Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 523–545 | Cite as

Developing Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge Through Mentoring Elementary Teachers

  • Ken Appleton
Article

Abstract

Elementary teachers are typically hesitant to teach science. While a limited knowledge of science content is a reason for this, limited science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has emerged as another reason in recent research. This study constitutes two case studies of a professional development program for elementary teachers involving mentoring by a university professor. The mentor took the role of a critical friend in joint planning and teaching of science. The study examines the nature of the mentoring relationship and reports the type of teacher learning that occurred, with a particular focus on the teachers’ development of science PCK.

Keywords

Elementary science Professional development Science PCK Mentoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by grants from Central Queensland University, the Rockhampton Diocesan Catholic Education Office, and the Depot Hill school cluster. I greatly appreciate the assistance and cooperation of the teachers with whom I have worked on the respective projects.

References

  1. Anderson, M. F. (2000). Provision of professional development & training to all employees within government schools in Queensland. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Appleton, K. (1991). Mature-age students—how are they different? Research in Science Education, 21, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in association with the Association for Science Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  7. Appleton, K., & Harrison, A. (2001, December). Outcomes-based science units that enhance primary and secondary science teachers’ PCK. Paper Presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Australia. Available online at http://www.aare.edu.au.
  8. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1997). Research monograph: Beginning teachers’ practices in primary science in rural areas. Rockhampton, QLD: Faculty of Education, Central Queensland University.Google Scholar
  9. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Appleton, K., & Symington, D. (1996). Changes in primary science over the past decade: Implications for the research community. Research in Science Education, 26, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bell, J., Veal, W. R., & Tippins, D. J. (1998, April). The evolution of pedagogical content knowledge in prospective secondary physics teachers. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Chan, K. (1998, April). A case study of physicists’ conceptions about the theory of evolution. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Cochran, K. F., deRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham, J. (2002). Building education professionals. Leadership, 31(4), 34–38.Google Scholar
  17. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1994, April). A longitudinal study of preservice elementary teachers personal and science teaching efficacy. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  19. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1991, July). Challenging and developing teachers’ conceptions of science education. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klapper, M. H., Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). Professional development: Starting point for systemic reform. Cognosos, 3(3), 1–5.Google Scholar
  24. Koch, J., & Appleton, K. (2007). The effect of a mentoring model for elementary science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kochan, F. K. (2002a). The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring across diverse settings. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Kochan, F. K. (2002b). Examining the organizational and human dimensions of mentoring. In F. K. Kochan (Ed.), The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring across diverse settings (Vol. 1, pp. 269–286). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & 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 (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (2002). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (3rd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Mellado, V., Blanco, L. J., & Ruiz, C. (1998). A framework for learning to teach science in initial primary teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monsour, F. (2003). Mentoring to develop and retain new teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39(3), 134–136.Google Scholar
  31. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Northover, A. (2001). Enhancing teachers’ technological knowledge and assessment practices to enhance student learning in technology: A 2-year classroom study. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. National Science Foundation. (2003). Math and science teachers testify before science committee. Retrieved December 5, 2003, from http://www.nst.gov/od/lpa/congress/107/hs_mathsciteachers.htm.
  34. Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prinsen, M. (2001). Teaching the dog to whistle: Case study exploring the professional development needs of teachers implementing a new constructivist-based science syllabus. Unpublished honors, Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University.Google Scholar
  36. Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science years 1–10 syllabus. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland School Curriculum Council.Google Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Advances in Research on Teaching, 2, 187–243.Google Scholar
  41. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1997). An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CaloundraAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Arts, Humanities, and EducationCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations