PCK and Teaching Innovations [1 ed.] 9781614705666, 9781607411475

Citation preview

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World Series

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PCK AND TEACHING INNOVATIONS

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services. PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES Motivation in Education Desmond H. Elsworth (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-234-7 The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context Justin Baer, Stéphane Baldi, Kaylin Ayotte,Patricia J. Gree and Daniel McGrath 2009 ISBN: 978-1-60692-138-3 Teacher Qualifications and Kindergartners Achievements Cassandra M. Guarino, Laura S. Hamilton, J.R. Lockwood,Amy H. Rathbun and Elvira Germino Hausken 2009 ISBN: 978-1-60741-180-2

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Effects of Family Literacy Interventions on Children's Acquisition of Reading Ana Carolina Pena (Editor) 2009 ISBN: 978-1-60741-236-6 Nutrition Education and Change Beatra F. Realine (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-983-4

Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America Rainer D. Ivanov 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-582-9

Rural Education in the 21st Century Christine M.E. Frisiras (Editor) 2009 ISBN: 978-1-60692-966-7 IT- Based Project Change Management System Faisal Manzoor Arain 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-148-2 Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton 2009 ISBN: 978-1-60692-615-4 Mentoring: Program Development, Relationships and Outcomes Michael I. Keel (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-287-3 Enhancing Prospects of Longer-Term Sustainability of Cross-Cultural INSET Initiatives in China Chunmei Yan 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-615-9 Multimedia in Education and Special Education Onan Demir and Cari Celik 2009. ISBN 978-1-60741-073-7

Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges and Strategies for Success Arthur T. Weston (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-107-9 Learning in the Network Society and the Digitized School Rune Krumsvik (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-172-7

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

PCK and Teaching Innovations Syh-Jong Jang 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-147-5

Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World Series

PCK AND TEACHING INNOVATIONS

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SYH-JONG JANG

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Jang, Syh-Jong. PCK and teaching innovations / Syh-Jong Jang. p. cm. Includes index. HISBN H%RRN 1. Science--Study and teaching. 2. Science teachers--Training of. 3. Pedagogical content knowledge. I. Title. Q181.J28 2009 507.1--dc22 2009004991

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ô New York

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CONTENTS Preface Part I.

PCK in Teacher Education

1

Chapter 1

Development of a Research-Based Model for Enhancing Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Pre-Service and in-Service Science Teachers

3

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK of Pre-Service Science Teachers

19

Comparison Between Novice and Experienced Science Teachers’ PCK About Electric Circuits Through a Peer Coaching Model

37

Part II.

Innovation in Science Teaching and Learning

59

Chapter 4

The Impact of Integrating Peer Coaching and Team Teaching Upon Secondary Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach

61

The Effects of Three-Stage Collaborative Concept-Mapping Process in Elementary School Science Classes

81

Chapter 2 Chapter 3

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

vii

Chapter 5

Part III.

Innovation in Math and Teaching and Learning

101

Chapter 6

The Social Constructivist Approach to Learning and Teaching Mathematics: The Impact on Incorporating Collaborative Learning with Team-Teaching

103

The Effects of Integrating Technology and Collaborative Learning in Elementary Mathematics Classes

121

Chapter 7 Index

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

141

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE One criticism of school-based instruction is the use of outdated teaching methods and contents to equip current students for the future society. A new integrated curriculum scheme was also implemented in primary and secondary schools of Taiwan in 2001. School teachers of the new curriculum should be equipped with the abilities to integrate and design curriculum as well as aim for changes and for teaching innovatively. Shulman (1987) regards Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as the knowledge base for teaching. This knowledge base consists of seven categories, three of which are content related (content knowledge, PCK, and curriculum knowledge). The other four categories are related to general pedagogy, learners and their characteristics, educational contexts, and educational purposes. Pedagogical content knowledge of school teachers is an important issue for current teacher education. The purpose of this book was to provide a research-based model and some empirical studies for enhancing pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service and in-service science teachers. The book also provides readers (elementary and secondary science and math teachers, professional researchers, graduate students etc.) with comprehensive accounts of recent learning and teaching innovative approach to school science and mathematics. This book is divided into three parts. In the first part, three studies related to PCK of teacher education. Chapter one first describes the social constructive framework related to the research model. Then it addresses the related literature concerning PCK of pre-service and inservice science teachers, as well as the merits of models. Finally, a research-based model for PCK is presented. The process of PCK development involves the PCK-COPR module (Comprehension, Observation, Practice and Reflection).Then, chapter two demonstrated a group of pre-service teachers (n=23) to participate a technology-based PCK-COPR model designed to restructure science teacher education courses. There were significant differences in “pedagogical knowledge”, “technology knowledge” and “overall PCK” (F = 4.123, p < 0.05, F = 9.260, p < 0.01, and F= 6.372, p < 0.05, respectively.), but no significant differences in the other aspects. The innovative teaching experience could help pre-service teachers develop multiple teaching methods and strategies, and further enhanced their PCK. Chapter three was to examine the eighth-grade students’ perceptions of science teachers’ PCK difference between beginning teachers and experienced teachers, and the effects of applying the PCK-COPR model in the concepts of “electric circuits”. The research methods of students’ perceptions and teachers’ reflection could increase the learning and research experience of both in-service science teachers and the instructors and also serve as useful reference for other in-service teacher education institutes.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

viii

Syh-Jong Jang

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In the second part, two studies related to innovations in science teaching and learning. Chapter four aimed to explore the impact of integrating a peer-coaching model into team teaching on PCK development of team teachers of secondary integrated science from a social constructivist approach. The research design included two-semester peer coaching and onesemester team teaching. Two simultaneous interventions should be conducive to science teachers’ creative thinking and collaborative relationship. Chapter five evaluated a three-stage collaborative concept-mapping technique in the fourth-grade science classes. The major issue investigated includes the student performance and responses toward the experimental teaching method. The findings showed that the two teaching methods reached significant difference with respect to students’ test scores. The experimental teaching method provided interaction, presentation and a way of progressing to enhance the learning outcome. In the third part, two studies demonstrated the innovative approaches of teaching and learning mathematics. Chapter six evaluated a collaborative learning model integrated into team teaching in the sixth-grade math classes. Three mathematics classes were assigned to Experimental Groups and Control Group for eight weeks in this study. The findings of the study showed the experimental teaching method enhanced students’ performance. Chapter seven was to evaluate a technology environment integrated into collaborative learning in sixth-graders' mathematics classes. The study focused the advantage of the constructivist view of teaching and learning process, which mainly highlighted three aspects including "active construction", "experiential learning" and "social interaction".

Syh-Jong, Jang Professor Graduate School of Education, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Taiwan

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PART I. PCK IN TEACHER EDUCATION

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Chapter 1

DEVELOPMENT OF A RESEARCH-BASED MODEL FOR ENHANCING PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE OF PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of pre-service and in-service teachers is an important issue for current teacher education. This paper first describes the social constructive framework related to peer coaching. Then it addresses the related literature concerning PCK of science teachers, as well as the merits and models of peer coaching. Finally, a research-based model for PCK is presented. The process of PCK development involves forming a peer-coaching community, which applies the PCK-COPR module (Comprehension, Observation, Practice and Reflection). The proposed model, which includes collaboration strategies and evaluation of students’ performance, offers more opportunities for PCK growth of science teachers.

INTRODUCTION Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of science teachers is an important issue for current teacher education in Taiwan. Greater emphasis has been put on the development and research of PCK for science teachers (Abell, 2008; De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Nilsson, 2008; Van Driel, De Jong, & Verloop, 2002; Van Driel, Verloop & de Vos, 1998). Owing to the implementation of a nine-year integrated curriculum scheme in Taiwan, research on PCK of pre-service and in-service science teachers appears to be urgent. This nine-year integrated curriculum, running from first to ninth grade, provides a continuous curriculum integrating traditionally separate courses into seven learning fields. The curriculum of each subject was integrated into the field of interdisciplinary courses; for example, the previous separate courses of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science were integrated under a single subject of Natural Science (Jang, 2006a). This had a great impact on current science teachers of Taiwan who have to enhance their PCK and equip

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

4

Syh-Jong Jang

themselves with the abilities to integrate and design curriculum, as well as aim for changes and innovative teaching. Shulman (1987) regards PCK as the knowledge base for teaching. This knowledge base consists of seven categories, three of which are content related (content knowledge, PCK, and curriculum knowledge). The other four categories are related to general pedagogy, learners and their characteristics, educational contexts, and educational purposes. A quotation from his work can help us understand what PCK, as part of the knowledge base for teaching, is:

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PCK represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).

Shulman’s notion of PCK has attracted much attention and has been interpreted in different ways (Geddis, Onslow, Beynon & Oesch, 1993; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Grossman, 1990). The foundation of science PCK is thought to be an amalgam of a teacher’s pedagogy and understanding of science content such that it influences their teaching in ways that will best engender students’ science learning for understanding. Initially, science teachers separate subject-matter knowledge from general pedagogical knowledge. These types of knowledge are, however, being integrated as a result of teaching experiences. By getting acquainted with the specific concepts and ways, science teachers may start to restructure their subject-matter knowledge into a form that enables more productive communication with their students (Lederman, Gess-Newsome and Latz, 1994). According to Lederman, GessNewsome and Latz (1994), the development of PCK among science teachers is promoted by the constant use of subject-matter knowledge in different teaching situations. Many scholars suggest that PCK is developed through an integrative process rooted in classroom practice, and that PCK guides the teachers’ actions when dealing with a specific subject matter in the classroom. Science teachers of the new curriculum should be equipped with the abilities to integrate curriculum as well as aim for effective teaching. However, integrating curriculum requires rich professional knowledge in different disciplines. Since it is impossible for one teacher to be specialized in all fields of knowledge, collaboration among teachers is needed. Collaboration is increasingly identified as a key aspect for the professional growth of teachers. Education reformers have called for increasing attention to the collegial relationships among teachers in professional growth (Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1993). Effective professional growth must be collaborative, involving a sharing of knowledge among teachers’ communities of practice rather than on individual teachers (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Firestone & Rosenblum, 1998). Researchers report that regular opportunities for the interaction with colleagues are essential for creating professional school cultures (Lieberman, Saxl & Miles, 1988; Miller, 1988). A community of peers is important not only in terms of support but also as a crucial source of generating ideas and providing criticism (Davis, 1995; Sykes, 1996). For many years, the schools have expected teachers to teach students independently without any assistance from other people (Lortie, 1975). The practice of this pattern hindered the attempts to create collaborative environments where teachers communicated with and observed one another regularly. According to Barth (1990), observation, assistance and communication among teachers can cause changes in school. A related approach to increasing collaboration among teachers is peer coaching.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Research-Based Model …

5

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Peer coaching is a collaborative and confidential process through which two or more professional colleagues work together to provide in-class assistance, reflect on current practices, build new skills and knowledge, share ideas, and solve problems (Joyce & Showers, 1995; McAllister & Neubert, 1995; Slater & Simmons, 2001). Joyce and Showers (1995) suggested that teachers learned from each other in the process of planning instruction, developing materials for support, watching each other work with students, and reviewing together the impact of their behavior on the learning process of their students. Some studies indicate that peer coaching is viewed as a means of active learning where teachers construct their own knowledge (McAllister & Neubert, 1995) and improve their ability to plan and organize the classroom activities (Hasbrouck, 1997). Previous investigations have examined the practicality of peer coaching for promoting changes in teachers’ pedagogical practices and expertise (Kohler & Ezell, 1999; Pugach & Johnson, 1995). Successful peer coaching resides in developing a climate of trust and mutual respect. When trust exists, the team members will stay focused on the goal, communicate more effectively, and compensate for each other’s shortcomings which generate an improvement in the overall quality of outcomes (Davies, 1995). The coaching relationship also results in the possibility of mutual reflection, checking of perceptions, sharing of frustrations and successes, and in the informal thinking through mutual problems (Joyce & Weil, 1996). This involves identifying and honoring different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses of all team partners (Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Joyce & Showers, 1982; Koballa, 1992). Therefore, peer coaching must focus on improving rather than rating the quality of teaching, and it must not be used for the evaluation or judgment of teachers’ performance (Showers & Joyce, 1996). In this paper, the researcher first describes the social constructive framework related to peer coaching. Then it addresses the related literature concerning PCK of science teachers, as well as the merits and models of peer coaching. Finally, a peer coaching research-based model for PCK of pre-service and in-service teachers is presented with its content and process described.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVE FRAMEWORK The impact of constructivist epistemology seems to be important in PCK. Since constructivism emphasizes the role of previous experience in the knowledge construction processes, it is not surprising that teachers’ knowledge is studied in relation to their practice in research from this point of view. In other words, constructivism postulates that knowledge is constructed on the basis of the particular context in which the cognizing individual is operating (Appleton, 1997; von Glasersfeld, 1989). Many researchers in science education recognize that knowledge is also socially constructed (Jang, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Kittleson & Southerland, 2004; Leach & Scott, 2002). This approach is socially constructivist in nature because learning depends upon constructing personal knowledge for teaching through social interactions in a community of practice (Jang, 2006a; Vygotsky, 1978). This form of thinking and dialogue among science teachers aligns reflection closely with practice. The role of discourse in shaping what is viewed as legitimate understanding within a scientific community becomes a crucial factor in the construction of knowledge. Thus, to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed, in some part the question becomes one of

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

6

Syh-Jong Jang

understanding how knowledge is negotiated or co-constructed in social settings. Coconstruction refers to the process of jointly building an understanding, as would be characterized by interactive experiences (Kittleson & Southerland, 2004). In other words, peer science teachers can be encouraged to use discourse to negotiate their way to understanding in their classroom. This notion of inter-subjectivity allows “the meeting of two minds... each operating on the other’s ideas, using the back-and-forth discussion to advance his/her own development” (Rogoff, 1990, p. 149). It also allows for joint thinking, problem solving, and the process of decision-making, from which the teachers appropriate new knowledge (Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989).

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE PCK is considered as the knowledge base for science teaching (Shulman, 1987). Although whether it is possible to distinguish PCK from subject-matter knowledge has been the subject of controversy (Marks, 1990; Tobin et al., 1994), studies on science teachers’ PCK indicate that a thorough and coherent understanding of the subject matter is a prerequisite for the development of PCK (Smith & Neale, 1989). As for pre-service teachers, the subject-matter knowledge, which they have acquired during training education usually contains misconceptions and deficiencies (Smith, 1999). Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop (2002) investigated the development of PCK within a group of 12 pre-service chemistry teachers and claimed that the subject-matter knowledge was a prerequisite for the development of PCK and that PCK developed along with the actual teaching experience of teachers. The subject-matter structures of pre-service biology teachers were investigated during a year of professional teacher education (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993). Their knowledge structures appeared to be mainly derived from the college science courses. Though these structures were often vague and fragmented on entering teacher education, they developed toward more coherent and integrated views of biology during teacher education. Grossman (1990) considered PCK as consisting of knowledge of strategies and representations for teaching particular topics and knowledge of students’ understanding and misconceptions of these topics. Marks (1990) broadened Shulman’s model by including the PCK knowledge of subject matter as well as knowledge of media for instruction. In the discussion on sources of PCK, however, Marks presented the development of PCK as an integrative process revolving around the interpretation of subject-matter knowledge and the specification of general pedagogical knowledge. Marks also discussed some ambiguities in PCK by presenting examples in which it is impossible to distinguish PCK from either subjectmatter knowledge or general pedagogical knowledge. Carlsen (1991) discovered that novice teachers might adopt different teaching strategies with respect to varied subject matters. In other words, teachers with rich subject-matter knowledge tended to make use of passively transmitted strategies, whereas new teachers with insufficient subject-matter knowledge would like to adopt strategies to actively guide students. Thus, efficiently promoting teachers’ PCK as well as integrating it with their practice may constitute a solution to the dilemma described above. PCK implies a transformation of subject-matter knowledge, so that it can be used effectively and flexibly in the communication process between teachers and learners during

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Development of a Research-Based Model …

7

classroom practice. Thus, science teachers may derive PCK from their own teaching practice as well as from schooling activities. Teaching practice was investigated as a function of familiarity with a specific domain. These studies lead to similar results, indicating that science teachers, when teaching unfamiliar topics, have little knowledge of potential student problems and specific preconceptions, and have difficulties selecting appropriate representations of subject matter. Pedagogical knowledge provides a framework for teaching that can be “filled in by content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge . . . when teachers taught within and outside their science area” (Sanders et al., 1993, p. 733). Geddis (1993) studied the transformation of science teachers’ subject-matter knowledge into “teachable content knowledge.” PCK has been described as the transformation of several types of knowledge for teaching (Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999). Pre-service or novice science teachers usually express little PCK (Lederman GessNewsome and Latz, 1994). Lederman et al. (1994) investigated the self-reported changes in pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Although distinct changes in both knowledge domains seem to take place mainly as a result of teaching experiences, it does not seem that pre-service teachers integrate these domains. Again, they attributed this to a lack of teaching experience, suggesting that “with the benefit of experience and continual use of one’s subject matter structure for purposes of teaching, the division between pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge may become blurred” (Lederman et al., 1994, p. 143). Thus, the development of PCK may be postponed until teachers reach this stage. Most importantly, however, the observation that the translation of these subject matter structures into classroom practice appeared to be complicated by classroom complexity. Lederman et al. (1994) suggested that until a pre-service teacher has gained experience and mastered basic classroom skills, it might be unrealistic to expect a readily accessible and useful translation of subject-matter knowledge into classroom practice. Several researchers challenged reform-based efforts for their failure to account for practical knowledge—deeply personal, highly contextualized, and influenced by teaching experience (van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001). Furthermore, Mulholland and Wallace (2005) suggested that science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge requires the longitudinal development of experience in their transition from novices to experienced teachers. Loughran, Mulhall and Berry (2004) examined how the ways of documenting and portraying science teachers’ PCK were developed. As a result of a longitudinal study on science teachers’ PCK, a method was developed for capturing and portraying PCK that comprised two important elements. The first was linked to the particular science content, termed Content Representation (CoRe), and the second was linked to teaching practice, termed Professional and Pedagogical experience Repertoire (PaP-eR). Through this approach, new insights into PCK emerged that were of interest in terms of both academic (knowledge building about PCK) and teaching perspectives. This study includes a full CoRe and one PaPeR, and demonstrates clearly how these two elements interact to portray science teachers’ PCK.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

8

Syh-Jong Jang

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PEER COACHING Peer coaching provides a community of practice to be defined as a group of individuals, who share such commonalities as interests, knowledge, resources, experiences, perspectives, behaviors, language, and practices (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Taylor et al., 2003). Bowman and McCormick (2000) suggest that through social interaction, active learning evolves and each participant interprets, transforms, and internalizes new knowledge. Within the framework of peer coaching, such collaborative discussions allow individuals to develop their own perspectives and to model strengths for others. Pierce and Hunsaker (1996) state that peer coaching not only increases collegiality, but also enhances each teacher’s understanding of the concepts and strategies of teaching, and sustains the movement toward restructuring the traditional evaluation efforts by strengthening the ownership of change. Jenkins et al. (2005) regarded peer coaching as a means of developing pedagogical content knowledge because of its real-life context in which teaching and learning occur. Peer coaching can increase reflective practice, aid implementation of teaching models and instructional strategies, and enhance classroom management and development of PCK (Jenkins & Veal, 2002; McAllister & Neubert, 1995). Three characteristics have become common to the variety of peer coaching approaches that have developed over the years. First, peer coaching is a formative process that facilitates introspection and self-awareness prior to, during, and after teaching. Teachers work collaboratively and systematically to talk about their teaching, outlining intended outcomes prior to teaching, then reflecting upon the actual teaching experience afterwards. They meet repeatedly and engage actively in conversations aimed at building upon each experience in a non-threatening dialogue (Goker, 2006). Second, peer-coaching models draw on elements of the clinical supervision cycle. Joyce and Showers (1982) have developed the most widely known peer-coaching model which consists of four elements: (1) study of the theoretical basis or rationale of the teaching method, (2) observation of demonstrations by persons who are experts in the teaching method, (3) practice and feedback in relatively protected conditions, and (4) mutual coaching to help incorporate the new method into an everyday teaching style. In their early work, peer coaching includes a cycle of objective classroom observation, followed by accurate feedback on the use of the new teaching skills. In their more recent work, Joyce and Showers (1995) expanded their view of peer coaching, emphasizing learning through collaborative planning, development and observation of instruction. They stress the importance of a non-hierarchical relationship between peers working and learning collaboratively to improve their teaching. Third, peer-coaching models aim to improve classroom practice. In general, teachers gain greater awareness of their actions in the classroom and the effect their teaching has on their students. Teachers develop their own criteria for assessment to improve their practice. Although formative assessment is not directly associated with institutional decisions, the intention is to create positive change that ultimately results in improved teaching practices (Goker, 2006; Thijs & Van den Berg, 2002). A series of studies (Davis, 1987; Sloan, 1986) investigated the effectiveness of three peer coaching models with experienced middle and high school science and mathematics teachers. In the first model, each of the five high school science teachers coached one another to improve their self-selected teaching strategies. At a given time, each teacher observed the lesson of a colleague, followed a week later by a coaching session during which teachers

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Research-Based Model …

9

collaborated about the observed lesson for one hour. The second model involved two teachers coaching one another on the same day of the observation. The third model involved a coach who was external to the school system and coaching sessions were organized on the same day of the observation. All coaching arrangements were successful in facilitating change for the teachers involved in the studies.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH-BASED MODEL FOR PCK Shulman (1987) proposed that PCK development might involve through the processes of comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection and new understanding. In this paper, peer collaboration can be described as a collegial approach to the analysis of teaching aimed at integrating new skills and strategies in classroom practice (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Furthermore, a strong line of recent research beyond traditional science education is beginning to be used as a research approach to professional development (Lumpe, 2007; Marzano, 2003). In addition, science educators have expanded their views of professional development by demonstrating some impact on student learning (Czerniak, Beltyukova, Struble, Haney & Lumpe, 2006; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry & Hewson, 2003). Knight and Waxman (1991) pointed out that although students’ perceptions might not be consistent with the reality generated by outside observers, they could present the range of reality for individual students and their peer in the classroom. Using students’ perceptions can enable researchers and teachers to appreciate the perceived instructional and environmental influences on students’ learning processes. It is time for science educators to emphasize peer interaction as well as student learning performance. Therefore, the researcher developed a research-based model by revising the model of Lumpe (2007), which can be applied to collaboration strategies and evaluation of students’ performance as depicted in Figure 1. The research-based model includes two parts: the content of PCK development and the process of PCK development. The content of PCK development for this model includes two important factors of PCK from Grossman (1990): knowledge of strategies and representations for teaching particular topics, and knowledge of students’ understanding and misconceptions of these topics. The study extended Grossman’s PCK components for a science teacher as shown in Figure 1, which are classified into three categories: (1) Curriculum: subject-matter knowledge, knowledge of learners including prior knowledge and learning difficulties of learners. Some studies also showed that a science teacher well equipped with the subject matter knowledge might be able to transfer his/her knowledge in a more efficient way, enabling the students to receive the knowledge more easily (Carter & Doyle, 1987; Tobin & Garnett, 1988). When teaching unfamiliar topics, science teachers express more misconceptions (Hashweh, 1987) and they talk longer and more often, and pose questions of low cognitive level (Carlsen, 1993). These results are interpreted in terms of PCK rather than subject matter knowledge (Sanders, Borko & Lockard, 1993). (2) Instruction: pedagogical knowledge including effective teaching strategies, and knowledge representation. The pedagogical knowledge about certain topics and teaching strategies, including the knowledge of representation (as model and metaphor) and activities (as experiment and explanation) were closely related, and demand a flexible schema for implementation (De Jong, Van Driel

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

10

Syh-Jong Jang

& Verloop, 2005; Grossman, 1990; Lederman, Gess-Newsome & Latz, 1994; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007). More importantly, when dealing with pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ actions will be determined to a large extent by their PCK, making PCK an essential component of professional knowledge. (3) Assessment: classroom-based evaluation including teaching goal and students’ understanding and perceptions. In general, science teachers develop their own criteria for assessment to gain greater awareness of their actions in the classroom and the effect their teaching has on their students. Science teachers may benefit from studying the students’ preconceptions with respect to a specific topic during teacher education courses, and then comparing and discussing these preconceptions in relation to their own concepts (Geddis, 1993). Turley (1994) found that students’ perceptions of effective teaching were a combination of method, context, student effort, and teacher commitment. To students, effective teachers were those who knew their subject, showed evidence of thoughtful planning, used appropriate teaching strategies, instructional and representational repertoires, and gave adequate structure and direction (Tuan, Chang, Wang & Treagust, 2000).

The Process of PCK Development

Formal Training / Workshops

The Content of PCK Development

Providing foundation for

„ Curriculum z Subject matter knowledge z Student prior knowledge and learning difficulties Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Building a Peer Coaching Community: „ Instruction z Effective instructional strategies z Pedagogical knowledge representation

A PCK-COPR Module Providing focus for

„ Assessment z Classroom-based evaluation z Students’ understanding

Support effective

and perceptions „ Schedule time „ Incentive structures

Figure 1. A research-based model of PCK development

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Research-Based Model …

11

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PCK-COPR MODULE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS The process of PCK development involves building a peer-coaching community through formal training/workshops (as depicted in Figure 1). The peer-coaching community is composed of the PCK-COPR module (PCK Comprehension, Observation, Practice and Reflection) as shown in Figure 2. This module is developed through formal training courses/workshops related to four elements: (1) comprehension of PCK, (2) observation of instruction, (3) practice of PCK, and (4) reflection of PCK. First, the peer-coaching module starts at the study of the theoretical basis or rationale of the specific content teaching method. The understanding includes study on the topics of textbook and PCK articles in teams, and the science teachers would describe his/her understanding of the subject-matter knowledge of the specific subject content unit. The analyses and discussions on these PCK research articles also contribute to the science teacher’s PCK of useful instructional strategies for overcoming students’ learning difficulties (Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002). Second, in order to integrate PCK theories and practice, the second activity was to observe experienced science teachers. Science teachers should observe and evaluate the teaching according to the acquired PCK theories and strategies. After watching the demonstration, science teachers take turns to give their comments and suggestions. Third, science teachers learned to make lesson plans and applied innovative teaching methods and strategies to teaching practice in the secondary school. Many related studies indicated that the choice of instructional model related to teaching experience was important for PCK development (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002). Science teachers were also evaluated on the basis of students’ learning performance. To assess science teachers’ PCK status, a survey for collecting data concerning students’ perceptions is necessary (Tuan, Chang, Wang & Treagust, 2000). Finally, each science teacher should show the videotapes of his/her teaching and share his/her teaching experience with others. In the meantime, peer science teachers might give their comments and suggestions. Furthermore, discussion of survey not only helps teachers understand students’ needs and serves as reference for teachers’ reflection, but also enables them to adjust their teaching strategy accordingly. To reflect is to think about where you have been and/or what has happened in order to clarify your experience. Reflection is fundamental to assessment, decision-making, and a deeper understanding of the teaching practice (Ross & Bruce, 2007). The act of reflection is primarily concerned with developing insights and discovering solutions to difficulties, or what might be described more correctly as learning opportunities to revise instructional strategies for the next topic (Vidmar, 2006). The goal of reflection is not just better teaching, but also ultimately improved students’ learning. When the instruction is not as successful as planned, an instructor can change what might seem to be a “mistake” into a learning opportunity. In addition, schedule time and incentive structures must be provided to support the research-based system. For example, the researcher arranged the course schedule to facilitate interaction among peer teachers. Science teachers would finish the research reports to be the final evaluation of the training/workshops for stimulating their learning motive.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

12

Syh-Jong Jang

PCK Comprehension (PCK-C) „ Discussing PCK concepts & theories in teams „ Examining science teachers’ subjectmatter knowledge „ Understanding students’ prior knowledge & learning

Reflection of PCK (PCK-R)

Observation of instruction (PCK-O)

„ Observing individual

„ Experienced teachers’

teaching videotapes

teaching

„ Discussing and

demonstration „ Implementing peer

evaluating students’

feedback

perceptions „ Self-reflection of

„ Verifying personal

science teachers

PCK learning

Practice of instruction (PCK-P) „ Lesson planning activity and design „ Teaching science and video recording

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

„ Survey for teaching performance

Figure 2. The PCK-COPR module

Jenkins, Garn and Jenkins (2005) regarded peer coaching as a means of developing PCK because of its real-life context, in which teaching and learning can occur together. Science teachers’ PCK is deeply personal, highly contextualized and influenced by teaching interaction and experience (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007; Van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). Mulholland and Wallace (2005) suggested that science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge requires the longitudinal development of experience as they develop from novices into experienced teachers. Within the framework of peer coaching practice, such collaborative discussions allow individuals to develop their own perspectives and to model strengths for others. Bowman and McCormick (2000) suggested that through social interaction, active learning evolves and each participant interprets, transforms, and internalizes new knowledge. Pierce and Hunsaker (1996) stated that peer coaching not only increases collegiality, but also enhances each teacher’s understanding of the concepts and strategies of teaching, and sustains the movement toward restructuring the traditional evaluation efforts. De Jong, Van Driel and Verloop (2005) designed a module that emphasized the process of learning from teaching by connecting authentic teaching experiences with institutional

