Abstract
For 30 years, science education researchers and practitioners have waited for the promise of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to be fulfilled. PCK has the potential to shape instruction, teacher professional learning, and instructional materials. When the field speaks about PCK in terms of these benefits, a particular kind of PCK is envisioned. In our work, we refer to this kind of PCK as “canonical” to convey that it is widely accepted by the field and transcends context. Despite its promise, examples of canonical PCK are lacking in relation to the number of science topics in standards documents. In this chapter, we explore the possibility that the PCK held by teachers—“personal PCK”—can be compiled to grow the body of canonical PCK. We first describe a model of personal-canonical PCK synergy. We then explain how we have tested this synergy hypothesis, drawing on literature reviews and data collected directly from teachers. We find that, within the narrow range of topics we have focused on, personal PCK does not accumulate to fill gaps in the canon. We illustrate through several examples that instead, personal PCK appears largely as variations on PCK themes already apparent in the literature. We conclude the chapter by discussing implications for the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Using NGSS notation, these topics correspond to DCIs 5-PS1.A and 5-LS2.A, respectively. We selected these topics because of our focus on upper elementary science instruction and because of the contrast they offer between physical and life science.
- 2.
We define misconceptions as student ideas that (1) are in conflict with accepted scientific ideas and (2) form through interaction with the natural world. Misconceptions are neither good nor bad, but they do tend to be deeply ingrained in students’ thinking. Some are part of a learning progression for a topic, suggesting that many students will have them at some point as they develop full understanding. Examples include (1) air does not have mass, and (2) plants get their food from soil.
- 3.
Teachers were presented with this question only if they had already responded that students do have misconceptions that make it difficult for them to learn about the small particle model or interdependent relationships in ecosystems.
- 4.
Teachers were presented with this question only if they had already responded that they try to elicit student thinking before instruction begins.
- 5.
The findings in this chapter are based on 42 combined survey-interviews, about equally split between the two topics (small particle model of matter and interdependent relationships in ecosystems).
- 6.
- 7.
We discussed earlier in the chapter that the small particle model has not been taught widely in elementary grades prior to the NGSS. Consequently, practitioner literature for this topic in these grades is lacking.
References
Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310206.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21271.
Alvarado, C., Cañada, F., Garritz, A., & Mellado, V. (2015). Canonical pedagogical content knowledge by CoRes for teaching acid–base chemistry at high school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00125G.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York, NY/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Appel, G., Jaffe, R., Cadoux, M., & Murray, K. (1982). The growing classroom: A garden-based science and nutrition curriculum for 2nd through 6th grades. Book 2: Science. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=ecology+interdependence&ff1=subElementary+School+Science&id=ED239918
Camp, C. A. (1995). Invitations to interdependence: Caught in the web. Teacher-friendly science activities with reproducible handouts in English and Spanish. Grades 3–5. Living Things Science Series. South Deerfield, MA: Ash Grove Press, Inc. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Ecosystems+elementary+students&pg=13&id=ED392641
Carlson, J., Stokes, L., Helms, J., Gess-Newsome, J., & Garder, A. (2015). The PCK Summit: A process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions. In Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clement, J., Sigford, A., Drummond, R., & Novy, N. (1997). World of fresh water: A resource for studying issues of freshwater research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=ecosystems+understanding&ff1=subScience+Instruction&pg=4&id=ED479305
Cohen, R., & Yarden, A. (2009). Experienced junior-high-school teachers’ PCK in light of a curriculum change: “The cell is to be studied longitudinally”. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9088-7.
Dalton, P. (1992). ProjectWILD. Bethesda, MD: Western Regional Environmental Education Council, Inc..
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L. M., & Iwashyna, S. K. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
Driver, R. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03057267808559857
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, J. Loughran, & P. J. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. London, UK: Routledge.
Gunstone, R., & Watts, M. (1985). Force and motion. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 85–104). Milton Keynes, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Hayes, M. L., Plumley, C. L., Smith, P. S., & Esch, R. K. (2017). A review of the research literature on teaching about interdependent relationships in ecosystems to elementary students. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc..
Helldén, G. F. (1998). A longitudinal study of students’ conceptualization of ecological processes. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=ecology+%22student+thinking%22&pg=2&id=ED440882
Henze, I., & Van Driel, J. H. (2015). Toward a more comprehensive way to capture PCK in its complexity. In A. Berry, J. Loughran, & P. J. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. London, UK: Routledge.
Kuhn, D. J. (1971). Simulation of a food web. School Science and Mathematics, 71(9), 831–833.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1992). Progression in understanding of ecological concepts by pupils aged 5 to 16. University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/481018
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.
Long Island Pine Barrens Society. (1998). The Long Island Pine Barrens: A curriculum & resource guide. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=ecosystem+lesson+plans&ff1=subEcology&id=ED436344
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.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–1320.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200905.
Rockow, M. (2007). Tabizi pythons and clendro hawks: Using imaginary animals to achieve real knowledge about ecosystems. Science Scope, 30(5), 16–22.
Russell, T., Harlen, W., & Watt, D. (1989). Children’s ideas about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110508.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Smith, P. S., & Plumley, C. L. (2016). A review of the research literature on teaching about the small particle model of matter to elementary students. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc..
Smith, P. S., Plumley, C. L., & Hayes, M. L. (2017). Much ado about nothing: How children think about the small-particle model of matter. Science and Children, 54(8), 74–80.
Smithsonian Institution. (1996). Contrasts in blue: Life on the Caribbean coral reef and the rocky coast of Maine. Art to Zoo: Teaching with the Power of Objects. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Elementary+lesson+ecosystem&pg=3&id=ED409253
Tytler, D. R., & Peterson, S. (2000). Deconstructing learning in science—Young children’s responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461555.
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7615.
Williams, J., & Lockley, J. (2012). Using CoRes to develop the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of early career science and technology teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 34–53.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant DRL-1417838. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, P.S., Plumley, C.L., Hayes, M.L., Esch, R.K. (2018). Personal and Canonical PCK: A Synergistic Relationship?. In: Uzzo, S., Graves, S., Shay, E., Harford, M., Thompson, R. (eds) Pedagogical Content Knowledge in STEM. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97475-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97474-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97475-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)