinin, 1985), “situated knowledge” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), “professional craft knowledge” (e.g., Shimahara, 1998), “action-oriented knowledge” (Carter, 1990), and “tacit knowledge” (Eraut, 1994).
Here, we use teacher knowledge to indicate the whole of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs that influence their teaching practice. The concept ‘knowledge’ summarizes a large variety of cognitions, from conscious and well-balanced opinions to unconscious and unreflected intuitions (Verloop et al., 2001). Teacher knowledge may have a range of origins including both practical experiences, such as day-to-day practice, and formal schooling in the past, that is initial teacher education or continued professional training (Calderhead, 1996). The development of teacher knowledge is seen as a gradual process of “tinkering and experimenting with classroom strategies, trying out new ideas, refining old ideas, problem setting and problem solving” (Wallace, 2003, p. 8). This process has been found to be highly implicit (teachers are unaware they are learning) and reactive (teachers learn in reaction to events), and can be understood as ‘workplace learning’, or ‘professional development’ (Bolhuis, 1995; Eraut, 2000; Kwakman, 1999; Schön, 1987). From a personal constructivist point of view, the learning teacher is “a constructivist who continually builds, elaborates and tests his/her personal theory of the world” (Clark, 1986, p. 9), like “an experimental scientist who designs his/her experiments round rival hypotheses” (Kelly, 1955; Pope & Denicolo, 2001, p. 35).
What teachers learn is stored in mental representations that, taken together, make up the cognitive systems or cognitive structures in their minds. These structures (cf. mental models, interior images of the world) play an important role in the absorption of, and reaction to new information. Because of new experiences, old structures are disturbed, new structures arise and the whole of teacher cognitions (teacher knowledge) change over time.
the other hand. In attempting to clarify the nature and features of PCK, various scholars (e.g., Cochran, deRuyter, & King, 1993; Grossmann, 1990; Marks, 1990) elaborated on Shulman’s work and conceptualised PCK in different ways, that is, incorporating different attributes or characteristics (Van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos, 1998, p. 676). In our study of teacher knowledge, we defined PCK as teacher knowledge about 1) instructional strategies concerning a specific topic, 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. In this, we followed the definitions of Grossman (1990) and Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999, p. 99). Up to now, little empirical research has been done on the connection between PCK and other domains of teacher knowledge (Van Driel et al., 1998). Because of the personal and situative character of teacher knowledge, some authors argue that research on this topic can only yield a series of descriptions of individual cases. Others, including us in this study, aim to overcome the idiosyncratic level by looking for similarities in the knowledge of different teachers. Although teacher knowledge is strongly related to individual experiences and circumstances, there are aspects which are shared by groups of teachers who are in similar situations with regard to variables such as subject matter, level of education, and age group of students (Meijer et al., 1999).
Various instruments and procedures have been developed to investigate teacher knowledge in a valid and reliable manner (Kagan, 1990). For example, in order to understand the culture of the teachers from the inside out, so-called ‘narrative’ research methods are applied. Hereby, personal material such as ‘life story’, ‘conversation’ and ‘personal writing’ are used (Connely & Clandinin, 1990; Gergen, 1988). Some authors (Martinez, 2001; Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2003; Weber & Mitchell, 1995) recommend the use of drawn or written metaphors to help teachers articulate their views on learning and teaching. In this light, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) point out the benefit of metaphors in our language system to help us understand and clarify the meaning of abstract concepts like time or life, cf. the metaphorical concepts “time is money” and “you’re wasting your time”. Both entail that time (like money) is a limited resource, which entails in turn, that time is a worthwhile commodity. The above examples show the essence of a metaphor, which is “understanding and experiencing one kind of a thing in terms of another” (p. 5).
2.3 The context of the study
2.3.1 Changed perspectives on knowing, learning, and
teaching
to teachers through professional training and - implicitly - through techniques and activities in schoolbooks and other materials in which these theories are applied. We summarize the main theories on learning and teaching as organized by three general perspectives, which are described as behaviourist-empiricist, cognitive-rationalist, and situative-pragmatist-sociohistoric (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). These terms will be explained below, related to Dutch science education. We recognize that other organizing principles could be chosen and that many authors would characterize the field in different terms.
