Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

Preservice Science and Technology Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge on Cell Topics

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

Preservice Science and Technology Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge on Cell Topics

Article excerpt


The purpose of this study is to explain prospective science and technology teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) about the cell. Lesson preparation, laboratory plan, interview wiThteacher candidates, and concept mapping were used to collect the data for prospective teacher's PCK. The study was conducted wiThsix prospective science and technology teachers in the spring of 2006-2007 in Pamukkale University-Turkey. We aimed to identify the content and structure of the PCK for a topic on cell, describing the PCK in terms of relations between four diff erent aspects: Knowledge about science and technology curriculum, belief about subject matter knowledge, knowledge about students' understanding; knowledge about assessment of students. According to the result of the study, pre-service teacher's knowledge inaccurate special teaching methods, they used a teacher-centered approach, and also they have a high belief of subject matter knowledge. Based on the result of this study, which were discussed in the light of national and international literature, we have suggestions for further researchers, curriculum developers, and science and technological teacher educators.

Key Words

Cell, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Pre-service Science and Technology Teacher.

Over the past 25 years, numerous research studies have examined how pre-service teachers develop diff erent knowledge bases. Teacher' knowledge bases have been classifi ed as craft-knowledge (Day, & Pennington, 1993), working knowledge (Grossman, 1990), and pedagogical knowledge (Hudson, Usak, & Savran-Gencer, 2009; Shulman, 1986). Additionally, a diff erent knowledge base, called pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), was introduced in the 1980s (Abd-el-Khalick, 2006; Bindernagel, & Eilks, 2009; De Jong, Van Driel, & Verloop, 2005; Grossman, 1990, 1992; Ozden, 2008; Shulman, 1986, Usak, 2005; Van Driel, De Jong, & Verloop, 2002, Sanders, Borko & Lockard, 1993).. Shulman (1986, p. 9) described PCK as:

"[PCK includes] the most useful forms of representation of [topics], the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations - in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specifi c topics easy or diffi cult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of diff erent ages and backgrounds bring wiThthem to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons."

Elaborating on the Shulman's work, other scholars have proposed diff erent conceptualizations of PCK (Grossman, 1990; Marks, 1990). Geddis et al (1993) added that PCK in every curriculum includes special attributes enabling teachers to transfer subject matter knowledge into their knowledge base for teaching. Cochran, Deruiter, and King (1993) proposed an integrative model for teacher preparation helping teachers develop PCK. In addition, Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) have presented a strong case for the existence of PCK as a separate and unique domain of knowledge.

Usak (2005) stated that pre-service elementary science teachers' PCK includes information about the student and curriculum, pedagogical knowledge and assessment knowledge, which shows diff erences from teacher to teacher. Nakiopoglu and Karakoc (2005) contended that there are three categories of knowledge base in Turkey: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and general cultural knowledge. However, in the recent years, a forThknowledge base, pedagogical content knowledge, as signifi cant as the others, was introduced.

Recently, a new knowledge base was introduced called Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) refering to the complex in- terrelationship between a teacher's technology use, instructional methods, and understanding of the subject matter (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006; Arnold, Padilla & Tunhikorn, 2009). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.