Barnett&Hodson

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH
short
standard
long
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SCIENCE TEACHER
EDUCATION
Julie Gess-Newsome, Section Editor
Pedagogical Context Knowledge:
Toward a Fuller Understanding of
What Good Science Teachers
Know
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 codied 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, called pedagogical 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 which
they design and implement science lessons. Analysis of the data shows that the model is
sufciently robust to provide a simple and rapid, yet effective and efcient way of ex-
amining teachers views and the knowledge base in which they are embedded. 2001
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 85:426453, 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: dhodson@oise.utoronto.ca
WHAT GOOD SCIENCE TEACHERS KNOW 427
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 their
students; 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 identiable social group or subgroup has its distinctive
pattern of socially agreed and socially validated beliefs, expectations, and values that
determine or dene how its members act, judge, make decisions, and approach and solve
problems. 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, mother infant talk, and so on, are not
formalized languages, they are distinctive and specic to the group and have clear purpose
and socially agreed meaning. Each of us uses speech embedded in these social languages
and 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 exemplary
science 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 nancial
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 curriculumdevelopers 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
428 BARNETT AND HODSON
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
by others. Teacher education and professional development are regarded as training for
carrying out prespecied activities. Often, when nances 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 full 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 dene the cognitive competencies of secondary school
science teachers, but felt it unnecessary to conrm 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 articleCan sec-
ondary science teachers learn to increase the commonalities of their lectures?is
intriguing 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 xed 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
dene teachers knowledge in precise and measurable terms. These efforts are often
couched in language such as standards for, and dimensions of, teaching, or qualities and
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 Ofce, 1998). As in centralized curriculum
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 denition of teachers knowledge have not yet had sufcient time to succeed
or, more likely in our view, to fail.
Frameworks based on centralized control cannot hope to dene, 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 reies. (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 own
interests, 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 reective 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, signicant curriculum development would not occur unless teachers
themselves, and the professional knowledge and understanding they deploy, were the prime
focus.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
By describing how professionals, including teachers, refer to a personal database of
theory to guide thembefore, 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 of reection-in-action, which originates in a problem
situation for which established and well-practiced techniques and procedures are recog-
nized as unsuccessful or inappropriate. Reection-in-action is theorizing on your feet in
order to devise and implement an appropriate course of action.
When someone reects-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 denes 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 to
action. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his
inquiry. (Schon, 1983, p. 68)
In other words, reection-in-action, and the theory-building that attends it, enables
skilled teachers to adjust their actions to the continuing ux of the classroomenvironment.
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 reection in- or on- action has been expanded by Zeichner (1994), who argues
that any analysis of what constitutes reection must take account of the content, quality,
and context of that reection, 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
(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 diverse
ways to suit the particular educational context. We take as our starting point two key ideas
from the mid-1980s: personal practical knowledge and 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 signicant 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 reection.
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 t over the realities of which the world is composed. The t 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 t 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 be comfortable with 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 identitycomprising 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 knowledge as follows: What is meant by personal
. . . is that the knowledge so dened 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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 condence 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 reconrmed. These social exchanges also serve to establish what
others think and, thereby, to assist the learning of knowledge that has been validated and
approved 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 t 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 what
they are doing and the condence to feel they can do it at 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 bricoleurs
2
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
specic content effectively: knowing what is likely to be easy or difcult 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 specic
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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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, present
different 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-simplication. What is taught has to be good science,
in the terms identied by the curriculum plan.
Geddis (1993) observes that novice teachers, whose classroom condence 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 procedures
for 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 identied by Geddis
(1993) are context specic. In other words, the teachers classroom decisions are located
in, and are contingent upon, a specic social, cultural, and educational context. What
counts as good teaching cannot be specied 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 prespecied teacher attributes.
Our view is that individual teachers also draw on a store of collective teacher knowledge.
It is collective in the sense that, while derived from and deployed in a specic 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. Sufce
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 difcult 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 of this topic to students of particular
backgrounds and prerequisites? What student preconceptions are likely to get in the way of learning?
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 and
Smith (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, teacher
lore 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 conicting 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 scientic inquiry, or in terms of developing social skills each 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 conict 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 scientic
literacy, science education for active citizenship, and the promotion of responsible
environmental behavior.
The microworld of teacher professionalism, in which teachers immediate con-
cerns depending on their length of experiencewill be survival, acquiring ba-
sic competence, establishing credibility with colleagues, inuencing 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
problem-solving strategies, which teachers will deploy as they see t. 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 changing
conditions in the task environment. Indeed, the literature of situated cognition is replete
with ndings that point to the highly specic 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, rening, 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 techniques
that we consider will help us to respond appropriately to the situation. These packages
function as tool kits with specic 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 scientic 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, nonscientic 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 school
contexts, 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 specic problem context but also in a specic
social setting. Thus, knowledge is intimately related to the specic social situations, in-
teractions, and communities that have generated, validated, maintained, and used it. Within
these communities (the microworlds identied 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-
specic knowledges and modes of discourse, where context is writ both large and
small large 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-specic
knowledges through social interaction, negotiation, and co-construction of meaning, with
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 social
context 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 reection 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 both
formal 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 landscapethat 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 reection.
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 reective place is both private and safe. Outside this place, there are
some less secure semi-private teachers places, directly concerned with specic 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 unjustied and undesirable items that serve only to litter
the landscape.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 ourish 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 ofcial duties of a teacher, conducting salary and benets negotiations,
responding to ofcial 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, and classroom 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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 reection 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 reective inquiry. Participation
in teacher networks and action research teams, both of which can have either a general or
specic focus, are particularly effective means of assisting its development.
Pedagogical content knowledge was 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 signicant concepts. It includes knowl-
edge of how best to present particular concepts and ideas, how to exemplify important
theoretical 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-
ection 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-
ected 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 should
is 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 in
the 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-
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 ensure
that the lesson proceeds as intended. Much of this ne-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 on
professional 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 xed 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 fromone
place to another on the landscapemodeling scientic 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 benets in one instance, and
making personal sacrice for students in another.
The Transition from Novice to Expert
Recognition of the highly context-specic nature of much of the knowledge deployed
in everyday professional practice as a teacher does not entail the view that cognitive
activities are absolutely specic 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 elds as complex as science teaching. To
function satisfactorily in the various microworlds of science teaching and to develop the
unconscious and seemingly automatic quality to their work that enables them to achieve
high levels of performance and to make complex, multifaceted decisions in ill-dened
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 problems all 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?
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 signicantly
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 supercial features of a problem,
experts are able to use more powerful overarching principles (Larkin, 1983). While novices
use means end analysis and seek to employ previously learned formulae and algorithms,
experts are more holistic and attempt to work from rst 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 deciency, 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 this
cultural 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 reecting 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 reection, 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. Aset of newrelationships,
discourses, and practices is established, which constitutes a challenge and a force for
modication 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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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 condent
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 tested
for 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-
tied 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 nd examples of the components of
teachers knowledge postulated in our framework, to scrutinize their connections to the
other components, and to ascertain whether there are examples of teachers knowledge
that do not t 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 ux 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 identied 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 nal 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 specic instances of knowledge types to be
distinguished. The rst 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
services is coded 315, which interprets this item as a component of professional knowl-
edge (the rst 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 nalizing 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 lled 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 expect
all 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 rened 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 sufcient 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 ve 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 viewin the same statement was coded once only. Inevitably, teachers occasionally
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 1
The Components of Science Teachers Knowledge on the Knowledge Landscape
100 Academic and Research Knowledge
110 Knowledge of Educational Research
111 Traditional
112 Action
113 Educational Literature
120 Scientic 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 Reection-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 Scientic Knowledge
212 Teaching Scientic Facts, Theories and Practices
213 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 Instruments
222 Alternative Practices (portfolios, peer and self-assessment)
223 Performance (short and long term)
230 Use of Scientic 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 Museums
252 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 1
(Continued from previous page.)
300 Professional Knowledge
310 Political and Sociological Knowledge of Schooling (the pipeline)
311 Ofcial Duties of a Teacher
312 School Culture
313 School Systems
314 Administration
315 Support for Teaching
316 Union Matters
317 Ofcial 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 Culture
422 Student Subgroup Characteristics (age, gender, and ethnicity)
430 Facilitation of Learning
431 Creating a Learning Environment
432 Inuencing Student Motivation
440 Knowledge of Individual Students
441 Backgrounds
442 Families
443 Problems
450 Behavioral Feedback from Students (Reection-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 sufciently 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
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) gured prominently. In addition, code 323 (curriculum planning)
appeared frequently because teachers had been asked their views of a curriculumdocument
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, the
number 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 efcient way of examining teachers views and the knowledge base in which they are
embedded. 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 identied 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 responses
from 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 3
Frequency of Use (Academic and Research Knowledge)
Category Name Codes
Statements
Made
Percent
of Total
Knowledge of Educational Research (general) 100 6 0.5
Knowledge of Educational Research (specic) 110
111
112
113
10
1
7
0
Subtotal 18 1.5
Scientic Knowledge 120
121
122
123
124
125
9
9
13
5
17
17
Subtotal 70 5.9
Reection-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 specied
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 inuenced by research
ndings? 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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 4
Frequency of Use (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)
Category Name Codes
Statements
Made
Percent
of Total
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (general) 200 1 0.1
Use of Strategies for Teaching Science 210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
219A
219B
22
40
27
8
34
15
41
9
121
7
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 Scientic Resources 230
231
232
233
4
2
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
251
252
253
254
12
0
4
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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 5
Frequency of Use (Professional Knowledge)
Category Name Codes
Statements
Made
Percent
of Total
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
5
Subtotal 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
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
TABLE 6
Frequency of Use (Classroom Knowledge)
Category Name Codes
Statements
Made
Percent
of Total
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
421
422
6
8
8
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 successful
science 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 rene 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.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
Barrell, B. R. C. (1995). The texture of teaching. In D. C. Jones (Ed.), The spirit of teaching
excellence (pp. 1329). Calgary, AB: Detselig.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1992). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social develop-
ment. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 483497.
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. 161186). 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
inuence on classroom practice. Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconcep-
tions and educational strategies in science, Vol. II (pp. 3438). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Broadfoot, P. (1992). Teaching and the challenge of change: Educational research in relation to
teacher 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. 291310). 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. Proceedings of the rst symposium of the International Study Association for the Study
of Teacher Thinking (pp. 7384). Tillburg, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Day, J. D., French, L. A., & Hall, L. K. (1985). Social inuences on cognitive development. In
D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Walker (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition,
and human performance: Theoretical perspectives (Vol 1, pp. 3356). NewYork: Academic Press.
Education ReviewOfce. (1998). The capable teacher, Education Evaluation Reports No. 2 (Summer
1998). Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the
classroom. London, UK: Methuen.
Eisner, E. W. (1988). The ecology of school improvement: Some lessons we have learned. Educa-
tional Leadership, 45, 2429.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teachers practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry,
11, 4371.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York: Nichols.
Elliott, J. (1994). The teachers role in curriculum development: An unresolved issue in English
attempts at curriculum reform. Curriculum Studies, 2, 4369.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Geddis, A. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowl-
edge in learning to reect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673683.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA:
In Bergin & Garvey.
Goodlad, J. (1994). What schools are for, 2nd ed. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational
Foundation.
Grove, R., & Short, E. (1995). Building emancipatory themes into teacher education. NewEducation,
16, 1323.
Hall, B. L., & Kassam, Y. (1988). Participatory research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research,
methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 150155). Oxford, UK: Perga-
mon Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers work and culture in the post-
modern age. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
Heylighen, F. (1996). What is a world view? Available on-line: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/WORL-
VIEW.html.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (2001). Inclusion without assimilation: Science education from an anthropological and
metacognitive perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
1, 161182.
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers professional relations. In
J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts
(pp. 1150). New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student teachers.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 123136.
Koran, J. J. (1971). A systems model for science-teacher supervision. American Biology Teacher,
33, 3842.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Lamb, W. G., & Davis, P. C. (1979). Can secondary science teachers learn to increase the com-
monalities of their lectures? Science Education, 63, 205210.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach: Perspectives on problem in practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 55, 178194.
Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis fur-
ther. Science Education, 81, 277294.
Larkin, J. H. (1983) The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens
(Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7598). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1968). The savage mind. New York/London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
McFadden, C. P. (1996). The development of SciencePlus: Major conclusions and results of 20 years
of action research by the Atlantic Science Curriculum Project. Paper presented at the Summer
Science Education Leadership Institute, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. June 2730, 1996.
Also available online: http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/Education/SPTN/ascp-his.html.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Nott, M., & Smith, R. (1995). Talking your way out of it, rigging, and conjuring: What science
teachers do when practicals go wrong. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 399410.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
Parker, W. C., & McDaniel, J. E. (1992). Bricolage: Teachers do it daily. In E. W. Ross, J. W.
Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice,
theory, and research (pp. 97114). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Pedretti, E., & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through
action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 463485.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher,
18, 1625.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientic
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211227.
Richardson, G. (1995). Leaving the profession. In J. Bell (Ed.), Teachers talk about teaching: Coping
with change in turbulent times (pp. 6067). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ross, E. W., Cornett, J. W., & McCutcheon, G. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher personal theorizing: Con-
necting curriculum practice, theory, and research. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Schempp, P., Tan, S., Manross, D., & Fincher, M. (1998). Differences in novice and competent
teachers knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4, 920.
Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1992). Proportional reasoning in and out of school. In P.
Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 47
73). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic
Books.
Schubert, W. H. (1992). Personal theorizing about teacher personal theorizing. In E. W. Ross, J. W.
Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice,
theory, and research (pp. 257272). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Schubert, W. H., & Ayer, W. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher lore: Learning from our own experience. New
York: Longman.
Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cog-
nition: Its development in social context (pp. 940). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Re-
searcher, 15, 414.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 57, 122.
Shulman, L., & Sykes, G. (1986). A national board for teaching? In search of a bold standard: A
report for the task force on teaching as a profession. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social inuences on the construction of pupils understanding of science. Studies
in Science Education, 14, 6382.
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Hei-
nemann.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl &
R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and
practice (pp. 147176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Teacher Registration Board. (1997). A satisfactory teacher and renewing a practising certicate.
Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Tobin, K. (1990). Metaphors and images in teaching. Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology,
Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics.
Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. U. (1992). An interpretation of high school science teaching based on
metaphors and belief for specic roles. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.),
Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 115136).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tom, A. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673695.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogic thoughtfulness. London,
ON: Althouse Press.
short
standard
long
Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text
Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching living experience: Human science for an action sensitive ped-
agogy (2nd ed.). London, ON: Althouse Press.
Weigert, A. J. (1997). Self, interaction and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Welker, R. (1992). The teacher as expert: A theoretical and historical examination. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Wells, G. (1994). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto, Canada:
OISE Press.
West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (1983). How rational is rationality? Science Education, 67, 37
39.
Yarrick, R., Park, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The ltering
effect of teachers beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science
Education, 81, 137159.
Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reective practice in teach-
ing and teacher education. In I. Calgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers minds and
actions: Research on teachers thinking and practice (pp. 927). London, UK: Falmer Press.

Barnett&Hodson

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Barnett&Hodson

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Barnett&amp;Hodson

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Barnett&amp;Hodson

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Barnett&Hodson

Barnett&Hodson