| Introduction The field of education has been
challenged to define teaching and teacher education.
Defining something like teaching is no simple task. One
might think of the task, instead of a static action that
can be universally defined, as the current paradigm that
dominates our thinking about best practices for teaching.
Based on this paradigm we can generate criteria to define
and assess teaching, learning and teacher education.
Science education is no exception. However, it is
important to remember that these are the criteria based
on the current paradigm. Just as paradigms have shifted
in scientific thinking (Kuhn, 1996) so have paradigms of
teaching. If we concede that standards are sets of
criteria that reflect the current dominant views of a
community, then it can be useful to have such standards
to examine the assumptions, values, and beliefs of
science teaching, learning, and science teacher
education. Certain documents define the content students
should learn (e.g. Benchmarks for Science Literacy) and
similar documents describe the role of the teacher (e.g.
The National Science Education Standards). Recently a
number of organizations joined efforts to produce a
similar set of criteria for science teacher education.
These "draft" standards will be the focus of
this discussion. Some (Veal and MaKinster, 1999) feel that there has been explicit
mention of the importance of pedagogical content
knolwedge (PCK) in the Standards. However, we feel
that the connections between content and pedagogy, the
role of PCK as part of learning to teach science, should
be made more explicit in both the text and the
organization of the document.
|
Rationale for a Non-Linear Presentation (Ashmann) Veal
and MaKinster, 1999
|
| The NSTA Standards
for science teacher education proposes a linear model,
which does not accurately reflect the views of the entire
science education community. To illustrate how it is
problematic, this discussion will look at two of those
standards; Standard One addresses content knowledge
understandings and Standard Five addresses the pedagogy
of science teaching. The intent will be to show how the
standards are inextricably linked when taken in context.
The links between standards invite us to think about how
the linear model could restructured into a less linear
model. Further, it will introduce what we feel is a
missing piece of this document, namely the inclusion of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), as an essential
tenet in the current thinking about science teacher
education. |
|
| It is our position
that Content and Pedagogy should not be treated as
mutually exclusive. However, the structure of the
standards may lead to this conclusion. Examination of
Standards One and Five shows an overlap across standards.
Considering the consequences of this overlap invites us
to consider an alternate conception of the standards. A
model is proposed here, see figure 1, which joins content
and pedagogy into an essential tenet of the document.
This is an argument for a more connected and
contextualized thinking about the preparation of
teachers. In order to make this clear, it will be helpful
to look at each of these areas as described in the NSTA
Standards. Through this examination we will ask,
"Should we consider PCK when generating a framework
of standards?" We think that a non-linear, PCK
inclusive model better reflects the challenges and
consequences involved in science teaching. Therefore, a
new, less linear model of standards will be proposed.
Finally, we can look at this proposal and what it
potentially offers science teacher education. This model
will allow us to begin to ask important questions of the
model and of PCK as related to science teacher education.
We can ask, "How does such a model help us think
differently about science teacher education?" |
A Non-Linear Format (Ashmann) Figure 1.
|
| The Standards: Content and Pedagogy
Standard 1: Content
What is meant by content? From
our reading, content refers to the science knowledge a
teacher should possess. In this regard, the authors of
the NSTA Standards have effectively woven together a
complex set of ideas into a neat, easily understandable
set of standards for science teacher education. They
state:
|
Content |
"The program [teacher
education] prepares candidates to structure and
interpret the concepts, ideas and relationships in
science that are needed to advance student learning
in the area of licensure as defined by state and
national standards developed by the science education
community. Content refers to:
-> Concepts and
principles understood through science.
-> Concepts and
relationships unifying science domains.
-> Processes of
investigation in a science discipline.
-> Applications of
mathematics in science research." (National
Science Teachers Association, 1998)
It is hard to find fault in
these standards. We all hope that new teachers will
possess sufficient content understandings to teach
science.
|
Quote in context |
| However, there is a
lot to cover in these four brief statements. To resolve
this, the authors thoroughly address and consider major
theories of learning and some research that have taken
place in the science education community. Among teaching
and learning theories related to science education they
address constructivism, use of analogy and metaphor,
abstract or didactic teaching methods, conceptual
understanding, and others (National Science Teachers
Association, 1998). This shows the recognition the
authors had that content understanding relies on much
more than the rote memorization of facts. Further the authors recognize that people
in content disciplines teach many content specific
courses. Specifically they state,
"The content knowledge
of the prospective science teacher is developed
primarily in science courses taught by science
faculty. Assigning the development of the skills and
knowledge required by this standard to one or even
several science methods courses is unlikely to
produce the depth of understanding needed for
effective teaching practice. All science teacher
candidates should be provided with a carefully
designed, balanced content curriculum leading to a
demonstrated knowledge of the concepts and
relationships they are preparing to teach."
(National Science Teachers Association, 1998)
While this is realistic and
practical, it says little about teaching. Teaching is
left to Standard Five, which deals with pedagogy.
|
Quote in context |
| Standard
5: Pedagogy The
NSTA Standards authors define a model of pedagogy
familiar to teachers and teacher educators. This model
includes: actions and strategies of teaching,
organization of classroom experiences, providing for
diverse learner needs, evaluation and implementation of
learner's prior notions, and transformation of ideas into
understandable pieces. (National Science Teachers
Association, 1998) These familiar notions were clearly
described in Borko and Putnam's (1996) review of
literature on learning to teach. The treatment in NSTA
Standards look exclusively at literature related to
science teaching. The tenor of these standards is
reflective of teaching standards found in The National
Science Education Standards (NSES) (1996).
|
Pedagogy The
National Science Education Standards
|
| The NSTA Standards (1998)
suggest that teachers of science should be able to
provide all students the opportunity to learn from
science instruction, to make sense out of science and to
want to do more science. This is in the spirit of the
NSES, but no simple task. This statement involves
multiple pedagogical tasks including: addressing all
students' needs; planning activities that allow and
encourage students to learn and reason about problems;
trying to make sense of the world; and instilling in
students the desire to learn more science. (National
Research Council, 1996) |
Pedagogy The
National Science Education Standards
|
| Summary of the Standards Looking back at Content and Pedagogy
there were some important themes that overlapped in the
document. The Content section expected that teachers
would be able to make connections and see relationships
between concepts. While the Pedagogy section sought to
help students learn about scientific problems. Making
connections requires an understanding of the problems
faced in science learning. The Content section expects
science teachers to learn and teach about the process of
inquiry, while the Pedagogy section expects teachers to
plan experiences for their students to make inquires.
This presents the intersection in the learning how to
teach the process of inquiry. Making similar connections
relies on a facile understanding of both the content
students are learning and how students learn.
|
Content Pedagogy
|
| Considering PCK as an essential
tenet in Science Teacher Education Pedagogical Content Knowledge:
Something not sufficiently addressed
Why do we consider PCK an
essential part of science teacher education? There are
many explanations for this. In the following paragraphs
and in a subsequent section we will begin to explore PCK
as a construct. This allows us to move on to consider the
problems students of teaching face by the bifurcation of
content and pedagogy implicit in the standards and
explicit in university practices. And finally we can
begin to examine the assumptions of science, the science
education community and the roles that PCK plays in this
community.
|
|
| Lee Shulman (1987) developed
the construct of "pedagogical content
knowledge" (PCK) in response to some of the problems
of teaching and teacher education. This important
addition to thinking about teaching is recognized in the
content section of the NSTA Standards. Ironically it is
only mentioned to explain that the content standard would
be looking at the content specific aspect of this
construct. There is a connection between content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in science teaching,
which is implicit in many of the statements of the NSTA
Standards. Careful reading reveals connections in the two
domains that cannot be neglected. For example the
pedagogy standard suggests that teachers know about
"organization of classroom experiences"
(National Science Teachers Association, 1998). However to
design such "organizations" requires a deep
understanding of content. This is what Shulman (1987) is
talking about when stating, "the key to
distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the
intersection of content and pedagogy" (pg. 15). |
Content Quote in context
|
In this case, science teachers
must have content preparation, which usually takes place
outside of colleges of education. Such learning of
content presents problems for pre-service teachers and
science teacher educators. The NSTA Standards accurately
identify major problems with respect to this point. The
authors state:
[There is] "a poor
match between learner needs and teaching
methodology", "in many traditionally taught
courses the emphasis is on learning large amounts of
information at a rapid pace", and "division
of knowledge, for convenience into disciplines,
fields and subfields" that "may contain the
development of linkages among concepts across
fields" (National Science Teachers Association,
1998).
|
Quote
in context |
| Most science teacher content
knowledge comes from disciplinary fields, while
understanding of teaching comes from the field of
education. This separation, revealed in the problems
outlined above, reinforces a model of scientific
disciplines that is dissimilar from models of teaching
and learning science. Research has shown science teachers
approach scientific problems differently than scientists
due to their understanding of the pedagogical
implications of learning science (Borko & Putnam,
1996; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). Such
separation leads students of teaching to have bifurcated
understandings of science education. |
|
| Several studies have examined
the practical connections of PCK to science teaching.
These studies examine the value of attempting to teach
this principle to prospective teachers. A recent study by
van Driel, Verloop, and de Vos (1998) reviews this
literature and finds both support and change in teachers
as a result of developing pedagogical content knowledge.
They found, through empirical study, that there might be
value to having prospective teachers study subject matter
from a teaching perspective. This and other studies (e.g.
Gee, C., & others, 1996; Lederman, N. & Chang,
H., 1994; Glick, J. & others, 1992; Sowdre, J &
others, 1991; Smith D.C. & Neale, D.C., 1989) have
also shown the importance of PCK in teaching, especially
science teaching. To have a set of standards that implies
that pedagogy takes precedent over content or vise versa
seems to ignore this research. |
|
| Finally, we must think
carefully about the scientific ideas and concepts that we
would like students to learn. If we accept the
shortcomings of empiricism described by Quine (1953), and
the linguistic turn outlined by Rorty (1987), we must
begin to look for ways to reveal the assumptions and
beliefs shared by the scientific community. For example
much scientific knowledge is built on evidence. Students
of science need to understand the implicit value
scientists place on this kind of knowledge. Further these
students need to be able to understand the consequences
of these ideas and beliefs. Teachers of science need to
be prepared to help students uncover the embedded texts
of scientific ideas. PCK provides a useful lens for
teachers to begin to help students see the assumptions of
science. In the example cited above a teacher can help
students see the value of evidence in making a scientific
claim. However, this requires more than knowing content
and how to teach. It requires an understanding of how to
teach the content, namely PCK. |
|
| Making a case for a new model
In response to the need for
PCK, we propose a model, in which content and pedagogy
are joined, forming a leading edge in a less linear model
of standards, shown here in Figure 1.
|
|
|
| The use of
hypertext and multimedia tools facilitates a dynamic,
representative model of important ideas for teaching and
learning science. Using the NSTA Standards, an attempt at
such a web-based standards construction was developed.
See the companion article by Duggan-Haas, this issue. By
expanding our notion of presentation and structure this
new form of representation allows for a model that more
closely represents the complexity and challenges of
science teaching. |
Schematic of Contents
(Duggan-Haas) is essentially identical to Figure 1. |
| The drafted, linear
model builds on the existing bifurcation of content and
pedagogy within the university structure. However, it
does not recognize the complexities of science teaching
and obscures them from prospective teachers of science.
Teachers and scientists are different in many ways. Lemke
(1990) looked at discursive practices in science
education, while Latour and Woolgar (1986), and Traweek
(1988) looked at science discourse practices. Comparing
these we see distinct differences. Having a separated
perspective avoids conflict in these differing views. Is
it appropriate for future science teachers to learn and
be enculturated into such bifurcation? This question is
challenged by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) who calls for an increased
number of science courses which allow prospective science
teachers to become active rather than passive learners
(1998). Active learning involves confronting prospective
teachers with conflicts in bifurcation. These teachers
will be better prepared to make informed decisions about
the content and pedagogy of their science teaching. |
Project 2061 |
| Changing to an
integrated model, based on PCK, requires more
coordination between content specialists and pedagogy
specialists. Efforts are being made to build such
coalitions. These efforts will not easily come and will
require extensive work on the part of science teacher
educators and scientists. However, the benefits of such a
model could outweigh this drawback. The increased costs
should be easily outweighed by the benefit of more
knowledgeable, flexible and capable teachers. It will be
difficult to measure these benefits, but not impossible.
Increased primary and secondary student performance would
indicate that students were learning more from teachers
trained in this model. This is possible through
comparison with studies such as TIMSS (Valverde &
Schmidt, 1998) and NAEP looking for long term changes.
Regardless, this structure is more reflective of the
recommendation by AAAS that, "all science teachers
are literate enough in science to implement the goals
presented in Benchmarks and Standards (1998, pg.
191)." Developing science literacy and the ability
to transform this knowledge into learning opportunities
requires more than an understanding of content and
pedagogy. It requires an understanding of their
intersection. |
For
general information on the TIMSS study see... Project 2061
The
National Science Education Standards
|
| It is easier to
accommodate larger classes and more students in the
bifurcated structure. There can be large courses in
colleges of natural science where students passively
receive science instruction. Further, in colleges of
education, it is possible to have pedagogy courses that
are not connected to a particular discipline. This allows
colleges of education to offer fewer courses, while
accommodating the same number of students. For example if
there are only 12 science teacher candidates, a small
class under normal circumstances, the college can offer a
pedagogy course that is not specific to science and these
students are accommodated without the addition of another
course. |
|
| However, this is a
rather limited approach to teacher preparation. It does
not look toward the kinds of knowledge a teacher needs,
rather it usually becomes a place to learn management
skills and content driven facts. These are only useful to
getting through a teaching experience instead of creating
competent teacher professionals ready to attack the
complex challenges of teaching. Further this is a static
view of the problem; it seems to expect that all students
are the same. Variation among students makes it necessary
to think about content and pedagogy together so that each
learning experience can be matched to the current needs
of the children. Shulman says this best stating,
"bifurcating content and teaching processes have
once again introduced into policy what had been merely an
act of scholarly convenience and simplification in the
research (pg.6)." The non-linear model confronts
this bifurcation and challenges its assumptions. |
|
| A further benefit
of the non-linear model is an increase of equality.
Equalty is important if we are to achieve the goals of
Science For All Americans, which strive for science
literacy for all Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren,
1989). This is of utmost importance for as Cusick (1992)
points out, schools are charged with reducing inequality.
Thinking about pedagogy and content together allows a
teacher to think about the needs of each student more
fully. Applying notions of pedagogy to science content
helps reveal what might be problematic for some groups,
encourages under-represented groups to participate, and
allows for greater flexibility within a classroom based
on the ability and interests of students. For example, a
recent study looked at how Native American worldviews
impacted science learning. Teachers were able to modify
learning goals and activities to be sensitive to the
worldviews of native Americans. This was a result of
these teachers' PCK. (Kawagley, Norris-Tull, &
Norris-Tull, 1998) Practitioners well versed in
pedagogical content knowledge do not readily adhere to
one theory of learning or science. With one student it
may be necessary to adjust for their ability, while in
other situations it is necessary to recognize the
student's conceptions of a topic (Posner, Strike, Hewson,
& Gertzog, 1982; Smith, 1990; Watson & Konicek,
1990). Adjusting to students' abilities is manageable in
the separated model, this is just good pedagogy. However,
most students enter science classrooms with a set of
conceptions about the world (Posner et al., 1982; Smith,
1990; Watson & Konicek, 1990). For teachers to build
on and challenge student conceptions, it is necessary for
teachers to have deep conceptual as well as pedagogical
understanding. This application of pedagogical
understanding to content understanding is a fundamental
premise behind pedagogical content knowledge. |
Science
for All (Duggan-Haas) Project 2061
|
| Conclusion The work done in the NSTA Standards for
science teacher education lays an excellent foundation
for working toward improvement in science teacher
preparation. However, the linear model in the
presentation fails to carry the message of changing
conceptions of the complexity of science teaching. The
report "A Nation at Risk" (1983) called for
increased academic requirements and increased rigor.
While this may be possible in the linear proposal, it is
more likely in the non-linear proposal. This seems
contradictory to some. However, it has been argued that
the coverage of content is less important than depth of
understanding (Valverde & Schmidt, 1998). Rigor
results from deeper understanding rather than increased
coverage. The bifurcated model does not help students of
teaching make connections between content understandings
and what it takes to teach that content. Without this
connection teachers are likely to continue to focus on
coverage of material in place of deep conceptual
understanding.
|
A Nation at Risk |
| If we are to change
science learning, it must start with science teaching.
This requires a shift of paradigms in the structure of
teacher education. The current paradigm of learning to
teach is reified in the linear model of standards, which
supports existing bifurcation and does not force teachers
and students to examine the embedded texts of science
knowledge. This begins to resemble another attempt at
"tinkering toward utopia" (Tyack & Cuban,
1995) that will leave us short of the goal of Science For
All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). We must
make a Kuhnian paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1996) to resolve
this problem. Such a shift is found in a model of
standards built around PCK, as an essential tenet to
making improvements in this problem. While this may be no
panacea, it provides opportunities for improvement. |
Further Steps
(Ashmann) |
| References American Association for the Advancement
of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science,
Mathematics and Technology education. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T.
(1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology
(pp. 673-708). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Cusick, P. A. (1992). The
Education System: Its Nature and Logic. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull,
D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous
worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and
relevance to the practice of teaching science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 133-144.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The
structure of the scientific revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S.
(1986). Laboratory life: The construction of
scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking
science: Language, learning and values. Norwood:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
National Commission on
Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk
. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
National Research Council.
(1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers
Association. (1998). CASE draft standards for the
preparation of teachers of science .
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A.,
Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation
of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual
change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227.
Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two
Dogmas of Empiricism, From a logical point of view
(pp. 20-46). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rorty, R. (1987). Science as
Solidarity. In J. S. Nelson, A. Megill, & D. N.
McCloskey (Eds.), The rhetoric of the human sciences:
Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs
(pp. 38-52). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Rutherford, F. J., &
Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge
and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Smith, E. L. (1990). A
conceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn,
R.Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), Psychology of
learning science (pp. 43-63). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes
and lifetimes: The world of high energy physics.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L.
(1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt,
W. H. (1998). First lessons from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study: Policy
challenge of cross-national comparisons.
(Unpublished). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N.,
& de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of research in
Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
Veal, W., & MaKinster, J. (1999) Pedagogical
Content Knowledge Taxonomies. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 3(4) Article
Two. http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html
Watson, B., & Konicek, R.
(1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting
children's experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9),
680-85.
|