development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar...

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 12 August 2014, At: 23:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Development of Experienced ScienceTeachers’ Pedagogical ContentKnowledge of Models of the SolarSystem and the UniverseIneke Henze a , Jan H. van Driel b & Nico Verloop ba University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Teaching andLearning , Amsterdam, The Netherlandsb Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching , Leiden, TheNetherlandsPublished online: 23 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Ineke Henze , Jan H. van Driel & Nico Verloop (2008) Developmentof Experienced Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Models of the SolarSystem and the Universe, International Journal of Science Education, 30:10, 1321-1342, DOI:10.1080/09500690802187017

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187017

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690802187017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187017

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 30, No. 10, 13 August 2008, pp. 1321–1342

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/101321–22© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09500690802187017

RESEARCH REPORT

Development of Experienced Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Models of the Solar System and the Universe

Ineke Henzea*, Jan H. van Drielb and Nico VerloopbaUniversity of Amsterdam Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bLeiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden, The NetherlandsTaylor and FrancisTSED_A_318868.sgm10.1080/09500690802187017International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Research Report2008Taylor & Francis301000000013 August 2008Mrs. [email protected]

This paper investigates the developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of nine experiencedscience teachers in their first few years of teaching a new science syllabus in the Dutch secondaryeducation system. We aimed to identify the content and structure of the PCK for a specific topic inthe new syllabus, ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’, describing the PCK developmentin terms of relations between four different aspects: knowledge about instructional strategies;knowledge about students’ understanding; knowledge about assessment of students; and knowl-edge about goals and objectives of the topic in the curriculum. Semi-structured interviews wereconducted in three subsequent academic years. From the analysis of the data, two qualitativelydifferent types of PCK emerged. Type A can be described as oriented towards model content,while Type B can be typified as oriented towards model content, model production, and thinkingabout the nature of models. The results also indicate that these two types of PCK developed inqualitatively different ways.

Introduction

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has held an important position since it wasintroduced to describe the ‘missing paradigm’ in research on teaching several decadesago (Shulman, 1986, 1987). Various scholars (e.g., Cochran, deRuyter, & King,1993; Grossmann, 1990; Marks, 1990) elaborated on Shulman’s work and describedPCK in different ways; that is, incorporating different attributes or characteristics(van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos, 1998, p. 676). In the present study, we defined PCK

*Corresponding author. Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam NL-1018 HJ, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

1322 I. Henze et al.

as teacher knowledge about (a) instructional strategies concerning a specific topic; (b)students’ understanding of this topic; (c) ways to assess students’ understanding ofthis topic; and (d) goals and objectives for teaching the specific topic in the curricu-lum. In this, we largely agree with the categorisations of Grossman (1990) andMagnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999, p. 99). Compared with Shulman’s originalconstruct (Shulman, 1986), these authors adopted a somewhat broader definition ofPCK. Acknowledging that the various components of teachers’ PCK may interact invery complex ways, Magnusson et al. claimed, ‘Effective teachers need to developknowledge with respect to all of the aspects of pedagogical content knowledge, andwith respect to all of the topics they teach’ (1999, p. 115).

While PCK has been a subject of research since the 1980s, and much has beenwritten about its importance as a foundational knowledge base for teaching, little isknown about the process of PCK development, especially in experienced teachersand in the context of educational innovation. Up to now, few empirical investiga-tions have been conducted into how different aspects of this knowledge areconnected and may influence each other’s growth.

The innovation in this study concerned the introduction of Public Understandingof Science (PUSc) as a new science subject in secondary education in theNetherlands. Among its other objectives, the new syllabus is intended to makestudents aware of the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced and developed.Students should gain a clear understanding of a scientist’s activities; for example,designing and using models, developing theories, and carrying out experiments (DeVos & Reiding, 1999). In this respect, the introduction of PUSc is close to the visionon science education reform in many other countries, such as Canada (Aikenhead &Ryan, 1992), the USA (American Association for the Advancement of Science,1994), and the UK (Northern Examinations and Assessment Board, 1998), whichrequires students to become knowledgeable in varied aspects of scientific inquiry andthe nature of science. Moreover, the introduction of the new science syllabus over-laps with a move towards a social constructivist view on knowing and learning inDutch secondary education (cf. Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996), as a result ofwhich science teachers have their students learn the subject matter through class-room activities that support the active construction of knowledge and understandingin social interaction with other students, instead of providing all the answers them-selves (cf. Van der Valk & Gravemeyer, 2000).

Aim of the Study

The aim of this study was to investigate the developing PCK of a small number ofexperienced science teachers in their first few years of teaching the new syllabus onPUSc. We followed these teachers for a period of 3 years in their natural settings tosee if, and how, their initial PCK developed. We aimed to identify the content andstructure of their PCK of a specific topic in the PUSc syllabus—namely, ‘Models ofthe Solar System and the Universe’—describing its development in terms of rela-tions between its different components (Magnusson et al., 1999). We did not intend

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Models of the Solar System and the Universe 1323

to describe in detail the PCK development of each individual participant, but toidentify possible common patterns across the knowledge development of differentteachers (Verloop, van Driel, & Meijer, 2001).

The following research question was central to the study:

● How can science teachers’ PCK of the specific topic of ‘Models of the SolarSystem and the Universe’ in the PUSc syllabus be typified at a time when theystill have little experience of teaching PUSc, and how does this PCK developwhen teachers become more experienced in teaching this particular topic?

Context of the Study

In 1999, a new syllabus on PUSc (in Dutch: ANW) was introduced, for all studentsaged 15–17 years in upper secondary education in the Netherlands. The programme(curriculum) of this new syllabus is divided into six domains, Domain A to DomainF (SLO, 1996).

General skills (Domain A), such as language skills, computer skills, and researchskills, should be developed in combination with the learning of specific subjectmatter that is introduced in relevant context issues of Life, Biosphere, Matter, andSolar System and Universe (i.e., Domains C–F).

The development of students’ capacity to reflect critically on scientific knowledgeand procedures (Domain B) requires them to become able, among other things, toexplain how scientists obtain a specific kind of knowledge that (by its very nature) isalways limited and context bound, and how observation, theory formation, andtechnology are influenced by each other as well as by cultural, economic, and politi-cal factors. students’ reflection on scientific knowledge and procedures should belinked to specific science topics; for example, ‘Health care’ (Domain C: Life), ‘Theearth climate’ (Domain D: Biosphere), ‘Radiation risks’ (Domain E: Matter), and‘Understanding the universe’ (Domain F: Solar System and Universe).

Models and Modelling in PUSc

Aiming to improve the comprehensive nature of students’ understanding of the mainprocesses and products of science, Hodson (1992) proposed three purposes forscience education: to learn science—that is, to understand the ideas produced byscience (concepts, models, and theories); to learn about science—that is, to under-stand important issues in the philosophy, history, and methodology of science; andto learn how to do science—that is, to be able to take part in those activities that leadto the acquisition of scientific knowledge.

In general, all natural sciences can be thought of as an attempt to model naturein order to understand and explain phenomena. Models and modelling are, as aconsequence, applied and used extensively by natural scientists. Therefore, the keyto Hodson’s purposes (i.e., improving students’ comprehensive understanding ofscience) is a central role for models and modelling in science education (cf. Justi& Gilbert, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


In this light, the subject PUSc may offer an appropriate framework (see Table 1).To help students gain a rich understanding of the main products and processes ofscience, the learning of scientific models (Domains C–F) and the act of modelling—that is, the production and revision of models (Domain A)—should go hand in handwith critical reflection on the role and nature of models in science (Domain B).

The above implies, for example, that in the PUSc domain entitled ‘Solar Systemand Universe’ (Domain F), students could be asked to compare and discuss severalmodels for the solar system from the history of science (Domain B). In addition,students could be challenged to design models (Domain A) for the earth’s seasons,or the phases of the moon. Reflecting on such an assignment, students could beencouraged to discuss the functions and characteristics of models in general(Domain B).

From a constructivist view on knowing and learning, models can be used as cogni-tive tools to promote students to think deeply, instead of the teacher supplying allthe answers. In addition, students’ modelling activities may offer valuable opportu-nities for teachers to monitor students’ progress in changing their initial mentalmodels to an understanding of particular models (i.e., ‘consensus models’; Gilbertand Boulter, 2000), which are generally accepted in physics, chemistry, or (bio)tech-nology (Duit & Glynn, 1996) and astronomy (cf. Lemmer, Lemmer, & Smit, 2003).Moreover, by encouraging students to reflect on their personal learning process, theymay be able to draw meaningful parallels between the development of their personalunderstandings and the growth of scientific knowledge (Hodson, 1992).

Traditionally, science teachers have devoted little explicit attention to the natureof scientific models; that is, their hypothetical character and the ways in which theygradually develop (Vollebregt, Klaassen, Genseberger, & Lijnse, 1999). Sciencetextbooks for secondary education contain many examples of scientific models,usually presenting these models as static facts or as final versions of our knowledgeof matter (Erduran, 2001). Although various teaching strategies have been describedin the literature, designed specifically to promote students’ understanding of‘consensus models’, current textbooks rarely include assignments inviting studentsactively to construct, test, or revise their own models as part of the learning process(cf. Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Keating, 2000).

De Jong, van Driel, and Verloop (2005) explored pre-service science teachers’PCK of models and modelling. The research findings indicated, among other things,that a majority of the teachers intended to pay attention to models as constructs,

Table 1. PUSc as a framework to improve students’ understanding of science

PUSc Domains

A C–F B

Hodson (1992) Learn how to do science Learn science Learn about scienceJusti and Gilbert (2002)

Learn to produce and revise models

Learn the major models

Learn the nature of models

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


invented by scientists, but in their teaching practice appeared to have discussedmodels as objects or facts that are given. A similar discrepancy has also been foundamong experienced teachers (Koulaidis & Ogborn, 1989), De Jong et al. (2005)suggested that pre-service and experienced teachers generally lack sufficient knowl-edge of strategies for teaching models as constructs.

Owing to the emphasis the new syllabus places on new content and new teachingstrategies concerning the role and nature of scientific models, teachers’ PCK ofmodels and modelling in science may be subject to change. We followed nine experi-enced teachers over a period of 3 years to investigate their developing PCK in thecontext of teaching a chapter on PUSc Domain F. The teachers were questionedabout the four afore-mentioned knowledge elements of PCK. The topic focused onwas ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’, which is one of the moreunusual and difficult topics in the entire syllabus.

Method and Research Design

This section starts with a description of the participants in the study and how theywere selected. We then turn to the description of the research instrument used inthis study to investigate the teachers’ PCK, and an explanation of the researchprocedure.

Participants in the Study

The study was conducted among nine PUSc teachers working at five differentschools. They were users of the teaching method ‘ANtWoord’ (in English: ‘Answer’).We selected this method to be used by the participants in our study because its work-book contained many strategies emphasising the role and nature of scientific models.This book has, for instance, a chapter on ‘Solar System and Universe’ (Domain F),in which students have to develop models to describe and explain the earth’s seasons,and discuss them in the classroom afterwards. Students also learn different models ofthe solar system, such as Ptolemy’s geocentric model and Copernicus’ heliocentricmodel, and debate their strengths and weaknesses (cf. Albanese, Danhoni Neves, &Vicentini, 1997).

The nine teachers responded to a written invitation we sent to 10 different schoolsusing the ANtWoord method. After meetings we organised at their schools (toexplain the purposes and conditions of the study), they all agreed to join in. Theteachers varied with regard to their backgrounds, years of teaching experience, andoriginal teaching disciplines. Among the participants were three teachers of physics,three teachers of chemistry, and three teachers whose original discipline was biology.Their teaching experiences ranged from 8 to 26 years at the start of the study. Tobecome qualified to teach the new science subject, the teachers had taken part in a1-year course, which was conducted nationwide. The participants happened to be allmale, which can be seen as a limitation of the study. They were all among the firstPUSc teachers at their schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Data Collection

The data collection consisted of a semi-structured interview to investigate the teach-ers’ PCK of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’. The interview wasconducted among the teachers by the first author of this article, in three subsequentacademic years.

Semi-structured interview. With all teachers, a semi-structured interview was held inFebruary 2002, 2003, and 2004. The interview questions were developed on the basisof the results of a study of the relevant literature on PCK, on the one hand, and modelsand modelling in science and astronomy education, on the other hand. The initialinterview schedule was tested on four PUSc teachers (not among the nine participantsin the study). As a result of this pilot study, some interview questions were rephrasedor replaced in the schedule, and some new questions were added to the scheme.

The final interview included questions, which aimed at eliciting the teachers’ PCKof models and modelling in PUSc. In the context of teaching Chapter 3 of theANtWoord workbook, entitled ‘Solar System and Universe’, the teachers were ques-tioned about the four knowledge elements of PCK mentioned in the Introduction(see Table 2).

All interviews took place privately in a place chosen by the teacher (e.g., theteacher’s classroom, or a small office), each year shortly after he had finished thelessons about the chapter on the solar system and universe. An audiocassette recorderwas used to tape the conversation. The interviews took 30 min to 1 hr. Afterwards,all interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Table 2. General phrasings of the interview questions

PCK elementsQuestions about teaching ‘Models of the solar system and the universe’

(a) Knowledge about instructional strategies

1. In what activities, and in what sequence, did your students participate in the context of this chapter? Please explain your answer

2. What was (were) your role(s) as a teacher, in the context of this chapter? Explain your answer

(b) Knowledge about students’ understanding

3. Did your students need any specific previous knowledge in the context of this chapter? Explain your answer

4. What was successful for your students? Explain your answer5. What difficulties did you see? Explain your answer

(c) Knowledge about ways to assess students’ understanding

6. On what, and how, did you assess your students in the context of this chapter? Explain your answer

7. Did your students reach the learning goals with regard to this chapter? How do you know? Explain your answer

(d) Knowledge about goals and objectives of the topic in the curriculum

8. What was (were) your main objective(s) in teaching the topic of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’? Explain your answer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Analysis

The analysis of the data started with the interviews conducted in 2002. Codes weredeveloped for the four elements of PCK and tested on the interview data of twoteachers, to see whether all the variations in the statements could be covered. As aresult of this test, some codes had to be reformulated. The final codebook (Henze,Van Driel, & Verloop, 2007) was the result of different steps of testing and adaptingthe codes, until the first and second author reached consensus on all codes to beused.

Knowledge about Instructional Strategies and about students’ Understanding

The authors concluded that similar codes could be employed for knowledge aboutinstructional strategies concerning ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’and knowledge about students’ understanding of this topic (PCK elements a and b).These knowledge elements were typified by three codes: (i) a code representing thecontent of models (teachers have knowledge about the teaching of specific conceptsin relation to certain models, and have knowledge about students’ understanding ofthese concepts); (ii) a code standing for the thinking about the nature of models(teachers know how to make students reflect on the nature of models, and haveknowledge about their students’ understanding of the nature of models); and (iii) acode related to the production of models; that is, teachers know how to stimulatestudents’ model production (i.e., students thinking up, and construction of physicalmodels) and testing, and have specific knowledge about students’ modelling skills(e.g., students’ creativity and coming up with new possibilities, which is an impor-tant step in the modelling process). These three codes can be linked, roughly, to thePUSc Domains C–F (i), Domain B (ii), and Domain A (iii), respectively.

Knowledge about Ways to Assess students’ Understanding

After reading and discussing the teachers’ responses to the interview questions aboutways of assessment in the context of teaching ‘Models of the Solar System and theUniverse’, it was found that the teachers’ knowledge about ways to assess students’understanding (PCK element c) of this topic could be typified using the followingcodes referring to various ways of assessment: written test on model content; oraland poster presentation, or account, as products of self-directed work; paper or essayon the students’ reflection upon the nature of models; students’ modelling activities;classroom debate on the heliocentric and geocentric models; portfolio on the prepa-ration of the debate on models; and observation of group work.

Knowledge about Goals and Objectives of the Topic in the Curriculum

Regarding the knowledge about goals and objectives for teaching the topic in thecurriculum (PCK element d), it was decided, following repeated reading and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


discussion of the teachers’ responses, to typify their answers using two differentkinds of codes. First, generally speaking, the teachers expressed their epistemologi-cal perspectives. In analysing these perspectives, Nott and Wellington’s (1993) clas-sification of epistemological views was applied, on the basis of which three codeswere developed: (i) positivist, in which models are seen as simplified copies of reality(e.g., Teacher 1: ‘Students have to understand that models are reductions ofreality and not the truth’); (ii) relativist, in which models are seen as one way to viewreality (e.g., Teacher 3: ‘It should not be taken for granted that a phenomenon canbe modelled in one way: you can look to things from different perspectives’); and,(iii) instrumentalist, in which the question is whether models ‘work’, instead of‘being true’ (e.g., Teacher 5: ‘I want my students to understand that a model doesnot have to be real and true to be useful’). Second, teachers’ statements about thepurposes of using models in the classroom were coded in terms of the various func-tions of models in science (Giere, 1991): (i) to visualise and describe phenomena;(ii) to explain phenomena; (iii) to obtain information about phenomena that cannotbe observed directly; (iv) to derive hypotheses that may be tested; and (v) to makepredictions about reality.

After coding the teachers’ interview responses, we put together, per PCKelement, the coded statements. With this, the variety of statements within eachPCK element became clear (see Table 3, columns). We examined carefully thevarious sets of statements and identified for each teacher the combinations of codesthat arose across the different elements (see Table 3, rows). Next, we comparedthese combinations across the nine teachers, and two patterns (i.e., specific combi-nations of codes, which recurred—more or less—strictly) emerged. From these twopatterns, which indicate/represent different contents of the PCK elements, weconstructed two types of PCK with regard to ‘Models of the Solar System and theUniverse’: Type A and Type B (see Results section, Table 4). To see how thesetypes of PCK developed over the years 2003 and 2004, the interview fragmentsinvolved were read, thoroughly, and we used the same codebook that was devel-oped to code the interview data from the year 2002. Finally, we examined thecombinations of codes applied, per teacher, over the years. By focusing on the rela-tionships between the different PCK elements, the results (discussed in the nextsection) indicate that Type A and Type B of PCK developed in qualitatively differ-ent ways.

In the Results section, we first describe the two types of PCK in the year 2002.Next, we describe the PCK development of two teachers, each of whose knowledgewas more or less representative of one of the PCK types. Finally, we present ourgeneral conclusions with regard to the PCK development of the teachers in thestudy.

Results

As a result of the analysis of the interview data from the year 2002, we identifiedtwo types of teachers’ PCK of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ (see

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Models of the Solar System and the Universe 1329T

able

3.

Cod

es a

pplie

d to

the

tea

cher

s’ in

terv

iew

res

pons

es (

2002

)

Tea

cher

, ori

gina

l di

scip

line

(yea

rs o

f te

achi

ng e

xper

ienc

ea )K

now

ledg

e ab

out

inst

ruct

ion

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t st

uden

ts’

unde

rsta

ndin

gK

now

ledg

e ab

out

asse

ssm

ent

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t go

als

and

obje

ctiv

es

Tea

cher

1, b

iolo

gy

(15

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

Mod

el c

onte

ntE

xam

inat

ions

on

mod

el

cont

ent;

Ora

l pre

sent

atio

ns;

Rep

orts

on

grou

p w

ork;

E

ssay

Pos

itiv

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena

Tea

cher

2, c

hem

istr

y (8

yea

rs)

Mod

el c

onte

ntM

odel

con

tent

Exa

min

atio

ns o

n m

odel

co

nten

t; O

ral p

rese

ntat

ions

; P

oste

r pr

esen

tati

ons

Pos

itiv

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena

Tea

cher

3, b

iolo

gy

(25

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

; Mod

el

prod

ucti

on; T

hink

ing

abou

t th

e na

ture

of

mod

els

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

; Thi

nkin

g ab

out

the

natu

re o

f m

odel

s

Exa

min

atio

ns o

n m

odel

co

nten

t; O

bser

vati

on o

f m

odel

ling

and

deba

ting

ac

tivi

ties

; Por

tfol

io

Rel

ativ

ist/

Ins

trum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena,

obt

ain

info

rmat

ion,

tes

t hy

poth

eses

Tea

cher

4, p

hysi

cs

(11

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

Mod

el c

onte

ntE

xam

inat

ions

on

mod

el

cont

ent;

Ora

l pre

sent

atio

ns;

Pos

ter

pres

enta

tion

s

Pos

itiv

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena

Tea

cher

5, c

hem

istr

y (9

yea

rs)

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

; Thi

nkin

g ab

out

the

natu

re o

f m

odel

s

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

; Thi

nkin

g ab

out

the

natu

re o

f m

odel

s

Exa

min

atio

ns o

n m

odel

co

nten

t; O

bser

vati

on o

f gr

oup

wor

k, m

odel

ling

and

deba

ting

act

ivit

ies;

Rel

ativ

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena,

obt

ain

info

rmat

ion,

tes

t hy

poth

eses

Tea

cher

6, b

iolo

gy

(11

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

; Mod

el

prod

ucti

on; T

hink

ing

abou

t th

e na

ture

of

mod

els

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

; Thi

nkin

g ab

out

the

natu

re o

f m

odel

s

Exa

min

atio

ns o

n m

odel

co

nten

t; O

bser

vati

on o

f gr

oup

wor

k, m

odel

ling

and

deba

ting

act

ivit

ies

Rel

ativ

ist/

Inst

rum

ent.

vie

w;

Mod

els

used

to

expl

ain

phen

omen

a, o

btai

n in

form

atio

n, t

est

hypo

thes

esT

each

er 7

, che

mis

try

(22

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

Mod

el c

onte

ntE

xam

inat

ions

on

mod

el

cont

ent;

Rep

orts

on

grou

p w

ork

Pos

itiv

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; M

odel

s us

ed t

o ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

1330 I. Henze et al.T

able

3.

(Con

tinue

d)

Tea

cher

, ori

gina

l di

scip

line

(yea

rs o

f te

achi

ng e

xper

ienc

ea )K

now

ledg

e ab

out

inst

ruct

ion

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t st

uden

ts’

unde

rsta

ndin

gK

now

ledg

e ab

out

asse

ssm

ent

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t go

als

and

obje

ctiv

es

Tea

cher

8, p

hysi

cs

(23

year

s)M

odel

con

tent

; T

hink

ing

abou

t th

e na

ture

of

mod

els

Mod

el c

onte

ntE

xam

inat

ions

on

mod

el

cont

ent;

ora

l pre

sent

atio

ns;

Rep

orts

on

grou

p w

ork

Pos

itiv

ist/

Rel

ativ

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; Mod

els

used

to

expl

ain

phen

omen

aT

each

er 9

, phy

sics

(2

6 ye

ars)

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

Mod

el c

onte

nt; M

odel

pr

oduc

tion

Exa

min

atio

ns o

n m

odel

co

nten

t; O

bser

vati

on o

f gr

oup

wor

k, m

odel

ling

and

deba

ting

act

ivit

ies;

Rep

orts

on

gro

up w

ork

Pos

itiv

ist/

Rel

ativ

ist/

Inst

rum

ent

view

; Mod

els

used

to

expl

ain

phen

omen

a,

test

hyp

othe

ses

Not

e: a I

n th

e or

igin

al d

isci

plin

e.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Models of the Solar System and the Universe 1331T

able

4.

PC

K T

ypes

A a

nd B

(20

02)

PC

K e

lem

ent

Typ

e A

of

PC

KT

ype

B o

f P

CK

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t ins

truc

tion

al

stra

tegi

esK

now

ledg

e ab

out s

peci

fic

mul

ti-m

edia

(fi

lm,

vide

o) a

nd c

oncr

ete

mat

eria

ls t

o su

ppor

t st

uden

ts’ u

nder

stan

ding

of m

odel

con

tent

, and

kn

owle

dge

of w

ays

to c

onne

ct m

odel

s w

ith

real

ity.

Kno

wle

dge

of m

otiv

atin

g an

d ch

alle

ngin

g as

sign

men

ts

to p

rom

ote

stud

ents

’ lea

rnin

g of

mod

el c

onte

nt;

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t ef

fect

ive

way

s/m

etho

ds t

o pr

omot

e st

uden

ts’ t

hink

ing

abou

t the

nat

ure

of m

odel

s (e

.g.,

de

bati

ng, m

odel

ling

activ

ities

, com

pute

r si

mul

atio

n);

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t w

ays

to s

tim

ulat

e st

uden

ts’

crea

tivi

ty.

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t st

uden

ts’

unde

rsta

ndin

gK

now

ledg

e ab

out

stud

ents

’ dif

ficu

ltie

s w

ith

the

cont

ent o

f spe

cific

mod

els,

and

inab

ility

to

conn

ect

mod

els

wit

h re

alit

y.

Kno

wle

dge

of s

tude

nts’

mot

ivat

ion

to d

isco

ver

thin

gs

(mod

el c

onte

nt)

them

selv

es; K

now

ledg

e of

stu

dent

s’

mot

ivat

ion

and

abili

ties

to

part

icip

ate

in m

odel

ling

and

rela

ted

thin

king

act

ivit

ies

(mod

ellin

g sk

ills)

; Kno

wle

dge

of s

tude

nt’s

aff

init

y w

ith

spec

ific

mod

els

(und

erst

andi

ng

of th

e na

ture

of m

odel

s).

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t w

ays

to

asse

ss s

tude

nts’

und

erst

andi

ngK

now

ledg

e ab

out

exam

inat

ions

of

mod

el

cont

ent a

nd a

pplic

atio

n us

ing

wri

tten

ex

amin

atio

ns, o

ral p

rese

ntat

ions

, pos

ters

, an

d re

port

s.

Kno

wle

dge

of h

ow t

o ev

alua

te m

odel

con

tent

, mod

el

prod

uctio

n, a

nd th

inki

ng a

bout

the

natu

re o

f mod

els

usin

g ex

amin

atio

ns, o

ral p

rese

ntat

ions

, rep

orts

, por

tfol

ios,

an

d gr

oup

obse

rvat

ions

.K

now

ledg

e ab

out

goal

s an

d ob

ject

ives

in t

he c

urri

culu

m

Epi

stem

olog

ical

vie

ws

that

can

be

unde

rsto

od a

s po

siti

vist

and

inst

rum

enta

list;

K

now

ledg

e ab

out

the

use

of m

odel

s to

vi

sual

ise

and

expl

ain

phen

omen

a.

Epi

stem

olog

ical

vie

ws:

Ins

trum

enta

list

and

Rel

ativ

ist;

K

now

ledg

e ab

out

the

use

of m

odel

s to

vis

ualis

e an

d ex

plai

n ph

enom

ena,

to

form

ulat

e an

d te

st h

ypot

hese

s,

and

to o

btai

n in

form

atio

n ab

out

phen

omen

a.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Table 4). These two types were considered different starting points for the develop-ment of teachers’ PCK in subsequent years. Type A of PCK appeared to be focusedmainly on model content, while Type B of PCK was focused on model content,model production, and thinking about the nature of models (cf. Henze et al.,2007). We compared the answers and reactions of the nine teachers with the char-acteristics of Type A and Type B, and as a result we considered the PCK of fiveteachers (i.e., Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 4, Teacher 7, and Teacher 8), to bemore or less indicative of Type A, while the PCK of the other four teachers (i.e.,Teacher 3, Teacher 5, Teacher 6, and Teacher 9) was classified as representative ofType B.

Type A: Focused on model content

In Type A PCK, knowledge about instructional strategies includes knowledge thatis aimed at the transmission of the content of certain models (of the solar system),and knowledge about effective methods and materials to support students’ under-standing of the content of these models and to help students connect the modelswith reality. Knowledge about students’ understanding (e.g., knowledge aboutstudents’ abilities to think three-dimensionally, or to connect models with reality) isnot very specific. Knowledge about ways to assess students’ understanding includesknowledge of examinations, (oral) presentations, and reports, to assess bothstudents’ content knowledge of models and their use of models as ‘tools’. Knowl-edge about goals and objectives in the curriculum with regard to models andmodelling reflects a combination of positivist and instrumentalist views. In general,models are seen as reductions of reality, aimed at visualising and explaining differ-ent phenomena (cf. van Driel & Verloop, 1999).

Type B: Focused on model content, model production, and model thinking

In Type B PCK, knowledge about instructional strategies includes knowledge aboutmotivating and challenging tasks that are aimed at supporting students’ understand-ing of model content and model production or comparison (e.g., debating), andabout effective ways to promote students’ thinking about the nature of models andcreativity in model production. Knowledge about students’ understanding includesknowledge about students’ motivation, specific difficulties and inabilities concerningthe content of scientific models and modelling activities, and knowledge aboutstudents’ understanding of the nature of specific models and their affinity with thesemodels. Knowledge about ways to assess students’ understanding includes knowl-edge of examinations, students’ presentations, reports, modelling and debatingactivities, and portfolios to assess students’ knowledge about the content of models,the production of models, and thinking about the nature of models. In the knowl-edge about goals and objectives for teaching models and modelling in the curricu-lum, not only the visualisation and explanation of phenomena are emphasised, butalso how to formulate and test hypotheses, and how to obtain information about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


phenomena. Models are conceived of as instruments but also as ways to view reality(i.e., a relativist epistemological view; cf. van Driel & Verloop, 1999).

Development of PCK

Comparison of the data from the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 revealed the followingwith respect to the development of the teachers’ PCK. Firstly, the results of thestudy indicated that, in developing their PCK, all teachers extended their initialknowledge, over time. In addition, the ways in which the two types of PCK devel-oped over the years appeared to be qualitatively different in terms of relationsbetween the four components. To illustrate our findings, we describe the PCKdevelopment of two teachers in the following sections. The description of theirdevelopment is based on their reactions to the interview questions about the learningand teaching of models and modelling with regard to the solar system and theuniverse, in the context of the ANtWoord workbook Chapter 3 on ‘Solar Systemand Universe’. Even though the results of the teachers representing one of bothTypes A and B are quite similar (in general), the PCK development of each of thesetwo teachers was considered the most pronounced example of the two types of PCK.We have called one teacher ‘William’ (representing PCK Type A, in 2002; Teacher8, see Table 3) and the other teacher ‘Andrew’ (representing PCK Type B, in 2002;Teacher 5, see Table 3).

PCK Development of William (Type A)

Knowledge about instructional strategies. In 2002 and 2003, William’s instruction inmodels of the solar system started with the observation of phenomena (positions ofmoon, sun, stars) by his students (Grade 10, upper secondary education). From this,he explained Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system using a PowerPointpresentation and a variety of concrete examples and visual tools, applied in front ofthe class. Next, the students set to work, carrying out different tasks; for example,building the model (constructing it using foam balls, or creating it from cardboard),and manipulating wooden sticks and balls and a lamp. These activities were aimed atconnecting students’ observations of phenomena with the heliocentric model.Students did not design their own models (based on their observations). Accordingto William, a classroom debate on the geocentric and heliocentric models of the solarsystem was of no use: his students lacked the knowledge, the understanding, and thelevel of abstract reasoning required. In 2002 and 2003, William also paid attention toother models of the solar system (ideas of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy), andto the key roles played by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei ingetting the heliocentric model accepted in preference to the geocentric model byastronomers.

In 2004, his lessons on the solar system were confined to the teaching of the helio-centric model. The teaching of other (historic) models appeared to be too time-consuming for him, and too difficult for his students: ‘I hardly understand the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


geocentric models myself, so, what about the students’ understanding?’ Due to a lackof time, he had stopped reflecting on the ideas of an expanding universe that beganin a ‘big bang’. He still emphasised students’ observations of natural phenomena(stars, planets, eclipses of sun and moon). Observations (and, in addition, computersimulations) of the phases of Venus appeared to be very helpful in finding argumentsin favour of the heliocentric model.

Over the years, William put much time into developing various materials, tools,and instruction methods to explain the content of the heliocentric model to hisstudents.

Knowledge about students’ understanding. In 2002, William showed little specificknowledge of his students’ understanding of the different models of the solar system.He said, ‘All they need to learn from the models is some basic knowledge of geome-try’ and ‘Some students’ general inability for three-dimensional thinking hinderstheir gaining in-depth understanding’. Over the years, he mainly based his knowl-edge about students’ understanding of, and difficulties with, specific concepts on theresults of written examinations.

Some pupils really didn’t get what I meant when I asked questions like ‘Why are theobservations about the phases of Venus along with its relative size the main argumentsin favour of the heliocentric model?’ This made me feel dissatisfied with my teachingand with the teaching materials I’ve been using. (William)

To address this problem, William introduced the computer simulation programme‘Red-shift’ to have students ‘observe (by manipulation of time) the phases of Venus,showing that Venus is sometimes on the opposite side of the sun, just as the helio-centric model predicts and in contrast to the geocentric model’. In addition, Williamunderstood that some students had difficulties with the scientific contingency ofmodels; that is, their hypothetical character, and the ways in which they graduallydevelop. He said that these students complained ‘Why should we learn somethingthat will change, anyway?’

Knowledge about ways to assess students’ understanding. In 2002, William evaluatedevery task (observations of phenomena, practical work) of his students in order toget them working and keep them working. To save time, he gradually diminished thenumber of students’ oral and poster presentations in the lessons, and reports onpractical work to be evaluated. His assessment of students’ work was confined to awritten report of a group study on a specific topic, and a written examination, whichconsisted of questions on knowledge of facts (model content) and on application ofthis knowledge (e.g., the interpretation of newspaper reports). The topics and ques-tions in his examinations did not change very much throughout the years. From hisinterpretations of the results of the exams, William realised that, ‘to better under-stand the heliocentric model, the students need more concrete experiences’. For thisreason, he started to use a number of planetaries, a solar scope, and a computersimulation programme (cf. Bakas & Mikropoulos, 2003) in his lessons.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Knowledge about goals and objectives in the curriculum. From 2002 to 2004, Williaminsisted that his students understood that knowledge of the structure and the size ofthe universe was not based on solid data drawn from experiments: ‘It is only if youstart from certain assumptions that the models will work’ (i.e., relativist and instru-mentalist epistemological views). In 2002, William held the view that students hadto know that models of the solar system were not the same as reality: ‘It is always asimplified reduction’, which is aimed at describing and explaining certain phenom-ena (i.e., positivist epistemological view).

In the course of time, William became aware of his understanding that, in the caseof the heliocentric model of the solar system, the model is simply a smaller copy ofreality:

I think that we know rather precisely how planets rotate around the sun, for example.Actually, I don’t believe that reality is any different from the model. Speaking of atoms,neutrons, and electrons, however, I do understand that reality is much more complexthan the model. I really think that it’s due to my lack of knowledge of the universe’scomplexity.

In 2004, William was satisfied with the results of his lessons:

Students look at the starry sky, more often; they show more interest in that part of real-ity. So, one of my teaching objectives has been achieved (i.e., students’ wondermentand respect for the creation of ‘heaven and earth’).

PCK Development of Andrew (Type B)

Knowledge about instructional strategies. In 2002, Andrew and his colleagues haddeveloped their own workbook (which they used alongside the ANtWoord book) ‘tostimulate the students to go deeply into the material, being aware that they are reallylearning things’. The ANtWoord workbook did not meet their requirements on thispoint. Over the years, Andrew developed knowledge to adapt his lessons on the solarsystem and universe to suit students of different ages and levels of education andwith different interests:

I really like to talk to young people about their motives. So what I like to do is just to sitdown with my class or have a classroom discussion about how the topic relates to theirown lives. I introduce the assignments from there.

Andrew insisted from the beginning that his students designed and understoodtheir own models:

Making different models from the same data. I really pushed them to think about itthemselves: for example, making and testing their models to explain the phases of themoon, using two balls (moon and earth) and a lamp (sun).

Andrew spent much time introducing the heliocentric and geocentric models of thesolar system, putting a ‘House of Commons-like’ classroom debate on the models’strengths and weaknesses central: ‘It’s a good experience for them that the ‘best’model doesn’t always win. In the history of science this has happened, too: the ‘best’science hasn’t always been recognised’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Over the years, he improved the organisational part of the debate: ‘Small thingscount, like how I arrange the tables. Or how I use the blackboard or where I ammyself, standing or sitting’. In summary, Andrew developed his knowledge aboutinstructional strategies with regard to model content, model production, and think-ing about the nature of models mainly based on his interpretation of students’responses to his lessons, indicating their motivation, abilities, and understanding.

Knowledge about students’ understanding. According to Andrew, in 2002, hisstudents were not generally used to thinking on a high level of abstraction. It wasdifficult for them to understand that a phenomenon can be modelled in more thanone way, and that different models can be ‘true’: ‘For instance, one model is morecomplex than another, allowing for prediction of different things’. Students did notneed specific previous knowledge for the learning of models of the solar system andthe universe. Andrew added: ‘Some pupils have a natural inclination to look aroundand notice things. Some pupils are interested in reading what others have written.And you do have some who are just not interested at all …’.

