when teaching makes a difference: developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]On: 05 October 2014, At: 23:35Publisher: 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
When Teaching Makes a Difference:Developing science teachers’pedagogical content knowledge throughlearning studyPernilla Nilssona
a Department of Teacher Education, Halmstad University,Halmstad, SwedenPublished online: 27 Jan 2014.
To cite this article: Pernilla Nilsson (2014) When Teaching Makes a Difference: Developing scienceteachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 36:11, 1794-1814, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.879621
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879621
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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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 &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
When Teaching Makes a Difference:
Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge
through learning study
Pernilla Nilsson∗
Department of Teacher Education, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
It is a common view that developing teachers’ competence to restructure or reframe their knowledge
and beliefs is inevitably a complex challenge. This paper reports on a research project with the aim to
develop science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through their participation in a
learning study. A learning study is a collegial process in which teachers work together with a
researcher to explore their own teaching activities in order to identify what is critical for their
students’ learning. During one semester, three secondary science teachers worked in a learning
study together with a researcher in a cyclical process in order to create prerequisites and further
identify conditions for students’ learning. During the learning study, data were collected from
video-recorded lessons and stimulated recall sessions in which the teachers and the researcher
reflected on the lessons to analyze their development of PCK, their students’ learning and the
impact of that knowledge on their own teaching. The results provide an insight into how the
teachers developed their self-understanding in which they questioned their own epistemological
beliefs, aims and objectives of teaching and taken-for-granted assumptions about science teaching
and learning. As such, the study provides an understanding of teacher professional learning
through a careful investigation of how teachers’ PCK is enhanced through their participation in
the learning study, and further, how students’ learning might be developed as a consequence.
Keywords: Learning study; PCK; Science; Teacher; Variation Theory
Introduction
The inherent complexity of teacher knowledge, and hence teacher learning, has been
well documented in science education research literature (e.g. Nilsson, 2008; Nilsson,
International Journal of Science Education, 2014
Vol. 36, No. 11, 1794–1814, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879621
∗Department of Teacher Education, Halmstad University, Box 823, Halmstad 301 18, Sweden.
Email: [email protected]
# 2014 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
& Loughran, 2012; Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2006; Van Driel, Beijaard, &
Verloop, 2001; Van Driel & Berry, 2012). In order to teach science in ways that
promote students’ understanding, Shulman (1986, 1987) claimed that teachers
need pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), a special kind of knowledge that tea-
chers have about how to teach particular content to particular pupils. Developing
PCK involves a considerable shift in teachers’ understanding
from being able to comprehend subject matter for themselves, to becoming able to elu-
cidate subject matter in new ways, reorganize and partition it, clothe it in activities and
emotions, in metaphors and exercises, and in examples and demonstrations, so that it
can be grasped by students. (Shulman, 1987, p. 13)
PCK involves teachers’ understanding of how to help a group of students under-
stand specific subject matter using multiple instructional strategies, representations
and assessments while working within the contextual, cultural and social limitations
in the learning environment (Park & Oliver, 2008).
In their work, Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) conceptualized PCK into five
components: orientations toward teaching science (teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level); knowl-
edge and beliefs about science curriculum (knowledge of the goals and objectives for
students in the subject and of programs and materials relevant to teaching the specific
subject); knowledge of students’ understanding of science (knowledge of require-
ments for learning and knowledge of areas of students’difficulty); knowledge of assess-
ment in science (knowledge of the dimensions of science learning that are important to
assess and the methods by which that learning can be assessed) and knowledge of
instructional strategies (knowledge of subject-specific and topic-specific strategies).
As depicted in this framework, Magnusson et al. (1999) argued that teachers’ orien-
tations toward teaching science shapes and is shaped by the other four components.
As the components may interact in very complex ways, teachers need to develop
knowledge of all aspects of PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999). As such, PCK is the
result of a transformation of knowledge from other domains. The model of PCK rep-
resentation developed by Magnusson et al. (1999) has been used by a number of
researchers as they try to capture PCK (e.g. Berry, Loughran, & Van Driel, 2008;
De Jong, Van Driel, & Verloop, 2005; Nilsson, 2010) and is also used in this paper
as a way to capture three secondary science teachers’ development of PCK.
Recently, Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) indicated that for successful school
improvement, schools need to build professional capacity for change and support
for teachers’ professional learning (PL). However, it is a commonly held assumption
that traditional approaches to teacher’ professional development (PD) have little long-
term influence on their actual teaching practice. One obvious response to this situ-
ation is to re-conceptualize the nature of PD and make a shift from PD as something
that is done to teachers toward considerations of PL which entails work with and by
teachers. It could be assumed that the use of the term ‘development’ implies initiating
a process associated with doing to and for teachers; something episodic and superficial
that teachers need to be forced into developing; that teachers are presumed to be
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1795
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
passive and resistant; or that teachers’ insufficient knowledge can be ‘fixed’ through
training designed to make teachers do something that they are being directed to
learn, do and implement Nilsson and Loughran (2012). Such a ‘top-down approach’
on teacher PD, where the people responsible for implementing the changes (teachers)
have little if any influence on the construction of such changes, is assumedly not as
successful as a ‘bottom-up’ approach when teachers conduct their learning in
response to their perceived personal needs, issues and concerns (i.e. PL). Loughran
(2006) made this clear in stating, ‘professional learning is not developed through
simply gaining more knowledge, rather, professional learning is enhanced by one
becoming more perceptive to the complexities, possibilities and nuances of teaching
contexts’ (p. 136). Further, Garet Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Kwang (2001)
argued that PL that focuses on specific science content and the ways students learn
such content is helpful for instruction designed to improve students’ conceptual
understanding. As teacher knowledge includes a rich blend of knowledge about
subject matter, pedagogy and context and relies on the dynamic relationship
between each (Nilsson, 2008), developing teachers’ competence to restructure or
reframe their knowledge and beliefs (i.e. PL) is inevitably a complex challenge. One
way for teachers to develop their PL, which also focuses on specific science content
and the ways students learn such content, is through being involved in researching
their own practice in a learning study (Kullberg, 2010; Marton & Booth, 1997;
Marton & Tsui, 2004; Runesson, 2005).
This paper reports on a research project with the aim to develop science teachers’
PCK through their participation in a learning study. A learning study is a collegial
process in which teachers work together with a researcher to explore their own teach-
ing activities in order to identify what is critical for their students’ learning. During
one semester, three secondary science teachers worked in a learning study together
with a researcher in a cyclical process in order to create prerequisites and further
identify conditions for students’ learning. During the learning study, data were col-
lected from pre- and post-tests with the students, video-recorded lessons and stimu-
lated recall sessions in which the teachers and the researcher reflected on the lessons to
analyze how the teachers developed their knowledge of their students’ learning and
the impact of that knowledge on their own teaching. The research question that
frames the study is ‘How do science teachers develop components of pedagogical
content knowledge through their participation in a learning study?’ As such, the
project aims to investigate how teachers’ PCK is enhanced, and further, how students’
science learning might be developed as a consequence. An important aspect of the
learning study is that it pays attention to how teachers’ collective construction of pro-
fessional knowledge is enacted by making a shift from PD as something that is done to
teachers toward considerations of PL which entails work with and by teachers.
Learning Study and Variation Theory
It might be suggested that the way in which teachers process the content within their
teaching activities plays a crucial role for how students develop their understanding of
1796 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
that content. Consequently, at the heart of this idea lies the ability of the teacher to
understand the educational needs of the students they work with and plan the next
appropriate step to provide lessons that engage the students in meaningful learning.
Hattie (2009) argued that teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching (i.e. PCK
for a specific content) is the most important factor for student achievements.
Heywood and Parker (2010) noted that effective teachers ‘possess a subtle knowledge
of subject, learners and the learning process and have the ability to plan, organise and
control the classroom accordingly’ (p. 140). To achieve effective teaching and learning
activities where students’ achievement and attitudes are stimulated, aspects such as
the teachers’ knowledge of what makes a difference in students’ learning and adapting
teaching to students’ needs are crucial.
From a research perspective, the complex world of teaching is often seen as some-
thing difficult to be adequately theorized by teachers because they are too busy
working in that world. Theories are often experienced by teachers as solutions to ‘edu-
cational problems’, not always in concert with the needs and concerns of prac-
titioners. Hence, from a teacher’s perspective, theory is not necessarily helpful in
responding to the daily need of ‘activities that will work’ in the classroom (Appleton,
2003). Further, Nuthall (2004) noted that teachers need to acquire a theory that can
be used as an explanatory model and as a guiding principle for understanding the
relation between their teaching and their students learning. The theory should also
lead the teacher to more easily understand what to look for and how to interpret
his or her teaching (Nuthall, 2004):
Only when teachers understand the principles by which their actions shape the learning
process going on in the minds of their students will they be able to ensure effective learn-
ing regardless of the abilities or cultural backgrounds of the students. (p. 301)
Finding a balance between the perspectives of theory and practice is important so that
the construction of knowledge can be a valued driver to educational change. One
approach that involves both a theory-based practice and a bottom-up perspective on
teacher PL is that of learning study (Marton & Tsui, 2004; Runesson, 2005). Learning
study is distinguished from lesson study in that it is underpinned by the ‘theory of vari-
ation’ (Marton & Booth, 1997; Runesson, 2005), which views teaching as a continuous
process of changing students’ ways of seeing that which is important to know in order to
learn about specific issues. In a learning study, which must not be the case in a lesson
study, a researcher is also involved in the process.
In 1997, Marton and Booth noted that ‘we cannot be aware of everything at the
same time in the same way’ hence ‘we are aware of everything at the same time,
albeit not in the same way’ (p. 123). More recently, Kullberg (2010) argued that ‘in
variation theory, learning is seen as becoming able to discern critical features of an
object of learning. The object of learning concerns a capability or understanding of
something, for example a particular content taught in school’ (p. 33). In short, the
fundamental attribute of the theory is that the kind of learning we want our students
to achieve requires discernment of critical aspects of what is characteristically called
the object of learning. To discern something means to be able to differentiate
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1797
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
among the various aspects of a phenomenon. When a particular aspect of an object of
learning is varied while other aspects are kept constant, the varying aspects are what
will be discerned or come to the fore in a student’s awareness.
In the context of science teaching this idea can be helpful. Many teachers emphasize
the importance of taking one thing at a time and thus reduce the complexity, which is
especially common in science education. You cannot understand the greenhouse
effect if you do not know how carbon dioxide is created in a car engine. This view
is challenged by the theory that says that the meaning of phenomena to a large
extent is determined by how they differ from each other. Consequently, it may be
better to contrast things with each other and focusing on the differences between
them, than to take them one at a time. Instead of first teaching about the atom,
then introducing the molecule and then the ion to help students finally understand
what happens within a chemical reaction between sodium and chloride, these can
be taught together focusing on the similarities and differences between the concepts.
For example, different elements in the same group of the periodic table react differ-
ently depending on the number of electron shells, or put in another way, depending
on the principal quantum number of the shell where its valence electrons are.
Using the idea of variation would say that the number of valence electrons (i.e.
one) is kept constant but the number of shells varies. By varying the learning
object’s critical features and enabling the learner to distinguish these, might well
increase students’ opportunities to learn. In such a way, even though there is a
strong relation between the content and the teaching of the content, a learning
study tends to focus on the specific content to be learnt (i.e. the object of learning),
rather than actual learning activities (such as doing experiments, group work, etc.)
Teaching as a Shared Practice in Learning Study
Adamson and Walker (2011) described a learning study as a form of action research
where teachers together with a researcher investigate their students’ learning difficul-
ties and judge the effectiveness of their teaching strategies based on student learning
outcomes. The learning is directed toward something to be learned which is also men-
tioned as the ‘object of learning’. As mentioned above, in a learning study it is
assumed that students’ learning arises from their discerning the critical distinguishing
features of the object of learning. These critical features are highlighted by variation
which is achieved through contrasting the new learning with relevant prior learning.
The effectiveness of a lesson then lies in whether students have acquired a more
powerful way of perceiving the object of learning. In a learning study, the conditions
for students’ learning (i.e. that which makes it easy or difficult to learn a specific
content) are identified and reflected upon. Such awareness is important in terms of
PCK as it focuses on the relation between the content, the teaching and students’
learning. As such, learning study can be described as both a research method and a
model for PL of teachers.
In a learning study, a group of teachers work collaboratively together with a
researcher to identify important aspects for students’ learning of a specific topic
1798 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
and try to improve their teaching in a systematic way. It is a cyclical process (Figure 1)
in which teachers reflect on necessary conditions for learning a specific content and
how to meet these conditions in the learning situation. Kullberg (2010) describes
that the goal of a learning study is to enhance student learning and, furthermore,
explore what it takes to learn something particularly. In the learning study, the tea-
chers explore their teaching to identify what can be critical features for their students’
learning
The notion of critical features is used to describe features with regard to the content and
students’ understanding of what is taught, what it is necessary to be aware of to be able to
experience what is to be learned in a certain way. (p. 18)
A learning study starts with the teachers (normally a group of three teachers) who
identify an object of learning, often something which is normally experienced as being
problematic for students to learn about. Then, the students’ prior knowledge and
their existing perceptions are investigated, typically with a pre-test. The teachers,
together with the researcher, analyze the test results to provide an insight into how stu-
dents experience what is to be learned and that which is critical in order to learn the
specific object. The variation in how students experience what is to be learned then
becomes a source of planning the first lesson. One teacher conducts the lesson
(lesson 1) which is video-recorded. After the lesson the students are given a post-
test in order to provide an insight into how the students’ understanding of the
object of learning and its critical features is changed (or not) after the instruction.
The three teachers and the researcher collaboratively analyze the video-recorded
lesson (lesson 1) together with the students’ pre- and post-test results in a stimulated
recall session (Calderhead, 1981; Nilsson, 2008) in order to share their experiences of
the lesson with a focus on evidence of student thinking and analysis of the teacher’s
instruction. As such, the purpose of the stimulated recall session is to capture
aspects within the lesson that make difference for students’ learning and further to
Figure 1. Steps in learning study
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1799
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
improve the lesson and revise it. Then, in the next phase of the learning study the
second teacher conducts the (revised) lesson with his/her class (lesson 2) and the
same procedure follows, with an analysis of the lesson and the pre- and post-test
results. Finally, the third teacher conducts the (again revised) lesson with his/her
class following the same procedure. As such, the learning study is an iterative
process of planning, analyzing and revising a lesson (on a specific object of learning)
with the aim to improve both students’ and teachers’ learning.
Participating in a learning study can be challenging for teachers, as they must
develop enough trust to share tensions and dilemmas of personal practice involving
participants to speak honestly and personally when unraveling the complexity of
teaching. Adamson and Walker (2011) noted this challenge and highlighted that a
learning study is fraught ‘with potential tensions, such as outsider versus insider per-
spectives; academic versus grounded knowledge bases; unclear hierarchical statuses;
and diverse and conflicting agenda’ (p. 35). With these challenges in mind, this
paper values the knowledge generated by three secondary science teachers from
their experiences of collaboration and structured reflection, with a researcher, on
their own and their students’ learning as a way to bring together reflective and dialogic
processes of PL.
Context for Study and Collection of Data
During 10 weeks, 3 secondary science teachers and a science education researcher
(author) worked together in a learning study in which the object of learning was to
understand the chemical concept of ‘ion and how ions are formed’. The students
were in grade 8 (aged 14–15) and they had previously been taught about the atom
and atomic structure, but not yet about the concept of ion and how ions are
formed. All three teachers were experienced science teachers, had worked together
for several years and had volunteered to participate in the project. All the participating
students had written consent from their parents. Initially, the teachers had, through
different kinds of readings, familiarized themselves with the learning study method-
ology and variation theory. In the learning study, the role of the researcher was to
support the teachers during the project and to work together with the teachers in
meetings and discussions to stimulate their reflection. As such, the researcher
played an important role in encouraging the teachers’ planning and revising of the
lessons and further, to stimulate them to identify critical features in lessons.
The learning study progressed over one semester, and the team had five meetings
(described in the appendix) to plan, analyze and revise the specific lesson on ions.
There was also a final meeting to discuss the findings and what the teachers learned
from the project. Every meeting lasted for about two to three hours. All the planning
and monitoring of teacher group meetings were tape-recorded and the three lessons in
the learning study were video-recorded and followed by reflections through stimu-
lated recall interviews (Calderhead, 1981; Nilsson, 2008). The video-stimulated
reflection helped the teachers to gain insight into their practices, their own and
their students’ learning. As such, the use of stimulated recall did not only provide
1800 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
rich data on teachers’ perspectives and developmental paths, but it also worked as a
PD tool, by encouraging and supporting teachers’ reflective practice.
Tape recordings from all six meetings were used for the research purpose as
described above. Data analysis involved a number of important steps. First, all of
the tape recordings from the planning meetings were analyzed in an initial attempt
to search for illustrative examples of how the teachers reflected on the object of learn-
ing and how to approach it within their teaching. Second, the pre- and post-tests
(Table 1) were analyzed to get an insight into how the students understood the
intended learning object. Third, the stimulated recall interviews after the three
lessons and the final group meeting (meeting 6) were analyzed through content analy-
sis (applied in the way described by Miles & Huberman, 1994) in order to identify
recurring themes of situations and experiences expressed in the teachers’ reflections.
A content analysis of this kind is based on the view that it facilitates the production of
core constructs from textual data (e.g. a systematic method of data reduction; data
display; and conclusion drawing and verification). In such a way, the primary mode
of analysis was the development of categories from the raw data into a framework
Table 1. Overview of pre-test 1 and pre-test 2.
Pre-test Post-test
Question
Should be included in the
response T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
1. What do you think of when
you hear the word atom?
The atomic structure and the
charge of the elementary
particles
6/
24
3/
17
4/
16
15/
24
5/
17
11/
16
2. What do you think of when
you hear the word ion?
An atom or molecule in which
the total number of electrons is
not equal to the total number of
protons, giving it a positive or a
negative electrical charge
4/
24
2/
17
0/
16
14/
24
2/
17
11/
16
3. Look at the periodic table.
What information can you
get about the different
substances?
It gives information about the
number of protons, electrons,
electron shells and atomic
weight
0/
24
2/
17
0/
16
14/
24
5/
17
13/
16
4. Why does the periodic
table look the way it does?
There is a logical explanation
that builds on the atomic
structure and the
characteristics of different
elements
0/
24
1/
17
0/
16
10/
24
4/
17
5/
16
5. Why do you think different
elements react with each
other in a certain
(predictable) way?
Elements react in order to
become stable. The
reactiveness of an element
depends on its electrons
2/
24
1/
17
1/
16
10/
24
1/
17
9/
16
6. How many substances
exist around you?
Interminably. There is a
difference between chemical
element and compound
15/
24
11/
17
6/
16
10/
24
10/
17
2/
16
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1801
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
that captured the key themes of how the teachers developed components of PCK
(based on the framework outlined by Magnusson et al., 1999) during the learning
study cycle.
To give an insight into how the teachers developed their PCK during the learning
study (meetings 1–6), the teachers’ experiences and identified knowledge develop-
ment are presented below in relation to two of the five components in Magnusson
et al.’s (1999) model: knowledge of students’ understanding of science (i.e. to identify
that which makes it easy or difficult to learn and knowledge of requirements for learn-
ing) and knowledge of instructional strategies (i.e. to challenge students’ ideas and
difficulties within teaching). The result section expands on and illustrates each of
the two components in turn.
Ions and How Ions Are Formed as an Object for Learning
As mentioned above, the object for learning in this study was chosen to be ‘the chemi-
cal concept of ion and how ions are formed’. The reason for why the teachers chose
this area was that students often have difficulties in conceptualizing why chemical
bonds are formed. In the research literature, models of chemical bonding have been
the focus for several studies (e.g. De Jong et al., 2005; Harrison & Treagust, 1996,
2000; Nicoll, 2001; Taber, 2001, 2003a, 2003b). In some of these studies it is
argued that in order to improve students’ understanding, teachers need to be aware
of how representations might cause students to have difficulties and how different
teaching strategies deal with these difficulties. Coll and Treagust (2003) noted that
secondary school students see ionic bonding as consisting of attraction of oppositely
charged species that arise from the transfer of electrons driven by the desire of atoms
to obtain an octet of electrons. So, although the bond was understood in terms of
‘attraction between oppositely charged species’, again, the octet rule was seen as
the ‘sole driving force’ for bonding, leading to a transfer of electrons as an ‘automatic
consequence’ (p. 478). While the motivational benefit of models guarantees engage-
ment, it exposes students to private or group interpretations that often lead to unex-
pected alternative conceptions (Harrison & Treagust, 1996). Further, it might well be
argued that the teaching will become more effective when teachers understand more
about students’ learning difficulties and the more representations and activities at
their disposal (De Jong et al., 2005).
According to Magnusson et al. (1999),
PCK is a teacher’s understanding of how to help students understand specific subject
matter. It includes knowledge of how particular subject matter topics, problems, and
issues can be organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities
of learners, and then presented for instruction. (p. 96)
Shulman (1987) suggested that teachers use instructional strategies such as illus-
trations, metaphors, analogies, explanations and demonstrations to make subject
matter comprehensible to their students. However, as Harrison and Treagust
(1996, 2000) noted, it appears that many students do not interpret teacher metaphors
1802 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
and analogies in the intended manner. For example, teacher-initiated metaphors such
as ‘electron shells’, appeared to be interpreted quite differently from the way intended
by the teacher (Harrison & Treagust, 1996). As a consequence, Harrison and Trea-
gust (2000) noted that even when students claim to ‘know about’ a metaphor,
analogy or model, their understanding should be reviewed for problematic interpret-
ations before it is used again. As such, an important aspect of Magnusson et al.’s
(1999) PCK component ‘instructional strategies’ is for the teacher to find ways to
make complex ideas seem accessible, but in the same time in a way that is scientifically
valid, and provides a suitable platform for future learning. In other words, the teacher
needs to simplify sufficiently to suit the learners’ present purposes, but not oversim-
plify to undermine their future needs.
Results—Teachers’ learning from the learning study
Knowledge of Students’ Understanding of Science
During the learning study, the teachers built knowledge of student understanding of
science in several ways. They identified that which made it easy or difficult to learn
about the specific object of learning through interpretation of student responses in
the pre- and post-tests. Further, they built knowledge of how student thinking
was impacted by particular instructional strategies through interpretation and colle-
gial analysis of student responses in relation to inferences about these strategies.
During the first meeting, the teachers (together with the researcher) carefully dis-
cussed questions such as what does it mean to know about ions, what difficulties
and limitations do students usually experience when learning about ions, what
aspects students need to discern in order to understand the ion and how ions are
formed (i.e. the critical features). In the discussions, the teachers highlighted
several concepts that they considered as crucial for students’ understanding of the
object. One such concept was the relation between the energy level of an electron
and its principal quantum number. Another critical feature included the atomic
structure and how the ionic charge varies depending on the number of valence elec-
trons. Further, that ionization energy depends on the number of electrons and that
the nucleus with protons and neutrons remains unchanged even though the number
of electrons changes. Finally, the students needed to identify the principles of the
periodic table and how atoms with one or two valence electrons more or less than
a closed shell are highly reactive as the extra electrons are easily removed or
gained to form positive or negative ions.
T2: If we think of ions and atoms, we cannot explain what an ion is without having an
understanding of the particles, electrons and protons. The important thing is that
they see the differences and relationships between the ion and the other concepts
that are critical for understanding this . . . for example the atomic structure.
T1: And really, one cannot talk about this without talking about the periodic table. Why
are there ions with minus and plus, what are the differences and the relationships as
well? What we can do in the lesson is to show both an ion and an atom to make them
notice that both of them have a nucleus of protons and neutrons, both of them have
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1803
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
electrons orbiting the nucleus, but a difference between these two is that the number
of electrons varies. (Meeting 1)
This discussion emphasized the importance of making students focus on critical
features and the difference between an atom and an ion instead of only focusing on
the ion alone. In order to identify students’ preconceptions and previous knowledge
of the object of learning, the three teachers designed a pre-test consisting of six ques-
tions (Table 1). The test paid attention to the critical features for understanding the
object of learning such as atomic structure, understanding of the periodic table and
the difference between a chemical substance and a chemical element.
In the analysis of the pre-tests (meeting 2) several issues concerning students’ exist-
ing understandings were raised. Some of these issues were expected but some of them
turned out to be a surprise for the teachers. For example, the students did not under-
stand the relation between an atom and a molecule and they did not know about the
structure of the atom. Particles at the sub-microscopic level such as atoms and ions
were confused with chemical elements at the macroscopic level (e.g. one student
asked how many atoms are needed to create a substance). Further to this, the students
had difficulties in distinguishing between the concepts chemical ‘substance’ and
chemical ‘element’. Likewise, they had difficulties in seeing the connection between
the atomic, molecular structure and elemental appearance.
The pre-test also indicated that the students had difficulties in understanding how
the number of shells and their distance from the nucleus influenced the atom’s reac-
tivity. The students seemed to be aware of the different parts of the atom but they did
not mention the charges.
In all three stimulated recall sessions (meetings 3–5), the three teachers and the
researcher started with a careful analysis of the post-test and if, and in that case how, stu-
dents had changed their ideas. Table 1describes the questions (1–6) in the pre- and post-
test, the different aspects that should be present within the students’ answers and finally
the results for teacher 1 (T1), teacher 2 (T2) and teacher 3 (T3). As can be seen in the
table, the students’ previous knowledge about the issues above was not very well elabo-
rated. For example, students’ knowledge of the atomic structure was something that the
teachers took for granted. As such, in analyzing the pre-tests, the teachers’ taken-for-
granted assumptions were clearly challenged in a way that forced them to consider
their planning. Further, as indicated in Table 1, for the majority of the questions there
was a clear increase in the students’ results between the pre-test and the post-test.
However, for question 6 ‘How many substances do you think are around you?’, the stu-
dents of all three teachers performed worse after teaching than before teaching:
T1: In the beginning, they thought logically, but then when you had talked about chemi-
cal elements and actually taught them that the world is constituted of about 105
different elements they do not think logically anymore.
T3: Even though we have been talking about the fact that there are more than 100 000
chemical compounds they still have a main focus on the periodic table. (Meeting 3)
As indicated, students seem to think more logically and ‘freely’ before the lesson
than after the lesson when several students directly associated with the elements
1804 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
listed in the periodic table. As such, the teaching acquired a different meaning than
the teachers expected.
Knowledge of Instructional Strategies
To Challenge Students’ Ideas and Difficulties Within Teaching. When collectively plan-
ning the first lesson (meeting 2), the teachers analyzed the pre-test and reasoned
about how to challenge students’ previous ideas and difficulties. The teachers all
agreed to use a variation of teaching methods such as demonstrations, small group dis-
cussions and more traditional lecturing with the help of a PowerPoint presentation
and using the whiteboard in order to make the students identify the critical features
and overcome learning obstacles. Building on the experiences from the pre-test, the
teachers chose to start lesson 1 with making students discern the different com-
ponents in the atoms. Then, they planned to continue with the mechanisms of the per-
iodic table and ion formation. Finally, they intended to finish the lesson with making
the students discern how the number of electrons is one critical factor for why chemi-
cal bonds are formed (through exemplifying with different examples of ion formation,
e.g. sodium and chloride). For example, finding ways to illustrate the difference
between elements in the same group, with the same number of valence electrons in
their atoms but with different numbers of shells, became an important teaching strat-
egy. Hence, in the lesson they planned to use lithium, sodium and potassium in water
to stimulate the students to reason about what distinguishes the different elements.
Through this activity, they hoped the students would notice differences and simi-
larities between groups and periods in the periodic table. As such the teachers stressed
the importance of putting a stronger emphasis on clarifying the relationship between
different concepts and to conduct practical experiment to illustrate the differences
between different energy levels related to principal quantum number of valence
electron.
T1: All substances in group eight have a noble gas structure but if you look at them you
see that they have different number of shells. This is a great opportunity to make the
students identify what they have in common and what separates them. They are in
the same group and have the same number of valence electrons but they have differ-
ent numbers of shells. So we can use a demonstration with lithium, sodium and pot-
assium to make the students see the relation between periods and groups and
introduce the concept of noble gas structure. (Meeting 2)
As such, the co-planning of the lesson helped the teachers to develop their ideas of
how to challenge students identified difficulties and conceptions in a way that most
effectively should promote students’ understanding of the object of learning.
To identify and analyze critical aspects of different teaching strategies in the three lessons
Lesson 1. As the teachers noticed in the pre-test that the students were not clear of
the atomic structure, the first lesson was introduced with a PowerPoint slide asking
the question ‘What is an atom?’ In the analysis of the post-test and the first lesson,
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1805
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
it was clearly indicated through students’ responses that they still had difficulties
distinguishing between macroscale concepts (element and compound) and sub-
microscale concepts (atom and molecule). For example, the teachers wanted to
emphasize that elements may consist of molecules or atoms and compounds may or
may not be molecular. However, these issues were not clear to the students. As
such, the teachers realized that they needed further development and revision for
the next lesson.
T3: I think that for the next lesson (Lesson 2) we need to focus on the difference between
concepts such as atom, molecule, chemical element, substances and all that.
T2: We need to have a picture of where we really explain the difference between chemical
elements and chemical compounds, atoms and molecules, metals, semi-metals and
non-metals and so on. (Meeting 3)
For example, the teachers needed to put a stronger emphasis on the difference
between an atom and a molecule, a chemical element and a substance and also stimu-
late the students to identify the difference between the properties of chemical
elements in the periodic table. As such, the analysis of the tests and lesson 1 gave
the teachers important information of how the students’ experienced the teaching
and what they needed to revise in order to better meet students’ learning needs.
Lesson 2. When analyzing the video of lesson 2, the teachers noticed that even
though they had revised several aspects from lesson 1, the second lesson was experi-
enced as much ‘busier’ and messy and the results in the post-test were not as the tea-
chers would have had expected. The lesson was introduced with the question:‘What is
the difference between a chemical element and a chemical compound?’ and continued
with the teacher presenting a mind map of all concepts that she thought was important
for students to discern. The introduction of the lesson was reflected by one of the tea-
chers who noticed:
T1: The first question is about the difference between a chemical element and a chemical
compound. But what we notice here is that they do not even understand the differ-
ence between an atom and a molecule. So it might be better if we revise the question
to focus on the difference between an atom and an ion and in such way put a stronger
emphasis on the object of learning.
T3: Yes, here in your lesson you seem to want to include all concepts on the same time
through the concept map. Even though you try to make them discern the differences
they seem to be quite confused. The lines between the concepts do not seem to make
sense for them. (Meeting 4)
The teachers’ taken-for-granted assumptions (e.g. that the students understand the
atomic structure and the relation between a chemical element and a substance) were
challenged already in the first lesson. In the second lesson, the teachers came to
understand how their way of introducing a large amount of different chemical con-
cepts (such as mixture, chemical compound, metal, non-metal, atom, molecule,
acids, bases, etc.) in a concept map and trying to focus on the relation between con-
cepts seemed to give the students too much variation in the same time. Further to this,
1806 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
the teachers came to see how their way of grasping too much in the teaching situation
also made them in some sense lose their focus on the object of learning (i.e. to under-
stand the chemical concept of ion and how ions are formed). In the video of the
second lesson, it also became clear how the students used the chemical concepts
but they did not use them in a right situation:
T1: It is amazing to see how the second lesson in the learning study really makes them
more confused. We did all these changes but apparently it became messy for the stu-
dents. We thought it would be better, but it got busier when she (T2) went into
details on the differences between metals and non-metals, elements and chemical
compound, atoms and molecules and so on. I think we used too many concepts. I
also think that the students got confused when she put sodium in water and it
became basic and that hydroxide ions were formed. It went a little out of place
with acids and bases, mixtures and chemical compounds etc. (Meeting 4)
T2: My intention with this lesson was to introduce the concepts in the mindmap to make
them see how these are connected. However, now I see how this intention was not
fulfilled and the students did not grasp the ideas. I also thought that the periodic
table should help them understand different number of shells, their distance from
the nucleus and why atoms form ions. Here I realize that the students do not think
of the periodic table in that way. They do not see the logical structure. That is also
a reason for why my picture of how everything is organized became too confusing.
When the teachers analyzed the video from lesson 2, they became aware of how
their way of using the metaphor electron ‘shell’ made the students believe that the
shell protects the nucleus of an atom in the same way as a banana peel protects the
fruit itself. This view became visible when one student asked what the shell was
made of (a conception that was challenged in lesson 3). In their discussions, the tea-
chers highlighted the notion of ‘occupied words’ as something that might make it dif-
ficult to learn a specific concept. For example, as the meaning of a word (e.g. shell) is
different in different contexts the students seemed to find it harder to understand the
word when put in a chemical context. This insight indicated a discussion of how to use
scientific concepts in relation to everyday concepts and that their intentions of simpli-
fying through the use of metaphors could cause problematic interpretations from the
students:
T2: The electron shell would be like a peel. I have never thought of that way of thinking
about it.
T3: I think that they get confused as they associate the concepts to their previous experi-
ences which are not always about science.
T2: Shell, they know already what it is, so maybe track . . . or even energy level would be
better. These are no ‘occupied words’. (Meeting 4)
Lesson 3. Building on the insights from lessons 1 and 2, lesson 3 put a stronger
focus on the object of learning but also to avoid students’ misinterpretations from
the lessons before. A common idea in science teaching is to make students learn
about the parts before they are put together into a whole. In lesson 1, the first
teacher (T1) started the lesson with the atomic structure. The lesson then continued
with the periodic table and then the last slide introduced the ion. As indicated above,
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1807
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
the three teachers agreed that this was not a successful way to help the students to see
how concepts are related. Therefore, in lesson 2, the second teacher (T2) started her
lesson with a mind map of how a large amount of concepts are related and the ques-
tion ‘What is the difference between a chemical element and a chemical compound?’
When analyzing this second lesson, the teachers came to see that the amount of
relations and concepts made it even harder for the students to understand the
concept of an ion. Finally, in the third lesson, teacher 3 (T3) introduced the lesson
with the question ‘What is the difference between an atom and an ion?’ As such, a
key insight from analyzing the three lessons was about presenting concepts individu-
ally or together, to focus on different aspects of the content and not just on one aspect
at a time. Also, in the third lesson, teacher 3 carefully discussed the metaphor of elec-
tron shell and how the use of metaphors sometimes can cause confusions. Further,
what the teachers also learned from the pre-tests and lesson 2 was that some students
seamed to believe that if a valence electron was situated in a shell far away from the
nucleus, the electron was strongly attracted to the nucleus and hence, the atom
should be stable. However, the teachers wanted the students to understand that a
strong attraction between the nucleus and the outer electron leads to the element
being less reactive (or at the sub-microlevel, the atom is less able to lose an electron).
In order to meet students’ conceptions and explain why potassium was more reactive
than lithium, teacher 3 showed two magnets to the students. If the magnets were close,
they attracted each other but if the magnets were held apart they did not attract each
other in the same way. Hence, the comparison between a strong magnetic attraction
and low reactivity aimed to help the students understand how the attraction between
the nucleus and the electrons increases as they get closer. As such, the result of the
tests and the stimulated recall session gave the teachers a better insight into aspects
for students’ learning that they needed to approach in order to teach effectively.
The teachers also noticed how students’ understanding of the periodic table con-
tributed (or not) to their understanding of atoms and ions. A common tradition in
secondary school science is that the periodic table is taught in year 9, something
which one of the teachers emphasized in her reflection:
T1: We teach about the atom in year six, the molecule in year seven, the ion in year eight
and then we save the periodic table to year nine. I am not surprised that it is hard for
the students to see how these are related. Actually, the students do not have a fair a
chance to see how it all fits together. (Meeting 5)
Developing PCK as a Shared Practice in the Learning Study
In the learning study, the three teachers became aware of how paying attention to that
which students perceive as difficult is critical for learning content. They also became
aware of the importance to vary the different ways to represent the content (learning
object) with various metaphors and experiments, but also to reflect on their use of
metaphors and how these can cause confusions if not used in a correct way. As
such, the results indicate how two of Magnusson et al.’s (1999) components were
developed during the process:
1808 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
T1: I have never thought like this. It is obvious for me what a substance is but how can I
convey this to my students? As a teacher, I think it is the hardest challenge for us is to
transform our own knowledge to students’ understanding and to really focus on the
object of learning and not a million of other things in the same lesson. (Meeting 6)
In terms of PCK development, the variation theory with its focus on identifying the
object of learning and its critical features offered access to the way in which the tea-
chers conceptualized the topic as a whole and hence, became an important aspect
of articulating the teachers’ PCK. The combined use of variation theory with PCK
as a construct to understand teacher learning provides a new and innovative frame-
work to identify not only that which makes difference in students’ learning but also
to identify critical features for teachers’ development of science PCK. When the tea-
chers collectively began to unpack their content knowledge in this way (i.e. through
identifying critical features) it helped them to develop a clear conceptualization of
the subject area, both in terms of students’ understandings, their own subject under-
standing and their instructional strategies. In doing so, the possibility emerges that the
participants may begin to think about linking content and pedagogy in new ways,
something which may well be a catalyst for developing their PCK. The teachers
also stressed that their joint planning and collegial reflection was central to their
own learning process.
T1: Yes . . . we reflect a lot but this time it was not only reflection on the individual level . . .
it was the group level. And it was pretty much systematic as we discussed and
reflected on the science content and how to deal with students’ understandings of
that specific content. (Meeting 6)
The teachers noticed that only small variations in the way they approached the
content within their teaching, and further, the students’ possibilities to discern critical
features of the object of learning proved to play a crucial role for students’ understand-
ing. For example T2, even though the students’ result decreased after her lesson,
claimed that she became aware of her own sometimes ‘desperate’ need to include
too much in the same lesson:
T2: I thought that my way of presenting all the concepts at the same time would help
them. However, I realize that what I did was to make it even more confusing.
What became clear for the teachers in terms of instructional strategies was that
restructuring the lesson, making the abstract concrete, clarifying differences, simi-
larities and relations between concepts but consequently, not presenting too many
concepts in the same time, taking things in a different order or reflecting on their
use of metaphors and concepts in the teaching situations were all features that
made difference in students’ learning.
Discussion
As Borko (2004) noted, ‘To understand teacher learning, we must study it within
these multiple contexts, taking into account both the individual teacher-learners
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1809
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
and the social systems in which they are participants’ (p. 4). More recently, in their
argumentation on teacher PD focusing on PCK, Van Driel and Berry (2012) high-
lighted the importance of ‘forms of professional development for teachers that are
built on collaboration, collegial interaction and the fostering of relationships’
(p. 26). This study is an example of such an approach to understand teacher PL
through a careful investigation of how teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching
(PCK) is enhanced through their participation in a learning study, and further,
how students’ learning might be developed as a consequence.
There seems to be consensus in the literature that PCK involves teachers’ under-
standing of how to promote students’ learning of a specific subject matter. With
this in mind, the results of the study support Harrison and Treagust’s (1996) claim
that teacher-initiated metaphors such as ‘electron shells’ might appear to be inter-
preted quite differently from the way intended by the teacher. Hattie (2009) argued
for an approach to teaching where teachers are more aware of the impact of their
teaching on students’ learning. He suggested that ‘Maybe we should constrain our
discussion from talking about qualities of teachers to the quality of the effects of tea-
chers on learning—so the discussion about teaching is more critical than the discus-
sion about teachers’ (p. 126).
Based on a large amount of international research, Harrison, Hofstein, Eylon, and
Simon (2008) pointed out some important features that characterize effective pro-
grams for teachers’ PL: (1) engaging teachers in collaborative long-term inquiries
into teaching practice and student learning; (2) situating these inquiries into
problem-based contexts that place content as central and integrated with pedagogical
issues and (3) enabling teachers to see such issues as embedded in real classroom con-
texts through reflections and discussions of each other’s teaching and/or examination
of students’ work. However, although lists of characteristics such as these commonly
appear in the literature, there is still little direct evidence on the extent to which these
characteristics relate to positive outcomes for teachers and students (Garet et al.,
2001). As this paper indicates, participating in a learning study, with its focus on tea-
chers’ interaction with peers and researchers and further, a focus on critical features
for learning a specific content, relates well to Garet et al.’s (2001) features of PD
activities enhancing changes in classroom practice.
This study has indicated that teachers’ participation in a learning study proved to be
helpful in their (re)considerations of science teaching. It also challenged the taken-for-
granted assumption that ‘if you teach—students learn’. Research about the effects of a
learning study supports the conjecture that students’ learning increases from lessons 1
to 3 (see e.g. Marton & Pang, 2006; Runesson, 2008). However, an important aspect
of this study indicates that for lesson 2, students’ results decreased, something which
forced the teachers to reconsider their taken-for-granted assumptions and pedagogi-
cal decisions. Another aspect of this study is that the discerning of critical features can
contribute to discussions about teaching and what students might be able to experi-
ence in terms of learning. Further, as Nuthall (2004) noted, teachers commonly attri-
bute failure in student learning to the students’ lack of ability or motivation, rather
than to their own teaching. Participating in a learning study challenges this view as
1810 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
the focus is moved from more general aspects of pedagogy to content-specific aspects
of teaching and learning. A final important aspect concerns the theoretical framing of
variation theory in identifying teachers’development of PCK. In short, the fundamen-
tal attribute of the theory is that the kind of learning we want to achieve requires dis-
cernment of critical aspects of what is characteristically called the object of learning.
