Advertisement

A Comparison Between Reported and Enacted Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) About Graphs of Motion

  • Ernest N. Mazibe
  • Corene Coetzee
  • Estelle Gaigher
Article
  • 297 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports a case study of four grade 10 physical sciences teachers’ PCK about graphs of motion. We used three data collection strategies, namely teachers’ written accounts, captured by the content representation (CoRe) tool, interviews and classroom observations. We conceptualised the PCK displayed in the CoRe tool and the interviews as reported PCK and the PCK demonstrated during teaching as enacted PCK. These two manifestations of PCK were compared to establish the extent of agreement between reported and enacted PCK. We adopted the topic-specific PCK (TSPCK) model as the framework that guided this study. This model describes TSPCK in terms of five components of teacher knowledge. Guided by the model, we designed two rubrics to assess these manifestations of TSPCK on a four-point scale. The results of this study indicated that the reported PCK was not necessarily a reflection of the PCK enacted during teaching. The levels of PCK in the components were seldom higher in the enacted PCK, but tended to be similar or lower than in the reported PCK. The study implies that the enactment of PCK should be emphasised in teacher education.

Keywords

Topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge (TSPCK) Content representations (CoRes) Graphs of motion 

References

  1. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? Internation Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayadin, S., & Boz, Y. (2012). Review of studies related to pedagogical content knowledge in the context of science teacher education: Turkish case. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 497–505.Google Scholar
  4. Barclay, W. L., (1985). Graphing Misconceptions and Possible Remedies Using Microcomputer-Based Labs. Paper presented at the 7th National Educational Computing Conference, University of san Diego, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147–161). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on CoRes and PaP-eRs as a framework for articulating and developing pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1027–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chantaranima, T., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). The pedagogical content knowledge exploration from the Thai expert physics teacher's class. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 389–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapoo, S., Thathong, K., & Halim, L. (2014). Understanding biology teacher's pedagogical content knowledge for teaching “the nature of organism”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Childs, A., & McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1629–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chordnork, B., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). Constructing CoRe as a methodological for capturing pedagogical content knowledge: a case study of Thailand teachers teaching global warming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clement, J. (1985). Misconceptions in graphing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  12. Cochran, K. F, King, R. A, DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: a tentative model for teacher preparation. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC document reproduction service no). ED340683).Google Scholar
  13. Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement. Grades 10–12 physical sciences. Pretoria: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  14. Eames, C. W., Williams, P. J., Hume, A. C., & Lockley, J. (2011). CoRe: a way to build pedagogical content knowledge for beginning teachers [electronic version]. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from: http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/7399.
  15. Frauenknecht, R., & Jordaan, F. (2005). Students' understanding and use of gradient in kinematic graphs. Journal of Science Education, 6(1), 31–36.Google Scholar
  16. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers college press.Google Scholar
  17. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hancock, B. (2002). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: an introduction to qualitative research. Nottingham: Book. University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  19. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Shinohara, M., & Kaskowitz, S. R. (2004). Fostering pedagogical content knowledge about electric circuits through case-based professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Jüttner, M., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2012). Development of items for a pedagogical content knowledge test based on empirical analysis of pupils' errors. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1125–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: inferences concerning the goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lapp, D. A., & Cyrus, V. F. (2000). Using data-collection devices to enhance students’ understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504–510.Google Scholar
  24. Lemmer, M. (2013). Nature, cause and effect of students’ intuitive conceptions regarding changes in velocity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loewenberg Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loughran, 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(4), 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132): Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Maree, J. G. (2010). First steps in research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazibe, E. N. (2017). Teaching graphs of motion: translating pedagogical content knowledge into practice. Master's dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2263/62885
  31. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & Van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mdolo, M. M., & Mundalamo, F. J. (2015). Teacher knowledge shaping the teaching of genetics: a case study of two underqualified teachers in Malawi. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nemirovsky, R., & Rubin, A. (1992). Students' tendency to assume resemblances between a function and its derivative. TERC working paper, 2–92. Cambridge: TERC Communications.Google Scholar
  35. Padilla, K., Ponce-de-León, A. M., Rembado, F. M., & Garritz, A. (2008). Undergraduate professors’ pedagogical content knowledge: the case of ‘amount of substance’. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1389–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Park, S., & Oliver, J. 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
  37. Park, S., Jang, J. Y., Chen, Y. C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: a case study of south African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, S., & Banilower, E. (2015). Assessing PCK: a new application of the uncertainty principle. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 89–103). London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  42. Van Der Valk, T., & Broekman, H. (1999). The lesson preparation method: a way of investigating pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4).Google Scholar
  45. Veal, W. R., Tippins, D. J., & Bell, J. (1999). The Evolution of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Prospective Secondary Physics Teachers. (No. ED443719). Indiana: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  46. Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics? Research in Science Education, 30(3), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernest N. Mazibe
    • 1
  • Corene Coetzee
    • 1
  • Estelle Gaigher
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations