Download Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for Science Education and more Schemes and Mind Maps Physics in PDF only on Docsity!
JULIE GESS - NEWSOME
1. PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: AN
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION
THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Human beings are inherently complex. We have history, background experiences, emotions, knowledge and goals. We make assumptions, recognize tradition, make sense of information, invoke beliefs, and take action. In some cases we recognize and can articulate the basis for our actions, in others we cannot, seeming to act on instinct. To make sense of the teaching process and to understand the influence of teachers’ knowledge on instruction, it is necessary to reduce the conceptual and contextual complexity of teaching: “scholars must necessarily narrow their scope, focus their view, and formulate a question far less complex than the form in which the world presents itself in practice” (Shulman 1986, p. 6). Knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and values, as well as a myriad of constructs are now used to help reduce, yet still communicate, this complexity. Unfortunately, such terms tend to be unclear and used inconsistently by researchers (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 199 1). The attempt to understand and reduce the complexity of teaching to enable its study has generated a variety of metaphors and models. Models of cognition are created from data interpretations, are proposed as conceptual tools to identify and discriminate among hypothesized constructs, and represent inferred relationships among constructs. For researchers, a fundamental task is to select, modify, or create a conceptual model from which to work. Good models, like good theories, organize knowledge in new ways, integrate previously disparate findings, suggest explana- tions, stimulate research, and reveal new relationships. In 1986, a new model and set of hypothetical domains of teacher knowledge were offered by Lee Shulman. In reaction to the proliferation of generic educational research, Shulman argued that the study of “teachers’ cognitive understanding of subject matter content and the relationships between such understanding and the instruction teachers provide for students” (1986a, p. 25) may be the “missing program” in educational research. He went on to differentiate and call for the study of three types of content understandings and their impact on classroom practice: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Later model refinements renamed the constructs as subject matter knowledge, curricular knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986b). Of these, pedagogical content knowledge, the “subject matter for teaching” (1 986b, p. 9, emphasis in original), has prompted considerable interest in both the arenas of research and practice. Shulman described pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as
3
J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.) PCK and Science Education, 3 - 17. © I999 Kluwere Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
4 J. G E S S - N E W S O M E
“the most useful forms of [content] representation..., the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations -- in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible for others” (1986b, p 9). Additional articles by Shulman and his colleagues provide evolving conceptions of the domains of teacher knowledge, the description of PCK, and its place within the constellation of knowledge categories for teaching. In 1987, PCK was listed by Shulman as one of seven knowledge bases for teaching, removing it as a subcate- gory and placing it on equal footing with content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curricular knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of the philosophical and historical aims of education. PCK was defined as:
that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the providence of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding ... Pedagogical content knowledge ... identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an under - standing of how particular topics, problems, or issues arc organized, represented, and adapted to diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is the category most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue. (Shulman, 1987, p. 8)
Later work by Shulman and colleagues continued to explore PCK, sometimes subsuming it under content knowledge, but ultimately recognizing its role in the integration and transformation of other forms of knowledge (Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). The most comprehensive delineation of the knowledge bases for teaching and their interrelationships is found in Grossman (1990), where she defines “four general areas of teacher knowledge ... as the cornerstones of the emerging work on professional knowledge for teaching: general pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of context” (p. 5). Of the four knowledge bases, PCK was anticipated as having the greatest impact on teachers’ classroom actions. In the 13 years since the publication of the Third Handbook of Research on Teaching, research into teachers’ understandings of subject matter knowledge within disciplines has proliferated. PCK is now a commonly accepted construct in the educational lexicon. Books and chapters have been dedicated to the exploration of teachers’ knowledge of subject matter in general (see Ball & McDiarmid, 1990; Brophy, 1991), and in specific disciplines (see Grossman, 1990). In addition, PCK has been used as a major organizing construct in reviews of the literature on teachers’ knowledge (see Borko & Putnam, 1995). With a focus on science education, this book represents the first systematic attempt to synthesize the research on PCK and the model from which it was derived and trace its implications for research and practice. Specifically, this book addresses the following questions: What are current conceptions of PCK? What research exists to support PCK and the related constructs of teacher subject matter knowl - edge and pedagogical knowledge? How have researchers used both PCK and related constructs to develop lines of research on teacher thinking and learning? And, how
6 J. GESS - NEWSOME
departure from the now traditional view of subject matter as falling into the three categories of content, syntactic and substantive structures (Grossman, 1990). Using teacher development as an analytical frame, three critical junctures in the prepara- tion and development of teachers are identified: university content preparation, content-specific methods courses, and the induction period of teaching. Specific strategies and methods to increase the subject matter knowledge of teachers are described, as well as a consideration of theoretical issues surrounding subject matter knowledge research. Both Chapters 2 and 3 use Shulman’s model as a point of departure for further articulation of knowledge ascribed to each domain. The same is true for the review of PCK found in Chapter 4. Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko argue for the unique- ness and importance of PCK within science education research and teacher prepara - tion, taking a strong stance on the existence of PCK as a separate domain of knowledge that is iteratively fueled by its component parts: subject matter knowl- edge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context. Five aspects of PCK are identified and described: science curriculum, student understandings of specific science topics, assessment, instructional strategies for teaching science, and orientations toward science teaching. The value of PCK as a unique and identifiable construct is explored and a model of PCK development is forwarded. The degree of overlap in construct articulation in the first three chapters requires mention. On the surface, both Chapters 2 and 4 include subcategories of instruc - tional models and strategies, while Chapters 3 and 4 include teaching orientations. A careful analysis reveals a more substantial degree of overlapping of ideas and highlights the fuzzy borders between knowledge domains. This overlap demon - strates the difficulty of producing adequate definitions of complex concepts and of establishing clear, discrete, and manageable categories that avail themselves to examination. It also raises questions about this model of teacher knowledge itself. And, while the authors in this book recognize that assigning knowledge to catego- ries is more easily accomplished in theory than practice, knowledge categorization itself has implications. Carlsen (Chapter 5) explores this issue when he claims that many researchers employ structuralist views of teacher knowledge - - where a knowledge domain is recognized and characterized in relation to other forms of knowledge and described independently from the individual. Carslen challenges such views by contrasting them with views from a post-structural framework -- where knowledge is historically and politically situated idiosyncratic, and embed- ded in a community as opposed to an individual. Within the post - structural frame - work, Carlsen examines the theoretical, political and historical background of PCK as it relates to the movement to professionalize teaching. While cautioning about the over reliance on structural models, Carlsen offers his own explication of the knowledge bases for teaching by adding subcategories that reflect recent develop- ments in educational research, science education reform, and socio- cultural perspectives. Separately or juxtaposed, the chapters in this section offer contempo- rary views of PCK, expanding the conception from how it was originally proposed and providing evidence that a reexamination of the PCK model is perhaps war- ranted.
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION 7
Emerging Lines of Research in Science Education
While arguments about the composition of and relationships among teachers’ knowledge domains will continue, individuals and research teams have drawn upon the concept of PCK to design and conduct extensive research. The chapters in this section focus specifically on the use of PCK in science teacher education research and teaching. The section opens with an analysis of issues related to the assessment of PCK and concludes with descriptions of research conducted at the elementary and secondary levels. Baxter and Lederman (Chapter 6) present a review of methods and techniques used for studying PCK and its related domain, subject matter knowledge. While acknowledging the difficulties of accessing teacher cognition, they identify three assessment categories: convergent and inferential measures; concept mapping, card sorts and pictorial representations; and multi-method evaluations with triangulation. Critiques of the assessments include incoming assumptions inherent in the meas - ures, the accuracy of long term memory representation, the clarity or ambiguity of data analysis, and the strength of the assessment versus the intensity of labor in data collection and analysis. In addition to providing data for research, the authors observed that some assessments are useful as teacher development tools through their stimulation of thinking, reflection, and articulation of beliefs and knowledge. Implications of this review of PCK assessments has implications for the literature reported in the first section of this volume. Do all studies of PCK produce equally useful data? Can quantitative measures of PCK ever be effectively developed and interpreted? Baxter and Lederman conclude that, to be useful, measures of PCK must ultimately examine the interaction and consistency across teacher knowledge, belief and reasoned action. Smith (Chapter 7) takes us on a personal and professional journey as a teacher and researcher of elementary science instruction. In her chapter, Smith explores teacher knowledge development and instructional strategies used to teach children content related to light and shadows. Four separate and interactive aspects of PCK are used in her analysis: illustrative content examples, curriculum and materials, children’s naive ideas, and teaching strategies. Through the presentation of her own development as a teacher, researcher, and facilitator of teacher development, Smith reveals the critical dependence of PCK on accurate content understanding, the usefulness of PCK for teachers as they meet the challenges of teaching and chang - ing their practice, and the recursive and reinforcing aspects of learning about content, teaching, and the teaching of content. In Chapter 8, Lederman and Gess - Newsome trace their development as research - ers in the examination of subject matter knowledge as it impacts teaching practice. Early studies revealed a mismatch between the superficial and fragmented subject matter knowledge held by beginning biology teachers and the deep and well - organized knowledge they needed for teaching. From the studies that followed, issues related to the development of subject matter knowledge, the ability of preservice teachers to implement instructional beliefs while struggling with classroom management, and the types of content understandings developed from
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION 9
knowledge to instruction and responding appropriately to students while teaching. The authors concluded that integrated courses and assignments assisted in the synthesis of knowledge gained from various programmatic sources, but acknowl- edge that limited transfer occurred between the science content courses and science teaching. Niess and Scholz (Chapter 11) describe a secondary science and mathematics teacher preparation program that used six of Shulman’s knowledge domains and defined teacher effectiveness as the ability to transform content in a manner accessible to learners. The Master of Arts in Teaching cohort program employed a 12 month sequence of integrated course work across three main areas: professional core courses, subject matter teaching specialty, and field experiences. As in Chapter 10, program evaluation results indicated that the preservice teachers had consistent difficulty merging subject matter or education courses that were not integrated by design. As a result, the preservice teachers advocated the retention of separate views of subject matter and pedagogy as opposed to the integrated knowledge base predicted by the PCK model. The secondary science teacher preparation program described by Mason (Chapter
- was also founded on an integrated model of content and pedagogy. Based on the premise that content majors need to construct a comprehensive view of their discipline for teaching and that students often believe that generic teaching strate- gies, when taught in isolation, are equally effectiveness in all situations, the TRIAD program was developed around a collaborative/cooperative instructional team dedicated to developing PCK in preservice teachers. A high school science teacher, a science content professor, and a science education professor were responsible for planning and implementing three courses during the certification program. The courses allowed for the examination of the theoretical underpinnings of content and its translation into teaching, provided linkages between content and pedagogy, and offered a model of interdisciplinary teaching. While the program participants all agreed that PCK acted as a realistic and logical framework for teacher preparation, the university faculty’s increased appreciation for the content and pedagogical expertise held by their colleagues was perhaps the most important outcome. In all three programs, the importance of the purposeful integration of subject matter and pedagogy is underscored. While specific tools such as portfolios, lesson plans, and field placements were anticipated to be effective in assisting in the integration of knowledge bases, few preservice teachers were able to accomplish this transformation. The implications for separate or synthesized knowledge bases will be explored in the final section of this chapter.
CONCEPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF MODELS OF TEACHER
KNOWLEDGE
PCK and its related knowledge domains represent an effort to develop a model, or theory, of teacher cognition. Attributes of a sound model presented at the beginning of this chapter included knowledge organization, integration of previously anoma-
10 J. GESS-NEWSOME
lous data, the suggestion of explanations, stimulation of research, and prediction of new knowledge. Researchers value one model over another based upon these attributes as well as the model’s coherence and consistency with observations. Using these criteria as a framework, an analysis of the merits and implications of models of teacher knowledge are explored in the remainder of this chapter. PCK has many of the characteristics of a good model. It has revitalized the study of teacher knowledge, provided a new analytical frame for organizing and collecting data on teacher cognition, highlighted the importance of subject matter knowledge and its transformation for teaching, incorporated findings across related constructs, and provided for a more integrated vision of teacher knowledge and classroom practice. In addition, PCK is an intuitively appealing construct, one that has been actively incorporated into the vocabulary of many teachers and researchers alike. There are, however, two elements of a good model where the construct of PCK bears careful scrutiny: in its degree of precision and in its heuristic power. Precision can be judged by the discriminating value of the constructs included in the model, the relationship among constructs, and the match of this organization to the research data. Although PCK creates a home for the “unique” knowledge held by teachers (Shulman, 1987, p. 8), identifying instances of PCK is not an easy task. Within this volume, most authors agree that the PCK construct has fuzzy boundaries, demand- ing unusual and ephemeral clarity on the part of the researcher to assign knowledge to PCK or one of its related constructs. This difficulty of knowledge categorization can be seen as inherent in using any construct or it may be an indication of a serious lack of precision in the model. Is PCK with its related domains a more precise model, explaining better the teacher cognition data than other models? Or, could the knowledge divisions as offered in PCK be overly refined? Could three integrated categories of teacher knowledge -- subject matter, pedagogy and context - - offer a more precise and powerful organization? The heuristic power of a model may be judged by its potential for supplying explanations for data similarities, the acknowledgment of gaps in the knowledge base, and the prediction of the nature of missing knowledge. PCK has certainly stimulated research, but in what way has it predicted or helped reveal new knowl - edge? Indeed, few studies of teacher knowledge claim to identify specific elements of PCK. Most researchers still choose to separate their investigations along pedagogical or subject matter knowledge lines. Why? Perhaps researchers are unfamiliar with the model or resistant to it, not wanting to abandon traditional models and research divisions. Or perhaps PCK has low heuristic value. To forward this examination, it is helpful to create a continuum of models of teacher knowledge. At one extreme, PCK does not exist and teacher knowledge can be most readily explained by the intersection of three constructs: subject matter. pedagogy and context. Teaching, then, is the act of integrating knowledge across these three domains. For convenience, I will call this the Integrative model. At the other extreme, PCK is the synthesis of all knowledge needed in order to be an effective teacher. In this case, PCK is the transformation of subject matter, peda - gogical, and contextual knowledge into a unique form -- the only form of knowl - edge that impacts teaching practice. I will call this the Transformative model.
12 J. GESS-NEWSOME
Figure 1. Two models of teacher knowledge
- = knowledge needed for classroom teaching
There is support in the literature for the Integrative model. Despite overt attempts to integrate subject matter and pedagogical knowledge in preservice preparation programs, teachers often state that they maintain separate knowledge bases for the two. The Integrative model also closely follows traditional patterns of preservice teacher preparation with temporal and spatial separation of subject matter, peda - gogical, and contextual issues. A potential danger in this model is that teachers may never see the importance of knowledge integration and continue to emphasize the importance of content over pedagogy, resulting in transmission modes of teaching with little regard for content structure, classroom audience, or contextual factors. The Transformative model recognizes the value of a synthesized knowledge base for teaching. PCK that helps students understand specific concepts is the only knowledge used in classroom instruction. While knowledge bases containing subject matter, pedagogy, and contest exist, they are latent resources in and of themselves and are only useful when transformed into PCK. Teachers can justify their instructional decisions within the domain of PCK; the teasing apart of teaching knowledge into its related forms is best left to researchers and theoreticians. An expert teacher, then, has well formed PCK for all the topics commonly taught. All teaching knowledge is contextually bound, potentially making transfer or drawing generalizations across teaching episodes difficult. The danger in this position is that it ignores context as it objectifies teaching knowledge, potentially implying that correct teaching practices exist for given topics to specific audiences. The classroom becomes the primary location of teacher knowledge, calling into question the value of decontextualized declarative and procedural knowledge and teacher preparation as it currently exists.
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION 13
TABLE I
Overview ofIntegrative and Transformative models ofteacher cognition
Knowledge
Domains
IntegrativeModel
Knowledge of subject matter,
pedagogy, and contextare
developed separatelyand
integrated in the act of
teaching. Each knowledge
base must be well structured
andeasily accessible.
Teaching
Expertise
Implications
for Teacher
Preparation
Teachers are fluid in the
active integration ofknowl -
edge bases for each topic
Implications
taught.
Knowledge bases can be
taught separately or inte -
grated. Integration skills must
be fostered. Teaching
experience and reflection
reinforcesthedevelopment,
selection, integration, anduse
of the knowledge bases.
Identify teacherpreparation
How can transfer and
integration ofknowledge best
befostered?
TransformativeModel
Knowledge of subject matter,
pedagogy, andcontext,
whetherdeveloped separately
or integratively, are trans-
formed into PCK, the knowl-
edge base used for teaching.
PCK must be well structured
andeasily accessible.
Teachers possess PCK for all
topicstaught.
Knowledge bases are best
taught in an integrated fashion.
Teaching experience rein -
forces the development,
selection, and use of PCK.
Identify exemplars of PCK and
their conditions for use. How
can these examples and
selection criteria best be
taught?
The authors in this volume position themselves between these two extremes. The
most common position is to recognize both the foundational knowledge bases of
subject matter, pedagogy, and context and their reciprocal and nurturing relation -
ship with PCK. New knowledge gained through preparation programs and teaching
experience increases the organization and depth of both PCK and the foundational
knowledge domains, though changes in one knowledge base will not necessarily
result in changes in the others. PCK then is a unique domain that does not totally
subsume all other knowledge, allowing for distinctions within and across domains.