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Research-Based Model …

13

workshops. The participants in this study were 12 pre-service teachers of chemistry. The outcomes of the study revealed that, initially, all participants were able to describe specific learning difficulties, such as the problems of secondary school students in relating the properties of substances to characteristics of the constituent particles. After teaching, all preservice teachers demonstrated a deeper understanding of their students’ problems with the use of particle models. In addition, about half of the participants had become more aware of the possibilities and limitations of using particle models in specific teaching situations. Through learning from teaching, the pre-service teachers further developed their PCK of using particle models.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK The main purpose of this paper is to develop a peer coaching research-based model. The social constructive framework provides a foundation for peer coaching on how knowledge is negotiated or co-constructed in social settings. In particular, science teachers’ PCK is constructed for teaching through social interactions in a community of practice. The peer coaching research-based model is developed, which can be applied to collaboration strategies and evaluation of students’ performance. In summary, the model includes both the process of PCK development and the content of PCK development. The process of PCK development involves building a peer-coaching community, which applies the PCK-COPR module. The content of PCK development for this model is classified into three categories including curriculum, instruction and assessment. In addition, schedule time and incentive structures must be provided to support the peer coaching-based system. Less emphasis is put on the development and research for in-service science teachers’ PCK than that of pre-service science teachers (Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Van Driel et al., 1998). However, most of these works, regardless whether they are about pre-service or in-service science teachers’ PCK, collected interviews or assignment transcripts, and implemented qualitative analysis to discuss science teachers’ PCK growth (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002). This current design of the proposed model could use mixed analytical methods incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques in particular topics (Grossman, 1990) for knowledge of strategies and representations, and knowledge of students’ understanding (Jang, & Luo, 2009). The next step will be to use the peer coaching research-based model for developing PCK of 12 secondary science teachers by using both quantitative and qualitative research methods with respect to the topic of “Heat and Temperature”. This empirical study intended to examine the secondary students’ perceptions of science teachers’ PCK and the effects of applying the developed model. The survey employed in this study is the instrument on Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Knowledge (SPOTK) developed by Tuan, Chang, Wang and Treagust (2000). Three research questions were answered on the basis of survey, written assignments, reflective journals and interviews. Three research questions have been formulated: (1) what difficulties have science teachers encountered in teaching the topic of “Heat and Temperature”? (2) What are students’ perceptions of science teachers’ PCK on the topic of “Heat and Temperature”? (3) What are the effects of the research-based model on this topic?

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

14

Syh-Jong Jang

The primary purpose of this empirical study of PCK is to formulate recommendations for teacher education with respect to the teaching of “Heat and Temperature.” The research-based model might be adopted in teacher education to offer more opportunities for PCK growth of pre-service and in-service teachers. On the other hand, the research methods of students’ perceptions and qualitative analysis could increase the learning and research experience of both science teachers and the researcher, and also serve as useful references for other teacher education institutes.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Abell, S.K. (2008). PCK twenty years later: Does it remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405–1416. Appleton, K. (1997). Analysis and description of students’ learning during science classes using a constructivist-based model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 303318. Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T.M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25– 55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA :Jossey-Bass. Bowman, C. & McCormick, S. (2000) Comparison of peer coaching versus traditional supervision effects, The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 256-264. Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge on curricular planning. Science Education, 75, 631–647. Carlsen, W.S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 471– 481. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1987). Teachers’ knowledge structure and comprehension process. In J. Calder-head (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp.147-160). London; Cassel. Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 419-441. Czerniak, C. M., Beltyukova, S, Struble, J., Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (2006). Do you see what I see? The relationship between a professional development model and student achievement. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science in grades 5–8: Standards-based success stories (pp. 13–43). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604. Davis, N. (1987). An application of coaching in middle school science. Paper present at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington. DC. Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. Phoenix, Arizona: American Council on Education/ Oryx Press.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Development of a Research-Based Model …

15

De Jong, O., Van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947–964. Firestone,W.A. & Rosenblum, S.(1988). Building commitment in urban high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 285-299. Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673–683. Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575-591. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1993). Preservice biological teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Teacher Education, 77(1), 25-43. Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.) (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34, 239-254. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Hasbrouck, J. E.,(1997). Mediated peer coaching for training preservice teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 251-271. Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120. Hudson, P. & Glomb, N. (1997). If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both partners to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 442–449. Jang, S. J. (2007). A study of the students’ construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65-81. Jang, S. J. (2006a). The effects of incorporating web assisted learning with team teaching in seventh-grade science classes. International Journal of Science Education. 28(6), 615632. Jang, S. J. (2006b). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177-194. Jang, S. J. & Luo, H. Y. (2009). The impacts of secondary students’ perception on PCK of the science teachers using team teaching. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 49-68. Jenkins, J., Garn, A. & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 2-23. Jenkins, J., & Veal, M.L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ PCK development during peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 49-68. Joyce, B. R. & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 410. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd edition.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Joyce, B, ＆ Weil, M. (1996). Model of teaching（5thed）. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

16

Syh-Jong Jang

Kittleson, J. M. & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267–293. Knight, S. L. and Waxman, H. C. (1991) Students’ cognition and classroom instruction. In H. C. Waxman and H. J. Walberg (Eds) Effective T eaching: Current Research (Berkeley, CA: McCutchan), 239-255. Koballa, T.R. (1992). Peering coaching: Capitalizing on constructive criticism. Science Teacher, 59(6), 42-45. Kohler, F.W. & Ezell, H. K. (1999). Promoting changes in teachers’ conduct of student pair activities: An examination of reciprocal peer coaching. Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 154-165. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Publishers. Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142. Lederman, N.G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M.S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129–146. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596. Lieberman, A., Saxl, E.R.,＆ Miles, M.B.(1988). Teaching leadership: Ideology and practice. In A. Lieberman （ Ed. ） , Building a professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Little J.W.（1993）. Teachers’ professional development in a climate of education reform. Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15,129-151. Lortie, D.（1975）. School teachers . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E.,Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Loughran, J.J., Mulhall, P. & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370–391. Lumpe, A. T. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 125–128. McAllister, E. A., & Neubert, G. A., (1995). New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington, In: EDINFO 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: Kluwer Academic. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3–11. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Research-Based Model …

17

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Miller, L.（1988）. Unlikely beginnings: The district office as a starting point for developing a professional culture for teaching. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools. New York : Longman. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767 – 790. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299. Pierce, D. & Hunsaker, T. W. (1996) Professional development for the teacher, of the teacher, and by the teacher, Education, 117(1), 101-105. Pugach, M., & Johnson, L.J.(1995). Unlocking expertise among classroom teachers through structures dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration. Exceptional Children, 62, 101-110. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Ross, J. A. & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 146-159. Sanders, L.R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 723–736. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Slater, C.L. & Simmons, D.L.(2001). The design and implementation of a peer coaching program. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 67-76. Sloan, N.(1986). An interpretive study of peer coaching in middle school science. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. In J. Gess-Newsome&N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 163–197). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Smith, D.C. & Neale, D.C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1–20. Sykes, G (1996). Reform of and as professional development, Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 465467. Taylor, J., Munby, H., Chin, P., Hutchinson, N. L., Berg, D. H., & Dalgarno, N. (2003). Coop students’ access to shared knowledge in science-rich workplaces. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Education, Halifax, NS. Thijs, A. & van den Berg, E. (2002). Peer coaching as part of a professional development program for science teachers in Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 55–68

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

18

Syh-Jong Jang

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J & Gallard, A. J.(1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In Gable, D.(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning(45-93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Tobin, K., & Garnett, P.(1988). Exemplary practice in science classroom. Science Education, 72, 197-208. Tuan, H-L., Chang, H-P., Wang, K-H. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385-398. Turley, S. (1994). The way teachers teach is, like, totally whacked: The student voice on

