barnett&hodson

5/26/2018 Barnett&Hodson

1/28

2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

SCIENCE TEACHEREDUCATION

Julie Gess-Newsome, Section Editor

Pedagogical Context Knowledge:Toward a Fuller Understanding of

What Good Science TeachersKnow

JOHN BARNETT

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

DEREK HODSON

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada

Received 17 March 1999; revised 12 May 2000; accepted 20 July 2000

ABSTRACT:A codified model of teacher knowledge, situated in school science teaching,

is proposed as a synthesis of a number of models, metaphors, and notions already described

in the literature about teachers knowledge. This model, calledpedagogical context knowl-

edge, suggests that in discussion of their classroom practice, exemplary science teachers

utilize four kinds of knowledge: academic and research knowledge, pedagogical content

knowledge, professional knowledge, and classroom knowledge. The model is used to

examine data collected through interviews with science teachers about the ways in whichthey design and implement science lessons. Analysis of the data shows that the model is

sufficiently robust to provide a simple and rapid, yet effective and efficient way of ex-

amining teachers views and the knowledge base in which they are embedded. 2001

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed85:426453, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

In assisting their students to learn the many concepts, facts, and theories required by

the syllabus, science teachers teach in many different ways and employ diverse strategies

and tactics. Hence, the widespread use within the science education community of a range

Correspondence to:D. Hodson; e-mail: [email protected]


2/28

WHAT GOOD SCIENCE TEACHERS KNOW 427

of metaphors to describe classroom behavior: teacher as broadcaster, teacher as gar-

dener, teacher as entertainer, teacher as tour guide, and so on (Tobin, 1990; Tobin

& LaMaster, 1992). Thus, one teacher may appear to be parental and understanding, while

another will play the role of demanding taskmaster. Yet, each may be successful with theirstudents; each may inspire them to learn science. Interestingly, less successful science

teachers may appear to employ the same spectrum of teaching strategies as their successful

colleagues. We are interested in why particular strategies are successful for some teachers,

but not for others. What are the practices of successful science teachers that make the

difference? More particularly, in this article, what is it that successful science teachers

know that informs, directs, and monitors their actions? In what kind of knowledge base is

science teaching expertise located?

Within a particular society, each identifiable social group or subgroup has its distinctive

pattern of socially agreed and socially validated beliefs, expectations, and values that

determine or define how its members act, judge, make decisions, and approach and solveproblems. In the words of Day et al. (1985), cognitive abilities are socially transmitted,

socially constrained, socially nurtured, and socially encouraged. Furthermore, as Bakhtin

(1981, 1986) points out, we also communicate regularly in a range of social languages

that are the characteristic modes of expression of particular subgroups in society. While

everyday greetings, dinner table conversations, verbal exchanges concerned with buying

and selling goods and services, cross examination of witnesses by courtroom lawyers,

military commands, intimate talk between close friends or lovers, urgent communications

between colleagues engaged in a specialized task, motherinfant talk, and so on, are not

formalized languages, they are distinctive and specific to the group and have clear purpose

and socially agreed meaning. Each of us uses speech embedded in these social languagesand speech genres to convey meaning quickly and reliably. Moreover, because speech is

socioculturally constituted, each genre carries with it the common assumptions, interpre-

tations, and values of the group whose genre or social language it is. This article is con-

cerned with the knowledge, behavior, and language that teachers deploy in the social world

of the science teacher. It is concerned, also, with how that knowledge is acquired and

developed through professional socialization, and how teachers use it in meeting the var-

ious demands of the classroom. It is also concerned with how teachers can be empowered

to critique, challenge, and change their own knowledge base. It is organized to meet four

major purposes: to examine some recent theorizing about teachers knowledge; to select

those ideas that are most appropriate to an elucidation of the knowledge of exemplaryscience teachers; to combine these elements into a coherent theoretical structure; and to

use the framework to interpret interview data.

The Centrality of Teacher Knowledge and Understanding

In traditional forms of curriculum development, curriculum is devised centrally (by

curriculum experts) and disseminated to schools via directives, guidelines, or advisory

bulletins. In some educational jurisdictions, the new curriculum is enforced by legislation

and policed by inspectors, and may even be linked with promotion prospects or financial

rewards and penalties. In some cases, the curriculum is spelled out in remarkable detail,

even to the extent of giving lesson-by-lesson directions, in an effort to render the curric-

ulum teacher proof. The curriculum developers specify the knowledge and skills required

to implement the new curriculum and, in some cases, may assist teachers in acquiring

them via in-service programs or explanatory booklets. By these means, the teacher is

reduced to the role of technician, whose job is merely to operationalize the plans of others,

teach in a way prescribed by others, and assess students learning in a way that is designated


3/28

428 BARNETT AND HODSON

by others. Teacher education and professional development are regarded as training for

carrying out prespecified activities. Often, when finances permit, teachers work under the

close supervisory control of the central authority. Elliott (1994, p. 58) refers to this ap-

proach as the engineering model of change:

The engineer designs a system which will fulfil certain precise functions or goals, and then

supervises its implementation. The plan enables the engineer to control the process of

development by communicating his/her requirements to the workforce, and providing cri-

teria for monitoring and supervising progress.

The following examples from the 1970s are illustrative of this tradition and its currency

at that time:

Chiappetta (1978) asked members of the National Association for Research in Sci-ence Teaching (NARST) to define the cognitive competencies of secondary school

science teachers, but felt it unnecessary to confirm the information he was given

with teachers themselves.

In an effort to improve teacher training programs and teacher supervision, Koran

(1971) described a model for identifying teacher behaviors related to the educa-

tional objectives that they were supposed to be following. There was no critical

examination of the objectives or consultation with teachers.

Lamb and Davis (1979) attempted to train teachers to lecture using a notion about

the kinetic structure of verbal communication. The title of the article Can sec-

ondary science teachers learn to increase the commonalities of their lectures?isintriguing in its implication that the authors know considerably more about teaching

than teachers (they know the correct way to lecture) and that teachers need to be

trained, though not all may succeed in mastering the technique.

We choose these examples because they are typical of a long-standing view that edu-

cational change is independent of the social context in which it is formulated and the social

context into which it is to be implemented. They are underpinned by the notion that

teaching is a simple, straightforward business in which teachers draw on a fixed body of

instructional knowledge, an assumption that Tom (1984) has decried as the one best way

of teaching view. No account is taken of the individual teachers previous experience,personal theories, and values; no acknowledgement is made of the uniqueness of each

educational environment. There is no recognition that teaching is a complex and uncertain

enterprise in which teachers are required to think on their feet and to constantly adjust

their approach in order to ensure satisfactory learning progress for their students. It seems

that classroom incidents are regarded as mere variants of generalized problems, susceptible

to algorithmic solution, rather than problematic situations characterized by uncertainty,

disorder, and indeterminacy (Schon, 1983, p. 16). Given these failures to recognize and

acknowledge the day-to-day realities of classrooms, it is little wonder that so many of

these centralized attempts at curriculum innovation failed.

Sadly, this failed view of curriculum development and teacher education as a decontex-

tualized technical problem has recently been resurrected and used to underpin moves to

define teachers knowledge in precise and measurable terms. These efforts are often

couched in language such as standardsfor, and dimensionsof, teaching, or qualitiesand

competencies of teachers. Some prime examples of the products of such thinking are

evident in the United States (National Research Council, 1996) and New Zealand (Teacher

Registration Board, 1997; Education Review Office, 1998). As in centralized curriculum


4/28


development, such work is driven by a desire for increased control of education and, hence,

an increased need to make teachers accountable to the political power structure. Unlike

the efforts to develop teacher-proof curricula, however, these attempts at control through

the external definition of teachers knowledge have not yet had sufficient time to succeedor, more likely in our view, to fail.

Frameworks based on centralized control cannot hope to define, quantify, or measure

the idiosyncrasies of individual teachers so eloquently captured by John Steinbeck:

She aroused us to shouting, bookwaving discussions. She had the noisiest class in the

school and she didnt even seem to know it. We could never stick to the subject, geometry

or the chanted recitation of the memorized phyla. Our speculation ranged the world. (She

did not tell but catalyzed a burning desire to know.) She breathed curiosity into us so that

we brought in facts or truths shielded in our hands like captured fireflies. (quoted in Barrell,

1995, p. 16)

The best teachers do not always behave in conventional ways, and what they do to

inspire and motivate their students is not always immediately obvious. There is no simple

compendium of instructions to tell would-be teachers how to behave in each and every

lesson. Rather, good teachers work in a variety of ways to suit a variety of situations, with

the nature of the educational situation (including students, subject matter, facilities, emo-

tional climate, and so on) determining how they will act. Put simply, good teachers have

the ability to respond to shifting contexts in appropriate ways. Gordon Wells (1994, p. 3)

expresses this view:

Every class is different from every other . . . Individual students each have their owninterests, and their strengths and limitations; they also have different contributions to make

from their own past experiences, both personal and cultural. Equally, every teacher has a

particular style of teaching that is based on personal beliefs, values and past experiences.

Together, teacher and students make up a classroom community that is unique, with its

own particular potentials and problems. Therefore, teaching can never be a matter of simply

implementing packages developed by others, for the generalized curricular guidelines

and pedagogical procedures that are thought up by distant experts are rarely appropriate,

as they stand, to the needs of particular classrooms.

Nevertheless, despite the elusiveness of good teaching, we can gain some insight into

the knowledge, understanding, and skills that good teachers deploy in the classroom. In-deed, it is crucial to good science education, good curriculum development, and good

teacher education that we do so. In recent years, with the shift to school-based curriculum

development and various approaches using action research, teachers knowledge has been

recognized by increasing numbers of educators and curriculum specialists as the major

factor in curriculum development. One of the earliest examples was Lawrence Stenhouses

work on the Humanities Project, in which he articulated a form of curriculum design in

which praxiology, or knowledge about practice/theory, was central (Heylighen, 1996).

What Stenhouse had recognized is that when teachers design and implement lessons they

deploy more than knowledge of subject matter. Although professional development was

still a key term in Stenhouses work, its use now implied that teaching requires important

knowledge about teaching and learning, and that teachers can (and should) engage in

critical reflective research in collaboration with educators in order to extend and enhance

it. The net result of that collaboration would be more effective curriculum development.

More importantly, significant curriculum development would not occur unless teachers

themselves, and the professional knowledge and understanding they deploy, were the prime

focus.


5/28


By describing how professionals, including teachers, refer to a personal database of

theory to guide them before, during, and after their professional actions Schon (1983)

provided further support for the validity and value of teachers knowledge and theorizing.

Central to Schons work is the notion ofreflection-in-action,which originates in a problemsituation for which established and well-practiced techniques and procedures are recog-

nized as unsuccessful or inappropriate. Reflection-in-action is theorizing on your feet in

order to devise and implement an appropriate course of action.

When someone reflects-in-action, he [sic] becomes a researcher in the practice context.

He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs

a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about means

which depends on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep means and ends separate,

but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate

thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision which he must later convert toaction. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his

inquiry. (Schon, 1983, p. 68)

In other words, reflection-in-action, and the theory-building that attends it, enables

skilled teachers to adjust their actions to the continuing flux of the classroom environment.

Teaching is not just a matter of learning and applying knowledge and skills prescribed by

experts. Rather, it is a matter of deploying, criticizing-in-action, and developing-in-action

a complex and unique framework of personal professional understanding. Schons con-

ception of reflection in- or on- action has been expanded by Zeichner (1994), who argues

that any analysis of what constitutes reflection must take account of the content, quality,

and context of that reflection, and that research into teachers thinking must acknowledge

its sociohistorical location and partisan nature.

Critical theory, liberation pedagogy, and participatory research have also provided a

powerful case for the recognition and elucidation of teachers knowledge in light of insti-

tutional and ideological constraints (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988; Hall & Kassam, 1988).

All three movements are predicated on the belief that the more views that have expression,

the more democratic the process of schooling may become. All three are predicated on

the notion that radical curriculum change can only be achieved by enabling teachers to

take control of their own professional development, thereby freeing themselves from the

powerful socializing forces of the profession and its governing institutions.

Liberatory learning involves desocialization. Students and teachers in a classroom are not

educational virgins. We are very socialized beings in our schools and colleges. We have

long been practicing an elaborate school script of how each is supposed to behave (and

misbehave). This routine script is the traditional relationship between supervising author-

ities and alienated students. The liberating teacher has to study this routine scenario in the

classroom, see how the socialized limits express themselves concretely, and then decide

which themes are the best entry points for critical transformation. . . . This is an artistic

process, uncovering key themes and access points to consciousness, and then recomposing

them into an unsettling critical investigation, orchestrating a prolonged study. (Shor &

Freire, 1987, p. 115)

Some Theorizing about Teachers Knowledge

There have been numerous attempts to describe the nature and characteristics of teach-

ers knowledge [see Carter (1990) and Welker (1992) for helpful reviews], including sev-

eral that focus on science teaching (Brickhouse et al., 1987; Laplante, 1997; van Driel et

al., 1998; Yarrick et al., 1997) and some that set teachers lives in an ecological context


6/28


(Eisner, 1988; Goodlad, 1994). It is not the purpose of this article to present a critical

review of this literature; rather, it is our intention to draw together those ideas which can

usefully be synthesized into an environmentally based framework to help clarify the knowl-

edge that good science teachers possess, and how that knowledge is deployed in diverseways to suit the particular educational context. We take as our starting point two key ideas

from the mid-1980s:personal practical knowledgeand pedagogical content knowledge.

By combining early ideas about teachers practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1981, 1983) and

personal knowledge (Lampert, 1985), Connelly and Clandinin (1985, 1988) formulated

their seminal notion of personal practical knowledge. The significant aspect of this

teachers knowing of a classroom is that it is not objectivist, not a body of preexisting

knowledge to be acquired by teachers and subsequently applied to practice. Rather, it is

transient, subject to change, and situated in personal experience both inside and outside

the classroom. In Clandinins (1986, p. 19) words, it is experiential, value-laden and

oriented to practice, though it may not always be the outcome of conscious reflection.1

Kellys (1955) personal construct theory provides a useful theoretical underpinning for

this notion. As he says, we are all searching for personal meanings that enable us to make

sense of the world and to establish a measure of control. Since we cannot know reality

directly, we have to construct theories about it.

Man [sic] looks at his world through transparent patterns or templets which he creates and

then attempts to fit over the realities of which the world is composed. The fit is not always

very good. Yet without such patterns the world appears to be such an undifferentiated

homogeneity that man is unable to make any sense out of it. Even a poor fit is more helpful

to him than nothing at all. (Kelly, 1955, p. 8)

Of course, personal knowledge is not restricted to cognitive matters; it also has both

affective and social dimensions. A number of authors have addressed the ways in which

the feelings, attitudes, and personal aspirations of students interact with the processes of

cognitive restructuring (Bloom, 1992; Strike & Posner, 1992; West & Pines, 1983). In

Claxtons (1989) words, cognition doesnt matter if youre scared, depressed or bored.

What these writers argue is that incorporation of a new idea into ones personal framework

of understanding involves more than its rational appraisal for intelligibility, plausibility,

and fruitfulness (Posner et al., 1982). The idea also has to make sense in affective terms.

In other words, knowledge does not just have to make logical sense, it also has to feel

right; students have to becomfortablewith it comfortable in the sense that it meets their

emotional needs and is culturally safe. This latter point serves to emphasize that a stu-

dents social and cultural identity comprising gender, ethnicity, religion, and politics

impact very considerably on learning (Hodson, 1998, p. 2001). What is true for students

is also true for their teachers. Teaching is a highly stressful activity. All beginning teachers,

and many with years of experience, encounter periods of considerable anxiety. Knowledge

that enables teachers to feel more comfortable in the classroom and to enhance their sense

1

Clandinin (1985, p. 362) describes personal practical knowledgeas follows: What is meant by personal. . . is that the knowledge so defined participates in, and is imbued with, all that goes to make up a person. It

is knowledge which has arisen from circumstances, actions and undergoings which themselves had affective

content for the person in question . . . knowledge which can be discovered in both the actions of the person

and, under some circumstances, by discourse or conversation. By knowledge . . . is meant that body of

convictions, conscious or unconscious, which have arisen from experience, intimate, social, and traditional, and

which are expressed in a persons actions . . . Personal practical knowledge is knowledge which is imbued

with all the experiences that make up a persons being. Its meaning is derived from, and understood in terms of,

a persons experiential history, both professional and personal.


7/28


of self is likely to be embraced; knowledge that increases anxiety or makes teachers feel

inadequate will almost certainly be resisted or rejected.

Teachers, like all other learners, also have to integrate their understanding into the

various social contexts in which they are located in ways that are socially acceptable.Often, it is consensus within social groups that gives status and stability to knowledge and

understanding, and provides the confidence that is needed for its effective deployment.

Each of us, whether adult or child, in whatever sphere we move, needs the approval and

support of someone else in order to feel entirely comfortable with our ideas. Each of us

needs the approval and support of someone else if we are to feel personally validated.

Thus, we often talk as much to get reassurance from others about our ideas as we do to

convince others of our views. As Solomon (1987, p. 67) says, We take it for granted that

those who are close to us see the world as we do, but, through social exchanges, we seek

always to have this reconfirmed. These social exchanges also serve to establish what

others think and, thereby, to assist the learning of knowledge that has been validated andapproved by the social groups to which we belong. Prospective teachers enter a profession

that is steeped in tradition and history. They need to feel that they fit in and are recog-

nized by others as fellow professionals.

We live in a world we see and talk about. Authoritative others and dominant institutions

validate our sights and conversations so that they have the unquestioned ring of normalcy

and legitimacy as real and true. (Weigert, 1997, p. 131)

Thus, teachers personal practical knowledge has two essential functions. First, to pro-

vide teachers with a sense of personal control. They need the comfort of knowing whatthey are doing and the confidence to feel they can do itat least, to a satisfactory level

of performance. Second, to provide them with a secure social location as a teacher. They

need to feel at home, to feel validated as a teacher. While Hubermans (1993) notion of

the teacher as independent artisan and Parker and McDaniels (1992) description of

teachers as bricoleurs2 both put considerable emphasis on personal and idiosyncratic ac-

tivity and note the centrality of the affective in promoting teacher professional develop-

ment, Bell and Gilbert (1992) provide some convincing evidence for the importance of

the social dimension, collegiality, and the culture of teaching in encouraging and con-

straining individual development. In a similar vein, Richardson (1995, p. 66) states that

having time to talk to one another is one of the most effective ways of defusing stress.

It allows people to share self-doubt, express anxiety about their competence, and exchange

ideas they are really proud of.

At about the same time as Connelly and Clandinins initial work, Shulman (1986, 1987)

coined the phrase pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), making the case that teachers

not only have to know and understand subject matter content, but also how to teach that

specific content effectively: knowing what is likely to be easy or difficult for their students

to learn, and how to organize, sequence, and present the content to cater to the diverse

interests and abilities of the students. What skillful teachers do is transform subject matter

into forms that are more accessible to their students. To do so, they draw on pedagogical

knowledge (knowledge of teaching and learning methods), but adapt it to the specific

2 Bricolage is a term used by Levi-Strauss (1968) to contrast the intuitive, unplanned ways in which savages

solve everyday problems with formal problem-solving strategies. Parker and McDaniel (1992, p. 99) note that:

Bricoleurs tackle a problem not by reading a manual or taking a course of study, but by using a personal bag

of tricks. They are masters of improvisation, using whatever tools and devices are on hand or can be invented.


8/28


subject matter context, thereby developing PCK.3 Shulmans key point is that knowing

how to teach particular ideas in science effectively is not a solely pedagogical question; it

is impacted very considerably by the nature of the subject matter. Firstly, because different

ideas in science, and their relationship to other ideas the students may know, presentdifferent opportunities for the design of teaching and learning activities. Secondly, because

teachers struggling to make complex science more accessible to their students have to

guard against distortion and over-simplification. What is taught has to be good science,

in the terms identified by the curriculum plan.

Geddis (1993) observes that novice teachers, whose classroom confidence is located

primarily in their knowledge of the subject matter, tend to have simplistic views of teaching

and learning, which predispose them to didactic methods. Their preoccupations with pre-

senting good science, getting through an overcrowded syllabus, and meeting the de-

mands of external examinations lead them to provide copious notes, utilize a heavy diet

of worksheet-driven practical exercises, and drill their students in algorithmic proceduresfor solving standard problems. By contrast, good teachers draw on their experientially

acquired pedagogical content knowledge to provide situationally appropriate learning ex-

periences for their students. In doing so, they draw on four categories of pedagogical

content knowledge: knowledge of learners existing understanding, knowledge of effective

teaching/learning strategies (effective for this particular content), alternative ways of rep-

resenting the subject matter, and curricular saliency. It is knowledge of curricular saliency

that enables a good teacher to judge matters such as depth of treatment and contextuali-

zation.

Although it is a feature of the particular curriculum and its overall structure, curricular

saliency is also a function of the particular students and their current levels of understand-ing. Teachers teach the same content in different ways to different students. Indeed, be-

cause an individual teacher is faced with a particular curriculum and a particular group of

students, located in a particular school, all four of the PCK elements identified by Geddis

(1993) are context specific. In other words, the teachers classroom decisions are located

in, and are contingent upon, a specific social, cultural, and educational context. What

counts as good teaching cannot be specified in the absence of knowledge about the ele-

ments that comprise this context. Good teaching becomes a matter of making an on-the-

spot appraisal and choosing the most appropriate action in the particular circumstances,

not a matter of applying a particular set of prespecified teacher attributes.

Our view is that individual teachers also draw on a store ofcollective teacher knowledge.It is collective in the sense that, while derived from and deployed in a specific social,

cultural, and educational context, it is the common property of the community of science

teachers. Teachers develop this form of collective knowing by talking to each other in

ways that could be regarded as professional theorizing (Ross et al., 1992). Such collective

theories become an integral part of the work culture of teachers, derived from their roles

as institutional, social, and political actors (Carlson, 1991). Both Elbaz (1983) and Barrell

(1995) note that teachers knowledge is rooted in the details of particular classroom ex-

periences, especially those that are stressful or problematic. It is in these circumstances

that personal theories are forged. Such events and experiences also constitute the starting

3 Unpacking the complex notion of pedagogical content knowledge is outside the scope of this article. Suffice

it to say, in the words of Shulman and Sykes (1986, p. 9), that well-developed PCK enables teachers to answer

such questions as: What are the aspects of this topic that are most difficult to understand for students?

. . . What analogies, metaphors, examples, similes, demonstrations, simulations, manipulations, or the like, are

most effective in communicating the appropriate understandings or attitudes ofthis topicto students of particular

backgrounds and prerequisites? What student preconceptions are likely to get in the way of learning?


9/28


point for the development of collective professional knowledge. For example, science

teachers are often faced with practical laboratory sessions that go wrong, in the sense

that they produce unexpected or ambiguous results, or fail to work at all. Teachers col-

lective knowledge includes strategies for dealing with such eventualities, which Nott andSmith (1995) call conjuring, rigging, and talking through it. Such strategies form

part of the common culture of science teaching into which newcomers are initiated, and

to which experienced teachers contribute. Some of this knowledge store can be regarded

as pedagogical content knowledge, some of it is better described as teacher lore,the term

used by Schubert (1992) to describe the powerful oral tradition by which ideas, perspec-

tives, insights, images of students, teachers and teaching, and the everyday workable

strategies they rationalize, are passed on to initiates. For Schubert and Ayer (1992),

teacher lore is the principal means by which teachers construct, reconstruct, and share their

professional knowledge; it is, for them, a form of professional self-education. Because it

is constructed from the bottom up and is independent of educational research, teacherlore is often atheoretical. Indeed, it can sometimes include vigorously anti-intellectual

maxims of the Never smile until Christmas variety. Nevertheless, it will form a useful

element in our notion of pedagogical context knowledge.

The Complexity and Uncertainty of Classroom Life

We have suggested that newcomers to the profession are progressively enculturated into

the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values, language, and code of behavior of the community

of science teachers. It should be noted, however, that this community is not a single,

coherent entity; nor is it a stable and autonomous one. Life in contemporary classrooms,and the day-by-day decision making required of teachers, is beset by multiple tensions

and constraints, competing and sometimes conflicting demands, and by a seemingly end-

less stream of new government directives. What may be a sound curriculum decision in

terms of concept acquisition or development may not be so in terms of learning about the

nature of scientific inquiry, or in terms of developing social skillseach of which is a

legitimate goal of science education. As if this were not enough uncertainty for the teacher,

that decision may also be in conflict with school policy on handling controversial issues

and/or Ministry of Education policy on assessment and evaluation. What we are attempting

to convey by these remarks is that science teachers live in multiple, interacting micro-

worlds,each nested within the larger social world of education. Among them are:

The microworld of science education, concerned with lofty goals like scientific

literacy, science education for active citizenship, and the promotion of responsible

environmental behavior.

The microworld of teacher professionalism, in which teachers immediate con-

cernsdepending on their length of experiencewill be survival, acquiring ba-

sic competence, establishing credibility with colleagues, influencing other teachers,

or gaining promotion.

The microworld of the science curriculum, where acquisition of new knowledge and

skills, the deployment of prescribed assessment and evaluation procedures, and is-

sues of accountability loom large.

The microworld of the particular school culture, with its distinctive ethos and pat-

terns of acceptable and unacceptable conduct its ground rules, as Edwards and

Mercer (1987) call them.

Each of these microworlds of the science teacher will have its own knowledge base and


10/28


problem-solving strategies, which teachers will deploy as they see fit. There is no reason

to anticipate a coherent body of knowledge extending over all such microworlds and their

differing problem situations. As Scribner (1984, p. 39) says, skilled practical thinking is

goal-directed and varies adaptively with changing properties of problems and the changingconditions in the task environment. Indeed, the literature of situated cognition is replete

with findings that point to the highly specific task-related nature of much everyday knowl-

edge and the highly personal methods of solving problems developed and used successfully

in practical situations by those who seem unable to solve logically similar problems in

other contexts (Lave, 1988; Schliemann & Carraher, 1992). According to Claxton (1990),

we all build up mini-theories about the world around us. As we gain experience of the

world, we are continually testing, refining, and replacing them. Inconsistencies among

mini-theories are tolerated because we laminate: We have levels of explanation that are

appropriate to different contexts. When presented with a challenge or problem, we access

whatever chunk or package of knowledge, set of operations, or manipulative techniquesthat we consider will help us to respond appropriately to the situation. These packages

function as tool kits with specific purposes, hence no overall coherence and consistency

is required. It does not matter if there are inconsistencies, because the tool kits are used

for different purposes.

While the central focus of scientific activity is to develop generalizable theories appli-

cable to diverse situations, scientists may deal with immediate practical problems by lam-

inatingusing Theory A to explain x, y, and z and Model B to explain p, q, and s.

Moreover, they may employ an entirely different, nonscientific package of knowledge

when presented with an everyday problem. It should not surprise us, then, if science

teachers deploy different knowledge and problem-solving strategies in different schoolcontexts, in the different microworlds they inhabit.

A person may be disposed, in one kind of context, or with respect to one kind of action,

to behave in ways that are correctly explained by one belief state, and at the same time be

disposed in another kind of context or with respect to another kind of action to behave in

ways that would be explained by a different belief state. This need not be a matter of

shifting from one state to another or vacillating between states; the agent might, at the

same time, be in two stable belief states, be in two different dispositional states which are

displayed in different kinds of situations. (Stalnaker, 1984, p. 83)

When presented with the need to respond, teachers will make a rapid assessment of the

context/situation and come to a judgment about the situationally appropriate language,

behavior, or explanation. There is no single, all-purpose right answer. What is appropriate

depends on the circumstances. Moreover, professional practices are also social practices,

in that tasks are embedded not only in a specific problem context but also in a specific

social setting. Thus, knowledge is intimately related to the specific social situations, in-

teractions, and communities that have generated, validated, maintained, and used it. Within

these communities (the microworlds identified previously), both the knowledge and the

practices it informs are co-constructed and expressed through a particular community-

approved style of discourse. It follows that teachers knowledge cannot be considered as

generalizable between contexts or across individuals; nor can its acquisition or use. Teacher

development should, therefore, be seen as the successive mastery of a series of context-

specific knowledges and modes of discourse, where context is writ both large and

smalllarge in the sense that it means a community context, small in the sense that it

means a particular problem situation. Teachers build up a repertoire of context-specific

knowledges through social interaction, negotiation, and co-construction of meaning, with


11/28


different social contexts providing different inputs into the individuals construction of a

personal framework of understanding. Learning is an active, continuous, and changing

series of negotiations between the individual and the social environments in which she or

he moves. In addition, because of the interactive nature of social encounters, the socialcontext is both the product of interaction and the impetus and guide for development.

The social context not only facilitates and structures learning and the development of

understanding, it also motivates the learner-teacher because it provides the authentic con-

texts within which apprentices gain a sense of self, feelings of increasing competence and

recognition, and a sense of ownership. In a sense, these are the sociocultural equivalents

of the fruitfulness cited by Posner et al. (1982) as the key to cognitive restructuring.

However, although it is the contextualized nature of learning that leads to a sense of

ownership, it may be recognition of more universalistic and generalized meanings that

effects the transition from novice to expert status, and eventually to connoisseurship (Ber-

liner, 1994; van Manen, 1991, 1997).

Toward a Synthesis: Pedagogical Context Knowledge

To signify that what good science teachers know, do, and feel is largely about teaching,

and is situated in the minutiae of everyday classroom life (educational contexts and mi-

croworlds), we have coined the term pedagogical context knowledge.The sources of this

knowledge are both internal and external: internal sources include reflection on personal

experiences of teaching, including feelings about the responses of students, parents, and

other teachers to ones actions; external sources include subject matter knowledge, gov-

ernmental regulation, school policies, and the like. Interaction with other teachers at bothformal and informal levels is both a source of pedagogical context knowledge and a stim-

ulus for its further development.

Of particular value in our thinking about teachers knowledge is Clandinin and Con-

nellys (1995) metaphor of a knowledge landscape and, in particular, their account of

teachers professional lives being lived in two important but separate places: the isolated

classroom and the communal staff room. The knowledge landscape metaphor also allows

the description of safe and unsafe places for teachers to share and develop their knowl-

edge.4 Our notion of pedagogical context knowledge involves knowing something about

two components of the knowledge landscape: First, the societal knowledge landscape

that is, all knowledge relevant to the effective functioning of society; second, the educa-

tional knowledge landscape that is, all knowledge pertaining to educational matters. As

with any landscape, there are areas that are familiar to all and areas that are not. As teachers

explore the landscape, sometimes individually and sometimes collectively, they learn to

view it from different vantage points. As their knowledge of the landscape and their ex-

pertise in negotiating its complexities and subtleties grows, they are enabled to explore it

more thoroughly and expertly. In other words, knowledge increases in breadth, depth, and

utility as a direct consequence of bold exploration and critical reflection.

Within the landscape, there are three kinds of places where knowledge is acquired,

constructed, rationalized, and deployed: private, semi-private, and public. The individual

teachers personal reflective place is both private and safe. Outside this place, there are

some less secure semi-private teachers places, directly concerned with specific educational

4 As an amusing aside, it also allows prescriptions for teaching by those outside the profession, including the

pronouncements of the popular press, to be regarded as unjustified and undesirable items that serve only to litter

the landscape.


12/28


Figure 1. Pedagogical context knowledge.

issues in particular contexts at particular times. These are the places where collective

theories and values are constructed and where teacher lore is formulated. It is here that

teachers networks sometimes flourish and action research occurs. Outside these places is

the wider educational landscape, where educational issues are debated with nonteachers,

such as school administrators, government regulators, and parents. There are sites for

establishing the official duties of a teacher, conducting salary and benefits negotiations,

responding to official noncurricular documents, and so on. These are very public places

and can be very frightening ones for many teachers.5

Moving comfortably between and among these places requires an ability to switch

quickly and effectively between different elements of pedagogical context knowledge:

academic and research knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional knowl-

edge,andclassroom knowledge.Two of these elements fall entirely within the educational

knowledge landscape and two straddle the border between educational knowledge and

societal knowledge (Figure 1). However, all four knowledge components overlap and

interact with each other.

Academic and research knowledge includes: a) science content knowledge (concepts,

facts, and theories); b) knowledge about the nature of science, including issues in the

5 Like other groups, teachers have constructed formal bodies such as teacher unions to take care of their

interests in these contentious and potentially dangerous public places.

* The Educational Knowledge Landscape is a subset of the Societal Knowledge Landscape. The curved

boundary line is not an attempt to distinguish educational knowledge as separate from societal knowledge but

to make explicit that some knowledge used by science teachers originates outside the Educational Knowledge

Landscape.


13/28


history, philosophy, and sociology of science and the relationships among science, tech-

nology, society, and environment; and c) knowledge about how and why students learn

(child development, learning theory, and motivation theory). Such knowledge is acquired

and developed through preservice and in-service education, conferences and courses, read-ing journals and textbooks, and so on, and by thoughtful reflection on personal experiences

in the classroom. Unlike professional knowledge (as discussed in a following section), the

principal characteristic of this kind of knowing is its base in reflective inquiry. Participation

in teacher networks and action research teams, both of which can have either a general or

specific focus, are particularly effective means of assisting its development.

Pedagogical content knowledgewas described previously, and little needs to be said in

elaboration. It includes such things as knowing how to set teaching goals, organize a

sequence of lessons into a coherent course, conduct lessons, introduce particular topics,

and allocate time for satisfactory treatment of all significant concepts. It includes knowl-

edge of how best to present particular concepts and ideas, how to exemplify importanttheoretical issues and relate them to what students already know; as well as the teachers

bag of tricks and motivational devices that can be used when student attention is wa-

vering. This is the professional knowledge that members of the wider society expect teach-

ers to possess, though they are usually unaware of its subtlety and complexity. It is acquired

largely through experience, discussion with more experienced colleagues, imitation, re-

flection on things seen and heard, attendance at professional conferences, and reading

teacher journals.

Professional knowledge is, in essence, the knowing of teaching by unconsciously re-

flected experience. Professional is being used here in a sense similar to the British usage

of professional foul in soccer. It is what professionals know and do. Whether they shouldis not at issue. As teachers converse in the staffroom about students, school programs,

parents, the school administration, and so on, they build a base of teachers knowledge

that others have referred to as teacher lore (see previous section). However, we call it

professional knowledge to emphasize its importance as a component of what teachers

know, do, and feel, and to emphasize that such knowledge is passed on by experienced

practitioners to young practitioners and those new to the school. Furthermore, as Har-

greaves (1994) points out, even some seemingly simple characteristics of this knowledge,

such as the considerable emphasis on practicality in all judgments about proposals for

educational change, are nested within complex issues involving purpose, person, politics,

and workplace constraints. Thus, professional knowledge tends to be located entirely inthe practical and is tested, if at all, in the particular. It is a form of knowledge that often

eschews academic and research knowledge. Indeed, a common assertion made by teachers

employing this form of knowledge is that the specialist language and supposed impracti-

cality of educational research render it irrelevant to teachers everyday practice (Broadfoot,

1992; Day, 1983). This estrangement of academics and teachers is a major problem for

those concerned with teacher education and professional development. It is largely re-

sponsible for the anti-intellectual atmosphere found in some staffrooms, as older teachers

tell new graduates to forget everything you learned in college; this is the real world.

Because this knowledge is often passed on to the public in anecdotal form, it straddles the

border between the educational knowledge landscape and the societal knowledge land-

scape. Included in this category, and also partly shared with the public, are knowledge of

curriculum documents, the duties of teachers, union matters, information about school

administration and procedures for communicating with parents, and so on.

Classroom knowledge is the knowledge that a teacher has of their own classroom and

students. Classroom knowledge is entirely situational and particular; it is in continuous

growth and is kept constantly under review and reconstruction; it is knowledge that out-


14/28


siders do not and cannot possess because it is rooted in the day-to-day experience of

particular educational situations. In some ways, this knowledge can be compared to the

action of an automatic pilot mechanism: teachers continuously observe their students and

constantly adjust their tone, delivery, activities, verbal interactions, and so on, to ensurethat the lesson proceeds as intended. Much of this fine-tuning is intuitive and goes largely

unnoticed by students. In some situations, however, the autopilot analogy breaks down.

For example, in a manner similar to pilots disconnecting the autopilot to take manual

control of an airplane, a teacher may suddenly change the course of a lesson in response

to an unexpected event, a disciplinary incident, or a feeling about what is happening (or

not) in the classroom. Thus, classroom knowledge enables teachers to think on their feet

at both a micro and a macro level. It is a major component of what some have called

teachers craft knowledge (see, e.g., Carter, 1990; Schempp et al., 1998).

Of course, teachers vary considerably in the extent of their knowledge in these four

categories and in the circumstances in which they deploy them. Some rely heavily onprofessional knowledge, others seek to utilize aspects of academic and research knowledge.

Although some teachers seek to expand their academic and research knowledge, others

are content to remain relatively fixed in their knowledge base. Not only will teachers differ

among themselves in the selections they make from their repertoire of knowledges, but

an individual teacher will vary their selection in relation to the class and educational

situation. The pedagogical context knowledge framework sees teachers travelling from one

place to another on the landscapemodeling scientific thinking and inquiring at one

time, and lecturing formally at another; showing appropriate empathy for a particular

student at one time, and demanding appropriate higher performance of that student at

another; being a union member concerned with salaries and benefits in one instance, andmaking personal sacrifice for students in another.

The Transition from Novice to Expert

Recognition of the highly context-specific nature of much of the knowledge deployed

in everyday professional practice as a teacher does not entail the view that cognitive

activities are absolutely specific to the context in which they were originally learned and

have no transfer value at all. Too literal an interpretation of the theory of situated cognition

is unhelpful in understanding connoisseurship in fields as complex as science teaching. To

function satisfactorily in the various microworlds of science teaching and to develop theunconscious and seemingly automatic quality to their work that enables them to achieve

high levels of performance and to make complex, multifaceted decisions in ill-defined

situations characterized by multiple and often competing goals, teachers must be able to

generalize some aspects of knowledge and skills to new situations. The interesting question

centers on what is generalizable and transferable. Perkins and Salomon (1989) argue that

although there are general cognitive skills, they function in contextualized ways. When

experts are faced with atypical problems that do not yield to straightforward approaches,

they apply general strategies such as reasoning by analogy with systems they understand

better, searching for counter examples and misanalogies, exploring extreme case sce-

narios, employing visualization techniques and thought experiments, and solving simpler

parallel problemsall of which function in a contextualized way to access and deploy a

rich database of conceptual and experiential knowledge (what we have called pedagogical

context knowledge). Another effective approach is to use a generalized level of control or

problem management rooted in metacognitive awareness, asking such questions as: What

am I doing now? Is it getting me anywhere? What else might I try? and Where

should I go from here?


15/28


In general terms, it seems that experts not only know more than novices, they have

more accessible and usable knowledge because it is differently and better organized. It is

also interesting that expert and novice teachers describe their work using significantly

different images of teaching (Clandinin, 1986, 1989; Johnston, 1992). While novices ac-cess concepts, procedures, and strategies one by one, experts access related clusters of

relevant knowledge; although novices tend to address superficial features of a problem,

experts are able to use more powerful overarching principles (Larkin, 1983). While novices

use meansend analysis and seek to employ previously learned formulae and algorithms,

experts are more holistic and attempt to work from first principles, drawing on wider

aspects of their stock of experiential knowledge for guidance on the appropriateness of

particular actions (Carey, 1986). In other words, experts function at a more general and

fundamental level than novices; they also feel responsible for, and are emotionally involved

in, their decisions while novices often abdicate personal responsibility for their actions by

citing precedent, student deficiency, and regulation (Berliner, 1994; Schempp et al., 1998).The key to developing greater competence is not to disregard context-based knowledge or

attempt to solve problems without it, but to recognize when to invoke and how to apply

contextual knowledge, and to recognize how generalized strategies and localized knowl-

edge interact.

It is our contention that science teachers can learn to recognize the boundaries between

the four categories of pedagogical context knowledge and utilize them appropriately and

effectively by developing a kind of cultural awareness that involves: a) understanding

the social location of particular clusters of beliefs and practices; b) acknowledging the

context-dependence of most of what they think and do; and c) recognizing the existence

of different modes of discourse, each having a distinctive sociocultural origin. Part of thiscultural awareness entails recognizing that the microworlds of science teaching described

earlier are subcultures, each of which has its distinctive knowledge, language, methods,

rationality, criteria of validity and reliability, and values; part entails teachers reflecting on

their personal frameworks of understanding and considering carefully the circumstances

in which they came to hold particular views and develop particular skills.6 Having an

overview of the nature of pedagogical context knowledge enables teachers to look around

the knowledge landscape, to look inward for reflection, and to look outward for other

sources of knowledge and criticism. It enables unexplored or inadequately explored areas

of the landscape to become friendly places and fruitful avenues for the acquisition of

professional expertise, rather than places to be feared and avoided.Pedretti and Hodson (1995) have argued that action research gains much of its potential

for effecting change by creating new social settings for teachers. A set of new relationships,

discourses, and practices is established, which constitutes a challenge and a force for

modification and change. In other words, the action research group becomes a site for a

creative contestation among existing personal beliefs and practices, the beliefs and prac-

tices of other members, and other professionally based knowledge contributed by the group

facilitator. In a sense, they say, it speeds up real life, providing an instant challenge of

comparison and contrast that overcomes the limitations of each teachers previous expe-

rience and enables each group member to construct a clearer understanding of the distinc-

tive features of the particular educational contexts in which they practice. Teachers

networks, which can be regarded as a particular form of action research, provide additional

forums for teachers to talk and exchange experiences and insight. Like Craigs (1995)

6 Hodson (2001) uses similar arguments to build a case for taking an anthropological and metacognitive

perspective on science teaching and learning.


16/28


knowledge communities, teachers networks are both a source of data for the construc-

tion of teachers knowledge and a forum for its elaboration and critique. Thus, as Barnett

(1996) shows, there is greater congruence in views among teachers who belong to profes-

sional networks than among those who do not. As a form of teachers self-education,teachers networks can support critical and emancipatory themes, grounded in the contexts

of real classrooms (Grove & Short, 1995).

Using the Framework

A model of science teacher knowledge is only useful if it can provide convincing de-

scriptions of real situations, furnish additional insight, and/or provide a way of interpreting

the data arising from interviews and conversations with teachers. While we feel confident

that the pedagogical context knowledge framework that we have proposed is theoretically

sound in its relationship to other conceptualizations of teacher knowledge, it must be testedfor its utility. What follows is an analysis of data collected from semistructured interviews

with exemplary science teachers in a study that preceded the development of the framework

(Barnett, 1996). In the study, which involved talking to exemplary science teachers (iden-

tified by the science education community) about a science education program they were

using, we came to the conclusion that they were sharing various aspects of teachers

knowledge with us. This article is not concerned with what we, the researchers and par-

ticipants, learned about the curriculum, but with how the data arising from the interviews

can be examined in a way that sheds light on the knowledge-base drawn upon by these

exceptional teachers. Our principal concern was to find examples of the components of

teachers knowledge postulated in our framework, to scrutinize their connections to theother components, and to ascertain whether there are examples of teachers knowledge

that do not fit the framework, or lie outside it.

We recognize that our approach has some limitations. For example, teachers may wish

to conceal some aspects of their understanding, for all kinds of reasons, and those wishes

must be respected. Furthermore, the act of inquiring may precipitate change in teachers

understanding. Personal frameworks of understanding are in constant flux and change, and

discussion with a researcher can be a powerful stimulus for change. In addition, recent

classroom events may color the particular selection from their personal framework of

understanding that teachers make available at any one time. Thus, the timing of interviews

can be crucial.Interviews were conducted with six teachers as part of research into their views of the

SciencePlus programa middle school science curriculum developed in the Canadian

Maritime provinces, but now widely used throughout Canada and the United States

(McFadden, 1996). All six teachers had volunteered to participate in a teacher network,

sponsored by the curriculum project and co-ordinated by one of the authors; all six had

been identified as exemplary teachers by colleagues involved in the project. An interview

protocol of 15 open-ended questions about particular curriculum units was developed

(Barnett, 1996), supplemented by a final question that asked each teacher what additional

questions the researcher should have asked.

Transcripts of six 2-h interviews were analyzed and assigned a 3-digit code. A 3-digit

system permitted a substantial measure of discrimination among the components of teacher

knowledge and allowed for general and specific instances of knowledge types to be

distinguished. The first digit represents the major category (academic and research knowl-

edge 1; pedagogical content knowledge 2; professional knowledge 3; and class-

room knowledge 4), the second digit represents a subcategory of the major category,

and the third digit represents a sub-subcategory. For example, knowledge of support


17/28


services is coded 315, which interprets this item as a component of professional knowl-

edge (the first digit) and as a part of political and sociological knowledge (the second

digit). The third digit is its particular designation as a sub-subcategory. Table 1 gives a

listing of the 3-digit codes used for the interviews.Subcategories for each of the major divisions of pedagogical context knowledge were

generated from the research data. Each statement made by a teacher was given a descriptive

word or phrase that appeared to capture the essence of what the teacher had attempted to

communicate. Once this round of data analysis was completed, the words or phrases were

themselves categorized (although the categories continued to evolve as data analysis pro-

ceeded). The categories and subcategories were then used to create a statement of views

for each teacher. Before finalizing the subcategories, all statements were member checked

to ensure that the essence of the views had been captured. The resulting subcategories

were then put into a frame to form the basic model. In a number of locations in the model,

however, logical gaps appeared. Subcategories that filled these logical gaps were created.For example, although several teachers demonstrated knowledge of individual students

(codes 440), none happened to mention families. It was the experience of the authors that

teachers often know something about the family situations of their students even if this

knowledge is only gleaned at parent teacher interviews. Therefore, code 442 (families)

was inserted into the model. In another example, teachers talked about community re-

sources, but none mentioned museums. It is well known that museums are a commonly

accepted community resource used by teachers; hence, the subcategory was added. Our

rationale for adding those categories that did not emerge from the data was based on the

notion that any knowledge landscape is coherent. Since the data were generated by a small

number of teachers discussing a particular curriculum resource, it is unreasonable to expectall subcategories to emerge from the data. Therefore, those subcategories needed to create

a coherent landscape were (tentatively) added. It is anticipated that the ensuing model can,

and will, be refined as data from other studies are folded in.

For a teacher statement to receive a code, there had to be a clear indication of a view

or opinion. In other words, it was not sufficient merely to refer to a category; rather, it

was necessary that the statement express some knowledge of it. Thus, for example, code

number 323 (professional knowledge; professional knowledge of education; and curricu-

lum planning) was entered only when the statement demonstrated that the teacher took a

stand on, or explained something about, curriculum planning. For example:

It drives you crazy because you have to look ahead. You have to have the materials

assembled. You have to make sure that youve got everything you need. If youre going

to need to order or borrow anything, youve got to go out and get them. So there is a

certain amount of work there. (Statement 377; code 323)

Individual statements were given as many codes as necessary to cover all the opinions

and views expressed. For example, the following statement required five different codes:

Well [January] is a good time to start it because they are doing a lot of skiing and stuff

then. But then I like to do Solutions because youre doing the water cycle. Youre doing

snow melt, acid rain, and all the rest of it. And I can tie a lot of earth science into our

investigation of pollution, acid rain, acid snow, and so on. And I try to do that for them.

(Statement 134; codes 124, 210, 214, 323)

The maximum number of codes that any statement received was seven. Repetition of

the same view in the same statement was coded once only. Inevitably, teachers occasionally


18/28


TABLE 1

The Components of Science Teachers Knowledge on the Knowledge Landscape

100 Academic and Research Knowledge110 Knowledge of Educational Research

111 Traditional

112 Action

113 Educational Literature

120 Scientific Knowledge

121 Knowing Structure of Science (disciplinary)

122 Knowing Facts, Theories and Practices

123 Knowing History and Philosophy of Science

124 Knowing Relationships among Science, Technology, Society and Environment

(STSE)

125 Knowing Nature of Science

130 Reflection-on-Action

131 Personal Teaching Strategies, Tactics and Styles

132 On Student Success

133 Intuition

140 Other Teachers Experience (through Networking)

150 Personal Philosophy of Science Education

151 Purposes of Science Education

200 Pedagogical Content Knowledge

210 Use of Strategies for Teaching Science

211 Organizing Scientific Knowledge

212 Teaching Scientific Facts, Theories and Practices213 Teaching History and Philosophy of Science

214 Teaching STSE

215 Teaching Nature of Science

216 Teaching Interest/Relevance of Science

217 Use of a Personal Bag of Tricks

218 Use of Inquiry/Practical Work

219 Safety

219A Use of Constructivism

219B Use of Conceptual Change

220 Use of Strategies for Assessing Science Learning

221 Traditional Testing, Tests and Instruments222 Alternative Practices (portfolios, peer and self-assessment)

223 Performance (short and long term)

230 Use of Scientific Resources

231 School Laboratories

232 School Equipment

233 School Supplies

240 Use of Other School Resources

241 Other Classrooms

242 Nonscience Equipment

250 Use of Community Resources

251 Museums252 Business/Industry

253 College/University

254 Individuals

260 Use of Strategies for Integrating Science with Other Subjects

270 Use of Strategies for Personalizing Science Education


19/28


TABLE 1

(Continued from previous page.)

300 Professional Knowledge310 Political and Sociological Knowledge of Schooling (the pipeline)

311 Official Duties of a Teacher

312 School Culture

313 School Systems

314 Administration

315 Support for Teaching

316 Union Matters

317 Official Noncurricular Documents (ministry, board, and school)

318 Relations with Parents/Public

320 Professional Knowledge of Education

321 Curricular Documents

322 Resources Available

323 Curriculum Planning

330 Teacher Lore

400 Classroom Knowledge

410 Psychological Knowledge of Students

411 Learning Styles and Abilities

412 Attitudes and Self-Esteem

413 Readiness

414 Habits of Mind

420 Sociological Knowledge of Students

421 Student Culture422 Student Subgroup Characteristics (age, gender, and ethnicity)

430 Facilitation of Learning

431 Creating a Learning Environment

432 Influencing Student Motivation

440 Knowledge of Individual Students

441 Backgrounds

442 Families

443 Problems

450 Behavioral Feedback from Students (Reflection-in-Action)

451 Individual

452 Collective

made statements that were essentially irrelevant to the interview, such as Excuse me, I

have to go and answer the telephone or Sorry, I didnt catch that. Could you repeat the

question? Such statements were not coded.

The framework proved sufficiently robust to enable all statements to be coded relatively

quickly and unambiguously, despite the often large variation in length and the large amount

of data. 564 statements were analyzed, varying in length from one-word responses to

comments in excess of 300 words. Since the original research focus had not been the

examination of science teachers knowledge per se, the interviewer could not have em-

ployed conscious or unconscious bias toward demonstrating the types and depth of teach-

ers knowledge represented in the framework outlined here. We regard this as a particular

strength of the evidential support for the pedagogical context knowledge framework pro-

vided by these data.

However, despite the absence of this particular kind of researcher bias, the analysis of


20/28


TABLE 2

Frequency of Use (by Category Division)

Division No. of Statements Made Percent of Total

Academic and Research Knowledge 233 19.7

Pedagogical Content Knowledge 526 44.5

Professional Knowledge 250 21.2

Classroom Knowledge 172 14.6

Total 1181 100

teacher statements was not entirely unproblematic. Inevitably, the focus of teacher re-

sponses depends on the questions they are asked by the researcher and, as one would

expect in research on teachers views of a curriculum document, comments coded 321

(curricular documents) figured prominently. In addition, code 323 (curriculum planning)appeared frequently because teachers had been asked their views of a curriculum document

that was, at that time, new to them. Then, in order to gain further insight, they had been

asked questions about hypothetical teaching situations related to material in the document.

Much of what was asked was in the form: What would you do when planning to teach

[particular new material]? or Faced with [a problematic situation in a particular student

activity], what would you do?

It is our view that the pedagogical context knowledge model is useful and valid if:

Most of the codes are necessary in categorizing teachers statements; that is, thenumber of unused codes is low.

Most of the teachers statements can be coded using the model; that is, the number

of uncoded statements is low.

There is a reasonable balance among the framework categories utilized; that is,

coding does not show the model to be biased toward a particular kind of teacher

knowledge

In terms of these criteria, the model appears to work extremely well (see Tables 26

for the frequency of use of all code numbers). It provides a simple and rapid, yet effective

and efficient way of examining teachers views and the knowledge base in which they areembedded. Almost every code number was used; only six out of 82 code numbers were

not required. This does not mean that these categories are redundant; rather, that teachers

did not have any need to talk about these particular matters in the context of the interview.

It was our contention that the model would have only limited practicality if most teacher

statements could be coded by using only a small range of codes. Data indicate that the

model has balance in the major categories of teacher knowledge, though pedagogical

content knowledge predominates in these research data, as one might expect for conver-

sations with those identified as exemplary teachers.

This approach has enormous value in probing deeply into the knowledge base under-

pinning particular kinds of pedagogical practice. Moreover, by pooling teacher responsesfrom a series of interviews, each with a different focus, the model can provide a descriptive

overview of a teachers personal framework of understanding. Used in this way, the model

could be a valuable tool for comparing the knowledge of different groups of teachers. For

example, do teachers in the United Kingdom and New Zealand talk more often or less


21/28


TABLE 3

Frequency of Use (Academic and Research Knowledge)

Category Name Codes StatementsMade Percentof Total

Knowledge of Educational Research (general) 100 6 0.5

Knowledge of Educational Research (specific) 110

111

112

113

10

1

7

0

Subtotal 18 1.5

Scientific Knowledge 120

121

122123

124

125

9

9

135

17

17

Subtotal 70 5.9

Reflection-on-Action 130

131

132

133

6

58

8

0

Subtotal 72 6.1

Other Teachers Experience/Networking 140 21

Subtotal 21 1.8

Personal Philosophy of Science Ed 150

151

41

5

Subtotal 46 3.9

Academic and Research Total 233 19.7

often about student-led inquiry methods than their Canadian or American counterparts?What differences are there in the kind of knowledge teachers use in justifying their cur-

riculum decisions? Do newly graduated teachers talk more or less about particular specified

aspects of their classroom knowledge than experienced teachers? In other words, how do

teachers at different stages of their career prioritize their concerns, and on what knowledge

resources do they draw? Who are the teachers who seem to be most influenced by research

findings? What kind of teachers draws only on professional knowledge? Used imagina-

tively and cautiously, the model can provide a powerful diagnostic tool for those working

in teacher education.

Data analysis must be conducted with caution, however, lest the researcher accidentally

introduce their bias. Simply asking teachers about one aspect of their practice can send

strong signals about the researchers own priorities and can prejudice what is said in

response. By guiding teachers to focus on a particular aspect of their knowledge base, the

researcher may dissuade them from discussing other aspects of practice and, hence, from

demonstrating other components of their knowledge, and it does not necessarily follow

that omission of a particular coded item is evidence that those aspects of knowledge are

absent from a teachers personal framework of understanding.


22/28


TABLE 4

Frequency of Use (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)


Pedagogical Content Knowledge (general) 200 1 0.1

Use of Strategies for Teaching Science 210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218219

219A

219B

22

40

27

8

34

15

41

9

1217

13

7

Subtotal 344 29.1

Use of Strategies for Assessing Science 220

221

222

223

8

31

31

19

Subtotal 89 7.5

Use of Scientific Resources 230231

232

233

42

26

3

Subtotal 35 3.0

Use of Other School Resources 240

241

242

6

2

4

Subtotal 12 1.0

Use of Community Resources 250

251252

253

254

12

04

0

6

Subtotal 22 1.9

Use of Integrating Strategies 260 17

Subtotal 17 1.4

Use of Personalizing Strategies 270 6

Subtotal 6 0.5

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Total 526 44.5


23/28


TABLE 5

Frequency of Use (Professional Knowledge)


Professional Knowledge (general) 300 1 0.1

Political and Sociological Knowledge 310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

11

7

4

13

12

9

0

0

5Subtotal 61 5.2

Professional Knowledge of Education 320

321

322

323

6

103

17

57

Subtotal 183 15.5

Teacher Lore 330 5

Subtotal 5 0.4

Professional Knowledge Total 250 21.2

CONCLUSION

In writing this article, we had four major purposes: to examine recent thinking about

teachers knowledge; to select those ideas that would be helpful in elucidating what con-

stitutes the knowledge of exemplary science teachers; to combine these elements into a

coherent theoretical structure; and to use the framework to make sense of interview data.

It is reasonable to conclude that the interview data supports the practicality of using this

model of science teachers knowledge in three respects:

The data required almost all of the components of the framework to be used.

The framework made it possible to code almost all the teachers statements.

The data required the use of the framework in a balanced manner.

It is fair to say, therefore, that pedagogical context knowledge provides a simple and

effective way of examining teachers views and the knowledges on which they draw when

they teach or talk about their teaching. Perhaps the most important aspect of our idea,

however, lies in the elaboration of teaching as a complex and subtle activity which requires

many forms of knowledgesituated, on the one hand, within one classroom on one day

with one class of students, yet, at the same time, situated within the broadest expanses of

the teachers knowledge landscape. Good science teachers, like good guides, know the

features of this landscape, and use it to teach and guide their students in traversing and

expanding their own knowledge landscapes. The model might, therefore, be helpful to

practicing teachers as a guide to the priorities for their own professional development. It

may also have value in providing a metacognitive framework for helping student and


24/28


TABLE 6

Frequency of Use (Classroom Knowledge)


Classroom Knowledge (general) 400 1 0.0

Psychological Knowledge of Students 410

411

412

413

414

11

25

19

8

2

Subtotal 65 5.5

Sociological Knowledge of Students 420

421422

6

88

Subtotal 22 1.9

Facilitation of Learning 430

431

432

7

10

44

Subtotal 61 5.2

Knowledge of Individual Students 440

441

442

443

2

1

0

4

Subtotal 7 0.6

Behavioral Feedback from Students 450

451

452

1

5

10

Subtotal 16 1.4

Classroom Knowledge (total) 172 14.6

novice teachers understand and develop the knowledge they will need to become successfulscience teachers. Indeed, the model could form the basis for preservice course organization

and assessment of students. At such an early stage in the development of the model, these

speculations should not be regarded as advice or invitations to science teacher educators.

Our priority is to refine and develop the model through further analysis of what teachers

do and say. Our purpose at this stage has less to do with deciding what it is that science

teachers should know/do and more to do with unpacking the extraordinarily complex

knowledge on which skilled science teachers draw in their daily practice.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas

Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barnett, J. (1996). Visions and voices: The curriculum implementation of SciencePlus in the Ca-

nadian Maritimes. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education/University of Toronto.


25/28


Barrell, B. R. C. (1995). The texture of teaching. In D. C. Jones (Ed.), The spirit of teaching

excellence (pp. 13 29). Calgary, AB: Detselig.

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1992). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social develop-

ment. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 483 497.Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performance. In J. N. Mangieri &

C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives

(pp. 161 186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Bloom, J. W. (1992). Contexts of meaning and conceptual integration: How children understand

and learn. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology,

and educational theory and practice (pp. 177194). Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Brickhouse, N. W., Bodner, G. M., & Neie, V. E. (1987). Teachers beliefs about science and their

influence on classroom practice. Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconcep-

tions and educational strategies in science, Vol. II (pp. 34 38). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Broadfoot, P. (1992). Teaching and the challenge of change: Educational research in relation toteacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 4552.

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 123130.

Carlson, W. S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. In

J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 115143). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

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.

Chiapatta, E. L. (1978). Science educators perceptions of skills necessary for secondary school

science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 233237.

Clandinin, D. J. (1985) Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers classroom images. Cur-

riculum Inquiry, 15, 362385.

Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer

Press.

Clandinin, D. J. (1989). Developing rhythm in teaching: The narrative study of a beginning teachers

personal practical knowledge of classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 121141.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers professional knowledge landscapes. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Claxton, G. (1989). Cognition doesnt matter if youre scared, depressed or bored. In P. Adey, J.

Bliss, J. Head, & M. Shayer (Eds.), Adolescent development and school science (pp. 155160).

Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Claxton, G. (1990). Teaching to learn: A direction for education. London, UK: Cassell.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing:

Relevance for teaching and learning. NSSE Yearbook, 84, 174198.Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners. New York: Croom

Helm.

Craig, C. J. (1995). Knowledge communities: A way of making sense of how beginning teachers

come to know in their professional knowledge contexts. Curriculum Inquiry, 25, 151175.

Day, C. (1983). Teachers thinkingintentions and practice: An action research perspective. In R.

Halkes & J. K. Olson (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in

education. Proceedin