See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249005015
Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science ARTICLE in TEACHING EDUCATION · SEPTEMBER 2009 DOI: 10.1080/10476210802578921
CITATIONS
READS
9
60
2 AUTHORS: Karen Goodnough Memorial University of Newfoun… 31 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Woei Hung University of North Dakota 34 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Available from: Woei Hung Retrieved on: 03 February 2016
Teaching Education Vol. 20, No.3, September 2009,229-242
Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science Karen Goodnougha* and Woei Hungb aMemorial University, Canada; bUniversity of North Dakota, USA (Received 3 July 2008; final version received 28 September 2008) In this study, five elementary teachers and a university researcher developed and implemented problem-based learning (PBL) experiences in the context of science teaching and learning. Collaborative inquiry was adopted as a methodology, while a variety of qualitative methods were used to examine the engagement and development of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). A PCK model is used as a framework to examine teachers' professional knowledge growth in areas such as orientations to teaching science, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of students' understanding of science, knowledge of assessment, and knowledge of instructional strategies. Implications for how teachers may be supported when adopting instructional innovations are discussed.
Keywords: teacher thinking and knowledge
Introduction
To be effective in classrooms and schools, teachers need to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions in many domains, such as subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge (e.g., knowledge of classroom management, human development, and curricular goals), knowledge of the context of learning (e.g., the school, community, and school district), and pedagogical content knowledge or knowledge that is specific to teaching a particular subject area such as science or social studies. While it is important for teachers to develop knowledge in all of these domains and for educators to understand the underlying knowledge that informs their planning, decision-making, and classroom practices, this study focuses on the development of elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge or PCK. The primary goal of this study was to examine how five elementary teachers engaged and developed their PCK as they adopted problem-based learning (PBL), an inquiry-based approach to curriculum development and teaching in which student learning is driven by open-ended problems. The inquiry group, which also included the first author, used a nine-step problem design model (Hung, 2006a, b) when planning the PBL experiences. The specific research questions that guided the study were: (a) What aspects of teachers' PCK (orientations to teaching science and knowledge of science curriculum, students' understanding of science, assessment, and instruction) will be engaged during PBL adoption? and (b) How will these aspects of teachers' PCK be enhanced during the design and implementation of PBL?
*Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected] [SSN 1047-6210 prim/lSSN 1470-1286 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DO!: 10.108011 0476210802578921 http://www.inforrnaworld.com
j
230
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
The nature of PBL After several years of predominance in medical education (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Schmidt, 1983), the adoptation of PBL has expanded horizontally to various disciplines, such as health science, chemical engineering (Woods, 1996), law schools (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Kurtz, Wylie, & Gold, 1990; Pletinckx & Segers, 2001) biology (Szeberenyi, 2005), and business administration (Merchand, 1995). It has also been adopted, although to a lesser extent, in K-12 settings (Barrows, 2000; Dochy, Segers, van den Bossche, & Gijbels 2003; Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000; Torp & Sage, 2002; Williams & Hmelo, 1998). One of the reasons for the steady growth of PBL in popularity in education is its effectiveness in facilitating student problem-solving and self-directed learning skills (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993). Advocates of PBL also believe in its potential as the approach aligns with many principles that are foundational to student-centred forms of learning. The fundamental goal ofPBL is to enhance learners' abilities to apply knowledge and to prepare them for real world settings. The most distinctive feature ofPBL is that the approach is centered around problems. The problem should be realistic and openended, foster the generation of several feasible solutions, and serve as the impetus for students to enhance their knowledge of the content, and their problem-solving selfdirected learning skills (Barrows, 2000; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). To realize these goals instruction ally, Barrows and Kelson (1995) suggested five instructional goals ofPBL: (a) constructing an extensive and flexible knowledge base that can be applied to real world problems and connected across multiple domains; (b) developing effective problem-solving skills so knowledge may be applied efficiently; (c) developing self-directed, life-long learning skills such that learners may demonstrate an awareness of what they are able to comprehend, an ability to identify and set learning goals and take an appropriate course of action to reach their goals, and provide evidence of how to reflect upon whether or not their goals have actually been attained (Zimmerman, 2002); (d) building effective collaboration skills to accomplish a task or project through negotiation, conflict resolution, and consensus-building; and (e) fostering intrinsic motivation through PBL groups that share goals, challenges, and interests (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Pedagogical content knowledge Research has shown that elementary and secondary teachers feel ill-equipped and ill-prepared to assume the task of engaging students in problem- and inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning science. This lack of preparation for teaching science often translates into difficulty with teaching science and subsequently, adopting low-risk, conservative approaches to instruction (Appleton & Kindt, 2002; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1999). There is a need to support teachers in developing their PCK for more effective teaching. In an attempt to understand the nature of teachers' knowledge, Shulman (1986, 1987) developed the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to address the importance of integrating subject matter knowledge and specific pedagogy in teaching. According to Shulman, PCK illustrates how the subject matter of a particular discipline is transformed for communication with learners. It includes recognition of what makes specific topics difficult to learn, as well as the conceptions students bring to the learning of those concepts.
r
f
Teaching Education
231
Other authors have expanded the original notion of PCK. Loughran, Gunstone, Berry, Milroy, and Mulhall (2000) view PCK as a mixture of interacting elements, including views of learning, views of teaching, understanding of content, understanding of students, knowledge and practice of children's conceptions, time, context, views of scientific knowledge, pedagogical practice, decision-making, reflection, and explicit versus tacit knowledge of practice, beliefs, or ideas, all of which interact and result in PCK. More recently, van Dijk and Kattmann (2007) developed a research framework "Educational Reconstruction for Teacher Education" (ERTE) for studying science teachers' PCK and improving teacher education. This model consists of three aspects: knowledge and beliefs of students' pre-scientific conception; knowledge and beliefs of representations of the subject matter; and subject matter knowledge for teaching. In this study, the inquiry group examined the development and engagement of several aspects of PCK using a model proposed by Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) that consists of five distinct, yet interrelated, components: (1) Orientations to teaching science. These are ways of viewing how science
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
should be taught and how these views guide instructional decision-making. Many teachers' choices of instructional approaches reflect several distinct orientations (content emphasis, guided inquiry, process-oriented, problembased). The reasons for adopting particular approaches are indicative of a teacher's orientation. Knowledge of science curriculum. This includes beliefs about and understanding of curriculum goals and outcomes in particular courses and across grade levels. As well, this category involves an awareness of the curriculum resources available at various grade levels to support instruction. Knowledge of students' understanding of science. This includes teachers' beliefs about and insights into what prerequisite knowledge, abilities, and skills students need to learn particular topics, as well as an understanding of how students vary in their approaches to learning particular topics. A second area targeted in this category is teachers' knowledge of science concepts and ideas that are difficult for students to learn. Knowledge of assessment. This includes teachers' beliefs about and understanding of which aspects of students' learning are important to assess within a learning episode or unit, as well as the methods of assessment that are appropriate for determining the learning that has occurred. Knowledge of instructional strategies. This includes teachers' beliefs about and understanding of which instructional strategies may be used to teach in science, as well as specific strategies (topics and representations) that would be useful to adopt when teaching particular science topics.
Methodology This study occurred over a one-year period from May 2006 to June 2007. The teacher inquiry group consisted of five K-6 teachers from one school district and a university researcher, the first author of this paper. One of the teachers taught in an urban community, while the other four were from schools located in rural communities. School configurations included K-12 schools and K-5 schools. Teachers were responsible for teaching all subject areas, except French, music, and physical education.
232
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
Rachael, an experienced teacher of 23 years, worked with a Grade 2 class of 18 students (nine boys and nine girls). Four children followed a program with modified learning outcomes, while the other students were average or above average in terms of academic ability. Rachael had completed a graduate degree in education, a Bachelor of Arts in education (primary/elementary) and a Bachelor of special education. Debbie had a conjoint Bachelor of Arts and Education (primary/elementary), as well as a Master of education degree, and had been teaching for 23 years. She implemented her PBL unit with a group of 22 Grade 4 students (eight boys and 14 girls). Five children followed programs with modified learning outcomes, while two ofthese children were labeled as behaviorally challenged. Kara worked with a Grade 3 class of 12 boys and 12 girls. She described her class as being weak academically, particularly in reading (50% were below grade level). One student was following a program with modified learning outcomes and one student had been diagnosed with dyslexia. Kara had taught for 15 years and completed a conjoint Bachelor of Arts and Education (primary/elementary) as well as a Masters degree in education. Sharon, with 18 years experience, had completed graduate work in education, as well as a Bachelor of Arts and Education (primary/elementary). She implemented her PBL module with a Grade 1 class of 24 students (13 boys and 11 girls). The class was of mixed ability; four students followed a program with modified program learning outcomes and one student had a hearing impairment. Patricia had worked with a Grade 4 class of 18 students, having equal numbers of boys and girls. The class had several strong students; one student followed a program with modified learning outcomes, while another student had been diagnosed with a behavioral disorder. Patricia completed a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Education (primary/elementary) and had been teaching for two years. Debbie and Patricia worked together to develop their PBL module on habitats (Grade 4), while Rachael developed a PBL module on life cycles. Although Kara and Sharon taught different grade levels (Grade 3 and Grade 1 respectively), they developed a module that focused on the needs of living things. Many of their learning and assessment activities were similar, but differentiated for learners with varying abilities, interests, and motivations. In this study, the group adopted collaborative inquiry (eI), an action-based "process consisting of repeated episodes of reflection and action through which a group of peers strives to answer a question of importance to them" (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000, p. 6). Throughout the project, all participants were co-inquirers and co-learners, playing active roles in guiding all aspects of the research from decisionmaking related to scheduling of meetings to choice of learning and assessment activities to be used within the PBL experiences. During the planning stage, the group met on four separate days (for five hours per day) over a four-month period to explore the nature of PBL, to adopt a model that would be used for development and implementation, and to develop learning episodes. Implementation occurred over a four- to six-week period from March to May 2007. Two full, consecutive days were used after implementation to debrief and reflect on the experience. A variety of qualitative methods and sources were used, including: (a) Videotaped teaching sessions (15 hours of tape). This videotaping was done by each teacher and later shared in the collaborative group.
Teaching Education
233
(b) Audiotaped pre- and post-implementation interviews. Each interview was 30-60 minutes, allowing insight into the various aspects of teachers' changing beliefs and thoughts. (c) Audiotaped planning and debriefing meetings. Over 25 hours were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed, providing another source for corroborating emerging themes and sub-themes. (d) Electronic journal entries. Teachers made online reflective entries in an online course management system during the development and implementation of their PBL experiences. (e) Documents and materials generated by the CI group. These documents ranged from concept maps created by the group during planning sessions to lesson plans. All group members had access to the data; however, the more intensive data analysis was conducted by the authors and a research assistant. Using the categories from the Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) PCK model, the researchers engaged in "the process of bringing order, structure, and interpretation to the mass of data collected" (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 150). Using each of the model's five categories, the researchers looked for instances of teacher change and development. This then led to the generation of several subcategories. Subcategories were generated for each of the five categories (e.g., knowledge of assessment; types of assessment; dimensions of student learning assessed). Labels were assigned to units of text from transcripts, field notes, journal entries, and interviews. Simultaneously, constant comparison was used, identifYing similar incidents and events for grouping into the same conceptual categories. Outcomes Prior to describing how teachers' PCK was engaged and developed through the adoption of PBL, the planning and implementation stages of PBL adoption are described. Initial planning and design of PBL experiences The initial meeting of the teacher inquiry group occurred in May 2006. This was a two-day session in which group members themselves examined the broad goals of the project, and began a preliminary exploration ofPBL. For all group participants, except the facilitator (the first author), PBL was a new approach. A variety of resources were used in examining the nature of PBL, including journal articles (scholarly and practitioner), videos of teachers discussing and implementing PBL in their classrooms, and Internet sites. The teachers were invited to join the project through infonnation that was sent to their principals. The teachers, during the initial meetings, shared their reasons for participating in the project. All were interested in enhancing their subject matter knowledge in science, an area in which many K-6 teachers are disadvantaged (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Putnam & Borko, 1997) because they often have limited fonnal preparation in science. In addition, the teachers were very keen to offer student learning experiences that would be engaging and motivating, thus fostering higher levels of problem-solving and self-directed learning.
234
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
By the end ofthe second day of planning, group members reviewed what they had learned about PBL. A consensus was reached that PBL may be implemented in different ways, but should reflect principles and characteristics such as: (a) learning is driven with open-ended problems; (b) problems may have several feasible solutions; (c) students work in collaborative groups to engage in finding possible solutions to problems; (d) students become self-directed learners and adopt critical thinking; (e) the teacher is a facilitator during PBL implementation; and (f) assessment needs to reflect the nature of the learning within a PBL. These ideas remained salient features of the approach to PBL adopted by the group. Subsequent planning days allowed the group to engage in more intensive reflection about PBL and how it might manifest itself in practice. Group members raised issues and concerns as they were learning about PBL and during the development of their actual PBL units. These concerns centred on having enough time to plan and implement PBL, the creation of the open-ended problem, classroom organization and management during implementation, assessment practices, and student responses to learning through PBL. During the development stage, a nine-step design process (Hung, 2006a, b) was adopted to provide a systematic means for teachers to develop the PBL modules. Initially, group members chose a curriculum unit that would be the context for their respective PBL design. Learning goals and outcomes (concepts and principles; processes such as inquiry, problem-solving, and communication skills; and affective domains) from each unit were targeted, while outcomes from other curricular areas that could be targeted were also noted. Once goals and outcomes had been identified, the groups engaged in collaborative concept mapping that outlined the concepts, principles, facts, and procedures that would be targeted in their respective units (Step 2). Next, for each PBL, the teachers considered the context for each problem and the nature of the student task that would be included in the problem, identified resources that were available to support the problem, and considered the nature of professional work that would be represented in the problem. In Step 4, based on the information generated in the previous step, a real world context was chosen for the problem (e.g., students are asked by the principal to create areas on the school grounds that may be enjoyed by students and teachers. In doing this, students learn about habitats and factors that need to be considered in establishing a habitat). In Step 5, the teachers drafted a description oftheir respective problem, the overall goal of the problem, the variables that would be shared in the problem, the unknown variables, and the content and other skills that would be targeted. Next, the teachers compared the intended outcomes, identified early in the planning process, to what was generated in Step 5. This allowed the teachers to determine if, indeed, the problem was actually targeting the desired learning outcomes. After doing this analysis, the teachers crafted the student PBL scenarios. The appendix provides an example of a PBL scenario. Engagement and enhancement of teachers' PCK Implementation of the teachers' PBL units occurred over a four- to six-week period. During implementation, teachers used a scaffolding tool to help students explore the problem. When introducing the scaffolding tool initially, the teachers elicited feedback from the entire class. Students completed a scaffolding chart that addressed questions such as "What are the facts in this problem? (facts given) What do we need
Teaching Education
235
to learn more about? (questions) How will we answer our questions? (action)". Early class sessions were devoted to identifying facts embedded in the problem statements and generating questions, while throughout implementation, the teachers would direct the students to their original questions and facts to determine if new facts/information could be added, questions had been answered, and/or new questions needed to be included. All teachers adopted a floating facilitator approach (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001) to PBL implementation. Teachers provided support to PBL groups, assuming a variety of roles that involved challenging ideas, engaging in direct instruction, providing guidance on the process, monitoring group functioning, and offering feedback. Using each category of the Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) PCK model, descriptions and interpretations of how teachers engaged and developed aspects of their PCK are reported.
Orientations to teaching science Often, one of the challenges for many teachers is translating beliefs about teaching and learning into classroom practice (Lee, Luykx, Buxton, & Shaver, 2007; Smith & Southerland, 2007). While the teachers described their science classrooms as student-centred, they reported at the end of the study that adopting PBL either validated their beliefs about science instruction and learning or helped them change their actual classroom practice. For example, while Debbie believed that "students can be generators of knowledge" and that "learning is social", she did not always teach science in a way that reflected these values. She acknowledged that her practice in social studies and other disciplines reflected this philosophy, yet her classroom teaching in science was more traditional. The adoption of PBL allowed her to become more confident in her teaching, holding back on facts and allowing students to ask more inquiry questions. Kara and Sharon, who worked as partners in this project, also felt they became greater risk-takers: "Although we had not used PBL before, we allowed ourselves to be risk-takers and allowed the students to be risktakers. Students took more control and we had been reluctant to do this in the past" (Kara, planning meeting). For Patricia, one of the most beneficial aspects of the project was the impact it had on her "beliefs about teaching and learning science, as well as beliefs about teaching and learning in general" (interview). The following comments, shared with the first author in an email, reflect this change: "Participating in this project has rejuvenated my philosophy and has helped me realize that although not always easy, it is important to work through such challenges so that in the end students are benefiting from learning experiences that have been meaningful". Like Patricia, Rachael validated some of her beliefs about science teaching and learning. Specifically, she "reinforced ... [her] belief that problem situations that relate to the real world should be woven into the curriculum. Interdisciplinary approaches, like PBL, can promote engagement and drive learning" (interview). Knowledge of science curriculum The development of teachers' PCK in this area includes understanding of curriculum goals and outcomes, as well as an awareness of resources that may be used to support instruction.
236
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
The teachers identified two areas where they felt their understanding of curriculum was enhanced: integrating curriculum outcomes and interpreting learning outcomes. During the development of the teachers' PBL units, they identified learning outcomes they would target first, developed the PBL scenario, and then selected appropriate assessment and learning activities. As Rachael stated, "this is the process we usually use when planning in any subject area" (planning meeting). However, the nine-step design process adopted in this study encouraged the teachers to examine and scrutinize the outcomes in a far more comprehensive manner, when compared to their previous work in science. This was accomplished by creating concept maps (Novak, 1990, 1991) of the content, skills, and dispositions they needed to target in the PBL, thus allowing them to make stronger connections among ideas, especially those related to the concepts and principles in their respective science PBL units. Furthermore, later in the design process, the teachers aligned curriculum outcomes with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they wanted to target in the PBL. This in-depth treatment and interpretation of the outcomes and their value for the teachers' is reflected in their comments: This process really helped to consolidate our understanding of the subject matter and helped to align the content and skills with the outcomes. (Sharon, interview) The design process was intensive and really forced us to examine gaps and where things overlapped. You had to really focus on the outcomes as you were building the PBL. (Patricia, planning) Although we examine outcomes, this really forced us to make them explicit and also see the big picture. (Kara, planning meeting)
Rachael referred to their role as curriculum creators: "Weare creating the curriculum rather than just following lessons in the curriculum materials". Knowledge of students' understanding of science
This area of teacher knowledge examines teachers' beliefs about and insights into what prerequisite knowledge, abilities, and skills students need to learn particular topics, as well as an understanding of how students vary in their approaches to learning particular topics (diversity). It also involves teachers' knowledge of science concepts and ideas that are difficult for students to learn. Although all teachers believed that students learn in different ways in order to meet learning outcomes, this belief was validated in a PBL setting. Kara commented on how a PBL approach allows students to construct their own understanding through collaborative dialogue and shared meaning-making: And I think that giving children the onus of finding thc answers themselves ... and selfdiscovery is a method that I have used but not to the extent that I've used it in the PBL. I debriefed and reviewed with the groups instead of standing up in front and telling them the answers. The students, even the students who were at the very low reading level, learned better and they retained it more when the light bulb suddenly goes off themselves. (Journal entry)
In addition to this guided inquiry approach, the teachers found by using a scaffolding chart that addressed questions such as "What are the facts in this problem? (facts given) What do we need to learn more about? (questions) How will we answer our
Teaching Education
237
questions? (action)", they gained more insight, when compared to previous science teaching approaches, into how students' ideas were developing. As Rachael said: It was easy to track their thinking as we continued to return to the chart. They had misconceptions about the caterpillar life cycle, but I could see this. When they found something that challenged their thinking, they noted it in the chart and changed their answers to questions. (Planning session)
In observing videotaped sessions, it was obvious that all the teachers used this tool to monitor and gain insight into students' thinking. During several videotaped sessions, students were observed making adjustments to the scaffolding charts by adding new facts or changing questions. Teachers reported that most of their students were highly engaged in all PBL activities. For example, during implementation, Patricia focused specifically on six students who had been formally assessed as needing to follow modified learning programs (e.g., addressing fewer curriculum outcomes, completing tests verbally, etc). While Patricia reported that all students in her class of 18, except these six, had mastered the outcomes, she did have evidence that these six made progress in "developing an understanding of the concepts". She compared this to previous units and felt these six students had improved in terms of achievement and attributed this to the nature of the learning activities. Patricia was highly surprised during one videotaped lesson when one of these students stepped outside and actually started to become involved in building the garden. After observing this, I asked Patricia to comment on what was happening: "I was thrilled as I got my first glimmer of hope that she could be engaged in this type of learning. She definitely became engaged and learned a lot about the practical aspects of gardening". Sharon and Kara placed a special focus, as well, on some of their less motivated learners. They were cognizant of having them complete activities that would challenge them, yet not cause cognitive overload. This is reflected in Kara's comments as she viewed a videotaped lesson: Some of them used music to let me know what they've learned. Some ofthem were using drama, poetry and that sort of thing, but I have a couple of non-readers and non-writers that kind of posed a little bit of problem. So they had to come up and they had to pick out a sentence that had a truth or myth to it and I would help them with the reading. I would help those children with the reading, and I evaluated them on how they acted out this truth or myth; and the kids then had to say what it was, what they were acting out, and if it was a truth or a myth about that. So engaging them and motivating them ... I feel good about that. I know that they were engaged and they were motivated but I had to make sure, I think, that some of the activities were geared towards their strengths.
While the teachers had used collaborative learning activities in the past in other teaching contexts, the nature of this learning within groups (over a sustained period of time and completing numerous group activities) required unique attention and monitoring.
Knowledge of assessment and instructional strategies This area of teacher know ledge includes beliefs and understanding of which methods should be used to assess learning and what aspect of students' learning should be assessed. While the teachers had used most forms of assessment adopted in this study
J
238
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
in the past, the nature of the learning within a PBL necessitated the use of many more assessment tools, thus providing more insight into students' learning. The assessment approaches used were diverse (journal entries, portfolios, group reflection sheets, story writing, presentations, creating models, rubrics) reflecting the need to examine many types of student learning (e.g., understanding scientific concepts, developing problem-solving skills, etc.) and to give learners opportunities to demonstrate, in different ways, what they were learning. For Sharon and Patricia, the adoption of PBL encouraged them to focus more on observing their students and making their observations systematic and formal through note-taking. This was shared during a planning meeting: Sharon:
Karen: Patricia:
Yeah. Tome, I really focused on observation and the validity of it, more so than previous to this. I looked at what they were doing and saying and made jot notes of how they were responding to the lessons and activities. I really focused on each individual child. You mentioned this earlier as well, Patricia. Well, I would say my understanding of assessment has been enhanced. I have learned what I knew all along but you get too caught up in what's happening day to day to really use it the way you know it should be used.
When asked about how she had enhanced her understanding of assessment, Kara reported that she became more adept at using student self-assessment. "It's important for students to be involved in self-evaluations or self-assessment within PBL" (Kara, interview). She also acknowledged the importance of students giving each other feedback during group work. The teachers recognized the integral relationship between assessment and instruction, considering both in an integrated manner during both the planning and implementation stages. By adopting PBL, the teachers enhanced their understanding of how particular instructional strategies could be used to teach science in general. While they were aware of many of the strategies and tactics, there were several they had not used in the past or had only used in a cursory manner. In terms of instruction, direct instruction, a mainstay of many teachers' instructional repertoires, was used selectively during PBL implementation by all the teachers. Sometimes it involved whole-group instruction, while in other instances, it was used with students while they were in their PBL groups. The teachers also reported that they continued to do a lot of modeling, a typical part of their classroom teaching, as they believed this was necessary for very young children. The following description, compiled from a videotaped classroom teaching segment, shows one example of how Debbie engaged in modeling with her students: Debbie placed a T-chart on the flip chart. She then created columns to indicate what effective group work would "look like" and "sound like". Debbie elicited feedback from the class, recorded their ideas in the columns of the chart, and actually modeled some of the ideas shared. The class were doing research on the Internet today and creating notes. At the end of the session, Debbie asked each group to evaluate how well they worked together, using the information on their T-chart as a guide.
Implications If the teaching and learning process is to improve and new innovations are to be assessed for their potential to improve education, then professional development for
Teaching Education
239
teachers is critical (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Furthermore, the purpose of teacher learning should be to support teachers in examining, understanding, and changing their beliefs, attitudes, and classroom practices (Guskey, 1986). In this study, the teacher participants adopted a new approach to science teaching and learning. Each teacher started the study with different knowledge bases for teaching; consequently, the engagement and enhancement of their PCK varied. In other words, each teacher has a unique PCK profile and how this changes as a result of new experiences will depend on prior experiences, contextual factors (e.g., support for engaging in teacher development, availability of resources, etc.), and readiness to adopt new teaching approaches. They had opportunities to reflect on their current beliefs about how to teach science and how various aspects of their PCK were being engaged or enhanced through PBL adoption. While their beliefs about teaching and learning science aligned with principles such as fostering active learning, supporting self-directed learning, making learning relevant, engaging higher-order thinking skills, and constructing individual and social knowledge, the teachers were able to systematically translate many of these principles into practice in a PBL learning environment through the utilization of the nine-step problem design process. The teachers became more comfortable with interpreting science learning outcomes, and through concept mapping, they were able to make strong connections among the concepts, principles, skills, and attitudes they were targeting in their respective PBL units (knowledge of curriculum). By becoming creators of curriculum, rather than just curriculum implementers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Grundy, 1987), they became more confident in their ability to teach science. They became more adept at tracking student thinking, and thus gained more insight into the conditions needed to support student learning. Adopting more focused and systematic observation approaches during classroom learning also supported this. They validated their belief that science instruction should cater to diverse learners. In terms of group work, some of the teachers were challenged to keep students focused on learning activities and tasks that would target learning outcomes, as students tended to pursue tangential topics. Modeling appropriate skills for students to use in their collaborative PBL groups was an ongoing challenge as well. While many of the strategies and tactics teachers adopted in their PBL units were not new, the teachers' shift to being mainly classroom facilitators was new. Although inquiry may be viewed in different ways (Anderson, 2002), the role of the teacher becomes one of a facilitator who guides students as they pose questions, examine evidence, explore explanations, and communicate their ideas. Conclusions PCK is a critical element in effective teaching. Classroom practice is a reflection of not only a teacher's content knowledge, but also his or her fundamental teaching beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge for teaching in a particular discipline. More critically, it is important to recognize that these elements (teaching beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, and subject matter knowledge) are interconnected. F or the development of these interconnections among the components of PCK, as well as the diffusion of PCK into classroom practice, teachers need support and insight into the nature of PBL and the adoption process. During the planning stage of this study, teachers first introspectively unpacked and examined their own fundamental beliefs on teaching in general and then specifically in science. While designing their PBL
240
K. Goodnough and W. Hung
modules, teachers considered the subject matter content, curriculum goals, instruction and assessment, student learning, and their roles in shaping the learning process. This study provides insight into the nature of PBL and what needs to considered when adopting PBL (e.g., nature of the leamer, teacher skills needed to plan for and implement PBL, etc.). For those who support and facilitate teacher development, it also provides insight into the issues and concerns that may arise during the development and implementation of PBL. Furthermore, it is recommended that the PCK framework be used by individuals and collaborative inquiry groups as a reflective tool to critically analyze their own experiences and understanding when adopting any innovation. Further research is needed to examine how teachers develop and engage their PCK over the long-term adoption of PBL and how various types of student learning (e.g., self-directed learning, problem-solving) are enhanced when learning through PBL. While this study did not focus on student learning, the study does provide insight into how PBL may be used by teachers in elementary science classrooms. Moreover, it uses the lens of PCK to understand how teachers may change beliefs, attitudes, understanding, and classroom practice.
References Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science education: What research says about inquiry. The Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1),1-12. Appleton, K., & Kindt, l. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13( I), 43-61. Barrows, H.S. (2000). Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Barrows, H.S., & Kelson, A.M. (1995). Problem-based learning: A total approach to education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1991). The challenge of problem- based learning. New York: St Martin's Press. Bray, 1.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D.l., & Connelly, F.M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York, NY: Macmillan. Davis, E.A., Petish, D., & Smithey, 1. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651. Dochy, F., Segers, M., van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-568. Duch, B.1., Groh, S.E., & Allen, D.E. (Eds.). (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your schools? New York: Teachers College Press. Gallagher, S.A., Stepien, W.J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195-200. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: Falmcr Press. Guskcy, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5),5-12. Haden, W., & Holroyd, D.C. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19,93-105.
..
Teaching Education
241
Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., & Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychological Review, 16(3),235-266. Hung, W. (2006a). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1( 1), 55-77. Hung, W. (2006b, April). The 9-step process for designing PBL problems: Application of the 3C3R model. Paper presented at the AERA 2006 annual meeting, San Francisco, CA Kurtz, S., Wylie, M., & Gold, N. (1990). Problem-based learning: An alternative approach to legal education. Dalhousie Law Journal, 13, 797-816. Lee, 0., Luykx, A, Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269-1291. Loughran, J., Gunstone, R., Berry, A, Milroy, P., & Mulhall, P. (2000, April). Science cases in action: Developing an understanding of science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Marshall, c., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merchand. J.E. (1995). Problem-based learning in the business curriculum: An alternative to traditional approaches. In W. Gijselaers, D. Tempelaar, P. Keizer, E. Bernard, & H. Kasper (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case o.fproblem-based learning (pp. 261-267). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 243-261. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52. Novak, J.D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher, 58, 45-49. Pletinckx, 1., & Segers, M. (2001). Programme evaluation as an instrument for quality assurance in a student-oriented educational system. Studies of Educational Evaluation, 27, 355-372. Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In 8.J. Biddle, T.L. Good, & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Schmidt, H.G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, I 1-16. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Smith, L., & Southerland, S. (2007, March I). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? Elementary teachers' response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3),396-423. Szeberenyi,1. (2005). The biological activity of the large-T protein ofSV40 virus. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(1),56-57. Tabachnick, B.R., & Zeichner, K.M. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83(3), 309-322. Torp, L., & Sage. S. (2002). Problems as possihilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Van Dijk, E.M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers' PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 885-897.
j
242
K. Goodnough and W Hung
Vernon, D.T.A., & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550-563. Williams, S.M., & Hmelo, C.E. (1998). Guest editors' introduction. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3-4, 265-270. Woods, D.R. (1996). Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering. In L. Wilkerson, & H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 91-99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2),64-71.
Appendix 1.
The student PBL scenario (habitats)
Problem statement I have a problem that I want you to help me solve. Many of the students in our school have come to see me to tell me that even though the inside of our school is a creative and exciting place to be, the grounds of our school are dull. There are very few outside areas where children can go to learn or enjoy nature. Because the Grade 4 students are studying habitats in science, I would like to invite you to be part of the XXXX Academy Beautification Team. As members of this team, you will be helping us create more areas around the school for students to relax, study and enjoy nature. I would like this to be like an outside classroom where the children of this school could go for a quiet place to learn. I would like you to develop a plan for what this area could look like, what could be included, and how we can care for it. In order to produce an effective plan, your team should use scientific methods, such as keeping a journal of your work, how the plan has been carried out, and whether any revisions to your research plans are needed after a period of doing your research. The XXXX Academy Beautification Team will meet weekly. So, you will need to prepare to report on the progress of your research and plan. You will also need to answer any questions from me or other team members concerning the construction of the area. At the end of this project, you will need to give a presentation of your plan for this outdoor learning area to me and the XXXX Academy Beautification Team.