Over the years, Andrew mainly developed his knowledge about students’ under-standing by observing their work in the classroom as part of his instruction. In theirmaking and testing of different models to explain the seasons on earth, for example,Andrew noticed that the students showed more sympathy for an earth (or a sun) thatmoves up and down than for a tilting earth’s axis.

They (the students) explained the earth’s seasons as being caused by differences in thedistance from the sun through the year, instead of different parts of the globe facingtowards the sun, at different times of the year, which is caused by a tilt of the earth’saxis. (cf. Kikas, 1998, 2004)

Knowledge about ways to assess students’ understanding. At first (in 2002 and 2003),Andrew and his colleagues held only one major test (not on separate chapters, buton the whole book) in June. Andrew explained (in 2002):

As a part of this test, they (the students) just have to know how a specific model worksand be able to reproduce it, that’s all. But that is still hard for a lot of pupils who can’texplain the eclipses of the sun and moon. I don’t think it’s really a problem, they passanyway because they know other things.

He preferred to evaluate his students’ understanding of certain models by observa-tion of group work and interpretation of their modelling and debating activities. In2004, Andrew also started to give students marks for work in class and for theirworkbook tasks, because he had come to the conclusion that adding external motiva-tion by giving marks, is an effective way to stimulate students to make progress.

Knowledge about goals and objectives in the curriculum. In 2002, Andrew had a rela-tivist and instrumental epistemological view on models, which did not change overthe years: ‘I want them (the students) to understand that a model doesn’t have to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


real and true to be useful. It’s an interesting thought that an ‘incorrect’ model canstill predict things (phenomena) correctly’. This was important to him, because, ‘Inthe end, pupils have to understand how science works and the impact it has on soci-ety and especially on their daily lives’.

Conclusions

From the results of the study, we conclude that, initially, teachers’ PCK could bedescribed in two qualitatively different varieties (see Table 4). In 2002, Type Acould be typified as mainly oriented towards the teaching of science as ‘a body ofestablished knowledge’, while Type B could be typified as more oriented towards‘the experience of science as a method of generating and validating such knowledge’(Hudson, 1992, p. 545).

The focus in our study was on how teachers’ PCK developed over the course ofthree academic years. With regard to Type A, we conclude that in particular theknowledge about instructional strategies further developed. The results of the studyindicate that this development was mainly influenced by the teachers’ interpretationof students’ results on written examinations (focusing on facts and application ofknowledge) and reports on group work. In 2004, the teachers’ PCK Type A was stillmainly focused on model content. Knowledge about goals and objectives of thelearning and teaching of ‘Models of the Solar System and Universe’ did not changesignificantly; that is, this knowledge still reflected a combination of positivist andinstrumentalist epistemological views.

Figure 1 illustrates the development of the PCK elements in Type A, over time.The results of the study indicate that the development of teachers’ knowledge about

Figure 1. Type A of PCK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


instructional strategies in the content of ‘Models of the Solar System and theUniverse’ (i.e., ideas about materials to support students’ understanding of modelcontent and ways to connect models with reality) was consistent with their knowl-edge about goals and objectives of teaching the topic in the curriculum (i.e., basedon their view on models as reductions of reality), and was also related to their knowl-edge about students’ understanding of the subject (e.g., knowledge about students’difficulties with specific topics, and inabilities to connect models with reality). (SeeFigure 1, arrows 1 and 2.) The teachers’ developing knowledge about students’understanding of specific topics with regard to ‘Models of the Solar System andUniverse’ (e.g., the rotations of the planets, or the concept of ‘parallax’) was, gener-ally, associated with their interpretations of students’ responses in written tests andgroup reports. (See Figure 1, arrow 3.) The knowledge of ways to assess theirstudents’ understanding—that is, using examinations on knowledge and applicationsof model content—was consistent with their ideas about instruction (i.e., also in thecontent of models). (See Figure 1, arrow 4.) However, although the teachers’ knowl-edge of instruction methods developed substantially over time, in general theirknowledge about ways of assessment did not change greatly.Figure 1. Type A of PCKFrom our results, we conclude that in the development of PCK in Type A, someof the elements of PCK (especially knowledge about instructional strategies) havebecome more sophisticated or expanded, but the interaction between these elementsis rather static.

With regard to the development of PCK elements in Type B over the years, weconclude that changes in the knowledge about instructional strategies, the knowl-edge about students’ understanding, and the knowledge about assessment weremutually related. The knowledge about goals and objectives of the learning andteaching of ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ did not change signifi-cantly; that is, not only the visualisation and explanation of phenomena were stillemphasised in this PCK element, but also how to formulate and test hypotheses,and how to obtain information about phenomena. Models were still conceived of asinstruments, but also as ways to view reality (i.e., a relativist epistemological view).

Figure 2 illustrates the development of the PCK elements in Type B, over time.The results of the study indicate that the development of the teachers’ knowledgeabout instructional strategies (e.g., ideas about the organisation of students’ activi-ties on model content, production, and thinking about the nature of models) wasconsistent with their knowledge about goals and objectives of teaching ‘Models ofthe Solar System and Universe’ in the curriculum (i.e., based on a relativist andinstrumentalist view on models and modelling) and also related to their knowledgeabout students’ understanding of the topic (e.g., knowledge about students’ motiva-tion and abilities to participate in modelling and debating activities, and knowledgeabout students’ affinity with specific models). (See Figure 2, arrows a and b.) Thedevelopment of knowledge about students’ understanding was related to the teach-ers’ knowledge about instructional strategies (i.e., an interpretation of the students’responses to classroom activities), as well as to the teachers’ knowledge about assess-ment (e.g., using group observations, portfolios, presentations, and written exams).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


(See Figure 2, arrows c and d.) The knowledge about assessment (i.e., knowledgeabout how to evaluate model content, model production, and thinking aboutmodels) generally developed under the influence of the teachers’ growing knowledgewith regard to students’ understanding (i.e., knowledge about students’ motivationand abilities to participate in different kinds of activities), as well as the teachers’developing knowledge about instructional strategies (i.e., knowledge about how topromote students’ learning of model content, model production and thinking aboutthe nature of models). (See Figure 2, arrows e and f.)Figure 2. Type B of PCKFrom the results, we conclude that in Type B the elements of PCK seem to bedeveloping in such a way that the content of the different elements is consistentlyand dynamically related to each other and to the teaching of ‘Models of the SolarSystem and Universe’.

In the next section, we discuss the results of the study, and some implications forthe teachers’ professional development.

Discussion and Implications

In the theoretical models of Grossman (1990) and Magnusson et al. (1999, p. 99),the development of PCK is seen as (mostly) an autonomous process, influenced,among other things, by the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge and relevantsubject matter knowledge. From this, we hypothesised that both types of PCKdevelopment were related to the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge andbeliefs. In particular, given the differences between their knowledge about instruc-tional strategies and student understanding, we expect teacher-directed pedagogicalperspectives for Type A, and more or less student-directed pedagogical perspectivesfor Type B. Furthermore, for Type A both the knowledge about goals and objectivesof teaching ‘Models of the Solar System and the Universe’ in the curriculum, and

Figure 2. Type B of PCK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


the knowledge about instructional strategies were generally restricted to an explana-tion of the heliocentric model of the solar system. Based on this, it may be suggestedthat Type A of PCK development was related to a teacher’s limited subject matterknowledge and his mainly positivist view on models and modelling. In the same way,the more extended knowledge about goals and objectives of teaching ‘Models of theSolar System and the Universe’ in the curriculum and the knowledge about instruc-tional strategies, shown by teachers representing Type B of PCK development,suggests a more comprehensive subject matter knowledge and a relativist and instru-mentalist view on models and modelling in science (cf. van Driel, De Jong, &Verloop, 2002; Wallace & Loughran, 2003).

As the teachers’ PCK development seems to be related to their initial pedagogi-cal perspectives, epistemological views, and subject matter knowledge aboutmodels of the solar system and universe, interventions aimed at the development ofteachers’ professional understanding (especially those teachers representing PCKType A) could involve opportunities and facilities for teachers to reflect on teach-ing experiences in order to articulate and share their pedagogical and epistemologi-cal ideas, and their knowledge of the history and philosophy of science (cf. Fullan& Hargreaves, 1992).

Different tools have been developed for documenting science teachers’ understand-ing of their own professional practice and their students’ learning of particular science(and astronomy) content. For example, the use of Resource Folios (Berry et al., 2006;Loughran et al., 2006) has been advocated as a way to make teachers’ tacit knowledgeexplicit. In this approach, teachers represent the key concepts attached to a certainscience topic, in connection to the teaching/learning practice of this topic or phenom-enon (e.g., earth seasons, moon phases), thus explicating their own (developing)PCK. We think that explicating personal professional knowledge, and sharing it withcolleagues or student-teachers, could be the main key to effective professional devel-opment of (experienced) science teachers (cf. Wallace & Louden, 1992).

Acknowledgement

The present study was funded by the Dutch Association for Scientific Research:NWO (grant number 411–21–201).

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science Literacy.New York: Oxford University Press.

Aikenhead, G.S., & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument. Views on Science–Technology–Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.

Albanese, A., Danhoni Neves, M.C., & Vicentini, M. (1997). Models in science and in education:A critical review of research on students’ ideas about the earth and its place in the universe.Science and Education, 6, 573–590.

Bakas, C., & Mikropoulos, T. (2003). Design of virtual environments for the comprehension ofplanetary phenomena based on students’ ideas. International Journal of Science Education,25(8), 949–967.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Barab, S., Hay, K., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual Solar System project: Buildingunderstanding through model building, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.

Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Mulhall, P. (2006, April). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical contentknowledge using resource folios. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Associationfor Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

Cochran, F.K., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrativemodel for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 261–272.

De Jong, O., van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical contentknowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 42(8), 947–964.

De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999) Public Understanding of Science as a separate subject in second-ary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 711–719.

Duit, R., & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modelling. In T. Welford., J. Osborne & P. Scott, (Eds.),Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 166–176). London:Falmer.

Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistryeducation. Science & Education, 10, 581–593.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change London: FalmerPress.

Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Gilbert, J.K., & Boulter, C.J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer.

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnic, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner &R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Simon& Shuster Macmillan.

Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. NewYork/London: Teachers College Press.

Henze, I., van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teachingmodels and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science.Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.

Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relatingto integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14,541–562.

Justi, R.S., & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards theuse of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24,1273–1292.

Kikas, E. (1998). Pupils’ explanations of seasonal changes: Age differences and the influence ofteaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 505–516.

Kikas, E. (2004). teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 432–448.

Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science: An empirical study of teachers’ views.International Journal of Science Education, 11, 173–184.

Lemmer, M., Lemmer, T.N., & Smit, J.J.A. (2003). South African students’ views of the universe.International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 563–582.

Loughran, J.J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers peda-gogical content knowledge. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogicalcontent knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogicalcontent knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modifiedconception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014


Northern Examinations and Assessment Board. (1998). Science for Public Understanding (syllabus).Harrogate, UK: NEAB.

Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile: An activity for science teachers.School Science Review, 75, 109–112.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15, 4–14.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 35, 637–695.

SLO. (1996). Voorlichtingsbrochure havo/vwo Algemene natuurwetenschappen [Information brochure onPublic Understanding of Science]. Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.

Van der Valk, T., & Gravemeijer, K. (2000, May). Het Studiehuis vanuit B-didactisch perspectief[The Study House seen from a science education perspective]. Paper presented at the OnderwijsResearch Dagen (ORD), Leiden, The Netherlands.

van Driel, J.H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistryteachers’ PCK. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.

van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science.International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141–1153.

van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogicalcontent knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

Verloop, N., van Driel, J.H., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base ofteaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441–461.

Vollebregt, M., Klaassen, K., Genseberger, R., & Lijnse, P. (1999). Inzichtelijk een deeltjesmodelleren [A problem posing approach to teaching an initial particle model]. Tijdschrift voor didac-tiek der B-wetenschappen, 16(1), 12–26.

Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge. Prospects for reformof elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507–521.

Wallace, J. & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2003). Leadership and professional development in science educa-tion: New possibilities in enhancing teacher learning. London/New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:59

12

Aug

ust 2

014

development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar...

Documents