CHAPTER 36
Research on Science Teacher Knowledge
University of Missouri, Columbia
It is commonly held that the teacher is the most important factor in student learning (Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, 2001). We who educate future and practicing teachers assume the veracity of this statement. However, what characteristics of teachers are crucial to student learning? Do teachers who know more science make better science teachers? If this were true, surely the best science teaching would take place at the university level by individuals who possess a Ph.D. in their science field. Yet we know that this is not necessarily so; university science students cite poor teaching as one of the main reasons for dropping out of science majors (National Science Foundation, 1996). What should science teachers know in addition to subject matter knowledge? What do future and practicing science teachers know and how do they come to know it? How does their knowledge interact with beliefs, goals, and values? How does their knowledge affect their practice and their students’ learning? Such questions have generated a plethora of research in science education.
Although science education researchers have been studying science teacher knowledge since the 1960s, the theoretical foundations and methodological strategies have changed greatly over the years. This chapter begins with a historical overview of teacher knowledge research, including the variety of terms and approaches that have been applied. I then describe the model of teacher knowledge that frames the review. This theoretical foundation leads into a review of the research literature on science teacher knowledge. The chapter ends with implications for science teacher education and recommendations for future research.
FOUNDATIONS OF THIS REVIEW
Historical Views of Teacher Knowledge
Teacher knowledge has assumed a number of meanings in educational research over the past 50 years. Fenstermacher (1994) examined the epistemological aspects of various research programs about teacher knowledge and developed a classification scheme. In his scheme, he distinguished knowledge about teaching (TK/F or formal knowledge) from knowledge derived from teachers participating in teaching (TK/P or practical knowledge). Research in the 1960s and 1970s, for the most part, did not make explicit mention of teacher knowledge. These process-product studies aimed to define effective teaching based on studying the relationships among particular variables and treatments. In the science education literature, teacher knowledge was defined as a static component (a qualification or competency) of the broader category of teacher characteristics that was then compared with teacher practice (Bruce, 1971; Smith & Cooper, 1967) or student outcomes (Northfield & Fraser, 1977; Rothman, Welch, & Walberg, 1969). In such studies, teachers were the objects of research, what Fenstermacher called the “known,” and the emphasis was on producing a “knowledge base” (Reynolds, 1989) to summarize the TK/F that was needed for teaching.
In the 1980s, a new set of research programs arose that changed the face of teacher knowledge research. In these programs, teachers were seen as the “knowers,” and the focus shifted to examining their practical knowledge (TK/P). Fenstermacher (1994) outlined four such research programs: Clandinin and Connelly's work on personal practical knowledge through teacher narrative (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 1996); Schön's notions of reflective practice for professional development (Schön, 1983, 1987); Cochran-Smith and Lytle's leadership in the teacher researcher movement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, 1999); and Shulman's research program on teacher knowledge types (e.g., Shulman, 1986). These research programs shifted the perspective from knowledge about teaching produced by others to teacher knowledge residing within teachers, from teachers as objects of research to teachers as co-researchers.
Although differing in epistemological details (see Fenstermacher, 1994), the first three research programs were similar in their focus on teachers producing and possessing their own knowledge. The Shulman program was substantially different. Shulman and his colleagues attempted to answer the question “What knowledge is essential for teaching?” by studying teachers from different subject areas (e.g., English, science, social studies). This work differed from earlier attempts to develop a knowledge base for teaching in that it derived from studies of what teachers know about their subject and about teaching, assuming teacher as “knower,” not from studies of effective teaching where the teacher was the “known.” In the United States, Shulman's model served as the foundation for the development of teaching standards for beginning teachers (e.g., Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, National Science Teachers Association, 1998). The model has also catalyzed scores of studies concerning teacher knowledge. This review uses Shulman's theoretical model, explained in more detail in the next section, as its organizational base.
Shulman's Model of Teacher Knowledge
In 1986, Shulman proposed a model for understanding the specialized knowledge for teaching that distinguishes teachers from subject matter specialists. Shulman and his colleagues (Hashweh, 1985; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987) defined pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as the knowledge that is developed by teachers to help others learn. Teachers build PCK as they teach specific topics in their subject area. PCK is influenced by the transformation of three other knowledge bases: subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and knowledge of context (KofC) (Grossman) (see Fig. 36–1).
Shulman's view of SMK was derived from the work of Schwab (1964), who defined two types of subject matter knowledge: substantive and syntactic. The substantive structure of a discipline is the organization of concepts, facts, principles, and theories, whereas syntactic structures are the rules of evidence and proof used to generate and justify knowledge claims in the discipline. Shulman and colleagues added two other categories of subject matter knowledge: knowledge of content (facts, concepts, and procedures) and beliefs about the discipline (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989). Carlsen (1991c) criticized this scheme, claiming that in science it is difficult to determine whether knowing a particular concept or principle is an example of substantive knowledge or content knowledge. For the purpose of this review, I examine studies of science SMK that could be considered either substantive knowledge in Schwab's terms or knowledge of content in Grossman's. For the most part, I leave a discussion of research on teacher knowledge of the syntactic structure of science and beliefs about the discipline to Lederman's chapter in this volume.
FIGURE 36–1. A model of science teacher knowledge (modified from Grossman, 1990 and Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999).
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) includes the general, not subject-specific, aspects of teacher knowledge about teaching, such as learning theory, instructional principles, and classroom discipline. Knowledge of context (KofC) was formalized by Grossman (1990) to account for the knowledge of communities, schools, and student backgrounds that teachers use in their teaching. For the most part, this review does not concentrate on these types of knowledge, since they are not specific to science teachers. Together SMK, PK, and KofC influence and are translated by a teacher's PCK into instruction.
Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) defined PCK as consisting of five components: (a) orientations toward science teaching, which include a teacher's knowledge of goals for and general approaches to science teaching; (b) knowledge of science curriculum, including national, state, and district standards and specific science curricula; (c) knowledge of assessment for science, including what to assess and how to assess students; (d) knowledge of science instructional strategies, including representations, activities, and methods; and (e) knowledge of student science understanding, which includes common conceptions and areas of difficulty (see Fig. 36–1). These components represent a broader view of PCK than the original conceptualization, which focused on topic-specific case knowledge, or what Hashweh (1985) called subject-matter pedagogical knowledge. Since its introduction, Shulman's model has been translated, explicated, revised, and extended by numerous science educators (Appleton, 2002; Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Carlsen, 1991c; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Magnusson et al., 1999; Tamir, 1988; Veal, 1997), and the model has formed the theoretical framework for much research on science teacher knowledge. However, a full discussion of the different views of PCK is beyond the scope of this chapter. Admitting the problematic nature of the Magnusson et al. model, I maintain it is a useful heuristic for organizing the research on science teacher knowledge.
Situating This Review
The research on teacher knowledge has been reviewed a number of times in the past 15 years (Ball & McDiarmid, 1996; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Calderhead; 1996; Carter, 1990; Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). These reviews are immensely informative accounts of the theoretical and empirical bases of teacher knowledge in general. However, because they are not science education specific, they are of limited use to science education researchers.
Previous reviews of science teacher knowledge research exist, but cannot claim the comprehensive nature of the present project. The Anderson and Mitchener chapter in the Gabel handbook (1994) focused on preservice and inservice science teacher education with only passing attention to research on science teacher thinking; the authors reported nothing related to teacher knowledge. The chapter on alternative conceptions by Wandersee, Mintzes, and Novak in the same volume devoted a one-page section to teachers’ alternative conceptions in science. The Fraser and Tobin handbook (1998) acknowledged the topic of science teacher knowledge in two chapters. The de Jong, Korthagen, and Wubbels chapter reviewed only the European research on teacher knowledge about teaching. The Cochran and Jones chapter on SMK reported only on research with preservice science teachers, and a chapter by de Jong, Veal, and van Driel (2002) reviewed teacher SMK about chemistry. In the volume on PCK edited by Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1999), the Gess-Newsome (1999) review of SMK encompassed research on mathematics, social studies, and English teacher knowledge in addition to science.
The current chapter provides an integrative review of the research on science teacher knowledge, including SMK, PK, and PCK. The review includes studies of both preservice and practicing teachers at all levels of instruction. I systematically reviewed the science education research since 1960 reported in dissertations and published internationally in journals and book chapters. For these reasons, this chapter is a comprehensive review of science teacher knowledge research.
Selecting research to review for this chapter was problematic. First of all, teacher knowledge goes by a variety of designations, partly as an artifact of the theoretical orientation of the time. For example, teacher knowledge has been reported as craft knowledge, personal practical knowledge, wisdom of practice, practitioner knowledge, knowledge in action, and event-structured knowledge (see Carter, 1990). Are these categories mutually exclusive renderings of teacher knowledge, outside of Shulman's model? I also debated how to review research on teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, perspectives, ideologies, and theories. When do such studies belong here versus in a chapter on teacher attitudes and beliefs (see Chapter 35, this volume)? The distinction between knowledge and beliefs is not always clear in the research or agreed upon by the researchers (see Fenstermacher, 1994). Numerous studies concern teacher thinking (e.g., planning, decision making, reflecting, reasoning). Should such studies be included in a chapter on teacher knowledge? Shulman (1999) made his point of view clear, that teacher cognition is not the same as teacher knowledge. However, I was not ready to dismiss science-specific studies in this realm.
With these issues in mind, I selected studies that were about science teacher subject matter, pedagogical, or pedagogical content knowledge. In some cases, studies that referred to “beliefs” were also included, when I could interpret them as referring to part of a comprehensive “knowledge and beliefs” system (see Magnusson et al., 1999) rather than to the domain of “attitudes and beliefs.” I reported studies of teacher thinking and studies that used different terms for teacher knowledge within the category of PCK when they were specifically about knowledge and reasoning in science classrooms, but omitted studies of teacher attitudes (Chapter 35, this volume), teacher knowledge of the nature of science (Chapter 28), and teacher views of learners from various backgrounds or with special needs/talents (see Section 2). I also avoided studies where teacher knowledge development was reported as a teacher learning outcome influenced by teacher preparation (Chapter 37), professional development (Chapter 38), or teacher research (Chapter 39), when the teacher education “treatment” appeared the more salient subject of study. In addition to ERIC searches using teacher knowledge key words, the contents of 22 science education and educational research journals were scanned by hand for relevant articles. I also mined the bibliographies of existing reviews and relevant studies for additional research reports.1 Although I am sure that my decisions about what to include and exclude from this chapter were far from perfect, and some studies that could arguably be included do not appear, I believe that what follows is a comprehensive review of science teacher knowledge research.
RESEARCH ON SCIENCE TEACHER SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE
Most early studies in science education equated the number of science courses taken, and in a few case grade point average in those courses, to teacher SMK. A few researchers administered tests of science knowledge, usually in true/false or multiple-choice formats. An interesting exception was a study by Jena (1964) in which the researcher inferred SMK through observations of the teaching errors made by secondary student teachers while teaching. Later, Kennedy (1998) clarified the character of SMK needed by teachers as going beyond the “recitational” to include understanding of central ideas, relationships, elaborated knowledge, and reasoning ability. As the characterization of teacher knowledge shifted from a “quantity” view to a conceptual understanding view, methods for assessing teacher knowledge also changed. Written tests included open-ended items and requested explanations in addition to answers (e.g., Ginns & Watters, 1995). Concept mapping emerged as a useful tool for examining the subject matter structures held by teachers (Ferry, 1996; Jones, Rua, & Carter, 1998; Willson & Williams, 1996). Researchers also administered individual interviews, where they asked participants to explain phenomena, sort concept cards, and respond to hypothetical teaching situations (e.g., Hashweh, 1985). A few studies examined SMK in situ, while teachers worked to solve a science task (Moscovici, 2001) or taught science lessons to students (Veiga, Costa Pereira, & Maskill, 1989). Do varying epistemological and methodological assumptions guiding studies of SMK lead to different conclusions? The following sections review studies of science teacher SMK in part to answer this question.
General Science Subject Matter Knowledge
Early science education research defined teacher knowledge from a “quantity” perspective, claiming that prospective and practicing science teachers did not have enough (Mallinson & Sturm, 1955; Raina, 1967; Swann, 1969; Uselton, Bledsoe, & Koelsche, 1963). Often SMK was defined by the number of science courses taken. The study of teachers’ SMK via understanding their conceptions in science became a popular field in the 1980s, on the heels of the work with student science ideas. However, understanding teachers’ misconceptions2 in science can be traced back much earlier (Blanchett, 1952; Ralya & Ralya, 1938). Using a true/false written test, researchers found that prospective elementary3 teachers (Ralya & Ralya) and practicing teachers (Blanchett) held a large number of misconceptions about science and science-related issues. The Ralya and Ralya study is interesting in that misconceptions they identified for a significant number of teachers became key targets for research on both student and teacher science conceptions 50 years later (e.g., causes of the seasons, force and motion, heat and temperature).
In their 1994 review of research on alternative conceptions, Wandersee et al. claimed that the research in the 1980s on teachers’ science conceptions demonstrated that “teachers often subscribe to the same alternative conceptions as their students” (p. 189), a claim that they described as not “particularly surprising.” The examination of teacher SMK continues to the present and includes studies of a mixture of life and physics science concepts as well as discipline-specific studies of conceptions in biology, chemistry, earth and space science, or physics. By far the most studied group has been preservice elementary teachers, although preservice secondary teachers and practicing teachers at all levels have been subjects of study.
Several studies in the 1980s expanded the work of the New Zealand Learning in Science Project by examining teachers’ science concept understanding. Among New Zealand elementary student teachers, Hope and Townsend (1983) found that biology concepts (plant, animal, living) were relatively well understood, whereas performance on physics concepts (force, friction, gravity) was similar to that of fourth-form students. Ameh and Gunstone (1985, 1986) examined preservice secondary teachers in Australia and Nigeria with the Learning in Science survey. Contrary to the observations of Hope and Townsend, they found evidence of misconceptions in both life and physical science: only 26 percent of their teachers held the scientific view of animal, 71 percent of living, 30 percent of force, 66 percent of gravity, and 40 percent of current. Furthermore, they found no evidence of cultural influences in the responses. Other researchers developed written instruments for collecting data on a variety of science concepts. Working with science teachers in the United Kingdom (Carré, 1993; Lloyd et al., 1998; Smith, 1997), Singapore (Lloyd et al.), Estonia (Kikas, 2004), and the United States (Schoon & Boone, 1998; Wenner, 1993), researchers consistently found that misconceptions or alternative conceptions that had been reported for children persisted into adulthood.
Going beyond the limitations of survey data that were focused on defining correct/incorrect conceptions, Harlen (1997; Harlen & Holroyd, 1997) designed a two-phase study of SMK among practicing primary teachers in the United Kingdom. In the first phase, the researchers sent written surveys to 514 teachers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence on a variety of concepts. In the second phase, they interviewed a smaller sample of 57 teachers, from which they defined three groups of concepts: (a) concepts already understood by most teachers (e.g., water exists in different states, bones move at joints because of muscles); (b) concepts in which understanding developed during the interview itself (e.g., water from air condenses on cool surfaces; muscles pull, not push); and (c) concepts less commonly understood and resistant to change (e.g., reflection of light; energy flow in circuits). They also determined sources of teachers’ inaccuracies (e.g., inappropriate analogy, everyday language; mechanisms without evidence). This approach provided a value added to studies that merely catalogued misconceptions, including clear implications for science teacher education—designating concepts to which to devote time and describing how to help teachers overcome various inappropriate ways of reasoning.
Few studies have examined the development of science teacher SMK over time. Arzi and White (2004) investigated SMK in a 17-year longitudinal study of secondary science teachers. They found that the school science curriculum was “the most powerful determinant of teachers’ knowledge, serving as both knowledge organizer and knowledge source” (p. 2). This study is significant both for the rarity of its longitudinal methods as well as the resulting phase model of teacher SMK development that could be a useful tool in science teacher education.
Several studies examined teacher syntactic SMK in science, such as teachers’ ability to control variables (Aiello-Nicosia, Sperandeo-Mineo, & Valenza, 1984), understanding of assumptions (Yip, 2001), hypothesizing skills (Baird & Koballa, 1988), knowledge of modeling (Justi & Gilbert, 2002b, 2003; van Driel & Verloop, 1999), conceptions of scientific evidence (Taylor & Dana, 2003), and use of data representation (Roth, McGinn, & Bowen, 1998). Lawson (2002) studied preservice biology teachers’ arguments in response to a set of hypotheses. He found that the future teachers were more successful when the hypothesized causal agent was observable and made many errors when the hypothesis involved nonobservable entities. (Other studies of teacher syntactic SMK as related to the nature of science are reported in Chapter 28.)
In another group of studies, researchers sought to correlate general science substantive SMK with other teacher characteristics—confidence, attitude, and self-efficacy. In the United Kingdom, several research programs were interested in future elementary teachers’ subject matter confidence and competence as related to the National Curriculum (Carter, Carré, & Bennett, 1993; Harlen, 1997; Russell et al., 1992; Shallcross, Spink, Stephenson, & Warwick, 2002; Sorsby & Watson, 1993). Harlen found that, in general, science background and confidence to teach are related. Studies from other parts of the world have been less definitive. Appleton (1992, 1995) claimed that factors other than increased science study affected confidence to teach science but admitted that teachers who experienced success in learning science content did become more confident. Appleton also warned science educators not to confuse confidence with competence. Waldrip, Knight, and Webb (2002) reported a significant correlation between preservice elementary teachers’ perceived ability to explain scientific language and their perceived competence to teach science concepts, but no correlation between their actual explanations and perceived competence to teach. Shrigley (1974) noted low positive correlation between SMK and attitude on the part of preservice teachers. Studies attempting to correlate SMK with measures of teacher self-efficacy have been inconclusive (Schoon & Boone, 1998; Stevens & Wenner, 1996; Wenner, 1993, 1995). The question of the relation of general science SMK to various teacher characteristics remains open for study.
The studies reviewed so far investigated teachers’ SMK within a number of different concept areas across two or more science disciplines. The remaining review of SMK is organized within the major science disciplines in which the research was conducted. Furthermore, a number of studies have attempted to understand the relationship between SMK and teaching practice. I consider these studies at the end of this section.
Teachers’ SMK in Chemistry
Teacher SMK in chemistry4 has been a subject of study since 1987, when Gabel, Samuel, and Hunn examined preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about the particulate nature of matter. Using the Nature of Matter Inventory, they asked teachers to draw pictures of atomic/molecular arrangements, given certain scenarios. Teachers ignored conservation and orderliness of particles in over 50 percent of the answers. Furthermore, only 4 percent of the variance in performance was accounted for by the number of chemistry courses taken. In a cross-cultural study of preservice elementary teachers in Spain and the United Kingdom, Ryan, Sanchez Jimenez, and Onorbe de Torre (1989) examined understanding of conservation of mass via a two-part questionnaire that included a definition and a task to solve. More Spanish teachers could give an acceptable definition of mass and conservation of mass, but all teachers had trouble solving the problems, regardless of nationality. The researchers hypothesized that the more term-focused Spanish curriculum led to better performance on the definition question but did not improve understanding. Contrary to Gabel et al.’s findings, the more science-experienced teachers in both groups performed better. Roth (1992) conducted an experimental study of preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about the particulate nature of matter in which participants explained changes in water and ice when heated. Prior to the treatment, involving the use of concrete models to explain activity results, all 17 teachers explained phase change at a phenomenological level. Two weeks later, the treatment group used the particle model to explain melting and evaporation, but not to discuss volume changes. Similarly, Kruger and Summers (1989) and Kruger, Palacio, and Summers (1992) found that practicing elementary teachers did not refer to molecules or energy to explain changes in materials. Martin del Pozo (2001) asked prospective elementary teachers to evaluate the concept map of a hypothetical 13-year-old about the composition of matter. Teachers confused the relationship among topics such as substance/element, mixture/compound, element/atom, and compound/molecule. Birnie (1989) compared the conceptions about particle theory in gases held by elementary students, teachers, and parents. He found that elementary teachers and parents performed at the same level as ninth-grade students, whereas intermediate and secondary teachers performed better. These findings and others (e.g., Ginns & Watters, 1995) concerning preservice and practicing elementary teachers’ SMK in chemistry are, in the words of Wandersee et al. (1994), not particularly surprising.
However, college students other than preservice elementary teachers also demonstrate poor understanding in chemistry. Kokkotas, Vlachos, and Koulaidis (1998) asked prospective secondary teachers in Greece to evaluate children's answers to items involving understanding of the particulate nature of matter. They found that preservice teachers lacked the SMK necessary to accurately score the answers. In a study of college student understanding of the greenhouse effect (Groves & Pugh, 1999), students across disciplines, including preservice teachers, gave incorrect answers about the causes and consequences associated with this phenomenon. Indeed, problems in understanding college chemistry are not limited to prospective elementary teachers.
Another group of studies examined chemistry SMK among practicing high school chemistry teachers around the world. The results of these studies are perhaps more troubling than the studies with future elementary teachers, given the discrepancy in formal subject matter preparation. Widespread misconceptions have been found among chemistry teachers in the United Arab Emirates about the concepts of atomic mass, mole, conservation of atoms, and conservation of mass (Haidar, 1997); in Singapore about chemical reactions (Lee, 1999); in India about chemical equilibrium, Le Chatelier's principle, rate and equilibrium, and acid-based and ionic solutions (Banerjee, 1991); in Spain about Le Chatelier's principle (Quílez-Pardo & SolazPortolés, 1995); and in Sweden about the mole (Strömdahl, Tulberg, & Lybeck, 1994). Some studies compared practicing chemistry teachers’ SMK with student knowledge. Teachers had a better understanding of the mole concept than their students, but some ambiguities in their thinking were still apparent (Gorin, 1994; Tulberg, Strömdahl, & Lybeck, 1994). Teachers and students held similar alternative conceptions about gases and displayed similar misuses of the gas laws (Lin, Cheng, & Lawrenz, 2000). A review of the research on teacher SMK about chemistry (de Jong et al., 2002) corroborates the observation that even teachers who have strong preparation in chemistry lack understanding of concepts fundamental to their field.
Teachers’ SMK in Earth and Space Science
The examination of teachers’ views of earth and space science concepts has occurred more recently in the history of SMK research. These studies have been conducted largely with elementary teachers (preservice and practicing) about concepts that have also been studied with students: day/night (Atwood & Atwood, 1995; Mant & Summers, 1993; Parker & Heywood, 1998), seasons (Atwood & Atwood, 1996; Kikas, 2004; Mant & Summers; Parker & Heywood; Schoon, 1995), moon phases (Mant & Summers; Parker & Heywood; Schoon; Suzuki, 2003; Trundle, Atwood, & Christopher, 2002), geological time (Trend, 2000; 2001), the solar system (Mant & Summers), and atmospheric phenomena (Aron, Francek, Nelson, & Bisard, 1994). These studies documented that preservice teachers lack scientific views in earth and space science, but more so in astronomy topics than in geology (Schoon, 1995). The Aron et al. study compared preservice earth/physical science teachers with students and prospective elementary teachers and found that, although the future secondary teachers performed better than the elementary teachers and students, they still held many misconceptions. Preservice teachers in this study performed better on a question about the seasons than in other studies involving this topic, which is most likely a function of method: the researchers used a multiple-choice survey as opposed to the other studies that assessed SMK with a combination of open-ended questionnaires and interviews requiring teachers to generate causal explanations. For example, in the Mant and Summers (1993) study, interviewees demonstrated 13 distinguishable models of astronomical phenomena, with only 4 of the 20 participants holding the scientific model.
Two other studies of SMK in earth and space science (Barba & Rubba, 1992; 1993) were substantially different in that they adopted an expert/novice theoretical framework to study inservice/preservice and novice/veteran teachers’ declarative and procedural knowledge about a variety of earth and space science topics. Aligned with their theoretical frame, they found that expert teachers had better content knowledge structures, gave more accurate answers, used information chunks in solving problems, solved problems in fewer steps, and generated more solutions. Novice teachers moved between declarative and procedural knowledge more often and were less fluent in solving earth/space science tasks overall.
Teachers’ SMK in Biology
Unlike the majority of studies of SMK in other disciplines, the research in biology education includes both studies of substantive and syntactic knowledge, or what the researchers have called “subject matter structures.” Only a few researchers in biology education have been interested in finding out teachers’ conceptions of specific concepts. For example, Sanders (1993) studied South African teachers’ conceptions about respiration, Gayford (1998) examined British teachers’ understanding of the concept of sustainability, and Greene (1990) researched U.S. preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of natural selection. Jungwirth (1975) and Barass (1984) pointed out the misconceptions perpetrated by biology textbooks and the teachers who used them about cells, respiration, gas exchange, and homeostasis. More researchers have been concerned with uncovering the teachers’ understanding of relations among biological concepts. For example, Douvdevany, Dreyfus, and Jungwirth (1997) studied Israeli junior high biology teachers’ conceptions of living cell by asking them to link topics via two activities—a card sort and a lotto game. Hoz, Tomer, and Tamir (1990) used concept mapping to determine biology (and geography) teachers’ knowledge structures. Tamir (1992) asked preservice and practicing teachers to organize biology topics and comment on their perception of their own knowledge and topic importance. In most areas, perceived knowledge lagged behind perceived importance.
The study of biology teachers’ subject matter structures (SMSs) was marked in the 1990s by two research groups. In her dissertation, Hauslein (Hauslein, 1989; Hauslein, Good, & Cummins, 1992) studied five groups: biology majors, preservice teachers, novice teachers, experienced teachers, and scientists, using a card-sort task of 37 terms. Finding that veteran teachers and scientists had a deep-versus-surface understanding of subject matter structure, the researchers claimed that teachers restructure their thinking about biology as they gain more teaching experience. In the second research program, Lederman and his students (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; 1995; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994; Lederman & Latz, 1995) examined the subject matter structures of preservice and practicing secondary teachers, primarily in biology. For example, Gess-Newsome and Lederman studied 10 pre-service biology teachers. Rather than provide the terms used in the card sort, the researchers asked teachers to first generate their own terms and then diagram the relationships. Data collection occurred at several times throughout the preservice program and during student teaching, culminating with a final interview. Teachers typically chose topics derived directly from their college biology course titles. Their subject matter structures changed over time with the addition of more terms and greater integration of topics. The researchers concluded, “It does not appear that preservice biology teachers are cognizant of their SMSs or that these SMSs are stable” (p. 42). Both of these research programs lend support to the commonly held notion that teachers improve their SMK through teaching.
Other research concerning biology teachers’ SMK has been concerned with the relationship between SMK and teaching practice (e.g., Carlsen, 1991a, 1991b, 1993; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995; Hashweh, 1987). I review these studies in a later section.
Teachers’ SMK in Physics
By far the most research on teachers’ SMK in science has taken place in the domain of physics. These studies have examined both preservice and practicing teachers, elementary through secondary, around the globe (including Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Italy, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Topics that have been studied with children have also received attention in studies of teachers. This line of research commenced in the 1980s with the Lawrenz (1986) study of inservice elementary teachers. Using a multiple-choice test, she found that teachers understood some concepts (over 50 percent of teachers gave correct answers for items about atomic structure, off-center balancing, density, and stars) and did not understand others (less than 50 percent gave correct answers for electric current, mixture of gases, temperature, motion, and light). About the same time in the United Kingdom, a research program devoted to understanding elementary teachers’ SMK in physics was under way. In response to the British National Curriculum and the increased role for science content in primary schools, Kruger and colleagues (e.g., Kruger, 1990; Kruger, Palacio, & Summers, 1992; Kruger & Summers, 1988; Summers & Kruger, 1994) undertook the Primary School Teachers and Science Project. They studied teachers’ ideas about energy, forces, gravity, and materials, first through interviews and later via large-scale surveys. Finally they developed teacher education materials based on their findings (Summers, 1992). Golby, Martin, and Porter (1995) criticized this research program, questioning the “orthodoxy of the deficiency model” (p. 298) that they claimed supported a transmission view of teaching and learning, a claim debunked by Summers and Mant (1995) in response.
From the 1980s until the present, a host of studies have examined teacher SMK for the following concepts:
1. Light and shadows (Bendall, Goldberg, & Galili, 1993; Feher & Rice, 1987; Jones, Carter, & Rua, 1999; Smith, 1987; Smith & Neale, 1989);
2. Electricity (Daehler & Shinohara, 2001; Heller, 1987; Heywood & Parker, 1997; Jones et al., 1999; Pardhan & Bano, 2001; Stocklmayer & Treagust, 1996; Webb, 1992; Yip, Chung, & Mak, 1998);
3. Sound (Jones et al., 1999; Linder & Erickson, 1989);
4. Force and motion (Ginns & Watters, 1995; Kikas, 2004; Kruger, Palacio et al., 1992; Kruger, Summers, & Palacio, 1990b; Mohaptra & Bhattacharyya, 1989; Preece, 1997; Summers & Kruger, 1994; Trumper; 1999; Trumper & Gorsky, 1997; Yip et al., 1998);
5. Energy (Kruger, 1990; Kruger et al., 1992; Nottis & McFarland, 2001; Summers & Kruger, 1992; Trumper, 1997; Yip et al., 1998);
6. Heat and temperature (Frederik, Valk, Leite, & Thorén, 1999; Jasien & Oberem, 2002; Veiga et al., 1989);
7. Thermal properties of materials (Sciarretta, Stilli, & Vicente Missoni, 1990);
8. Sinking/floating (Ginns & Watters, 1995; Parker & Heywood, 2000; Stepans, Dyche, & Beiswenger, 1988);
9. Air pressure (Ginns & Watters, 1995; Rollnick & Rutherford, 1990);
10. Gravity (Ameh, 1987; Kruger et al., 1990a; Smith & Peacock, 1992).
The overall finding from these studies of teacher SMK in physics is that teachers’ misunderstandings mirror what we know about students. This finding holds regardless of the method used to assess teacher knowledge: true/false (Yip et al., 1998), multiple choice (e.g., Lawrenz, 1986), open-ended surveys (Mohaptra & Bhattacharyya, 1989), interviews (Linder & Erickson, 1989; Smith, 1987), and observation techniques (Daehler & Shinohara, 2001; Pardhan & Bano, 2001). Several studies also included strategies and materials for science teacher educators to improve teacher SMK (Bendall et al., 1993; Heywood & Parker, 1997; Jones et al., 1999; Summers, 1992). Unlike studies in chemistry SMK, researchers have not examined the relation of number of courses taken to physics SMK, most likely because the amount of formal coursework in physics typically taken in high school or university is lower than the amount of coursework completed for other science subjects. Unlike the biology SMK studies, most researchers of physics have been more interested in teacher understanding of specific concepts rather than their subject matter structures (see Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997, for one exception). Understanding how physics teachers understand the structure of the discipline and the relation among concepts remains a largely unmapped field of study.
Relation of SMK to Teaching
The studies reviewed up to this point have focused on describing, and in some cases treating, science teacher SMK. Another body of literature has attempted to uncover the relationships between SMK and science teaching. In general, these researchers wanted to know if teachers with better SMK were also better science teachers. The connection between SMK and teaching has been of interest among science educators for many years. Early attempts often correlated a teacher's science background (usually in the form of the number of science courses taken) with some measure of teaching effectiveness. According to Dobey (1980), studies conducted before the post-Sputnik wave of science curriculum reform supported a “positive correlation between the amount of science background and various teaching competencies” (p. 13). In a meta-analysis of 28 studies conducted between 1957 and 1977 of science teacher characteristics by teaching behavior, Druva and Anderson (1983) found a small but significant positive relation between “science training” and “teaching effectiveness.”
However, a closer examination of selected studies relating science background to teaching proves less conclusive. Some researchers found no or a negative relationship between science background and teaching. Bruce (1971), in a study of elementary teachers using Science Curriculum Improvement Study materials, found no relationship between a teacher's formal science background and the use of higher level questioning. Butts and Raun (1969) found no evidence of a relationship between course hours in science and classroom practices among elementary teachers using Science—A Process Approach. Perkes (1975) found that, among prospective elementary teachers, the number of college science courses was negatively related to both preference for and sense of adequacy to teach science. In Stalheim's (1986) study of secondary biology teachers, the number of science courses was not a predictor of the use of classroom inquiry, but the year of the most recent course was. Because these researchers operationalized effective teaching differently in these studies, their findings are difficult to compare.
Other researchers who correlated formal science background with teaching found a positive relationship. For example, Wish (in Dobey, 1980) tried to explain the teaching behaviors of elementary science student teachers in terms of the number of college courses taken and found that formal science background was significantly and positively correlated with teaching science processes. Smith and Cooper (1967) surveyed 1,504 elementary teachers about their use of eight teaching techniques and correlated these with a set of teacher characteristics, including formal study in science. They found a positive relationship between science background and use of demonstration, pupil-conducted experiments, pupil recording and reporting, and individual and group projects. Furthermore, the use of textbooks “decreased steadily with increased amounts of formal study in science” (p. 562). In an observational study of elementary science teachers, Anderson (1979) provided convincing evidence that, “Lack of science content … made it virtually impossible for them to structure the information in lessons in ways preferred by science educators” (p. 226); the teachers avoided spontaneous questions from students, emphasized minor details in discussion, and failed to develop important concepts.
In the 1980s, researchers began to define SMK in new ways. Dobey, in his dissertation (Dobey, 1980; Dobey & Schafer, 1984), studied 22 preservice elementary teachers’ SMK and level of inquiry teaching via their planning and teaching of a pendulum unit to fifth graders. The researchers measured SMK, not by the number of college science courses taken, but by performance and training on topic-specific tasks. The findings were mixed. Teachers in the “no knowledge” group were more teacher-directed than those with “intermediate knowledge,” but not more so than the “knowledge” group teachers. The “no knowledge” teachers did not pursue new avenues of investigation during the lesson and allowed the least number of student ideas. The “no knowledge” group did not give out pendulum information in the lesson, and one-half of the “knowledge” group lectured at some point. This study demonstrates the complexities of correlating SMK with teaching.
It was followed by others that measured SMK with methods other than counting the number of science courses and assessed teaching effectiveness in a variety of ways. One of the most heavily cited studies in the area is Hashweh's dissertation (1985, 1987). He studied three biology and three physics teachers’ SMK on a physics topic (simple machines) and a biology topic (photosynthesis) with the use of free recall, concept map line labeling, and sorting tasks. He also assessed their “preactive” and “simulated interactive” teaching of each topic. The teachers had a strong SMK base in their field of expertise, which affected their simulated teaching behaviors. “When activities were provided by the textbook, unknowledgeable teachers followed them closely. Knowledgeable teachers made many modifications… . When no activities were provided, only knowledgeable teachers could generate activities on their own” (Hashweh, 1985, p. 247). Furthermore, knowledgeable teachers asked higher level questions on tests and were more able to detect student misconceptions. Hashweh demonstrated that SMK was related to another kind of knowledge for science teaching.
In a series of articles derived from his dissertation, Carlsen (1988, 1991a, 1991b, 1993) examined the SMK and teaching behavior of four novice biology teachers. He measured SMK via a card sort task of 15 topics, interviews about sources of knowledge, and analysis of the teachers’ undergraduate science course records. Identifying high-knowledge and low-knowledge topics for each of the teachers, he analyzed lesson plans and observed actual lessons taught by the teachers for both kinds of topics. The results are complex and not easily summarized. Teachers used lectures, quizzes, and tests more with high-knowledge topics and group work more with low-knowledge topics. Three of the four teachers asked more questions on low-knowledge topics; all teachers asked higher level questions with high-knowledge topics. Teachers talked more in laboratories when they were knowledgeable, but labs on high-knowledge topics were less “cookbooky,” and teacher talk in these labs was more responsive than initiative. Carlsen concluded that teacher SMK influenced their instructional decisions, but failed to recognize other types of teacher knowledge that might have been involved.
A host of other studies have examined connections between SMK and actual classroom practice. In a conceptually rich study, Sanders, Borko, and Lockard (1993) observed three experienced secondary science teachers as they taught disciplines for which they were certified and noncertified. Although the teachers acted similarly in terms of general pedagogical knowledge, they differed in their planning, interactive teaching, and reflection based on SMK; within their certification area, teachers talked less, chose more “conversationally risky” activities, and involved students more. In her dissertation study of five experienced biology teachers, Gess-Newsome (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995) compared the teachers’ subject matter structures with their classroom practice, concluding that the “level of content knowledge had a significant impact on how content was taught” (p. 317). Newton and Newton (2001) found that elementary teachers with less SMK (based on formal science background) interacted less, asked fewer causal questions, and spent more time lecturing. According to Smith (1987), elementary teachers’ difficulties with the physics of light affected their ability to focus on the conceptual understanding of light in science activities and limited their use of examples and metaphors. Abell and Roth (1992) found that when Roth, an elementary student teacher, taught a low-knowledge topic, she started lessons late and ended early, used fewer hands-on activities, and relied more on text-based lessons. Lee (1995) found similar results in a case study of a middle-level science teacher whose limited SMK was associated with heavy reliance on the textbook and seatwork and avoidance of whole class discussion.