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Van Dijk, E. M. & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 885-897. 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., De Jong, O.,&Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ PCK. Science Education, 86, 572–590. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137 – 158. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Syntheses, 80, 121-140. Vidmar, D. J. (2006). Reflective peer coaching: Crafting collaborative self-assessment in teaching. Research Strategies, 20, 135-148. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Chapter 2

DEVELOPMENT OF A TECHNOLOGY-BASED MODEL FOR ENHANCING PCK OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT This study examined the effects of a technology-based model for enhancing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of pre-service science teachers. A technologybased PCK-COPR (Comprehension, Observation, Practice and Reflection) model was designed to restructure science teacher education courses. Participants of this study included a group of pre-service teachers (n=23). A mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used. According to the findings, there were significant differences in “pedagogical knowledge”, “technology knowledge” and “overall PCK” (F = 4.123, p < 0.05, F = 9.260, p < 0.01, and F= 6.372, p < 0.05, respectively.), but no significant differences in the other aspects. The results showed that pre-service teachers were clearly aware of students’ prior conceptions of the subject matter and their learning difficulties. Furthermore, pre-service teachers reflected that they had learned how to integrate technologies with teaching through the online learning environment and teaching observation. The innovative teaching experience could help pre-service teachers develop multiple teaching methods and strategies, and further enhanced their PCK.

INTRODUCTION Current teacher education courses for pre-service teachers in Taiwan can be classified into two main categories: courses on subject-matter knowledge and those on education professional knowledge (Jang, 2007). However, many studies have pointed out that many preservice teachers who have science teaching knowledge, theories, methods and skills actually cannot cope with the real teaching situation (Jang, 2007; Hashweh, 2005; Tuan, 1996). It has also been reported that the success of science teaching depends not only on the teachers’ subject-matter knowledge but also on their personal understanding of students’ prior knowledge and learning difficulty (Grossman, 1990; Lederman, Gess-Newsome & Latz, 1994). In addition, other factors of success include their own teaching methods and strategies, curriculum knowledge, educational situation, goal and value (Shulman, 1987). In particular,

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

20

Syh-Jong Jang

the pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is the main issue of the current teacher education revolution (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Grossman, 1990; Nilsson, 2008; Shulman, 1986, 1987). Recent trends in teacher education also have emphasized the importance of learning with technology rather than learning about technology (Drier, 2001; Li, 2003). How to integrate technology into pre-service science teachers’ PCK is the important issue. One of the keys to improving teacher’s preparation for literacy-technology integration is to embed technology within literacy methods courses, and to provide courses focused specifically on technology (Angeli, 2005; Davis & Falba, 2002; Jang, 2008a, 2008b). However, teacher education programs often offer one basic technology course that pre-service teachers are required to take (Pope, Hare & Howard. 2005; Willis & Sujo de Montes, 2002). This basic technology course should be the foundation for integrated activities in all courses (Pope, Hare & Howard, 2005). Many studies indicate that pre-service teachers are required to practice with technology, and reflect on their use of technologies in order to plan curriculum and instruction in the classroom (Doering, Hughes & Huffman, 2003; Kim, Hannafin & Bryan, 2007; Lewis, 2006; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Many related studies indicated that the instructional model related to teaching experience was important for PCK development (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Jang & Luo, 2009; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007; Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002). However, there were few researches integrating technology into preservice teachers’ PCK (Koehler, Mishra & Yahya, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The purpose of this study was to developed a technology-based model and examine the effects of this model in a science teacher education course. The concepts “density and buoyancy”, of which students have particular difficulty understanding abstract, invisible, process and hierarchical level attributes (Brown, 1993; Murray, Schultz, Brown & Clement, 1990; She, 2002), were chosen to explore the effects of the intended design. Three questions are explored Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

in this research. (1) What difficulties have pre-service science teachers encountered in teaching the topics of “density and buoyancy”? (2) How did pre-service teachers teach these topics? (3) What are the effects of the technology-based model on these topics?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The impact of constructivist epistemology seems to be important in PCK. As constructivism emphasizes the role of previous experience in knowledge construction processes, it is not surprising that teachers’ knowledge is studied in relation to their practice in research from this point of view. Shulman (1987) regarded PCK as the knowledge base for teaching. This knowledge base comprises seven categories, three of which are content related (content knowledge, PCK, and curriculum knowledge). The other four categories refer to general pedagogy, learners and their characteristics, educational contexts, and educational purposes. Although whether it is possible to distinguish PCK from subject-matter knowledge has been the subject of controversy (Marks, 1990; Tobin et al., 1994), studies on science teachers’ PCK indicate that a thorough and coherent understanding of subject matter acts as a prerequisite, preceding the development of PCK (Smith & Neale, 1989). As for pre-service teachers, the subject-matter knowledge they have acquired during disciplinary education

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK …

21

usually contains misconceptions and deficiencies (Smith, 1999). Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop (2002) investigated the development of PCK within a group of 12 pre-service chemistry teachers and claimed that the subject-matter knowledge was a prerequisite for the development of PCK and that PCK developed in the actual teaching experience of teachers. Certain studies also showed that a teacher well equipped with the subject-matter knowledge might be able to transfer his/her knowledge in an efficient way, making it easier for students to acquire the knowledge (Carter & Doyle, 1987; Tobin & Garnett, 1988). The subject-matter structures of pre-service biology teachers were investigated during a year of professional teacher education (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993). Their knowledge structures appeared to be mainly derived from the college science courses. While these structures were often vague and fragmented on entering teacher education, they developed toward more coherent and integrated views of biology during teacher education. The crucial factor in this development is, obviously, teaching experience (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007; Van Driel, De Jong & Verloop, 2002). PCK implies a transformation of subject-matter knowledge, so that it can be used effectively and flexibly in the communication process between teachers and learners during classroom practice. Thus, teachers may derive PCK from their own teaching practice as well as from schooling activities. Teaching practice was investigated as a function of familiarity with a specific domain. These studies lead to similar results, indicating that pre-service teachers, when teaching unfamiliar topics, have little knowledge of potential student problems and specific preconceptions, and have difficulties selecting appropriate representations of subject matter. Pre-service teachers may benefit from studying students’ preconceptions with respect to learning a specific topic during teacher education courses, and comparing and discussing these preconceptions in relation to their own conceptions (Geddis, 1993). Such activities may stimulate pre-service teachers to generate transformations of subject-matter knowledge and topic-specific teaching strategies. Moreover, when teaching unfamiliar topics, teachers express more misconceptions (Hashweh, 1987) and they talk longer and more often, and mainly pose questions of low cognitive level (Carlsen, 1993). These results are interpreted in terms of PCK rather than subject matter knowledge (Sanders, Borko & Lockard, 1993). Pedagogical knowledge provides a framework for teaching that is “filled in by content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge . . . when teachers taught within and outside their science area” (Sanders et al., 1993, p. 733). Geddis (1993) studied the transformation of pre-service science teachers’ subject-matter knowledge into “teachable content knowledge.” PCK has been described as the transformation of several types of knowledge for teaching (Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999). Pre-service or novice science teachers usually express little PCK (Lederman GessNewsome and Latz, 1994). Lederman et al. (1994) investigated the self-reported changes in pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Although distinct changes in both knowledge domains seem to take place mainly as a result of teaching experiences, it does not seem that pre-service teachers integrate these domains. Again, they attributed this to a lack of teaching experience, and suggested “with the benefit of experience and continual use of one’s subject matter structure for purposes of teaching, the division between pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge may become blurred” (Lederman et al., 1994, p. 143). Thus, the development of PCK may be postponed until teachers reach this stage. Most importantly, however, the observation that the translation of

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

22

Syh-Jong Jang

these subject matter structures into classroom practice appeared to be complicated by classroom complexity. Lederman et al. (1994) suggested that until a teacher has gained experience and mastered basic classroom skills, it might be unrealistic to expect a readily accessible and useful translation of subject-matter knowledge into classroom practice. In previous studies, science education researchers have emphasized the importance of supporting pre-service teacher development for technology integration (Flick & Bell, 2000; Kim, Hannafin & Bryan, 2007), and creating “educative curriculum materials” to enhance science teacher knowledge and practice (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). In the communities of teaching practice, electronic dialogue on classroom issues has been shown to support effective reflection and shared practical knowledge among pre-service teachers (Edens, 2000; Levin, 1999). The characteristics of online communities fit many of pre-service teachers’ PCK development. The community-support needs expressed by teachers included overcoming isolation from and sharing experiences with peers, providing equal access to PCK development opportunities and ongoing support for the change process, sharing tools for professional discourse, and allowing for asynchronous communication which is more amenable to in-depth, reflective conversation (Dalgarno & Colgan, 2007; Shotsberger, 2000). This approach is socially constructivist in nature because learning depends upon constructing personal knowledge for teaching through social interactions in a community of practice (Jang, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge is collaboratively constructed between individuals whence it can be appropriated by each individual. This form of thinking and dialogue among pre-service teachers aligns reflection closely with practice. Pre-service teachers posted reflective thoughts and queries on personal practice to a specified Internet site for practical feedback from others in the community. Electronic forums help support this sharing and reflection between pre-service teachers that in the past could only occur in face-to-face meetings (Upitis & Russell, 1998). Koehler, Mishra and Yahya (2007) reported the results of a semester-long investigation of the development of pedagogical content knowledge during a faculty development design seminar, whereby faculty members worked together with master students to develop online courses. Quantitative discourse analysis of 15 weeks of field notes for two of the design teams showed participants moved from considering technology, pedagogy and content as being independent constructed towards a richer conception that emphasized connections among the three knowledge bases. The analyses suggested that developing pedagogical content knowledge was a multigenerational process, involving the development of deeper understandings of the complex web of relationships between content, pedagogy and technology and the contexts in which they functioned. Science teachers’ PCK is deeply personal, highly contextualized and influenced by teaching interaction and experience (De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007; Van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). Mulholland and Wallace (2005) suggested that science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge requires the longitudinal development of experience as they develop from novices into experienced teachers. De Jong, Van Driel and Verloop (2005) designed a module, which emphasized learning from teaching by connecting authentic teaching experiences with institutional workshops. The participants in this study were 12 pre-service teachers of chemistry. The outcomes of the study revealed that, initially, all participants were able to describe specific learning difficulties, such as the problems of secondary school students in relating the properties of substances to characteristics of the constituent particles. After teaching, all pre-service teachers demonstrated a deeper understanding of their students’

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK …

23

problems with the use of particle models. In addition, about half of the participants had become more aware of the possibilities and limitations of using particle models in specific teaching situations. Through learning from teaching, the pre-service teachers further developed their PCK of using particle models.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Context and Participants The context of this study was a teacher education course - “Teaching Practice” designed for pre-service teachers to gain teaching experience, pedagogical knowledge, teaching methods and techniques through attending the teaching practice. In this study, the core course lasted 16 weeks throughout the whole semester. The teaching practice was designed as a fourstage process. The first stage involved a four-week practice at the University. The major activities included PCK understanding of specific science topics. The second stage involved a two-week observation of the expert teachers’ teaching. The third stage involved a seven-week practice teaching in a secondary school. The pre-service teachers would make their own teaching design and practice to the secondary students. At the same time, they had to have their teaching performance videotaped for evaluation. The final stage involved a three-week review and evaluation of performance, when pre-service teachers completed the school teaching practice and returned to the University. Every pre-service teacher were required to present what they learned during the teaching practice and show his/her teaching videos for further evaluation. The participants included a single instructor and a total of 23 pre-service teachers. The instructor, who was the primary researcher, specialized in science teaching methods and strategies. These pre-service teachers were selected for a two-year teacher education program from the Science College at the University. They were all interested in becoming a science teacher in secondary schools.

Design and Implementation This study was designed to develop the PCK among pre-service science teachers, which included the two important factors of PCK from Grossman (1990). The study extended Grossman’s PCK components for a modern science teacher as shown in Figure 1, which are classified into four categories: (1) subject-matter knowledge, (2) pedagogical knowledge including teaching goal, evaluation, teaching strategies, and knowledge representation, (3) knowledge of learners including prior knowledge and learning difficulties of learner, and (4) knowledge of technology including multimedia and assisted IT teaching. Shulman (1987) proposed that PCK development might pass through the processes of comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection and new understanding. In this study, the technology-based PCK-COPR model (PCK Comprehension, Observation, Practice and Reflection) was developed to build a learning community as shown in Figure 2. This model comprised four main activities: (1) comprehension of PCK, (2) observation of

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

24

Syh-Jong Jang

instruction, (3) practice of PCK, and (4) reflection of PCK. The on-line assisted learning of the PCK e-learning system (http://teaching.cycu.edu.tw) was the platform for implementing the PCK-COPR model. The online materials for each part in this course contained contents, slides and online references. The setting of online teaching system included the curriculum information, forum, report and online discussion board. Prior to the official implementation of the web-assisted learning network, pre-service teachers would become familiar with the implementation and functions of the hardware and software and reinforce the support in either hardware or software to prevent possible technical problems. To see how well pre-service teachers learned and retained their attendance online, the instructor would evaluate the preservice teachers in two ways, individually and within the group, every other week. The preservice teachers individually had to learn to collect data, participate in the discussion board and post their comments online to share with other peers at least twice each week. Team members would post the results regarding the PCK group homework on the website after they reached consensus through discussions. For example, assignment 1: From your previous teaching practice, what difficulties have you encountered in learning the concepts of “density and buoyancy”?

Subject-Matter Knowledge

Knowledge of

Pedagogical

PCK

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Knowledge

Learners

Knowledge of Technology

Figure 1. Four categories of PCK components

The four activities of the PCK-COPR model were integrated into the whole course through four stages as discussed in the following.

Stage One: PCK Comprehension During the first four weeks, the course outline, teaching method, and method of evaluation would be introduced. This stage included the main activity for comprehending the

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK …

25

content of PCK. The instructor, using PowerPoint, explained the meaning and concepts of PCK including the knowledge of seven categories, especially, students’ prerequisite knowledge, creative teaching strategy and application of web-based technology. Moreover, the pre-service teachers were divided into collaborative teams, each of which comprised 3-4 people. The instructor might let pre-service teachers study the content of PCK in teams. Every pre-service teacher would describe his/her understanding of the subject-matter knowledge of the specific subject content unit on density or buoyancy in his/her journal. After the discussion and examination in a group, pre-service teachers would note down the knowledge of students’ understanding and preconceptions of these topics. Finally, pre-service teachers would post the results of team discussions regarding the PCK on the website as a routine task.

