Evidence of the Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge Related to Chemical Bonding during a Course for Preservice Chemistry Teachers
Abstract
The impression that many preservice chemistry teachers demonstrate issues in the application of their pedagogical content knowledge in teaching practice, especially in the area of fundamental chemistry topics, served as motivation for changes to the Chemistry Education 2 course curriculum. In order to stimulate pedagogical content knowledge, the course has been changed in the following areas: intending learning outcomes, the language of chemistry instruction, awareness of “Johnstone’s triangle” of operations, and common alternative conceptions. To obtain evidence of preservice teachers' in-practice pedagogical content knowledge about chemical bonding, especially pedagogical content knowledge related to the revised areas of the Chemistry Education 2 course, we designed and conducted a case study based on detailed monitoring of one preservice teachers' pre-teaching, teaching and teaching evaluation activities. The findings demonstrate evidence of growth of the preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of chemical bonding, with particular characteristics indicating that the source of this growth is almost certainly the revised Chemistry Education 2 curriculum.
Downloads
References
Adams, K. (2012). Beginning chemistry teachers use of the triplet relationship during their first three years in the classroom. Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/83f8/fbba04de63e46eff7f0eae18f5f6bc7994ed.pdf
Barker, V., & Millar, R. (2000). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1171–1200.
Bezinović, P., Marušić, I., & Ristić Dedić, Z. (2012). Handbook for observation and improvement of teaching. Zagreb: Education and Teacher Training Agency. Retrieved from https://www.azoo.hr/photos/izdanja/opazanje-web-1536878204.pdf
Boo H. (1998). Students understanding of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569–581.
Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, funktionen und unterrichtliches handeln der lehrer [Competencies, functions and teaching of teaching]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule (pp. 177–212). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Carlson, J., Stokes, L., Helms, J., Gess-Newsome, J., & Gardner, A. (2015). The PCK summit: A process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 14–27). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cochran, K. F., De Ruiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464–86.
De Jong, O., & van Driel, J. (2004). Exploring the development of student teachers’ PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry topics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(4), 477–491.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, D., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575–591.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 28–42), New York, NY: Routledge.
Joki, J., & Aksela, M. (2018). The challenges of learning and teaching chemical bonding at different school levels using electrostatic interactions instead of the octet rule as a teaching model. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3) 932–953.
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro - and microchemistry. School Science Review, 19(3), 71–73.
Magnusson S., Krajcik J., & Borko H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome, N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Science & Technology Education Library, vol. 6. Dordrecht: Springer.
Markic, S., & Childs, P. E. (2016). Language and the teaching and learning of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 434–438.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Sibanda, D. (2018). What sequence do we follow in teaching concepts in chemistry? A study of high school physical science teachers’ PCK. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(2), 196–208.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions – prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 149–169.
Vladušić, R., Bucat, B. R., & Ožić, M. (2016a). Understanding ionic bonding – a scan across the Croatian education system. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 685–699.
Vladušić, R. (2017). Pedagogical content knowledge about chemical bonding with particular focus on language issues in Croatia. Doctoral dissertation. Split: Faculty of Science, University of Split.
Vladušić, R., & Ožić, M. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ understandings of symbolic representations used in chemistry instruction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 244–251.
Vladušić, R., Bucat, B. R., & Ožić, M. (2016b). Understanding of words and symbols by chemistry university students in Croatia. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 474–488.
Van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Yin, Robert, K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