Researchers have also correlated SMK to teaching behaviors of preservice teachers with the use of simulated teaching activities. Smith (1997), in attempting to relate preservice teachers’ success on class assignments such as lesson planning with their SMK, claimed that “knowledge of science does enhance teaching, but not in a straightforward manner” (p. 151). Lloyd et al. (1998) tested preservice elementary teachers on their SMK and pedagogical content knowledge, and although teachers held misconceptions in both areas, the researchers did not find a direct relationship between SMK and PCK. Symington (1980) found that preservice elementary teachers who were given a scientific explanation of a phenomenon did not generate more teaching options in response to written cases, but did demonstrate reduced teacher directiveness. Examining preservice elementary teachers as they planned a science lesson, Symington and Hayes (1989) demonstrated that inadequate SMK led to limitations in planning, and that future teachers had few strategies for coping with their lack of science understanding. However, in another study, Symington (1982) found no direct relationship of SMK to a preservice teacher's ability to plan appropriate materials for student investigation. According to Symington, there must be other kinds of knowledge and abilities that “compensate for a lack of scientific knowledge” (p. 70). In an interesting twist on studying the relation between SMK and teaching, Shugart and Hounshell (1995) examined the relation between SMK (as measured on standardized tests) and teacher retention among 83 secondary science teachers; they found that the higher the science test scores, the more likely teachers were to leave teaching by the 9th or 10th year.
The studies of the relationship between SMK and science teaching represent a variety of participants (preservice and practicing teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels) and a variety of methods for assessing SMK (courses taken, surveys, interviews) and teaching behaviors (indirect methods such as responses to hypothetical teaching situations and direct observations of teaching). Despite this mixture of settings and methods, the evidence does support a positive relationship between SMK and teaching. Although Lederman and Gess-Newsome (1992) were less enthusiastic about this claim, their evidence included studies of teachers’ views of the nature of science, studies that are not considered here. Could it be, as Lederman and Gess-Newsome suggested, that some minimal SMK is necessary, but that studies at different grades, or with preservice versus practicing teachers, cannot be compared fairly? Or could it be that SMK does have an effect on science teaching, but that this effect is mediated by other types of teacher knowledge? This was implied in many of the studies reported. Perhaps SMK is necessary, but not sufficient, for effective teaching. A review of studies of PK and PCK could be instructive.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
Grossman's (1990) formalization of Shulman's model of teacher knowledge included a component of pedagogical knowledge separate from PCK that she labeled general pedagogical knowledge (PK). PK includes knowledge of instructional principles, classroom management, learners and learning, and educational aims that are not subject-matter-specific. Theoretically, these types of knowledge interact with PCK for teaching of a particular topic in a discipline (see Fig. 36–1). In the science education literature, most of the research on teacher pedagogical knowledge logically falls into the category of PCK, pedagogical knowledge for teaching science topics (see next section). Some studies that claimed to be about PK actually cited science-specific teacher knowledge (see Gustafson, Guilbert, & MacDonald, 2002) and are better placed in the PCK category. However, the few studies that examined the PK of science teachers in particular are reviewed here.
Science teachers’ generic meaning of learning (Aguirre & Haggerty, 1995) and their metacognitive knowledge of higher order thinking (Zohar, 1999) have been investigated. Another group of studies focused on science teachers’ knowledge of classroom management. Three studies examined “pupil control ideologies” with a written instrument developed for the purpose (Harty, Andersen, & Enochs, 1984; Jones & Blankenship, 1970; Jones & Harty, 1981). As is all too familiar in the science education literature, researchers coined a new term for a hypothetical construct, developed a measurement tool, and used the tool in a few studies. Then the construct and the tool disappeared from the literature. In another study of classroom management, Latz (1992) used an open-ended questionnaire to learn about pre-service teachers’ knowledge of management and discipline. He suggested a link between instructional approaches and teachers’ “preventative” view of classroom management.
One interesting outcome of several case studies of science teachers has been that a majority of assertions have concerned PK rather than PCK (Gallagher, 1989; Mills, 1997; Treagust, 1991). For the most part, the findings of such studies could relate to teachers of any discipline; what makes these studies significant to the science education community? Could it be that the influence of PK on PCK needs to be better articulated? I believe that more attention must be paid to the interaction of PK with PCK—for example, the role of caring, classroom management, or general learning views—in how teachers teach science.
SCIENCE TEACHER PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Frameworks and Methods of Representation
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been defined as “the transformation of subject-matter knowledge into forms accessible to the students being taught” (Geddis, 1993, p. 675). Grossman (1990) and later Magnusson et al. (1999) defined separate components of PCK, including orientations, knowledge of learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment. Yet, the PCK literature in science education is not nearly as tidy as the SMK literature. Some researchers directly studied PCK, but only a small portion explicitly discussed a particular kind of PCK. Most use PCK as a generic term across several of the subsections. Others did not mention PCK at all, either because they preceded Shulman's work in the mid-1980s, or used frameworks other than Shulman's to interpret the findings. Still other researchers who used the PCK framework introduced new constructs into the literature, including “activities that work” (Appleton, 2002), “pedagogical content concerns” (de Jong, 2000; de Jong & van Driel, 2001), and “pedagogical context knowledge” (Barnett & Hodson, 2001). Moreover, the words researchers used for “knowledge” have been conflated within and across studies, and included terms such as conceptions, perceptions, theories, concerns, and beliefs, in addition to knowledge. For example, Porlán and Martín del Pozo (2004) studied teachers’ “conceptions about science teaching and learning” (p. 43) by using the Inventory of Science Pedagogical Beliefs.
For these reasons, the science education PCK literature lacks coherence (for example, there are few common citations) and is difficult to categorize. However, I felt compelled to impose some order on this large literature. I tried to fit studies, without forcing, into the five PCK categories (see Fig. 36–1), whether the researchers were explicit about such a categorization or not. Other studies that did not fit neatly into one type of PCK are discussed in this introductory section. Here I also discuss some of the common methods for representing teacher PCK that have been used.
Several lines of research used frameworks other than Shulman's to understand science teacher knowledge. For example, science education researchers have used Schön's theory of reflective practice to understand the development of “professional knowledge” (Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998; Anderson, Smith, & Peasley, 2000; Munby, Cunningham, & Lock, 2000; Munby & Russell, 1992; Russell & Munby, 1991). These studies demonstrated how teacher knowledge develops over time with respect to various inputs and perturbations, but did not classify teacher knowledge as Shulman did.
