Advertisement

Discussing Paths Trodden by PCK: an Invitation to Reflection

  • Stefannie de Sá Ibraim
  • Rosária JustiEmail author
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Some researchers have investigated teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) concerning scientific practices. However, from a review of the literature on the PCK construct and its use for characterising teachers’ knowledge of scientific practices, as well as from a discussion of possible interpretations that emerge from the derived construct PCK of scientific practices, this paper discusses the current complexity of PCK from an analysis of the paths that have been taken in the last few decades. From this, we (i) raise some points and questions aiming at fostering reflections on the use of the PCK construct to characterise teachers’ knowledge related to scientific practices and (ii) emphasise the need to think about alternative models for this purpose. Thus, one of the contributions of this paper is to emphasise the need for further studies aiming at characterising teaching knowledge in domains of scientific practices.

Keywords

Teachers’ knowledge PCK Scientific practices 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank CNPq and CAPES, Brazil, for their personal grants.

References

  1. Berry, A., Loughran, J., & van Driel, J. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1271–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (teaching and learning in science series). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, A., Nilsson, P., Van Driel, J., & Carlson, J. (2017). Analysing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: a report on the second PCK summit. Paper presented at the 12nd Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Dublin,Google Scholar
  4. Bullough, R. V. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge circa 1907 and 1987: a study in the history of an idea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). Model of teacher professional knowledge. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Basel: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teacher of substance: subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23–36). New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  17. Henze, I., van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: an exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2016). Teachers' Knowledge in Argumentation: Contributions from an explicit teaching in an initial teacher preparation programme. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1996-2025.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221546.
  20. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education - Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave: competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó.Google Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2015). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), New directions in mathematics and science education (pp. 69–80). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2006). The role of analog models in the understanding of the nature of models in chemistry. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers' knowledge on models and modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teacher professional growth for understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kind, V. (2014). Science teachers’ content knowledge. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, J. Loughran, & M. Askew (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: windows into teacher thinking (pp. 27–43). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kind, V. (2015). On the beauty of knowing then not knowing: pinning down the elusive qualities of PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 178–195). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Do subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge constitute the ideal gas law of science teaching? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge - the construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Mavhunga, E. (2014). Improving PCK and CK in preservice teachers. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, J. Loughran, & M. Askew (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: windows into teacher thinking (pp. 45–64). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 113–125.https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rmse20/current
  32. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364.Google Scholar
  34. McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the 'model of modelling' diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41, 479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson, M. M., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ evaluations of elementary students’ scientific models: an aspect of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1931–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  39. Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: learning how to learn in school science. In K. T. B. J. Fraser & C. J. Mc Robbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 24, pp. 933–949). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Osborne, J. (2016). Defining a knowledge base for reasoning in science: the role of procedural and epistemic knowledge. In R. A. Duschl & A. S. Bismarck (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM education: the central role of practice (pp. 215–231). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works: what is the nature of scientific reasoning and what do we know about students' understanding? In J. Osborne, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good Practice in Science Teaching: what research has to say (pp. 20–46, Vol. Second edition). New York: Openup.Google Scholar
  43. Park, S., & Chen, Y. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Park, S., & Suh, K. (2015). From portraying toward assessing PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner - How professionals think in action. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3–13). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M., Fazio, C., & Tarantino, G. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: a case study. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Driel, J., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 848–870). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Wang, J., & Buck, G. A. (2016). Understanding a high school physics teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 577–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Química, Campus Universitário Darcy RibeiroUniversidade de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de QuímicaUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations