Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Practice-Based Instruction Developed by Science Teachers in a Teacher Learning Community

교사학습공동체 교사들의 과학 실천 기반 수업을 위한 PCK 구성

  • Received : 2020.08.13
  • Accepted : 2020.10.31
  • Published : 2020.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate middle school science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for science practice-based instruction developed by five middle school science teachers in a teacher learning community. Science teachers in this study collaborated to examine lesson plans and reflect on teaching practice and collaboratively analyzed science curriculum, discussed video-recordings of teaching practice, and discussed to design detailed and elaborated lesson plans. Data collection consisted of pre and post questionnaire and interview, audio-recording of teacher discussion in a teacher learning community for one year, lesson plans, teacher written reflection, and video-recording of teaching practice. Data analysis reveals that science teachers developed pedagogical content knowledge for science practice-based instruction that consists of eleven sub-components of knowledge of science curriculum for science practice, knowledge of science practice-based instructional strategy, knowledge of students' science practice-based learning, and knowledge of science practice-based learning assessment. Science teachers in this study developed highly structured pedagogical content knowledge for science practice-based instruction.

본 연구에서는 과학 실천 수업을 위한 교사학습공동체를 형성한 5명의 중학교 과학 교사들이 1년간의 교사학습공동체 활동을 통해 과학 실천 수업에 관한 어떠한 PCK를 구성하였는지 분석하였다. 교사학습공동체에서 교사들은 협력적인 수업 설계, 수업 실행 공유 및 성찰을 반복하였다. 본 연구에서는 사전·사후 설문과 면담을 시행하고, 교사학습공동체 모임에 참여 관찰 및 녹음을 하고, 수업계획안, 과학 실천 수업 녹화 영상, 수업 일기 등의 자료를 수집하였다. PCK 이론적 틀에 기반하여 연역적으로 분석하고 다시 귀납적 분석을 통해 그 범주를 정교화하고 수정하여 본 연구의 교사들이 과학 실천 교육과정, 과학 실천 교수 전략, 학생의 과학 실천 학습, 과학 실천 학습평가의 네 가지 PCK 요소에 포함된 총 11개 하위 요소의 PCK를 구성한 것을 밝혔다. 본 연구의 교사들은 과학 실천 교육과정에 관한 지식으로 과학 실천 교육과정 자료에 관한 지식, 핵심 개념 선정 및 교육과정 구조화에 관한 지식을 구성하였고, 과학 실천 교수 전략에 관한 지식으로 과학 실천 특이적 전략, 과학 실천 활동 선정 및 구조화 전략, 과학 실천 학습 가이드 전략에 관한 지식을 구성하였다. 학생의 과학 실천 학습에 관한 지식으로 과학 실천 선지식, 과학 실천 수행 어려움, 과학 실천 동기, 과학 실천 수행 다양성에 관한 지식을 구성하였고, 과학 실천 학습 평가에 관한 지식으로 과학 실천 학습 평가내용, 과학 실천 학습 평가 방법에 관한 지식을 구성하였다. 본 연구의 교사들이 구성한 과학 실천 수업 PCK는 학생들의 과학 실천을 통한 핵심 개념 학습을 위해 고도로 구조화된 지식으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3‐year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20159
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video‐based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259-1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21271
  3. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small‐group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
  4. Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: A case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 615-624. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00095H
  5. Bang, A., & Choi, A. (2016). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ designing and implementing inquiry-based science instruction that emphasizes argumentation and writing: Focus on ways to overcome difficulties. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(5), 342-352. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.5.342
  6. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  7. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  8. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802222917
  9. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
  10. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z
  11. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  12. Cho, H., Han, I., Kim, H., & Yang, I. (2008). Analysis of elementary teachers’ views on barriers in implementing inquiry-based instructions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 901-921.
  13. Cho, S., & Baek, J. (2015). A case study on the inquiry guidance experiences of pre-service science teachers: Resolving the dilemmas between cognition and practice of inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0573
  14. Choi, M., & Choi, A. (2016). Analysis of activities in chemistry chapters of middle school science textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum: Focus on 8 science practices. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(6), 436-451. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.6.436
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
  16. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  17. Demir, A., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Views of inquiry: Mismatches between views of science education faculty and students of an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20365
  18. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A-N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050309
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  20. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  21. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  22. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results form a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
  23. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
  24. Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321-1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187017
  25. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
  26. Jeon, Y., & Choi, A. (2016). Analysis of inquiry activities in high school chemistry II textbooks based on the 2009 revised science curriculum: Focus on 8 science practices. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2016.60.1.59
  27. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
  28. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163198
  29. Kang, N. (2017). Korean teachers’ conceptions of models and modeling in science and science teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0143
  30. Kang, N., & Lee, E. (2013). An analysis of inquiry activities in high school physics textbooks for the 2009 revised science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.132
  31. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co‐constructing inquiry‐based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023
  32. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  33. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  34. Lee, H. & Cho, H. (2012). An exploration of teaching method for scientific inquiry including scientific argumentation in school science. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 5(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2012.5.2.175
  35. Lee, S., Shin, M., Lee, G., Lee, S., & Kwon, N.(2010). Analyzing coherence of evidences and claims presented in elementary students' science writing for inquiry activities. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(4), 505-514.
  36. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Yang, K. K., & Lee, S. T. (2013). The impact of collaborative reflections on teachers’ inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3095-3116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.689023
  37. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  38. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20007
  39. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033004757
  40. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  41. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
  42. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
  43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  44. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised curriculum-Science. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  45. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  46. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  47. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
  48. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
  49. Park, S. H. (2007). Teacher efficacy as an affective affiliate of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 27(8), 743-754.
  50. Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022
  51. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  52. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. : Sage Publications
  53. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
  54. Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
  55. Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2011). Identifying elements critical for functional and sustainable professional learning communities. Science Education, 95(3), 543-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20430
  56. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261
  57. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
  58. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530-565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311423382
  59. Seo, K. (2015). Teacher learning communities. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  60. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  61. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  62. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  63. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
  64. Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90011-X
  65. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
  66. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
  67. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism : A way of knowing and learning. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
  68. Vygotshy, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  69. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: Elementary teachers’ use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989-1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21104

Cited by

  1. 과학 탐구 수업에서 초등학생들이 바라는 과학 교사의 모습에 대한 요인 분석 vol.40, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.3.366