Inevitably, these mid - point positions are less theoretically powerful or precise than
either of the two extremes, allowing some teaching episodes and teacher under-
standings to be recognized as PCK and others as not. As a result, PCK becomes
difficult to distinguish and is therefore less influential than it might otherwise be
with teachers and researchers. The theoretical defensibility of this mid - position is
INTRODUCTION AND ORENTATION 15
a form that resembles best practice in the schools, students should more quickly develop the skills and knowledge needed to be effective teachers. Fostering integrated knowledge, recognized as a difficult if not impossible task, is removed. Support for the Transformative model is found in preservice teacher requests for immediately applicable solutions to observed teaching problems. Unfortunately, taken to its logical extreme, following the Transformative model would result in reducing teacher preparation to the presentation of a “bags of tricks,” externally derived, highly effective curricular packages that represent PCK and result in student learning within a specific context. There are three potential problems with this scenario. First, it assumes that “best practice” can be identified and imple- mented with equal success in various teaching situations. The variability and subtleties of context highlight the difficulty of this task. Second, it assumes that teachers will take identified episodes of best practice and implement them appropri- ately and skillfully. Experience with teacher- proof curricula in the 1960s demon- strated the folly of such an idea. Third, in this most extreme form, teacher prepara - tion programs based on the Transformative model would de-professionalize teaching. Expert teaching would become the possession of externally validated best practice and would ignore the development of teacher decision making skills: mimicking practice that resembles PCK is not the same as possessing PCK. Teacher decision making, personal growth, and creativity would become victims of attempts to provide teachers with knowledge of best practice in all teaching areas. The dilemma is, how do we best prepare teachers for the complex task of teaching? Regardless of the model used, integration of knowledge bases is key, as is informed decision making, exposure to examples of teaching excellence, and multiple, supported and reflective teaching experiences. Unfortunately, simply integrating course content and field assignments in and of itself are insufficient interventions to provide students with integrated teaching knowledge.
Implications for Research
In order to support the Integrative model, research into the mechanisms for facilitating transfer and integration across knowledge domains, both in theory and in practice, need to be identified and implemented. Support for the model could be found in teaching episodes fostering more highly developed knowledge bases in subject matter, pedagogy, and context, and a wisdom of practice that helps unravel the mysteries of the most effective blend of knowledge use in specific situations. The Transformative model would demand the identification of outstanding exam- ples of PCK in action. Best practice would be defined by student learning through teaching practices supported by other external goals, such as those found in science education reform documents. Research into the best methods of developing PCK in teachers, teaching the appropriate selection of PCK based on context examination, and the establishment of a well- organized PCK base would be needed. In either model, the following questions need to be explored: What are the relative advan- tages and disadvantages of generic and content- specific teacher preparation
16 J. GESS-NEWSOME
programs? What program configurations lead to the desired goals of teacher understanding and practice? How is knowledge integration best achieved? How does the student learning in the public schools relate to the knowledge held by teachers? How does student learning relate to various forms of teacher education?
CONCLUSION
It should be noted that the authors in this volume represent neither of the continuum extremes presented in the previous section. However, each author started with Shulman’s model and, based on their interpretation, shaped the model in unique ways that fit their perceptions of the data on teacher cognition. Hopefully this book will enhance the reader’s understanding of PCK through an analysis of both historic and current conceptions, an overview of the research literature, and a presentation of the practical implications derived from this model. Does the construct of PCK help or constrain our pursuit of excellence in teacher preparation? The answer to this question is left to the reader. An anticipated result of such contemplation will lead to individual and community exploration, development, and evaluation of alterna - tive models used to study teacher cognition. As with PCK, future models will need to address the following questions: What knowledge do teachers need to possess in order to be effective? What model of teacher knowledge best explains the data that exists and stimulates future attempts to reconcile, synthesize, and expand our knowledge? Regardless of future evaluation, the explication of PCK as a construct and a model has reintroduced the importance of content knowledge into the teaching equation, promoted renewed vigor in the subject- specific teaching areas such as science education, and highlighted the need for integration of the various domains of knowledge in research, teaching, and teacher preparation. Using these criteria, PCK has proven to be an especially fruitful model.
REFERENCES
Alexander, P. A, Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review ofEducationalResearch, 61,3 15 - 343. Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject- matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education @p. 437 - 449). New York: Macmillan. Borko, H., & Putnam R. T. (1995). Learning to teach. In R. C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan. Brophy, J. (1991). Teacher’s knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice: Advances in research in teaching: Vol2. Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making ofa teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York Macmillan. Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4 - 14.