Traditionally, Dutch science classrooms are organized according to the principles of a behaviourist-empiricist perspective on the nature of knowing and learning (Greeno et al., 1996). Learning environments are designed to support interactions in which information can be transmitted efficiently to students by teachers, textbooks, and other information sources (film, video, etc). In addition, traditional science education is organized to support the acquisition of routine skills. Correct procedures for doing assignments are displayed and opportunities are provided for rehearsal and practice, including practice that is done as homework, which may be checked and recorded during class sessions. The Dutch national curriculum traditionally contains physics, chemistry, and biology as separate subjects, whose contents are ‘diluted’ forms of academic contents with little practical relevance (De Vos & Reiding, 1999).
From the 1970s onwards, the cognitive turn in psychology has induced new pedagogical and instructional approaches in science education. Learning environments, which are designed on the principles of a cognitive-rationalist perspective on knowing and learning (Greeno et al., 1996), connect instruction with students’ (intuitive) conceptual understandings and cognitive skills. Influenced by constructivism, as a major approach in the cognitive-rationalist perspective, some small-scale projects (e.g., PLON; see Eijkelhof & Kortland, 1988) have introduced a shift towards real-life contexts and activities in science classrooms, which support students’ active construction of knowledge and understanding. Two main aspects characterize these activities: interactions with manipulative materials that exemplify scientific concepts, and social interactions in which students discuss their understandings of those concepts. In a constructivist view, an important role of classroom conversation is to evoke students’ misconceptions and to explore their intuitions.
situative-pragmatist-sociohistoric perspective, learning the concepts of a domain is considered as being attuned to constraints of activity that a community treats as constituents of those concepts.
Throughout this article we will use the shortened term behaviourist for the behaviourist-empiricist perspective, cognitivist and constructivist to describe approaches in the cognitive-rationalist perspective, and situative when referring to the situative-pragmatist-sociohistoric perspective on knowing, learning, and teaching.
2.3.2 Public Understanding of Science as a new separate
science subject
Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.) has recently been introduced alongside the traditional science subjects (physics, chemistry, and biology) for all students of age 15 to 17 in non-vocational senior secondary education in the Netherlands. This new subject is aimed at public understanding of science (‘science for all’) and not at preparing and qualifying students for studying science in higher education. It is taught to all students in senior secondary education, including those who after Grade 9 had decided not to continue their studies of the natural sciences. Without aiming at a thorough command of subject matter, PUSc. intends to provide every student with a vision of what science and technology are, and what role they play in modern society. A distinctive new element in this syllabus is the critical reflection on scientific knowledge and procedures. The educational goals of PUSc. are divided into six domains, A to F, which are related to one another (see Figure 2.1, SLO Voorlichtingsbrochure ANW, 1996, p. 10).
Figure 2.1 Relations between Program Domains in PUSc.
2.3.3 Models and modelling in Public Understanding of
Science
The activities of the scientific community, for example, designing and using models, developing theories, and carrying out experiments, are framed by its culture. Therefore, learning to understand the meanings and functions of these activities involves more than can be explained in any set of rules or procedures. Students “need to be exposed to the use of the domain’s tools in authentic activity” (Brown et al., 1989). In the natural sciences models are developed, used and revised extensively by scientists. Moreover, modelling has been seen as the essence of the dynamic and non-linear processes involved in the development of scientific knowledge (Justi & Gilbert, 2002). Therefore, models (and in particular the production and testing of models by students) can be used to help students gain insight into the activities of scientists. In solving realistic problems, students can build and test their own models and discuss them in classroom situations. For this purpose, issues can be obtained from what students know from their own daily lives, but social or professional science and technology contexts (i.e., PUSc. Domains C-F) can also be used in this way.
Aiming at improving students’ comprehensive understanding of the main processes and products of science, Hodson (1992) proposed three purposes for science education: (i) learn science, that is, to understand the ideas produced by science (i.e., concepts, models, and theories), (ii) learn about science, that is, to understand important
issues in the philosophy, history, and methodology of science, and (iii) learn to do science, that is, to be able to take part in those activities that lead to the acquisition of scientific knowledge. As the importance of models and modelling in science has been widely recognized, the key to Hodson’s purposes (i.e., students’ comprehensive understanding of science) must be a central role for models and modelling in science education. In this light, the subject PUSc. may offer an appropriate framework (Table 2.1). To help students gain a rich understanding of the main products and processes of science, the learning of scientific models (Domains C to F) and the act of modelling (Domain A) should go together with a critical reflection on the role and nature of models in science (Domain B).
Table 2.1 PUSc. as a framework to improve students' comprehensive understanding of science
PUSc. Domains A C to F B
Hodson (1992) Learn how to do
science
Learn science Learn about
science Justi & Gilbert (2002) Learn to produce and
revise models
Learn the major models
Learn the nature of models
The above analysis implies, for example, that in the learning of particular subject matter (Domains C to F) the teacher should pay attention to the history of the scientific model(s) used (Domain B). In addition, the teacher should combine teaching strategies aiming at the guidance of students’ modelling activities (Domain A) with a discussion on the functions and characteristics (Domain B) of models in science.
To achieve these aims, it is necessary that teachers have an adequate understanding of the nature of models and modelling in science. Recent research (Harrison, 2001; Van Driel, & Verloop, 1999), however, shows that teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science is often limited and problematic. Justi and Gilbert (2002) relate this to the fact that it is only recently that teachers have begun to use models and modelling in science education, in the way described above: teachers had no opportunity to acquire the necessary experience, yet.
As teachers of PUSc. are not only confronted with new aims of teaching models and modelling but also with new pedagogical approaches, that is, guiding and supervising students’ learning processes rather than lecturing, and the use of new media, it was deemed important to investigate the content and the structure of their knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of the introduction of PUSc. We put the following research question central: What 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 Public Understanding of Science?
2.4 Method and procedure
To investigate teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling, we used two instruments in the study. We started with a semi-structured interview on the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge. A part of this interview consisted of a selection of written metaphors, representing the three perspectives on knowing, learning and teaching (Greeno et al., 1996, see section 2.3.1) to be commented on. Next, we used a questionnaire to investigate the teachers’ subject matter knowledge about models and modelling in science. Before a description of the actual data collection, some attention is paid to the participants in the study and how they were selected.
2.4.1 Participants
Table 2.2 Features of the participants
School Number of teachers in the study Disciplinary background Years of teaching experience* A 1 physics 11 B 1 biology 25 C 2 1 chemistry 1 biology 8 15 D 2 1 physics 1 chemistry 23 22 E 3 1 physics 1 chemistry 1 biology 26 9 11
* In the teachers’ own discipline, at the start of the study
2.4.2 Data collection
The data collection consisted of two parts, that is, a semi-structured interview to investigate the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of models and modelling, and a questionnaire to investigate their subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science. The interview and the questionnaire were conducted to the teachers by the first author of this article.
2.4.2.1 Semi-structured interview
With all teachers, a semi-structured interview was held. The interview questions were developed on the basis of the results of a study of the relevant literature on teacher knowledge, on the one hand, and models and modelling in science education, on the other hand. The initial interview schedule was tested on four PUSc. teachers (not among the nine participants in the study). As a result of this pilot study, some interview questions were rephrased or replaced in the interview schedule. Two new questions were added to the scheme. The final interview consisted of four parts. Parts 1 and 2 included questions that were indicators for the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge: for example, What do you think is the best way for students to learn? Do you think that teaching has an impact on students’ learning? If so, what can you do to improve students’ learning? To get more insight into the teachers’ pedagogical perspectives, we also asked them to comment on a selection of metaphors, representing the three perspectives on knowing, learning, and teaching (Greeno et al., 1996). These metaphors (Table 2.3) were taken from studies by Ebbens (1994), Fox (1983), and Martinez (2001).
Table 2.3 Some metaphors about learning and teaching used in the interviews
Perspective Metaphors about learning (part 1) Interpretation from the
perspective of learning
Behaviourist Learning is storing data Learning has taken place if the
quantity of knowledge has increased
Constructivist Learning is acting like a detective who looks for things and into things
Learning is the consequence of dealing actively with the environment in the construction of knowledge Situative Learning is joint work, as done by ants
collaborating to achieve a result which is beneficial to all
Learning is a consequence of authentic participation in the activities of a community of practitioners
Perspective Metaphors about teaching (part 2) Interpretation from the
perspective of teaching Behaviourist A teacher is a gardener who gives every
plant in his garden what it needs
It is the teacher’s task to motivate students and organize learning activities, feedback, and reinforcement Constructivist It is the teacher’s task to arrange a
construction site for students and deliver the necessary materials
The teacher should create exploratory and interactive learning environments Situative Teaching is acting like a tourist guide who
negotiates a destination and a route with the tourists.
The curriculum should reflect a set of commitments about the kinds of activities that students should learn to participate in
Parts 3 and 4 of the interview included questions which aimed at eliciting the teachers’ PCK of the learning and teaching of models and modelling in PUSc. To make this subject more concrete (to the teachers), a series of questions was asked on Chapter 3 of the ANtWoord workbook titled: ‘Solar system and Universe’ (Domain F). In the context of this chapter, the teachers were questioned about the four knowledge elements of PCK mentioned earlier (see section 2.2), namely, knowledge about (1) instructional strategies concerning a specific topic, (2) students’ understanding of this topic, (3) ways to assess students’ understanding of this topic, and (4) goals and objectives for teaching this topic in the curriculum. In the context of this chapter, the topic focused on was ‘Models of the Solar System’.
involved a direct transcription of all utterances, with added symbols to capture long pauses, hesitation, stressed words, and laughter.
2.4.2.2 Questionnaire
To chart the teachers’ understanding and subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science, a questionnaire was used, which had been developed by the second and third authors of this article, as part of a study on new teachers in PUSc. (Van Driel & Verloop, 1999).
This instrument encompasses four sections, of which we used only one in our study. This section focuses on the teachers’ understanding of and beliefs about scientific models and the act of modelling, and consists of two scales (Table 2.4): (1) statements on the relationship between a model and its target (11 items), and (2) statements on the construction and use of models in a social context (8 items). These statements were scored on a four-point scale, ranging from 1 = never, through 2 = sometimes and 3 = mostly, to 4 = always.
Table 2.4 Scales within the questionnaire on models, and sample items
Scales Sample scale - items
Relating models and targets A model is a simplified reproduction of reality
A model is meant to explain a phenomenon
One attempts to keep a model as simple as possible
Social context of models Creativity is a major factor in the development of models
A model depicts the ideas of scientists
The development of a model is guided by questions of the researcher
In the study by Van Driel and Verloop (1999), 2.99 was the mean score on the first scale (standard deviation 0.40; Cronbach’s alpha 0.75), and 2.76 was the mean score on the second scale (standard deviation 0.38; Cronbach’s alpha 0.64).
2.5 Analysis
2.5.1 General pedagogical knowledge
The analysis of the collected data started with part 1 and part 2 of the semi-structured interview. To analyse the teachers’ answers to the questions and reactions to the metaphors in terms of their general pedagogical knowledge, codes were developed for the various aspects of learning and teaching which were mentioned by the teachers in their interview responses, for example, motivation, curriculum, diversity of students, and assessment. These codes, reflecting the three main perspectives on knowing, learning and teaching, were interpretations of the definitions of Greeno et al. (1996). The codes were tested on the interview data of two different teachers, to see if all the variations in the statements could be covered. As a result, some codes had to be reformulated. The final codebook was the result of different steps of testing and adapting the codes, until the first and second authors reached consensus on all codes to be used (names and interpretations from the three perspectives).
2.5.2 PCK
Table 2.5 Codes for the teachers’ PCK
Regarding the PCK of goals and objectives in the curriculum (element 4.), it was decided, following repeated reading and discussion of the teachers’ responses, to typify their answers using two different kinds of codes. First, generally speaking, the teachers expressed their epistemological perspectives. In analysing these perspectives, Nott and Wellington’s classification of epistemological views (1993) was applied, on the basis of which three codes were developed: (i) positivist, in which models are seen as simplified copies of reality; (ii) relativist, in which models are seen as one way to view reality; and (iii) instrumentalist, in which the question is whether models ‘work’, instead of ‘being true’. Second, teachers’ statements about the purposes of using models in the classroom were coded in terms of the various functions of models in science: (i) to visualize phenomena; (ii) to explain phenomena; (iii) to obtain information about phenomena which cannot be observed directly; (iv) to derive hypotheses which may be tested; and (v) to make predictions on reality.
PCK elements Codes
1. PCK-instructional strategies (i) Model content (ii) Model production (iii) Thinking about models 2. PCK-students’ understanding (i) Model content
(ii) Model production (iii) Thinking about models 3. PCK-ways to assess students (i) Written test on model content
(ii) Oral and poster presentation, or account, as products of self-directed work
(iii) Paper or essay on the students’ reflection upon the nature of models
(iv) Students’ modelling activities
(v) Classroom debate on the heliocentric and geocentric models
(vi) Portfolio on the preparation of the debate on models
(vii)Observation of group work 4. PCK-goals and objectives in the
curriculum
Codes for epistemological perspectives: (i) Positivist
(ii) Relativist (iii) Instrumentalist
Codes for the use of models in the classroom: (i) Visualize phenomena
(ii) Explain phenomena
2.5.3 Subject matter knowledge of models and modelling
in science
To determine the teachers’ subject matter knowledge about scientific models and modelling, the teachers’ scores for the items of the questionnaire were analysed. The mean scores were determined for both scales in the questionnaire, at the level of the teachers, and these scores were compared with those reported in the study by Van Driel and Verloop (1999). As in their study, high scores (3 and higher) on the scale for the relation between model and target were interpreted as indicative of the belief that a model is a simplified copy of reality, whose main function is to provide (causal) explanations for phenomena. Likewise, high scores on the scale for the social context of models were interpreted as indicative of the idea that models are the products of human thought, creativity, and communication between scientists. In addition to the scores on the scales, the teachers’ scores for items were compared, to see how the teachers evaluated specific statements.
2.6 Results and discussion
As indicated in the introduction, the aim of this study was to identify common patterns in the knowledge of the nine teachers. With this in mind, differences and similarities in the teachers’ knowledge in the various domains were analysed. The following report of the results is based on this aim.
2.6.1 Two types of teacher knowledge
After coding the teachers’ statements on the three domains of teacher knowledge (general pedagogical knowledge, PCK, and subject matter knowledge of models and modelling), we put together, per domain and per element (for PCK), the coded statements. With this, the variety of statements within each domain became clear. We examined carefully the various sets of statements and identified for each teacher the combinations of codes that arose across the different domains. Next, we compared these combinations across the nine teachers, and two patterns (i.e., specific combinations of codes, which recurred - more or less - strictly) emerged. Using these, we constructed two types of teacher knowledge: Type A and Type B (Tables 2.6 and 2.7). These two types will be described in a general way below. In the next sections, we will describe each type more concretely, portraying the knowledge of two teachers, each of whom was - almost - typical of one of these types.
2.6.1.1 Type A
understanding of the content of these models and to help students connect the models with reality. PCK of students’ understanding of and difficulties with specific concepts is mainly based on the interpretation of the results of written exams. PCK of goals and objectives in the curriculum with regard to models and modelling reflects a combination of positivist and instrumentalist views: models are seen as reductions of reality, aimed at visualizing and explaining different phenomena. PCK of ways to assess students’ understanding includes the same goals: both students’ content knowledge of models and their use of models as ‘tools’ are evaluated using exams and oral presentations.
With regard to the teachers’ subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science in Type A, we also found a combination of two different views. From the high scores on both scales in the questionnaire, we concluded that the teachers would support the idea that a model is a simplified reproduction of reality, on the one hand, while recognizing that models are the products of human thought, creativity, and communication, on the other hand.
Table 2.6 Type A Teacher Knowledge
General pedagogical knowledge Behaviourist and cognitive perspectives on
teaching and learning
PCK-instructional strategies Knowledge about specific multi-media (film,
video) and concrete materials to support students' understanding of model content, and knowledge of ways to connect models with reality
PCK-students’ understanding Knowledge about students’ difficulties with
the content of specific models, and inability to connect models with reality
PCK-ways to assess students’ understanding Knowledge about examination on model content and model application using written exams, oral presentations, posters, and reports
PCK-goals and objectives in the curriculum Epistemological views which can be understood as positivist and instrumentalist; Knowledge about the use of models to visualize and explain phenomena Subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science
A positivist epistemological view, combined with the idea that models are constructed in a social and cultural context
2.6.1.2 Type B
students’ creativity in thinking about the nature of models, and model production. PCK of students’ understanding includes knowledge about students’ motivation, difficulties, and inabilities concerning scientific models and modelling activities, and knowledge about students’ affinity with specific models. This knowledge is based on students’ results in exams, the evaluation of presentations, reports, and portfolios, discussion of their modelling and debating activities, and observation of teamwork. Table 2.7 Type B Teacher Knowledge
General pedagogical knowledge Cognitive and constructivist perspectives on
teaching and learning
PCK-instructional strategies Knowledge about motivating and challenging
assignments to promote students’ learning of model content;
Knowledge about effective ways/methods to promote students’ thinking about the nature of models (e.g., debating, modelling activities, computer simulation);
Knowledge about ways to stimulate students’ creativity
PCK-students’ understanding Knowledge about students’ motivation to
discover things themselves;
Knowledge about students’ motivation and abilities to participate in modelling and model thinking activities;
Knowledge about student’s affinity with specific models
PCK-ways to assess students’ understanding Knowledge about how to evaluate model content, model production and thinking about the nature of models using exams, oral presentations, reports, portfolios and group observations
PCK-goals and objectives in the curriculum Epistemological views: instrumentalist and relativist;
Knowledge about the use of models to visualize and explain phenomena,
obtain information about phenomena which cannot be observed directly, and derive hypotheses which may be tested Subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science
A positivist epistemological view, combined with the idea that models are constructed in a social and cultural context
Following a comparison of the answers and reactions of the nine teachers with the above types of knowledge, we considered the knowledge of five teachers to be typical of Type A, while the knowledge of three was qualified as typical of Type B. The knowledge of one teacher fell outside both categories because of the unique combination of codes we had to apply to his statements. In the next sections, we will describe the knowledge of two teachers in more detail: we have called one teacher “Jim” (representing Type A) and the other teacher “Sam” (representing Type B).
2.6.2 Jim’s knowledge (Type A)
2.6.2.1 General pedagogical knowledge
Jim’s general pedagogical knowledge about learning and teaching can be described as a combination of behaviourist and cognitive perspectives. Although he acknowledged that students play an active role in learning, he reacted more or less negatively to metaphors representing a constructivist or situative perspective. In Table 2.8, we put together some statements that are typical of Jim’s reactions, together with the metaphors he reacted to, and the codes we applied to his reactions.
2.6.2.2 PCK
We discuss Jim’s PCK based on his reactions to the interview questions about learning and teaching models and modelling with regard to the solar system, in the context of the ANtWoord chapter on the solar system and universe. PCK is divided into the above-mentioned four elements.
Knowledge about instructional strategies: Jim had much knowledge of instructional strategies to effectively transmit and explain knowledge to his students, using physical models of the solar system, films, and videos: “We let them play, in structured assignments, with wooden sticks and balls and a lamp. They like it, and they get more insight into the model”. His lessons on ‘Models of the Solar System’ were mainly aimed at teaching and explaining the Copernicus’ heliocentric model. He developed new, more structured material for his students because, in his opinion, the ANtWoord exercises are “too vague”. He stressed the observation of phenomena (positions of moon, sun, stars) by the students. The usefulness of various models of the solar system on explaining these observations should be tested in the lessons.
Table 2.8 Examples of Jim’s general pedagogical knowledge
Question or metaphor Jim’s response Applied code
What do you think is the best way for students to learn?
Something new has to fit into an existing framework, and you (the teacher) are the one who has to make this link
Learning-cognitivist: understanding and learning of new material depend strongly on what students already know Teaching-cognitivist: it is the job of the teacher to base instruction on students’ prior knowledge Learning is joint work, as done
by ants collaborating to achieve a result which is beneficial to all
I think the result of this work is not clear to students; they have to see the point of it, and for them the result of learning is a good mark Motivation-behaviourist: students’ active participation occurs mainly because of extrinsic motivation i.e. rewards and punishments, as well as expected outcomes of their engagement Teaching is like a tourist guide
who negotiates a destination and a route with the tourists
No, the destination is laid down in the programme, and you should not discuss the route too much, because that will be too confusing for them [the students].
Teaching-behaviourist: it is the job of the curriculum and the teacher to organize students’ practices, and to provide clear plans and goals.
Teaching is a game of billiards; you have to know how to play in order to send the balls in the right direction
Yes, but balls roll systematically, and students do not. Yet, you want to send them in a certain direction; to make order out of chaos
Learning-cognitivist: students differ in their learning strategies, and in the interest and
understanding they bring to school activities. Teaching-behaviourist: it is the job of the curriculum and the teacher to organize students’ practices, and to provide clear plans and goals.
Learning is building Yes, piling up knowledge Learning-behaviourist:
Knowledge about students’ understanding: Jim showed little specific knowledge of his students’ understanding of the heliocentric model and some historical models (i.e., Ptolemy’s geocentric model) of the solar system. He stated that, in the context of this chapter, his students “need concrete manipulative materials, small and concrete assignments, and questions with concrete answers. They also need clear learning goals, in order to be well prepared for their exams”.
Knowledge about ways to assess students: Jim’s assessment of his students’ understanding of this chapter consisted of exams with knowledge and application questions about concepts contained in the heliocentric model and some historical models of the solar system. His students also had to carry out various tasks during the lessons, the results of which he evaluated, too. Finally, Jim assessed students’ writing of letters to an astronomer about their views on the theory of the Big Bang.
Knowledge about goals and objectives in the curriculum: Jim used models in the curriculum to explain phenomena. Jim conceived of models as reductions of reality, and not as truths: “I always try to emphasize two viewpoints: a scientific, rational view and an irrational way of thinking (i.e., wonderment and respect for the creation of earth and heaven)”.
2.6.2.3 Subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science On the questionnaire’s scale ‘relationship between model and target’, Jim’s main score was 2.9. At item level, we noticed that Jim gave the highest score (4 = always) to the following statements: ‘A model is a simplified reduction of reality’, ‘One attempts to keep a model as simple as possible’, ‘A model is meant to explain a phenomenon’, and ‘When developing a model, one attempts to exclude as many irrelevant aspects of its target as possible’. Jim gave a score of 1 (= never) on the item ‘In the course of development, the model corresponds more to its target’. On the other scale, about the ‘construction and use of models’, his main score was 2.6. Here, he gave a score of 4 to the statement ‘A model is meant to give an overview of complex phenomena’, and of 1 to ‘A model is meant to represent an abstract concept’.
We conclude that Jim holds a mainly positivist epistemological view of models: above all, he understands models in relation to empirical data, and not to concepts and ideas. He sees models, primarily, as reductions of reality, which are aimed at explaining phenomena.
the curriculum reflects a positivist way of thinking, which corresponds to the way he answered the questionnaire on models and modelling in science.
2.6.3 Sam’s knowledge (Type B)
2.6.3.1 General pedagogical knowledge
Sam’s general pedagogical knowledge about learning and teaching can be described as a combination of cognitivist and constructivist perspectives. We did not find any reactions reflecting a behaviourist or situative view of learning or teaching. In Table 2.9 are some statements, which are typical of Sam’s reactions, together with the metaphors he reacted to, and the codes we applied to his reactions.
Table 2.9 Examples of Sam’s general pedagogical knowledge
Question or metaphor Sam’s response Applied code
What do you think is the best way for students to learn?
It is important that not everything is new; You must connect new knowledge to something they already know, (or to something they show interest in)
Teaching-cognitivist: it is the job of the teacher to base instruction on students’ prior knowledge
Motivation-cognitivist and constructivist:
engagement is considered to be a student’s intrinsic interest in a domain of cognitive activity
Learning is storing data Yes, but you have to make connections in your brain to find things back; There must be a relation to other things, otherwise stored data will never be found again
Learning-cognitivist: understanding and learning of new material depend strongly on what students already know
Learning is acting like a detective who looks for things and into things
It is important that they look for things themselves
Learning-constructivist: learning is the construction of knowledge and understanding by active interaction with the environment
It is the teacher’s task to arrange a construction site for students
Yes, to give them the opportunity (place and material) to discover things themselves, to construct things themselves; I think I like that
