Advertisement

Incorporating the Epistemic Core in Teacher Education Practice

  • Sibel Erduran
  • Ebru Kaya
Chapter
Part of the Science: Philosophy, History and Education book series (SPHE)

Abstract

The chapter focuses on the design and implementation of a pre-service chemistry teacher education module that aimed to integrate the epistemic core in pre-service teachers’ learning. The module was offered as part of an undergraduate programme at a state university in Turkey. The participants were pre-service teachers in their senior year of a 4-year programme. The teacher education intervention was based on 11 3 h sessions. Sessions included a theoretical introduction to nature of science as well as to the epistemic core categories (i.e. aims and values of science, scientific practices, scientific methods and scientific knowledge). For each category of the epistemic core, there were two sessions. In one session lasting for 2 h, there was input by the instructors. In the second session lasting for 1 h, the participants engaged in reflection tasks and produced lesson ideas based on the instructional input. The final two sessions were dedicated to the planning of a set of lesson resources. The chapter discusses in detail the content of each session including the tasks and strategies used, and it provides examples of lesson ideas produced by the groups of pre-service teachers following each session. The content of the sessions including the actual tasks and strategies used in the module are provided making it possible for other teacher educators to adapt and use them in their own teaching of pre-service teachers.

References

  1. Akkus, H., & Uner, S. (2017). The effect of microteaching on pre-service chemistry teachers’ teaching experiences. Cukurova Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 46(1), 202–230.Google Scholar
  2. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, D. (2000). Analytical instrumentation and instrumental objectivity. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules (pp. 90–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cakiroglu, E., & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duschl, R. A., & Erduran, S. (1996). Modeling growth of scientific knowledge. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 153–165). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2016). Trends in science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of key international journals from 1998–2012. In M. H. Chiu (Ed.), Science education research and practice in Asia: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 275–288). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: Epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1133–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eret, E. (2013). An assessment of pre-service teacher education in terms of preparing teacher candidates for teaching. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  14. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılmış “Aile Benzerliği Yaklaşımı”: Fen Eğitiminde Bilimin Doğasına Bütünsel Bir Bakış Açısı. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 13(2), 76–89. ISSN:1304-6020.  https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10180a (In Turkish, Reconceptualized “Family resemblance approach”: A holistic perspective on nature of science in science education).
  16. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: Handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, D. (2001). Why development does (and does not) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In J. L. McClelland & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 221–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 371–393). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  23. Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 532–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lunn-Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2016). Changes in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 300–317). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1230–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Reiser, B. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards. K-12 Centre at ETS: International Research Symposium on Science Assessment.Google Scholar
  30. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teo, T. W., Goh, M. T., & Yeo, L. W. (2014). Chemistry education research trends: 2004–2013. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 470–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsai, C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’ view changes toward the nature of science by courses of science education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsai, C., & Kuo, P. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tumay, H. (2016). Emergence, learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry undergraduate students’ conceptualizations of acid strength. Science & Education, 25, 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  38. YÖK. (2007). Öğretmen yetiştirme ve eğitim fakülteleri (1982–2007): Öğretmenin üniversitede yetiştirilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara, Turkey: Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Yayını.Google Scholar
  39. YÖK. (2018). Kimya öğretmenliği lisans programı. Ankara, Turkey: Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Yayını.Google Scholar
  40. Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions, students’ learning, and teachers' professional development. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 197–223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zohar, A., & Ben-David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning, 3, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Erduran
    • 1
  • Ebru Kaya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations