Transcript Implementing Pedagogical Content Knowledge through partnership

School of Education
Implementing Pedagogical
Content Knowledge through
partnership and relating this to
the planning and assessment of
practical activities
Maarten Tas & Jon Heywood
www.le.ac.uk
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The problem
Why implementing PCK
What is PCK
Secondary Science PGCE course at Leicester
The PCK Toolkit
The PCK Framework
Example of the PCK Framework
Assessing Practicals
Example of Review of Intended Learning Outcomes
General findings
Comments from mentors and PGCE students
The problem?
• Science teachers teaching out of specialism may
become secure in their subject knowledge but
may not have the pedagogical knowledge to
deliver it in the most effective ways
• A shortage of skilled physics and chemistry
teachers means there may be increasing numbers
of teachers teaching out of specialism
• A lack of confidence with unfamiliar topics may
promote teaching through ‘content delivery’
rather than developing opportunities for Inquiry
Based Learning
Why?
• Education White Paper (2010)
4.8 Teachers, not bureaucrats or Ministers, know best
how to teach – how to convey knowledge effectively and
how to unlock understanding. In order to bring the
curriculum to life, teachers need the space to create
lessons which engage their pupils, and children need the
time to develop their ability to retain and apply
knowledge.
4.9 Teachers must be free to use their professionalism
and expertise to support all children to progress. So, in
outlining what children should expect to know in core
subjects, the new curriculum will allow a greater degree
of freedom in how that knowledge might be acquired and
what other teaching should complement this core.
Why?
• Increasingly Science teachers are being
asked to teach out of specialism:
• Only 259 physics post-graduate teaching students went
into teaching in 2010 compared to 442 chemists and 764
biologists.
• ‘Given the difficulty of getting physics teachers, schools
must be tempted to appoint biologists and hope they
can teach physics’
Good Teacher Training Guide 2010
What is PCK?
• The term Pedagogical Content Knowledge was introduced in 1986 by
Shulman to reinforce the importance of links between:
• teachers’ subject knowledge
• pedagogical knowledge
• understanding of classroom context and
• the needs of individual learners.
• PCK deconstructs the strategies successful teachers use to allow
learners to access specific ideas or concepts effectively.
What is PCK?
• PCK includes "the most useful forms of representation of
[topics], the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,
explanations, and demonstrations - in a word, the ways of
representing and formulating the subject that make it
comprehensible to others”
• “Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an
understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics
easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that
students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to
the learning of those most frequently taught topics and
lessons.“
Shulman, 1986
Secondary Science PGCE
course at Leicester
• A pilot project took place during 2010-11 in which student
teachers used a ‘PCK toolkit’ with their school mentors to
explore a topic in a structured way before planning,
teaching and evaluating a series of lessons.
• The collaborative approach was highly rated by both
students and mentors.
• PCK is now introduced to all student Science teachers and
integrated into their approach to lesson planning.
• This was linked to a course activity on, and used as a tool
to aid, planning and assessing practicals.
The PCK Toolkit
• The toolkit comprises:
• PCK framework (Berry and Loughram, 2010)
• Exemplar frameworks (from literature)
• Reflective journal
• Skill level descriptors / rubrics (based on:
Windschitl et al, 2010)
The toolkit was designed to provide a structure for,
and a means of recording, thinking and reflection
while working through the task of creating and
working with a framework.
The PCK Framework
• The framework identifies important concepts with a topic
and encourages reflection on the following:
• What you intend the students to learn about this idea.
• Why it is important for students to know this.
• What else do you know about this idea (that you do not intend
students to know yet).
• Difficulties/limitations connected with teaching this idea.
• Knowledge about students’ thinking (including misconceptions) which
influences your teaching of this idea.
• Other factors that influence your teaching of this idea.
• Opportunities for How Science Works.
• Opportunities for Assessment Activities (formative/summative).
• Teaching procedures (and particular reasons for using these to engage
with this idea).
An example of a PCK Framework
An example of a PCK Framework
Framework adapted to
develop student
thinking about the
place of activities
linked to
‘How Science Works’
An example of a PCK Framework
Assessment is now an
integral component of
the PCK framework
Assessing Practicals
• The task has three components:
• An overview of intended learning outcomes of a
series of practicals;
• A review of intended learning outcomes of each
practical;
• A more detailed evaluation of each practical:
Were the learning outcomes met? How do I know?
What worked well and why?
How does this practical session relate to How Science Works?
What other forms of assessment could I have included?
How would I change my ILOs for next time?
How could I modify the activity to meet the ILOs more
effectively?
• What links could I make to other topics?
• What could I change in my PCK framework?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review of Intended Learning Outcomes
General findings
• Both students and mentors reported significantly increased
familiarity with the concept of PCK
• Both students and mentors reported significant increases in
awareness of the potential for PCK as a planning tool and for
encouraging collaborative planning and sharing best practice
within departments
• There was a clear awareness of wider issues associated with
the topic that would benefit from inclusion in the PCK
framework – notably approaches to:
• Assessment for Learning
• Practical work
Comments from mentors
• ‘Helps to give new ideas and even changes ideas
after teaching 14 years’
• ‘Made me stop and reconsider what I had done
previously. I thought in more detail about the
order I taught learning objectives and how they
link together’
• ‘It made me think more carefully about what
pupils do/don't understand’
Comments from PGCE students
• ‘It made me think about… trying to think of new ways to teach the
same topic and think about what is the best way to explain it’
• ‘Wow, some of the kids in the class…it was the best they had ever
done, they were really proud of what they had done’
• ‘I found the collaboration with teachers was the most useful’
• ‘I felt a lot more prepared and I think the pupils benefited an awful
lot because I had structured how I was gonna put things across’
• ‘…so again building through overall understanding of...the topic…I
could do individual evaluations for each practical… and look at
assessing practicals as part of the PCK framework overall’
Developments
• Use of the PCK framework is now fully
integrated into student teachers’ work on
Assessing Practicals
• A train the trainer course is being developed
for dissemination of ‘Implementing PCK’ at
all Science Learning Centres (SLC)
Wider implications?
Duggan-Haas et al (2000)
suggest clearer links are
needed between
Pedagogical Knowledge,
Content Knowledge and
other required standards
for Science teaching in the
US.
Similar potential exists in
the UK for new curriculum
developments.
Duggan-Haas, Enfield and Ashmann (2000) Electronic Journal of Science Education
V4 N3. Accessed 13/4/12 at https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm
Inquiry Based Learning
• A key component acknowledged in this US model for
science teacher training is the importance of IBL to help
students link understanding and application.
• Similarly, we suggest that it is important for teachers to
link content and pedagogical knowledge to consider and
develop effective Inquiry Based Learning activities.
• The collaboration with the Science Learning Centres will
guarantee a wider dissemination of the concept of PCK and
collaborative curriculum development
Collaborative Curriculum Development
Schools
ITE
SoE
Sharing
good practice
Sustainable CPD
Research
CPD
SLC
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Berry, A. and Loughram, J. (2010) What do we know about effective CPD for developing
science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge? Paper presented at the International
Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York. Available as
pdf: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/research-and-impact/researchseminars/NSLC%20UYSEG%20seminar%20Berry.pdf
Education White Paper (2010)
Duggan-Haas, Enfield and Ashmann (2000) Content and Pedagogy: Intersection in the
NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education. Electronic Journal of Science Education
V4 N3. Accessed 13/4/12 at https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm
Good Teacher Training Guide (2010)
Millar, R. and Abrahams, I. (2009) Practical work: making it more effective. School Science
Review, 91(334): 59–64
Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher 15 (2), 4-14
Windschitl, M., Thompson J. and Braaten M. (2010) Fostering Ambitious Pedagogy in
Novice Teachers: The Role of Tool-Supported Analyses of Student Work. Paper presented
at the International Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre,
York. Available as pdf: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/research-andimpact/research-seminars/NSLC%20UYSEG%20seminar%20windschitl.pdf