Chapter 2
Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching
models and modelling in the context of a new
syllabus on Public Understanding of Science*
Abst
ract
:Asteachers’knowl
edge determi
nesto a l
arge extenthow they respond to
educati
onali
nnovati
on,i
ti
s necessary for i
nnovators to take thi
s knowl
edge i
nto
account when i
mpl
ementi
ng educati
onalchanges.Thi
s study ai
med at i
denti
fyi
ng
patternsi
n thecontentand thestructureofsci
enceteachers’knowl
edge,atapoi
nti
n
ti
me when they sti
l
lhad l
i
ttl
e experi
ence i
n teachi
ng a new subj
ect,thati
s,Publ
i
c
Understandi
ng of Sci
ence.W e i
nvesti
gated three domai
ns of teacher knowl
edge:
teachers’ pedagogi
cal content knowl
edge (PCK), subj
ect matter knowl
edge, and
generalpedagogi
calknowl
edge.A semi
-structured i
ntervi
ew and aquesti
onnai
rewere
used.From theanal
ysi
softhedata,two typesofteacherknowl
edgeemerged.Oneof
the typeswasmore i
ntegrated and more extended i
n termsofPCK.Teacherswho
represented thi
stype ofknowl
edge had devel
oped PCK thatconnected the vari
ous
programmedomai
nsofthenew sci
encesubj
ect.In both types,PCK wasfound to be
consi
stentwi
thgeneralpedagogi
calknowl
edge.Inbothtypes,however,subj
ectmatter
knowl
edge was si
mi
l
ar,and notdi
rectl
y rel
ated to the other knowl
edge domai
ns.
Impl
i
cati
onsforthei
mpl
ementati
onofthenew subj
ectaredi
scussed.
* Thi
schapterhasbeenacceptedforpubl
i
cati
oni
nResearchi
nSci
enceEducati
onas:Henze,I.
,Van
Dri
el
,J.
H.
,andVerl
oop,N.(2006).Sci
enceteachers’knowl
edgeaboutteachi
ngmodel
sandmodel
l
i
ngi
nthecontextof
anew syl
l
abusonPubl
i
cUnderstandi
ngofSci
ence.
11
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
2.1 Introduction
We know from previous research (Duffee & Aikenhead, 1992) that teachers’
knowledge determines largely how teachers react to educational reform. Little is
known, however, about the specific content and structure of this knowledge and
about its exact impact. The innovation in this study concerned the introduction of
Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.) as a new science subject for all students in
upper secondary education in the Netherlands. PUSc. (in Dutch: ANW) is intended to
help students to put science and technology into a wider cultural perspective, and to
gain insight into the relations between scientific knowledge and other important
aspects of our civilization. Students should gain a clear understanding of a scientist’s
activities, for example, designing and using models, developing theories, and carrying
out experiments (De Vos & Reiding, 1999). In this respect, the introduction of PUSc.
bears similarities to the vision on science education reform in many other countries,
such as Canada (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), the USA (AAAS, 1994), and the UK
(NEAB, 1998), which requires students be knowledgeable in varied aspects of
scientific inquiry and the nature of science. The introduction of PUSc. coincides with
a broad revision of secondary education in the Netherlands. Among other things, the
purpose of this innovation is to stimulate self-regulated learning, and to decrease the
emphasis on teacher-directed education. Science teachers, therefore, are not only
confronted with a new syllabus and new content, but are also expected to adopt new
pedagogical approaches, that is, guiding and supervising students’ learning processes
rather than lecturing, and the use of new media. These ideas correspond closely to
current international innovations which are aimed, among other things, to help
students develop rich understandings of important content, think critically, synthesize
information, and leave school prepared to be responsible citizens and life long learners
(Putnam & Borko, 1997). PUSc. was introduced in 1999, and is taught by teachers
who are experienced in teaching biology, chemistry, or physics. To become qualified
to teach the new science subject, the teachers took part in a one-year course, which
was conducted nationwide.
2.1.1 Aim of the study
In the last twenty years, following the cognitive shift in psychology, research on
teachers and teaching has increasingly focused on the knowledge and beliefs that
underlie teachers’ classroom practice, rather than their behaviour. The underlying
assumption is that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are critically important
determinants of how teachers teach (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986;Verloop, 1992). It is
necessary that innovators realizing educational changes take these knowledge and
beliefs into account.
Here we report on the methods and results of an analytical study to investigate various
domains of the knowledge of nine experienced teachers of physics, chemistry, and
biology, in the context of the introduction of PUSc. It was the aim of the study to
identify similarities and differences in the content and structure of the teachers’
knowledge at a point in time when they still had little experience in teaching the new
12
Chapter 2
science subject. We did not intend to describe in detail the personal knowledge of
each individual participant, but to chart the possible common patterns across the
knowledge of different teachers (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). From the
results of the study, ideas should be generated to enhance a successful implementation
of the new subject.
2.2 Teacher Knowledge
In the literature about teacher knowledge, various labels have been used, each
indicating a relevant aspect of this knowledge. Together, these labels give an overview
of the way in which teacher knowledge has been investigated to date (Verloop et al.,
2001). The most commonly used labels are “personal knowledge” (e.g., Connely &
Clandinin, 1985), “situated knowledge” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), “professional
craft knowledge” (e.g., Shimahara, 1998), “action-oriented knowledge” (Carter, 1990), and
“tacit knowledge”(Eraut, 1994).
Here, we use teacher knowledge to indicate the whole of teachers’ knowledge and
beliefs that influence their teaching practice. The concept ‘
knowledge’ summarizes a
large variety of cognitions, from conscious and well-balanced opinions to unconscious
and unreflected intuitions (Verloop et al., 2001). Teacher knowledge may have a range
of origins including both practical experiences, such as day-to-day practice, and formal
schooling in the past, that is initial teacher education or continued professional
training (Calderhead, 1996). The development of teacher knowledge is seen as a
gradual process of “tinkering and experimenting with classroom strategies, trying out
new ideas, refining old ideas, problem setting and problem solving”(Wallace, 2003, p.
8). This process has been found to be highly implicit (teachers are unaware they are
learning) and reactive (teachers learn in reaction to events), and can be understood as
‘
workplace learning’, or ‘
professional development’ (Bolhuis, 1995; Eraut, 2000;
Kwakman, 1999; Schön, 1987). From a personal constructivist point of view, the
learning teacher is “a constructivist who continually builds, elaborates and tests
his/her personal theory of the world” (Clark, 1986, p. 9), like “an experimental
scientist who designs his/her experiments round rival hypotheses”(Kelly, 1955; Pope
& Denicolo, 2001, p. 35).
What teachers learn is stored in mental representations that, taken together, make up
the cognitive systems or cognitive structures in their minds. These structures (cf.
mental models, interior images of the world) play an important role in the absorption
of, and reaction to new information. Because of new experiences, old structures are
disturbed, new structures arise and the whole of teacher cognitions (teacher
knowledge) change over time.
In secondary education, teacher knowledge, as defined above, is strongly related to the
subject taught (Meijer, Verloop, & Beijaard, 1999). In this respect, Shulman (1986)
introduced the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as an element of
what he called “the knowledge base for teaching”. Key elements in Shulman’s
conception of PCK are knowledge of representations of subject matter, on the one
hand, and understanding of specific learning difficulties and student conceptions, on
13
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
the other hand. In attempting to clarify the nature and features of PCK, various
scholars (e.g., Cochran, deRuyter, & King, 1993; Grossmann, 1990; Marks, 1990)
elaborated on Shulman’s work and conceptualised PCK in different ways, that is,
incorporating different attributes or characteristics (Van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos,
1998, p. 676). In our study of teacher knowledge, we defined PCK as teacher
knowledge about 1) instructional strategies concerning a specific topic, 2) students’
understanding of this topic, 3) ways to assess students’ understanding of this topic,
and 4) goals and objectives for teaching the topic in the curriculum. In this, we
followed the definitions of Grossman (1990) and Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko
(1999, p. 99). Up to now, little empirical research has been done on the connection
between PCK and other domains of teacher knowledge (Van Driel et al., 1998).
Because of the personal and situative character of teacher knowledge, some authors
argue that research on this topic can only yield a series of descriptions of individual
cases. Others, including us in this study, aim to overcome the idiosyncratic level by
looking for similarities in the knowledge of different teachers. Although teacher
knowledge is strongly related to individual experiences and circumstances, there are
aspects which are shared by groups of teachers who are in similar situations with
regard to variables such as subject matter, level of education, and age group of
students (Meijer et al., 1999).
Various instruments and procedures have been developed to investigate teacher
knowledge in a valid and reliable manner (Kagan, 1990). For example, in order to
understand the culture of the teachers from the inside out, so-called ‘narrative’
research methods are applied. Hereby, personal material such as ‘life story’,
‘conversation’ and ‘personal writing’ are used (Connely & Clandinin, 1990; Gergen,
1988). Some authors (Martinez, 2001; Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2003; Weber &
Mitchell, 1995) recommend the use of drawn or written metaphors to help teachers
articulate their views on learning and teaching. In this light, Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) point out the benefit of metaphors in our language system to help us
understand and clarify the meaning of abstract concepts like time or life, cf. the
metaphorical concepts “time is money” and “you’re wasting your time”. Both entail
that time (like money) is a limited resource, which entails in turn, that time is a
worthwhile commodity. The above examples show the essence of a metaphor, which
is “understanding and experiencing one kind of a thing in terms of another” (p. 5).
2.3 The context of the study
2.3.1 Changed perspectives on knowing, learning, and
teaching
We supposed that experienced science teachers’ current knowledge is shaped, among
other things, by the educational principles of the leading theories in learning
psychology in the last decades. As the development of teacher knowledge is seen as a
gradual process of picking up techniques, activities and materials (cf. “tinkering”,
Wallace, 2003; “bricolage”, Hubermann, 1993), these theories have found their ways
14
Chapter 2
to teachers through professional training and - implicitly - through techniques and
activities in schoolbooks and other materials in which these theories are applied.
We summarize the main theories on learning and teaching as organized by three
general perspectives, which are described as behaviourist-empiricist, cognitive-rationalist, and
situative-pragmatist-sociohistoric (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). These terms will be
explained below, related to Dutch science education. We recognize that other
organizing principles could be chosen and that many authors would characterize the
field in different terms.
Traditionally, Dutch science classrooms are organized according to the principles of a
behaviourist-empiricist perspective on the nature of knowing and learning (Greeno et al.,
1996). Learning environments are designed to support interactions in which
information can be transmitted efficiently to students by teachers, textbooks, and
other information sources (film, video, etc). In addition, traditional science education
is organized to support the acquisition of routine skills. Correct procedures for doing
assignments are displayed and opportunities are provided for rehearsal and practice,
including practice that is done as homework, which may be checked and recorded
during class sessions. The Dutch national curriculum traditionally contains physics,
chemistry, and biology as separate subjects, whose contents are ‘diluted’ forms of
academic contents with little practical relevance (De Vos & Reiding, 1999).
From the 1970s onwards, the cognitive turn in psychology has induced new
pedagogical and instructional approaches in science education. Learning
environments, which are designed on the principles of a cognitive-rationalist perspective
on knowing and learning (Greeno et al., 1996), connect instruction with students’
(intuitive) conceptual understandings and cognitive skills. Influenced by constructivism,
as a major approach in the cognitive-rationalist perspective, some small-scale projects
(e.g., PLON; see Eijkelhof & Kortland, 1988) have introduced a shift towards real-life
contexts and activities in science classrooms, which support students’ active
construction of knowledge and understanding. Two main aspects characterize these
activities: interactions with manipulative materials that exemplify scientific concepts,
and social interactions in which students discuss their understandings of those
concepts. In a constructivist view, an important role of classroom conversation is to
evoke students’ misconceptions and to explore their intuitions.
Recent innovations in science education are influenced by a situative-pragmatistsociohistoric perspective on knowing and learning (Greeno et al., 1996). This approach
views knowing and learning as situated in specific physical and social contexts as, for
example, Bruner (1996 p. 166) states: “While the mind creates culture, culture also
creates the mind”. Because the mind depends on dialogical exchange, collaboration in
practices and communities is crucial from this point of view. A specific application of
this approach into science education is the organization of learning environments in
which students learn the concepts and activities of science by learning to participate in
the characteristic discourse, and to use the representational systems and tools of the
scientific community. In authentic participation, students also learn the distinctive
limits and values of those practices. According to the principles of a situative-pragmatist15
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
sociohistoric perspective, learning the concepts of a domain is considered as being
attuned to constraints of activity that a community treats as constituents of those
concepts.
Throughout this article we will use the shortened term behaviourist for the behaviouristempiricist perspective, cognitivist and constructivist to describe approaches in the
cognitive-rationalist perspective, and situative when referring to the situativepragmatist-sociohistoric perspective on knowing, learning, and teaching.
2.3.2 Public Understanding of Science as a new separate
science subject
Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.) has recently been introduced alongside the
traditional science subjects (physics, chemistry, and biology) for all students of age 15
to 17 in non-vocational senior secondary education in the Netherlands. This new
subject is aimed at public understanding of science (‘science for all’) and not at
preparing and qualifying students for studying science in higher education. It is taught
to all students in senior secondary education, including those who after Grade 9 had
decided not to continue their studies of the natural sciences. Without aiming at a
thorough command of subject matter, PUSc. intends to provide every student with a
vision of what science and technology are, and what role they play in modern society.
A distinctive new element in this syllabus is the critical reflection on scientific
knowledge and procedures. The educational goals of PUSc. are divided into six
domains, A to F, which are related to one another (see Figure 2.1, SLO
Voorlichtingsbrochure ANW, 1996, p. 10).
The learning of general skills (Domain A), such as language skills, computer skills, and
research skills should take place in combination with the learning of specific subject
matter (Domains C-F). In addition, the reflection on scientific knowledge and
procedures (Domain B) can be linked to specific science contents, for example,
‘Genetic engineering’ (Domain C) and the ‘Greenhouse effect’ (Domain D). Since the
PUSc. curriculum gives particular importance (in contrast to physics, chemistry, and
biology) to students’ awareness of the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced
and developed (Domain B), reflection on the nature of science (i.e., history, philosophy,
and scientific methodology) should be emphasized (SLO, Voorlichtingsbrochure
ANW, 1996).
16
Chapter 2
Domain A:
Skills
Domain C:
Life
Domain D:
Biosphere
Domain E:
M atter
Domain F:
SolarSystem
and Universe
Domain B:
Reflection on scientific
knowledgeand procedures
Figure 2.
1Relations between Program Domains in PUSc.
2.3.3 Models and modelling in Public Understanding of
Science
The activities of the scientific community, for example, designing and using models,
developing theories, and carrying out experiments, are framed by its culture.
Therefore, learning to understand the meanings and functions of these activities
involves more than can be explained in any set of rules or procedures. Students “need
to be exposed to the use of the domain’s tools in authentic activity” (Brown et al.,
1989). In the natural sciences models are developed, used and revised extensively by
scientists. Moreover, modelling has been seen as the essence of the dynamic and nonlinear processes involved in the development of scientific knowledge (Justi & Gilbert,
2002). Therefore, models (and in particular the production and testing of models by
students) can be used to help students gain insight into the activities of scientists. In
solving realistic problems, students can build and test their own models and discuss
them in classroom situations. For this purpose, issues can be obtained from what
students know from their own daily lives, but social or professional science and
technology contexts (i.e., PUSc. Domains C-F) can also be used in this way.
Aiming at improving students’ comprehensive understanding of the main processes
and products of science, Hodson (1992) proposed three purposes for science
education: (i) learn science, that is, to understand the ideas produced by science (i.e.,
concepts, models, and theories), (ii) learn about science, that is, to understand important
17
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
issues in the philosophy, history, and methodology of science, and (iii) learn to do science,
that is, to be able to take part in those activities that lead to the acquisition of scientific
knowledge. As the importance of models and modelling in science has been widely
recognized, the key to Hodson’s purposes (i.e., students’ comprehensive
understanding of science) must be a central role for models and modelling in science
education. In this light, the subject PUSc. may offer an appropriate framework (Table
2.1). To help students gain a rich understanding of the main products and processes
of science, the learning of scientific models (Domains C to F) and the act of modelling
(Domain A) should go together with a critical reflection on the role and nature of
models in science (Domain B).
Table 2.1 PUSc. as a framework to improve students'comprehensive understanding of science
PUSc. Domains
A
C to F
B
Hodson (1992)
Learn how to do
science
Learn science
Learn about
science
Justi & Gilbert (2002)
Learn to produce and
revise models
Learn the major
models
Learn the nature
of models
The above analysis implies, for example, that in the learning of particular subject
matter (Domains C to F) the teacher should pay attention to the history of the scientific
model(s) used (Domain B). In addition, the teacher should combine teaching strategies
aiming at the guidance of students’ modelling activities (Domain A) with a discussion
on the functions and characteristics (Domain B) of models in science.
To achieve these aims, it is necessary that teachers have an adequate understanding of
the nature of models and modelling in science. Recent research (Harrison, 2001; Van
Driel, & Verloop, 1999), however, shows that teachers’ knowledge of models and
modelling in science is often limited and problematic. Justi and Gilbert (2002) relate
this to the fact that it is only recently that teachers have begun to use models and
modelling in science education, in the way described above: teachers had no
opportunity to acquire the necessary experience, yet.
As teachers of PUSc. are not only confronted with new aims of teaching models and
modelling but also with new pedagogical approaches, that is, guiding and supervising
students’ learning processes rather than lecturing, and the use of new media, it was
deemed important to investigate the content and the structure of their knowledge
about teaching models and modelling in the context of the introduction of PUSc. We
put the following research question central: W hat is the content and structure of the
knowledge about teaching models and modelling of experienced science teachers at a time when they
still have little experience of teaching Public Understanding of Science?
To this end, science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of models and
modelling is investigated in relation to their general pedagogical knowledge (that is
general perspectives on learning and teaching) and their subject matter knowledge in
this area.
18
Chapter 2
2.4 Method and procedure
To investigate teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling, we used
two instruments in the study. We started with a semi-structured interview on the
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge. A part
of this interview consisted of a selection of written metaphors, representing the three
perspectives on knowing, learning and teaching (Greeno et al., 1996, see section 2.3.1)
to be commented on. Next, we used a questionnaire to investigate the teachers’
subject matter knowledge about models and modelling in science. Before a description
of the actual data collection, some attention is paid to the participants in the study and
how they were selected.
2.4.1 Participants
This study was conducted among nine PUSc. teachers working at five different
schools. They were users of the teaching method ‘ANtWoord’ (in English: ‘Answer’).
In Dutch the capitals ANW stand for ‘Algemene Natuur Wetenschappen’, of which a
literal translation in English is: ‘General Science’. De Vos & Reiding (1999), however,
have suggested that the content of the syllabus is better represented by the name:
Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.). We selected method ANtWoord to be used
by the participants in our study, because of its accent on the role and nature of
scientific models. This method has, for instance, a chapter on ‘Solar System and
Universe’ (Domain F), in which students have to develop models to describe and
explain the seasons on earth, and discuss them in the classroom afterwards. Students
also learn historical models of the solar system, such as Ptolemy’s geocentric model
and Copernicus’ heliocentric model, and debate their strengths and weaknesses. In the
context of a chapter on ‘Life’ (Domain C), students develop models of the ‘immune
system’. In other PUSc. teaching methods, scientific models and the act of modelling
do not receive the same degree of attention. In those methods, by contrast, reflection
on scientific knowledge and procedures is mainly realized by students’ engagement in
discussions, forming opinions, and designing posters on specific topics from Domains
C to F. The nine teachers replied to a written invitation we sent to the users of
ANtWoord. After meetings we organized at their schools (to explain the purposes and
conditions), the teachers agreed to take part in the study. The teachers, all male, varied
with regard to their backgrounds, years of teaching experience, and original teaching
disciplines (Table 2.2). They were all among the first PUSc. teachers at their schools.
To become qualified for the new science subject, the teachers took part in an inservice programme, which was conducted nationwide. This course consisted of
workshops and conferences (60 hours altogether), and self-regulated study activities,
also amounting to approximately 60 hours. In this course, new teaching strategies and
new science content with regard to the various program domains of PUSc. (A to F)
were discussed. In addition, much attention was paid to organizational aspects of the
implementation of the new subject in school.
19
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Table 2.2 Features of the participants
School
Number of teachers
in the study
Disciplinary
background
Years of teaching
experience*
A
B
C
1
1
2
D
2
E
3
physics
biology
1 chemistry
1 biology
1 physics
1 chemistry
1 physics
1 chemistry
1 biology
11
25
8
15
23
22
26
9
11
* In the teachers’ own discipline, at the start of the study
2.4.2 Data collection
The data collection consisted of two parts, that is, a semi-structured interview to
investigate the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) of models and modelling, and a questionnaire to investigate their
subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science. The interview and the
questionnaire were conducted to the teachers by the first author of this article.
2.4.2.1 Semi-structured interview
With all teachers, a semi-structured interview was held. The interview questions were
developed on the basis of the results of a study of the relevant literature on teacher
knowledge, on the one hand, and models and modelling in science education, on the
other hand. The initial interview schedule was tested on four PUSc. teachers (not
among the nine participants in the study). As a result of this pilot study, some
interview questions were rephrased or replaced in the interview schedule. Two new
questions were added to the scheme. The final interview consisted of four parts.
Parts 1 and 2 included questions that were indicators for the teachers’ general
pedagogical knowledge: for example, What do you think is the best way for students
to learn?Do you think that teaching has an impact on students’ learning?If so, what
can you do to improve students’ learning? To get more insight into the teachers’
pedagogical perspectives, we also asked them to comment on a selection of
metaphors, representing the three perspectives on knowing, learning, and teaching
(Greeno et al., 1996). These metaphors (Table 2.3) were taken from studies by Ebbens
(1994), Fox (1983), and Martinez (2001).
The metaphors were presented to the teachers on small cards. The teachers were
asked to read the metaphors aloud, and to make comments. This gave the teachers the
opportunity to react freely to all aspects of each metaphor (Oolbekkink-Marchand,
2003). The use of metaphors was a way to activate the teachers’ personal knowledge
and beliefs about learning and teaching, and help them express this knowledge.
20
Chapter 2
Table 2.3Some metaphors about learning and teaching used in the interviews
Perspective
Metaphors about learning (part 1)
Interpretation from the
perspective of learning
Behaviourist
Learning is storing data
Learning has taken place if the
quantity of knowledge has
increased
Constructivist
Learning is acting like a detective who
looks for things and into things
Learning is the consequence of
dealing actively with the
environment in the
construction of knowledge
Situative
Learning is joint work, as done by ants
collaborating to achieve a result which is
beneficial to all
Learning is a consequence of
authentic participation in the
activities of a community of
practitioners
Perspective
Metaphors about teaching (part 2)
Interpretation from the
perspective of teaching
Behaviourist
A teacher is a gardener who gives every
plant in his garden what it needs
It is the teacher’s task to
motivate students and organize
learning activities, feedback,
and reinforcement
Constructivist
It is the teacher’s task to arrange a
construction site for students and deliver
the necessary materials
The teacher should create
exploratory and interactive
learning environments
Situative
Teaching is acting like a tourist guide who
negotiates a destination and a route with
the tourists.
The curriculum should reflect a
set of commitments about the
kinds of activities that students
should learn to participate in
Parts 3 and 4 of the interview included questions which aimed at eliciting the teachers’
PCK of the learning and teaching of models and modelling in PUSc. To make this
subject more concrete (to the teachers), a series of questions was asked on Chapter 3
of the ANtWoord workbook titled: ‘Solar system and Universe’ (Domain F). In the
context of this chapter, the teachers were questioned about the four knowledge
elements of PCK mentioned earlier (see section 2.2), namely, knowledge about (1)
instructional strategies concerning a specific topic, (2) students’ understanding of this
topic, (3) ways to assess students’ understanding of this topic, and (4) goals and
objectives for teaching this topic in the curriculum. In the context of this chapter, the
topic focused on was ‘Models of the Solar System’.
All interviews took place privately in a place chosen by the teacher (e.g., the teacher’s
classroom, or a small office), shortly after he had finished the chapter on the solar
system and universe. A cassette recorder was used to tape the conversation. Probing
and clarification techniques (Emans, 1989) were applied when the teachers’ answers
were considered as not relevant, not clear, or incomplete. The interviews took one
hour to one and a half hours. Afterwards, all interviews were transcribed in full. This
21
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
involved a direct transcription of all utterances, with added symbols to capture long
pauses, hesitation, stressed words, and laughter.
2.4.2.2 Questionnaire
To chart the teachers’ understanding and subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science, a questionnaire was used, which had been developed by the
second and third authors of this article, as part of a study on new teachers in PUSc.
(Van Driel & Verloop, 1999).
This instrument encompasses four sections, of which we used only one in our study.
This section focuses on the teachers’ understanding of and beliefs about scientific
models and the act of modelling, and consists of two scales (Table 2.4): (1) statements
on the relationship between a model and its target (11 items), and (2) statements on
the construction and use of models in a social context (8 items). These statements
were scored on a four-point scale, ranging from 1 = never, through 2 = sometimes and 3
= mostly, to 4 = always.
Table 2.4Scales within the questionnaire on models,and sample items
Scales
Sample scale - items
Relating models and targets
A model is a simplified reproduction of reality
A model is meant to explain a phenomenon
One attempts to keep a model as simple as possible
Social context of models
Creativity is a major factor in the development of
models
A model depicts the ideas of scientists
The development of a model is guided by questions
of the researcher
In the study by Van Driel and Verloop (1999), 2.99 was the mean score on the first
scale (standard deviation 0.40; Cronbach’s alpha 0.75), and 2.76 was the mean score
on the second scale (standard deviation 0.38; Cronbach’s alpha 0.64).
The nineteen items were presented to the teachers in written form, and items from the
two scales were alternated. At schools with more than one participant, the teachers
answered the questions in the same room, at the same time. Completion of the
questionnaire took about half an hour.
22
Chapter 2
2.5 Analysis
2.5.1 General pedagogical knowledge
The analysis of the collected data started with part 1 and part 2 of the semi-structured
interview. To analyse the teachers’ answers to the questions and reactions to the
metaphors in terms of their general pedagogical knowledge, codes were developed for
the various aspects of learning and teaching which were mentioned by the teachers in
their interview responses, for example, motivation, curriculum, diversity of students,
and assessment. These codes, reflecting the three main perspectives on knowing,
learning and teaching, were interpretations of the definitions of Greeno et al. (1996).
The codes were tested on the interview data of two different teachers, to see if all the
variations in the statements could be covered. As a result, some codes had to be
reformulated. The final codebook was the result of different steps of testing and
adapting the codes, until the first and second authors reached consensus on all codes
to be used (names and interpretations from the three perspectives).
2.5.2 PCK
The analysis of the interview data from parts 3 and 4 of the interview was related to
the teachers’ PCK. First, the interview fragments involved were read a few times,
thoroughly. Next, codes (Table 2.5) were developed for the four elements of PCK
(see section 2.4.2.1). Like the coding of the general pedagogical knowledge, this
process took place at the level of the subjects, and consensus was reached on all codes
to be used. It was concluded that similar codes could be employed for knowledge
about instructional strategies concerning ‘Models of the Solar system’ and knowledge
about students’ understanding of ‘Models of the Solar system’ (PCK elements 1. and
2.). These knowledge elements were typified by three codes: (i) one code representing
the content of models (teachers have knowledge about the teaching of specific concepts
in relation to certain models, and have knowledge about students’ understanding of
these concepts); (ii) one code standing for thinking about models (teachers know how to
make students reflect on the nature of models, and have knowledge about their
students’ understanding of the nature of models); and (iii) one code related to the
production of models (teachers know how to stimulate students’ model production and
testing, and have specific knowledge about students’ modelling skills). These three
codes can be linked, roughly, to the PUSc. Domains C to F (i), B (ii), and A (iii).
After reading and discussing the teachers’ responses to the interview questions about
ways of assessment in the context of teaching ‘Models of the Solar System’, it was
found that the teachers’ PCK about ways to assess students’ understanding (element
3.) of this topic could be typified using the following codes (and ways of assessment):
(i) written test on model content; (ii) oral and poster presentation, or account, as
products of self-directed work; (iii) a paper or an essay on the students’ reflection
upon the nature of models; (iv) students’ modelling activities; (v) classroom debate on
the heliocentric and geocentric models; (vi) portfolio on the preparation of the debate
on models; (vii) observation of group work.
23
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Table 2.5Codes for the teachers’ PCK
PCK elements
Codes
1. PCK-instructional strategies
(i) Model content
(ii) Model production
(iii) Thinking about models
2. PCK-students’ understanding
(i) Model content
(ii) Model production
(iii) Thinking about models
3. PCK-ways to assess students
(i) Written test on model content
(ii) Oral and poster presentation, or account,
as products of self-directed work
(iii) Paper or essay on the students’ reflection
upon the nature of models
(iv) Students’ modelling activities
(v) Classroom debate on the heliocentric and
geocentric models
(vi) Portfolio on the preparation of the
debate on models
(vii)Observation of group work
4. PCK-goals and objectives in the
curriculum
Codes for epistemological perspectives:
(i) Positivist
(ii) Relativist
(iii) Instrumentalist
Codes for the use of models in the classroom:
(i) Visualize phenomena
(ii) Explain phenomena
(iii) Obtain information about phenomena
which cannot be observed directly
(iv) Derive hypotheses which may be tested
(v) Make predictions on reality
Regarding the PCK of goals and objectives in the curriculum (element 4.), it was
decided, following repeated reading and discussion of the teachers’ responses, to
typify their answers using two different kinds of codes. First, generally speaking, the
teachers expressed their epistemological perspectives. In analysing these perspectives,
Nott and Wellington’s classification of epistemological views (1993) was applied, on
the basis of which three codes were developed: (i) positivist, in which models are seen
as simplified copies of reality; (ii) relativist, in which models are seen as one way to view
reality; and (iii) instrumentalist, in which the question is whether models ‘work’, instead
of ‘being true’. Second, teachers’ statements about the purposes of using models in the
classroom were coded in terms of the various functions of models in science: (i) to
visualize phenomena; (ii) to explain phenomena; (iii) to obtain information about
phenomena which cannot be observed directly; (iv) to derive hypotheses which may
be tested; and (v) to make predictions on reality.
24
Chapter 2
2.5.3 Subject matter knowledge of models and modelling
in science
To determine the teachers’ subject matter knowledge about scientific models and
modelling, the teachers’ scores for the items of the questionnaire were analysed. The
mean scores were determined for both scales in the questionnaire, at the level of the
teachers, and these scores were compared with those reported in the study by Van
Driel and Verloop (1999). As in their study, high scores (3 and higher) on the scale for
the relation between model and target were interpreted as indicative of the belief that
a model is a simplified copy of reality, whose main function is to provide (causal)
explanations for phenomena. Likewise, high scores on the scale for the social context
of models were interpreted as indicative of the idea that models are the products of
human thought, creativity, and communication between scientists. In addition to the
scores on the scales, the teachers’ scores for items were compared, to see how the
teachers evaluated specific statements.
2.6 Results and discussion
As indicated in the introduction, the aim of this study was to identify common
patterns in the knowledge of the nine teachers. With this in mind, differences and
similarities in the teachers’ knowledge in the various domains were analysed. The
following report of the results is based on this aim.
2.6.1 Two types of teacher knowledge
After coding the teachers’ statements on the three domains of teacher knowledge
(general pedagogical knowledge, PCK, and subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling), we put together, per domain and per element (for PCK), the coded
statements. With this, the variety of statements within each domain became clear. We
examined carefully the various sets of statements and identified for each teacher the
combinations of codes that arose across the different domains. Next, we compared
these combinations across the nine teachers, and two patterns (i.e., specific
combinations of codes, which recurred - more or less - strictly) emerged. Using these,
we constructed two types of teacher knowledge: Type A and Type B (Tables 2.6 and
2.7). These two types will be described in a general way below. In the next sections,
we will describe each type more concretely, portraying the knowledge of two teachers,
each of whom was - almost - typical of one of these types.
2.6.1.1 Type A
In Type A, the various knowledge domains are associated with each other in the
following way. In the domain of general pedagogical knowledge, we noticed a
combination of behaviourist and cognitive perspectives on learning and teaching:
behaviourist with regard to the organization of learning environments and cognitive
with regard to learning. PCK of instructional strategies includes knowledge that is
aimed at the transmission of the content of certain models (i.e., of the solar system),
together with knowledge about effective methods and materials to support students’
25
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
understanding of the content of these models and to help students connect the
models with reality. PCK of students’ understanding of and difficulties with specific
concepts is mainly based on the interpretation of the results of written exams. PCK of
goals and objectives in the curriculum with regard to models and modelling reflects a
combination of positivist and instrumentalist views: models are seen as reductions of
reality, aimed at visualizing and explaining different phenomena. PCK of ways to
assess students’ understanding includes the same goals: both students’ content
knowledge of models and their use of models as ‘tools’ are evaluated using exams and
oral presentations.
With regard to the teachers’ subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in
science in Type A, we also found a combination of two different views. From the high
scores on both scales in the questionnaire, we concluded that the teachers would
support the idea that a model is a simplified reproduction of reality, on the one hand,
while recognizing that models are the products of human thought, creativity, and
communication, on the other hand.
Table 2.6Type A Teacher Knowledge
General pedagogical knowledge
Behaviourist and cognitive perspectives on
teaching and learning
PCK-instructional strategies
Knowledge about specific multi-media (film,
video) and concrete materials to support
students'understanding of model content,
and knowledge of ways to connect models
with reality
PCK-students’ understanding
Knowledge about students’ difficulties with
the content of specific models, and inability
to connect models with reality
PCK-ways to assess students’ understanding
Knowledge about examination on model
content and model application using written
exams, oral presentations, posters, and
reports
PCK-goals and objectives in the curriculum
Epistemological views which can be
understood as positivist and instrumentalist;
Knowledge about the use of models to
visualize and explain phenomena
Subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science
A positivist epistemological view, combined
with the idea that models are constructed in a
social and cultural context
2.6.1.2 Type B
This type of teacher knowledge is dominated by cognitive and constructivist aspects.
These show up in the teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge, but also in their PCK.
PCK of instructional strategies includes knowledge about motivating and challenging
tasks that are aimed at supporting students’ understanding of model content and
model production or comparison (debating), and about effective ways to promote
26
Chapter 2
students’ creativity in thinking about the nature of models, and model production.
PCK of students’ understanding includes knowledge about students’ motivation,
difficulties, and inabilities concerning scientific models and modelling activities, and
knowledge about students’ affinity with specific models. This knowledge is based on
students’ results in exams, the evaluation of presentations, reports, and portfolios,
discussion of their modelling and debating activities, and observation of teamwork.
Table 2.7Type B Teacher Knowledge
General pedagogical knowledge
Cognitive and constructivist perspectives on
teaching and learning
PCK-instructional strategies
Knowledge about motivating and challenging
assignments to promote students’ learning of
model content;
Knowledge about effective ways/methods to
promote students’ thinking about the nature
of models (e.g., debating, modelling activities,
computer simulation);
Knowledge about ways to stimulate students’
creativity
PCK-students’ understanding
Knowledge about students’ motivation to
discover things themselves;
Knowledge about students’ motivation and
abilities to participate in modelling and model
thinking activities;
Knowledge about student’s affinity with
specific models
PCK-ways to assess students’ understanding
Knowledge about how to evaluate model
content, model production and thinking about
the nature of models using exams, oral
presentations, reports, portfolios and group
observations
PCK-goals and objectives in the curriculum
Epistemological views: instrumentalist and
relativist;
Knowledge about the use of models to
visualize and explain phenomena,
obtain information about phenomena which
cannot be observed directly, and derive
hypotheses which may be tested
Subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science
A positivist epistemological view, combined
with the idea that models are constructed in a
social and cultural context
In the PCK of goals and objectives for teaching models and modelling in the
curriculum, not only the visualization and explanation of phenomena are emphasized,
but also how to formulate and test hypotheses, and how to obtain information about
phenomena. Models are conceived of as instruments but also as ways to view reality
(relativist epistemological view). The subject matter knowledge of models and
modelling in science in this type is not different from that in Type A.
27
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Following a comparison of the answers and reactions of the nine teachers with the
above types of knowledge, we considered the knowledge of five teachers to be typical
of Type A, while the knowledge of three was qualified as typical of Type B. The
knowledge of one teacher fell outside both categories because of the unique
combination of codes we had to apply to his statements. In the next sections, we will
describe the knowledge of two teachers in more detail: we have called one teacher
“Jim” (representing Type A) and the other teacher “Sam” (representing Type B).
2.6.2 Jim’s knowledge (Type A)
2.6.2.1 General pedagogical knowledge
Jim’s general pedagogical knowledge about learning and teaching can be described as a
combination of behaviourist and cognitive perspectives. Although he acknowledged
that students play an active role in learning, he reacted more or less negatively to
metaphors representing a constructivist or situative perspective. In Table 2.8, we put
together some statements that are typical of Jim’s reactions, together with the
metaphors he reacted to, and the codes we applied to his reactions.
2.6.2.2 PCK
We discuss Jim’s PCK based on his reactions to the interview questions about learning
and teaching models and modelling with regard to the solar system, in the context of
the ANtWoord chapter on the solar system and universe. PCK is divided into the
above-mentioned four elements.
Knowledge about instructional strategies: Jim had much knowledge of instructional
strategies to effectively transmit and explain knowledge to his students, using physical
models of the solar system, films, and videos: “We let them play, in structured
assignments, with wooden sticks and balls and a lamp. They like it, and they get more
insight into the model”. His lessons on ‘Models of the Solar System’ were mainly
aimed at teaching and explaining the Copernicus’ heliocentric model. He developed
new, more structured material for his students because, in his opinion, the ANtWoord
exercises are “too vague”. He stressed the observation of phenomena (positions of
moon, sun, stars) by the students. The usefulness of various models of the solar
system on explaining these observations should be tested in the lessons.
Because of unfavourable weather conditions and organizational problems, the
observational part of his lessons was not successful and he was unhappy with this: “It
is hard to take that they (the students) have a model in mind while they don’t even
know what can be seen, because we were not able to design an effective observation
task”. According to Jim, students’ production of their own models and a classroom
debate on models of the solar system make no sense.
28
Chapter 2
Table 2.8Examples of Jim’s general pedagogical knowledge
Question or metaphor
Jim’s response
Applied code
What do you think is the best
way for students to learn?
Something new has to fit into
an existing framework, and you
(the teacher) are the one who
has to make this link
Learning-cognitivist:
understanding and
learning of new material
depend strongly on what
students already know
Teaching-cognitivist:
it is the job of the teacher
to base instruction on
students’ prior knowledge
Learning is joint work, as done
by ants collaborating to achieve
a result which is beneficial to all
I think the result of this work is
not clear to students; they have
to see the point of it, and for
them the result of learning is a
good mark
Motivationbehaviourist:
students’ active
participation occurs
mainly because of
extrinsic motivation i.e.
rewards and punishments,
as well as expected
outcomes of their
engagement
Teaching is like a tourist guide
who negotiates a destination
and a route with the tourists
No, the destination is laid down
in the programme, and you
should not discuss the route too
much, because that will be too
confusing for them [the
students].
Teaching-behaviourist:
it is the job of the
curriculum and the
teacher to organize
students’ practices, and to
provide clear plans and
goals.
Teaching is a game of billiards;
you have to know how to play
in order to send the balls in the
right direction
Yes, but balls roll systematically,
and students do not. Yet, you
want to send them in a certain
direction; to make order out of
chaos
Learning-cognitivist:
students differ in their
learning strategies, and in
the interest and
understanding they bring
to school activities.
Teaching-behaviourist:
it is the job of the
curriculum and the
teacher to organize
students’ practices, and to
provide clear plans and
goals.
Learning is building
Yes, piling up knowledge
Learning-behaviourist:
learning is an increase of
the quantity of knowledge
29
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Knowledge about students’ understanding: Jim showed little specific knowledge of his
students’ understanding of the heliocentric model and some historical models (i.e.,
Ptolemy’s geocentric model) of the solar system. He stated that, in the context of this
chapter, his students “need concrete manipulative materials, small and concrete
assignments, and questions with concrete answers. They also need clear learning goals,
in order to be well prepared for their exams”.
Knowledge about ways to assess students: Jim’s assessment of his students’
understanding of this chapter consisted of exams with knowledge and application
questions about concepts contained in the heliocentric model and some historical
models of the solar system. His students also had to carry out various tasks during the
lessons, the results of which he evaluated, too. Finally, Jim assessed students’ writing
of letters to an astronomer about their views on the theory of the Big Bang.
Knowledge about goals and objectives in the curriculum: Jim used models in the
curriculum to explain phenomena. Jim conceived of models as reductions of reality,
and not as truths: “I always try to emphasize two viewpoints: a scientific, rational view
and an irrational way of thinking (i.e., wonderment and respect for the creation of
earth and heaven)”.
2.6.2.3 Subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science
On the questionnaire’s scale ‘relationship between model and target’, Jim’s main score
was 2.9. At item level, we noticed that Jim gave the highest score (4 = always) to the
following statements: ‘A model is a simplified reduction of reality’, ‘One attempts to
keep a model as simple as possible’, ‘A model is meant to explain a phenomenon’, and
‘When developing a model, one attempts to exclude as many irrelevant aspects of its
target as possible’. Jim gave a score of 1 (= never) on the item ‘In the course of
development, the model corresponds more to its target’. On the other scale, about the
‘construction and use of models’, his main score was 2.6. Here, he gave a score of 4 to
the statement ‘A model is meant to give an overview of complex phenomena’, and of
1 to ‘A model is meant to represent an abstract concept’.
We conclude that Jim holds a mainly positivist epistemological view of models: above
all, he understands models in relation to empirical data, and not to concepts and ideas.
He sees models, primarily, as reductions of reality, which are aimed at explaining
phenomena.
In sum, it may be said that Jim’s PCK of teaching and learning models and modelling
in the context of a chapter on the solar system and universe can be understood as
model-content oriented. Expressing behaviourist and cognitive perspectives on learning
and teaching, Jim applied teaching methods, which are aimed at the transmission of
knowledge content, and the structuring of students’ activities. His knowledge about
students’ understanding reflects behaviourist and cognitive perspectives on learning,
too. His methods of assessment are related mainly to knowledge and understanding of
concepts contained in the heliocentric model and some historical models (e.g.,
Ptolemy’s geocentric model) of the solar system, also reflecting his focus on model
content. His knowledge about goals and objectives for teaching this specific topic in
30
Chapter 2
the curriculum reflects a positivist way of thinking, which corresponds to the way he
answered the questionnaire on models and modelling in science.
2.6.3 Sam’s knowledge (Type B)
2.6.3.1 General pedagogical knowledge
Sam’s general pedagogical knowledge about learning and teaching can be described as
a combination of cognitivist and constructivist perspectives. We did not find any
reactions reflecting a behaviourist or situative view of learning or teaching. In Table
2.9 are some statements, which are typical of Sam’s reactions, together with the
metaphors he reacted to, and the codes we applied to his reactions.
Table 2.9Examples of Sam’s general pedagogical knowledge
Question or metaphor
Sam’s response
Applied code
What do you think is the best
way for students to learn?
It is important that not
everything is new; You must
connect new knowledge to
something they already know,
(or to something they show
interest in)
Teaching-cognitivist:
it is the job of the teacher to
base instruction on students’
prior knowledge
Motivation-cognitivist and
constructivist:
engagement is considered to
be a student’s intrinsic interest
in a domain of cognitive
activity
Learning is storing data
Yes, but you have to make
connections in your brain to
find things back; There must be
a relation to other things,
otherwise stored data will never
be found again
Learning-cognitivist:
understanding and learning of
new material depend strongly
on what students already know
Learning is acting like a
detective who looks for
things and into things
It is important that they look
for things themselves
Learning-constructivist:
learning is the construction of
knowledge and understanding
by active interaction with the
environment
It is the teacher’s task to
arrange a construction site
for students
Yes, to give them the
opportunity (place and
material) to discover things
themselves, to construct things
themselves; I think I like that
Teaching-constructivist:
exploratory learning
environments are designed to
provide students with
opportunities to construct
conceptual understanding and
abilities
31
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
2.6.3.2 PCK
We discuss Sam’s PCK based on his responses to the interview questions about
teaching models and modelling with regard to the solar system, in the context of the
ANtWoord chapter on the solar system and universe. PCK is divided into the abovementioned four elements.
Knowledge about instructional strategies: Sam knew strategies to effectively promote
students’ understanding of the content of specific models of the solar system. He
sometimes used strategies in which the students’ observations played an important
role: “Students’ observations of time with help of a sundial can be used to explain the
time and direction of sunrise”. With regard to the models of the solar system, he
stated “To help them understand the content of various models, it is important to let
students’ play with balls, and explore things”. Sam puts a high value on strategies to
support student thinking. As a model production activity, the students had to think up
models to explain the seasons: “They have to think about it themselves: what does the
model look like, what can you do with it, how do you imagine it? I ask a lot of
questions, and they have to write down what they are thinking, and discuss it”.
Knowledge about students’ understanding: According to Sam, the movements of
planets are very difficult to understand: “Students have to work hard; but some of
them don’t feel like taking much trouble”. With regard to model production, he stated,
“Creativity is very important; whether they can think up new possibilities is a very
important step in thinking about models”. Finally, Sam noticed that in creating models
for the seasons, the students had more affinity with an earth that moves up and down,
or a sun that moves up and down, than with a tilting earth axis: “The first two models
are more logical, in their eyes”.
Knowledge about ways to assess students: Sam conducted a test on concepts
contained in the various models of the solar system. Sam: “Among other things, I
asked my students about their observations (positions of sun, moon, and planets): you
cannot discuss models of the solar system if you do not know about the positions and
movements”. His students were allowed to make notes (on a small piece of paper) to
use in the test. The exam also included questions to assess their skills in using a ‘map
of the stars’ (e.g., Set up your map to get Cassiopeia exactly north of the Polar Star.
What time it will be on February 1, then?). Finally, he assessed the students’ learning
and thinking processes, for which purpose his students had to keep a log on their
preparations of the classroom debate on the geocentric and heliocentric models.
Knowledge about goals and objectives in the curriculum: Sam insisted that his
students understood that “There are different kinds of models. Moreover, a model is
one way to look at reality. Models are of limited use, and are adaptable. It should not
be taken for granted that a phenomenon can be modelled in just one way: you can look
at things from different perspectives”.
32
Chapter 2
2.6.3.3 Subject matter knowledge of models and modelling in science
Sam took his time about filling in the questionnaire and seemed to give careful
consideration to his answers. He gave every statement on the scale about the modeltarget relationship a score of 3 (= mostly). He gave the items of the other scale (about
the social context of models) the same score, except for two statements which he gave
a 2 (= sometimes): ‘When developing models, several scientists compromise’, and ‘A
model is valid only within a certain period of time’.
On the basis of his scores on the first scale (model-target relationship), we conclude
that Sam conceives of models as reductions of reality, the main function of which is
the (causal) explanation of phenomena. We consider his scores on the second scale
(model-social context) to be representative of the idea that the development of a
model is guided by the questions of the researcher.
In sum, we consider Sam’s PCK of the learning and teaching of models and modelling
to be both model-content oriented and focused on thinking about models and model
production. From a constructivist perspective on learning and teaching, Sam has his
students discuss and argue in small groups (“Discussion is important to make them
think”). His methods of assessment are focused on knowledge and understanding of
concepts related to specific models, reflecting his focus on model content. He also
assesses the students’ thinking about the nature of models and model production. His
knowledge about curriculum objectives for teaching models and modelling shows an
epistemological view that can be termed relativist and instrumentalist. His responses
to the questionnaire on models and modelling in science show a vision in which
models are seen as social constructs, as well as a more positivist way of thinking about
science.
2.7 Conclusions and Implications
As a result of the data analyses, we have constructed two types of teacher knowledge
about models and modelling in the context of teaching PUSc.: Type A and Type B.
With regard to the content of both types of teacher knowledge, we conclude that within
each separate domain of the teacher knowledge investigated a combination of
different perspectives was shown. An example is the combination of a behaviourist
and a cognitive view in the domain of general pedagogical knowledge. This
combination can be explained by the supposition that the teachers’ current
pedagogical knowledge is shaped by the educational principles of the leading theories
in learning psychology in the last decades, and the idea that teachers usually develop
their knowledge gradually, in a process of picking up theories (implicitly) applied in
activities and techniques in schoolbooks and other materials, professional training, and
so on (see section 2.3.1). In our view, new knowledge does not just replace old ideas.
Since teachers’ preferred way of learning is “evolutionary and fundamentally
conservative, not revolutionary and transformative” (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999,
p.350), teachers’ knowledge is likely to change slowly and bit by bit, while possibly
representing different perspectives (“rival hypotheses”; Kelly, 1955) at the same time.
From this view on knowledge development, we can understand the appearance of a
33
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
constructivist perspective on learning and teaching (Greeno et al., 1996), while the
newer, situative perspective (as defined by Greeno et al., 1996) was still missing in the
teachers’ interview responses. The latter perspective can be found in schoolbooks (in
debating activities, for instance), but was not recognized by the teachers, as such.
Because teachers usually pick up activities (Wallace, 2003) that seem to fit with their
own styles, settings and students, they apply these activities from their own
perspective, for example, a constructivist one. Our view on teacher knowledge
development can also explain that most of the teachers showed a combination of two
perspectives on scientific models and modelling: this may be the result of combining a
traditional positivist view on science, related to their prior disciplinary education (cf.
Van Driel & Verloop, 1999), with a way of thinking that they picked up from recent
innovations in science education.
With regard to the structure of the teachers’ knowledge, we conclude that in both Type
A and Type B of teacher knowledge, PCK was found to be consistent with general
pedagogical knowledge. In Type A, in particular the PCK of instructional strategies
was found to be well developed. Teachers who represented Type A of teacher
knowledge had developed PCK about ‘Models of the Solar System’ in which the
model content of ‘Solar system and Universe’ (Program Domain F) was emphasized. In
Type A, PCK of instructional strategies, PCK of students’ understanding, and PCK of
ways to assess students, all reflect a focus on model content. Type B was more extended
and more integrated in terms of PCK. Teachers who represented this type of teacher
knowledge had developed PCK about ‘Models of the Solar System’ in which the
various program domains of the new science syllabus PUSc. were more connected.
PCK about instructional strategies, PCK about students’ understanding, and PCK
about ways to assess students, all reflect a view in which model content (Program
Domain F) is combined with model production (Domain A) and model thinking
(Domain B). See Table 2.10. In both Type A and Type B of teacher knowledge,
subject matter knowledge was least explicit, and not directly related to the other
knowledge domains (i.e., general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge).
Table 2.10Structure of Teacher Knowledge Type A and Type B
Main perspective in
the general
pedagogical
knowledge
Most developed element(s)
of the pedagogical content
knowledge of ‘Models of the
Solar System’
Main focus in the
pedagogical content
knowledge of ‘Models
of the Solar System’
Type A
Behaviourist /
cognitive
PCK-instructional strategies
Model content
Type B
Cognitive /
constructivist
PCK-instructional strategies,
PCK-students’ understanding,
PCK-ways to assess students
Model content,
Model production, and
Model thinking
On the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that those teachers who are
representing Type B of teacher knowledge about teaching models and modelling in
34
Chapter 2
PUSc., may have realized more aims of the educational innovations in secondary
education in the Netherlands, than those representing Type A. First, the teachers
representing Type B seem to have adopted pedagogical approaches which aimed to
stimulate self-regulated learning and to decrease the emphasis on teacher-directed
education, based on cognitivist / constructivist perspectives on learning and teaching.
Second, in teaching models and modelling, these teachers seem to have connected,
more or less, the educational aims of various program domains (i.e., Domains A, B,
and F) of the new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science (PUSc.). In contrast,
those teachers who are representing Type A of teacher knowledge seem to have
adopted mainly teacher directed teaching approaches, based on behaviourist /
cognitivist perspectives on learning and teaching and primarily aimed at the
transmission of model content, that is, content of models of the solar system
(Program Domain F).
Because of new experiences teacher knowledge will change (gradually), over the years.
So, it is possible that teacher knowledge Type A will develop in the direction of Type
B when teachers become more experienced in teaching PUSc. We assume that teacher
knowledge development is a process of picking up new materials, strategies and,
implicitly, pedagogical and epistemological perspectives. Therefore, to improve a
successful implementation of the aims of the above-mentioned innovations, we
recommend (among other things) to apply additional high quality teaching materials in
which those aims are realized in a transparent and attractive way.
On the basis of the results of this study, it is not possible to make a generalization to
the whole population of teachers of PUSc., because our respondents only represented
a small part of the teachers, that is, those who used teaching method ANtWoord. A
large-scale follow up study is necessary to investigate whether the above-mentioned
knowledge Types A and B can be found in the whole of the population of teachers of
PUSc. Given the small sample in the present study, it is possible, obviously, that
additional Types will be found, or that, alternatively, a hybrid Type consisting of a
blending of Types A and B, can be identified.
2.8 References
AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science) (1994). Benchmarks for Science
Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aikenhead, G.S., & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument. Views on
Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491.
Bolhuis, S.M. (1995). Leren en veranderen bijvolwassenen, een nieuwe benadering. [Learning and
changing in adults, a new approach]. Bussum, the Netherlands: Coutinho.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
35
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Cochran, F.K., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 261-272.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of
knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the
ways of knowing (pp. 174-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14.
Clark, C.M. (1986). Ten years of conceptual development in research on teacher thinking. In
M. Ben-Peretz, R. Bromme, & R. Halkes (Eds.), Advances in Research on Teacher Thinking.
Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public Understanding of Science as a separate subject in
secondary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Eduation, 21, 711-719.
Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher
practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506.
Ebbens, S.O. (1994). Op weg naar zelfstandig leren, effecten van nascholing. [A way to self regulated
learning, outcomes of continued professional training] Groningen, the Netherlands:
Wolters-Noordhoff.
Eijkelhof, H.M.C., & Kortland, J. (1988). Broadening the aims of physics education. In P.J.
Fensham (Ed), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 282-305). London: Falmer
Press.
Emans, B. (1989). Interviewen. Theorie, techniek en training. [Interview: Theory, methods, and
training]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit-knowledge in professional work. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8 (2) 151-163.
Gergen, M.M. (1988). Narrative structures in social explanation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing
social explanation (pp. 94-112). London: Sage, Hargreaves.
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner
& R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Simon &
Shuster Macmillan.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York,
London: Teachers College Press.
Harrison, A.G. (2001). Models and PCK: Their relevance for practicing and preservice teachers. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching (NARST) 2001, St. Louis, MI.
Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues
relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science
Education, 14, 541-562.
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of an independent artisan in teachers’ professional relations.
In J. Little and M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work. New York: Teachers College-Press,
1993.
Justi, R.S., & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the
use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education,
24, 1273-1292.
Kagan, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419-469.
36
Chapter 2
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs, Vols. 1&2. New York: W.W. Norton and
Co. Inc. [Republished (1999) London: Routledge.]
Kwakman, K. (1999). Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan. [Teacher learning during
professional career]. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen, the
Netherlands.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
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, the Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (3), 3-11.
Martinez, M.A. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965 –977.
Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical
knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 5984.
NEAB (Northern Examinations and Assessment Board) (1998). Science for Public Understanding
(syllabus).Harrogate, UK: NEAB.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile: An activity for science
teachers. School Science Review, 75, 109-112.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. (2003). Secondary and higher education teachers’ conceptions about selfregulated learning. Paper presented at the biennial conference of EARLI 2003. Padova,
Italy.
Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (2001).Transformative education. Personal construct approaches to practice and
research. London, Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition.
In Biddle, B.J., Good, T.L., & Goodson, I.F. (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and
teaching, (Vol 2, pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Shimahara, N.K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451-462.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
SLO Voorlichtingsbrochure havo/vwo Algemene Natuurwetenschappen [Information brochure on Public
Understanding of Science] (1996). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO Stichting Leerplan
Ontwikkeling [National Institute for Curriculum Development].
Thompson, C.L., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and
professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession. Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
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.
Van Driel, J.H. & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141-1153.
Verloop, N. (1992). Praktijkkennis van docenten: een blinde vlek van de onderwijskunde.
[Craft knowledge of teachers: A blind spot in educational research]. Pedagogische Studiën,
69, 410-423.
37
Science teacher’s knowledge about teaching models …
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of
teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441-461.
Wallace, J. (2003). Learning about teacher learning: Reflections of a science educator. In J.
Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New
possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 1-16). London, New York: Routledge Falmer.
Weber, S., & Mitchell C. (1995). Drawing ourselves into teaching: Studying the images that
shape and distort teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 303-313.
38