To discern something means to be able to differentiate among the various aspects of a
phenomenon. The object of learning for the research in this paper was science tea-
chers’ development of (components of) PCK. As already been noted, PCK is a
complex phenomenon where components interact in very complex ways (Magnusson
et al., 1999). The teachers’ discernment of what was experienced as successful and
less successful in the different lessons might provide guidance on how different com-
ponents interact within a teaching situation. Variation theory thus has the potential to
become a valuable source of principles for science teaching that are directly useful for
both researching and developing teachers’ PCK.
Conclusions and Implications for Science Teaching
Kindt (2009) noted that if we can identify PCK as the knowledge that teachers use in
the process of teaching, our understanding of what ‘good science teaching’ looks like
and how to develop this more consistently might be enhanced. This study points to
the particular role of research-based learning in providing opportunity for teacher
learning as a metacognitive lens through which to view the task of science teaching
in the secondary classroom. During the learning study process the teachers developed
their self-understanding in which they questioned their aims and objectives of teach-
ing and taken-for-granted assumptions about science teaching and learning. Another
key insight was to limit the learning object and thus discern the science ‘Big Idea’
(Nilsson, & Loughran, 2012; Loughran et al., 2006) and develop an increased knowl-
edge about the relationship between subject content, teaching and student learning, in
other words, those aspects that are central to a teachers’ PCK. An important impli-
cation for this project is the importance of teacher PL as a collective process where
teachers and researcher(s) together explore students’ learning in relation to science
teaching. Another implication from the study is the need for teachers to discuss
with students their conceptions of scientific models, metaphors and analogies in
order to become aware of students’ difficulties in learning the specific content. Listen-
ing to students can enhance teachers’ PCK if teachers take the time to carefully con-
sider the conceptions that the students either bring to instruction or construct during
instruction. Further to this, content-specific discussions and metacognitive reflections
on the nature of science itself are important not only for the students but also for tea-
chers in order to develop their own content knowledge for teaching. As Loughran
(2006) noted ‘professional learning is not developed through simply gaining more
knowledge, rather, professional learning is enhanced by one becoming more percep-
tive to the complexities, possibilities and nuances of teaching contexts’ (p. 136). As
such, real possibilities for meaningful approaches to knowledge growth and practice
emerge as recognition of the necessary primacy of professionals’ knowledge. In
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1811
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
such a way, a learning study responds to teachers’ professional needs and concerns
with regard to teachers’ engagement, ownership and decision-making within their
classrooms. As the teachers in this study noted, it is everyone’s lesson, not only the
one teacher who conducts the lesson. It is a team effort that extends beyond the dis-
cussions about students’difficulties in general terms, and it focuses on students’ learn-
ing of particular science content (object of learning).
Although learning studies has become a successful approach to teachers’ PL, more
research on its effect on students’ as well as teachers’ learning is needed. Also, some
important questions need to be asked: What organizational support and actions are
needed to promote and sustain activities such as learning study that can enhance
science teaching and learning? And how can existing school culture be changed in
ways that support teachers’ engagement in innovative teaching practices that build
on collaboration in order to improve teaching and to enhance student learning?
To end, Van Driel and Berry (2012) argue that providing teachers specific input (e.g.
discuss key notions of teaching and learning a specific topic, enact certain instructional
strategies and reflect individually and collectively on their experiences) can contribute
to their PCK. Participating in a learning study might be one way to help teachers
develop knowledge of what makes difference in their students’ learning of science.
References
Adamson, B., & Walker, E. (2011). Messy collaboration: Learning from a learning study. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(2011), 29–36.
Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an
understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.
Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Van Driel, J. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content know-
ledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1271–1279.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 51, 211–217.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and gradu-
ate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5),
464–486.
De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowl-
edge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(8), 947–964.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Kwang, S. Y. (2001). What makes pro-
fessional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules:
Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical
bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education,
84(3), 352–381.
1812 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B.-S., & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional develop-
ment of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 577–
591.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2010). The pedagogy of physical science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kindt, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential
for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.
Kullberg, A. (2010). What is taught and what is learned (Doctoral thesis). Professional insights gained
and shared by teachers of mathematics, Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences 293.
Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning
about teaching. London: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ peda-
gogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical
content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical
content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions for learning. Journal of the Learn-
ing Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.
Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconceptions. International Journal of
Science Education, 23(7), 707–730.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding – The complex nature of PCK in pre-service
teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281–1299.
Nilsson, P. & Van Driel, J. (2010). Teaching together and learning together – Primary school science
student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint learning in the primary classroom. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1309–1318.
Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service elementary teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 699–721.
Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why
research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3),
273–306.
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.
Runesson, U. (2005). Beyond discourse and interaction. Variation: A critical aspect for teaching and
learning mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–87.
Runesson, U. (2008). Learning to design for learning. The potential of learning study to enhance
learning on two levels: Teacher’s and student’s learning. In T. Wood & P. Sullivan (Eds.),
Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics and teaching development (pp. 153–172). Rotterdam: Sense.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Edu-
cational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from edu-
cational research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(2), 123–158.
Taber, K. S. (2003a). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the lear-
ner’s prior learning. Science Education, 87(5), 732–758.
When Teaching Makes a Difference 1813
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Taber, K. S. (2003b). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching
model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43–84.
Van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in Science
education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(2), 137–158.
Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical
content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–38.
Appendix. Collection of data
Meeting 1: Discussion of the object for learning and designing the pre-test
Meeting 2: Analyzing the pre-test and planning the lesson
Meeting 3: Analyzing the post-test and stimulated recall reflection on lesson 1 to revise
the lesson
Meeting 4: Analyzing the post-test and stimulated recall reflection on lesson 2 to revise
the lesson
Meeting 5: Analyzing the post-test and stimulated recall reflection on lesson 3
Meeting 6: Final reflections of the whole process
1814 P. Nilsson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
tago
] at
23:
35 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014