Stage Two: PCK Observation In order to integrate PCK theories and practice, the second main activity was to have two experienced mentor science teachers demonstrate their teaching with respect to the units “density and buoyancy”. The pre-service teachers should observe the teaching and notify their skills according to the learned PCK theories and strategies. Furthermore, pre-service teachers not only composed a written report and posted it on the website, but also discussed about the integration of mentor teachers’ teaching strategies or methods according to their acquired PCK.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Stage Three: PCK Practice The third activity was carried out from Week 7 to Week 13. The pre-service teachers learned to make lesson plans and applied innovative teaching methods and strategies to teaching practice in the secondary school. Each pre-service teacher was assigned to an experienced guidance mentor who served as a coach for consultation on problems encountered. The goal of this stage was to have pre-service teachers acquire teaching experience and understand secondary school students’ prior knowledge and learning difficulties. Specifically, in this stage, each pre-service teacher had to demonstrate his/her teaching to the secondary class. Each pre-service teacher might integrate the previously learned PCK strategy and skills by observing mentor teachers’ teaching. Thus, the guidance mentor observed his/her performance and played the backup role to assist and respond promptly to the pre-service teacher if necessary. For example, a pre-service teacher used a buoyancy-meter to demonstrate the buoyancy phenomena of water and utilized a computer to assist this demonstration. After the trial teaching, the guidance tutor would criticize and analyze the observation about teaching strategies and related teaching activities used by the pre-service teacher. The pre-service teachers also needed to have their teaching performance videotaped. In addition, they would write down their own thinking and raise questions in the online discussion forum. In the end, they had to post their comments online to share with other peers to learn from each other.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

26

Syh-Jong Jang

PCK Comprehension (PCK-C) 1. Discussing PCK concepts & theories 2. Examining pre-service teachers’ subject-matter knowledge 3. Understanding students’ prior knowledge & learning difficulties

Reflection of PCK

Observation of

(PCK-R)

instruction (PCK-O)

1. Evaluating the performance of above three processes 2. Reflection of personal PCK 3. Giving recommendation for PCK improvement

Building a Technology-Based Community: A PCK Website

1. Two mentor teachers’ teaching demonstration 2. Learning through observation & paper writing 3. Verifying personal PCK

Practice of instruction (PCK-P) 1. Teaching activity & design 2. Teaching practice in secondary classes 3. Feedback of guidance mentors

Figure 2. A technology-based PCK-COPR model

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Stage Four: Reflection and Modification The fourth activity on reflection and modification lasted from Week 14 to Week 16. After completing the teaching practice, pre-service teachers would return to the University campus to continue with the course. They should show the videotapes of their teaching, share with others their teaching experience, and write the reflection in their journals. The purpose of this activity was to evaluate pre-service teacher’s teaching performance. Pre-service teachers of each group would take turns to reflect on their own practice; followed by comments from other peers. Finally, the instructor would give appropriate feedback and comment on their demonstration and practice. In this stage, the effects of such integration on PCK and ability of capitalizing technology among pre-service teachers were evaluated. Furthermore, the reflective stage would help them self-examine their current lesson plan design and teaching practice in order to modify future teaching practice.

Data Collection Data of this study were collected from questionnaires, online data, reflective journals and interviews. A survey that measured pre-service teachers’ PCK was given on the first day of

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK …

27

class and during the last week of the same course. The following statements are given in the questionnaire.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1. I understand the basic content and concepts of the science units to be taught. The topics to be taught included density and buoyancy. 2. I understand current secondary school students’ prior knowledge of the science units and their learning difficulties. 3. I am able to integrate proper teaching strategies or teaching activities into the presentation of science units in class. 4. I am able to utilize the technologies or media to assist my teaching of the science units. 5. Overall, I understand the essential PCK for an efficient science teacher. These statements were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale with 5 for strongly agree, 3 for neutral, and 1 for strongly disagree. The scores in the questionnaire were analyzed to see if there was a significant difference before and after the teaching practice. In addition, there was an open-ended section at the end of each question for the researcher to understand the reason behind the response of participants. The online data included the questions and the content of the online discussions between the instructor and the pre-service teachers, online submission of homework and feedback, communication of personal problems and responses through emails and other related online information. The third source was the reflective journal of pre-service teachers, which served a two-fold purpose. The journal documented the construction, development, and reconstruction of knowledge in relation to density and buoyancy. It also contained each preservice teacher’s personal accounts of successes, failures, misunderstandings and frustrations during the class. The fourth source was interviews, which served to gain a deeper understanding of the pre-service teachers’ conceptions. According to the information gathered from the interviews, the researcher wished to: (a) confirm their responses to the questions of the questionnaire, and (b) discern the possible discrepancies of their views written down in online articles and journals.

Data Analysis Data collected during various stages of the integrated model were analyzed in relation to the three research questions. This research utilized both quantitative and qualitative approaches. For the quantitative part, statistical analyses were applied to the data from the questionnaires. The answers to the first and second questionnaires were compared to identify changes in the pre-service teachers’ PCK. For the qualitative part, the data analysis for each research question involved a similar procedure. In particular, five categories emerged in this study during the analysis process for describing these changes. The first two categories were related to the first research question concerning students’ learning difficulties and pre-service teachers’ changes in science content knowledge. The third and fourth categories were related to the second research question concerning the pre-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and technological application. The fifth category was related to the third question concerning the overall changes in PCK of pre-service teachers for this course. The inductive data analysis

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

28

Syh-Jong Jang

employed in this study utilized a qualitative framework that allowed the researcher to build patterns of meaning from the data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Four phases, as described by McMillan and Schumacher, were employed for the analysis of the transcripts: (1) continual discovery throughout the research in order to tentatively identify patterns; (2) categorizing and ordering data; (3) refining patterns through determining the trustworthiness of the data; and (4) synthesizing themes. Accordingly, the researcher assigned the changes found from individual respondents to these categories, resulting in a numerical overview of the results. A constant comparative method was utilized to compare the questionnaire data and other data (online, journals and interview) with the categories generated (Strauss, 1987). The data were first collected, coded, compared and then organized into different categories. Then the data were interpreted according to the categories.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of pre-service teachers’ questionnaires concerning the five aspects of mean scores and standard deviation of pre- and post- questionnaires. In order to see if teaching course was significantly related to the scores of two questionnaires, a one-way ANOVA was used. According to the results, there were significant differences in “pedagogical knowledge”, “technology knowledge” and “overall PCK” (F = 4.123, p < 0.05, F = 9.260, p < 0.01, and F= 6.372, p < 0.05, respectively.), but no significant differences in “science content knowledge” (F=0.510, P>0.05), and “knowledge of learners” (F=0.854, P>0.05). The researcher classified the results of the study into the following five categories.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1. Pre-Service Teachers were Clearly Aware of Students’ Prior Conceptions of the Subject Matter and their Learning Difficulties. Although the mean score for post-questionnaire was higher than that for prequestionnaire with regard to pre-service teachers’ “knowledge of learner” as seen in Table 1, there were no significant differences between these two questionnaires. In the first questionnaire and interview, pre-service teachers thought that students might have some misconceptions about the density and buoyancy. They seemed to have basic knowledge related to density and buoyancy; however, they might not understand the abstract nature of the conceptions and the theoretical formula. However, in the second questionnaire and interview, pre-service considered themselves clearly aware of students’ prior conceptions of the subject matter and their learning difficulties. They used some examples adopted from real-life experience to motivate students to learn. Furthermore, these pre-service teachers tried to promote students’ comprehension about theoretical arguments.

PCK and Teaching Innovations, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Development of a Technology-Based Model for Enhancing PCK …

29

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of pre-service teachers’ questionnaires (n = 23) Dimensions of the questions 1. Science content knowledge 2. Knowledge of learners 3.Pedagogical knowledge 4.Technology knowledge 5. PCK * P