Another line of science teacher research concerned itself with teacher planning. Although this research typically did not mention Shulman or PCK, being more often framed by a teacher cognition perspective, notions of teacher knowledge were often implicit. The planning literature in teacher education is rich (see Clark & Peterson, 1986; So, 1997), but science education is not well represented. Science education studies on teacher planning have examined both preservice (Davies & Rogers, 2000; Morine-Dershimer, 1989; Roberts & Chastko, 1990) and practicing (Aikenhead, 1984; Sanchez & Valcárcel, 1999; So, 1997) science teachers in an attempt to understand how teachers plan and what knowledge and beliefs influence their planning. Peterson and Treagust (1995) used Shulman's model of pedagogical reasoning to study the stages of science teacher reasoning while planning. While planning, preservice teachers relied on SMK and curricular knowledge, but during instruction, their reasoning “considered the teaching sequence, the science content and curriculum knowledge, the prior knowledge of the learner, and the explanations they would use for the activities to be discussed” (p. 300). The “Lesson Preparation Method” (Valk & Broekman, 1999) was introduced as a strategy to uncover science teacher PCK, and lesson planning has been used in other studies of science teacher knowledge (de Jong, 2000; de Jong, Ahtee, Goodwin, Hatzinikita, & Koulaidis, 1999). However, the findings of Peterson and Treagust lend some degree of skepticism to the method of representing PCK solely by planning activities and suggest that studies of PCK during teaching need to simultaneously occur.
Another method of representing teacher PCK has been via metaphors (Bradford & Dana, 1996; Briscoe, 1991; Hand & Treagust, 1997; Munby 1986; Tobin & LaMaster, 1995). Munby claimed that “metaphorical figures can be studied with a view to comprehending a teacher's construction of professional reality” (p. 206). Although none of these studies used Shulman's views of teacher knowledge as their theoretical framework, their findings do help in understanding the knowledge/orientations of science teachers.
Loughran and colleagues (Loughran, Gunstone, Berry, Milroy, & Mulhall, 2000; Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004; Loughran, Milroy, Berry, Gunstone, & Mulhall, 2001) developed a system for representing science teacher PCK. Their work began by writing cases of PCK, a process they called “classroom window” methodology. Finding deficits in this method of representation, they next developed PaP-eRs, Pedagogical and Professional-experience Repertoires. The PaP-eR characterizes teacher knowledge around a specific science topic and is an amalgam of types of PCK. The researchers called this mode of representation a breakthrough in capturing a teacher's PCK. At this writing, it is too soon to tell if the PaP-eR will find a more widespread use among researchers and science teacher educators.
A host of other methods, including expert/novice studies (MacDonald, 1992; Pinnegar, 1989), interviews (Fernández-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Koballa, Gräber, Coleman, & Kemp, 1999), classroom observations (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998), and analysis of teacher study group discussions (Daehler & Shinohara, 2001; Geddis, 1993) have been employed to understand science teacher PCK. Given the complexity of representing PCK, studies that use multiple methods over time to understand teacher knowledge seem to be the richest. For example, Bellamy (1990) observed and interviewed high school biology teachers teaching genetics. The teachers demonstrated similarities in their PCK for genetics teaching through the use of common teaching sequences and activities. Sanders, Borko, et al. (1993) observed and interviewed three secondary science teachers as they planned, taught, and reflected on their science teaching both within and outside of their certification area. Their study generated a rich data set from which they made numerous claims concerning SMK, PK, and PCK. van Driel, de Jong, and Verloop (2002) studied pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK via questionnaires, interviews, and workshop session conversations over one semester and were able to describe teachers’ PCK and its development.
Research on science teacher PCK resides in a formative phase, where researchers continue to define the terms and methods that guide their work. The research has raised several questions. For example, Peterson and Treagust (1995) suggested that the knowledge a teacher uses for teaching may not be the same as that represented in written surveys or instruments. What forms of represented PCK are most trustworthy? What research designs are most viable? Appleton (2002) reported that elementary teachers of science consider “activities that work” the basis of their science instruction, and he claimed that this notion is the centerpiece of elementary teachers’ science PCK. Should PCK be defined differently for teachers at different grade levels? Other researchers cause us to question Shulman's model itself—do we need to add new terms such as pedagogical context knowledge and pedagogical content concerns to our research lexicon? Science educators have embraced Schulman's work as a useful theoretical framework. The PCK framework has been used to understand science teacher knowledge across grade levels and career spans. It has also been suggested as a viable model for thinking about the knowledge that science teacher educators hold, or should develop, to be effective (Abell, Smith, Schmidt, & Magnusson, 1996; Smith, 2000). However, we must continue to ask if the theoretical construct of PCK is supported, disconfirmed, or in need of expansion, using evidence derived through empirical research. The following sections examine empirical research within the five components of PCK shown in Fig. 36–1.
Orientations toward Science Teaching
Anderson and Smith (1987) introduced the term “orientation” as a way to categorize disparate approaches to science teaching (activity-driven, didactic, discovery, and conceptual-change). Grossman's (1990) model of PCK included the category “conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter” (p. 5), for which Magnusson et al. (1999) substituted the label “orientation.” They used the label to represent teacher knowledge of the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level, after Grossman, but also called an orientation a “general way of viewing or conceptualizing science teaching” (p. 97). They expanded Anderson and Smith's list of four orientations to nine. The inclusion of “orientations” in the PCK model is problematic. First of all, an orientation is theorized as a generalized view of science teaching, not topic-specific knowledge. Second, these general views of science teaching and learning are often studied as an interaction among knowledge, beliefs, and values, not strictly as knowledge structures. Furthermore, these general views have been called by a number of different names in the literature. Although some will undoubtedly question the inclusion of some of the studies in this section, I believe their presence in the literature must be acknowledged, so that we can understand the field and develop a more cohesive research agenda.
Very few studies set out to explicitly understand teachers’ orientations to teaching science. Studies by Greenwood (2003) and Friedrichsen (2002; Friedrichsen & Dana, 2003, 2005) are notable exceptions. Friedrichsen called orientations “a messy concept” (p. 11) because either researchers provided no clear definition, or they introduced new terms into the mix. For example, researchers have used labels such as “conceptions of science teaching” (Hewson & Hewson, 1987; Porlán & Martín del Pozo, 2004), “functional paradigms” (Lantz & Kass, 1987), “world images” (Wubbels, 1992), “preconceptions of teaching” (Weinstein, 1980), and “approaches to teaching” (Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994) to study what appears to be teaching orientations. For this section, I selected studies that examined teacher knowledge of guiding purposes and frameworks for science teaching and left studies of teacher views of curricular goals and instructional models to later sections.
One line of research on orientations followed the work of Anderson and Smith (1987). Roth (1987) studied 13 experienced junior high life science teachers and found three groups of teaching orientations: fact acquisition, conceptual development, and content understanding. Smith and Neale (1989, 1991) imposed four orientations on their data: discovery, processes, didactic/content mastery, and conceptual change. Hollon, Roth, and Anderson (1991) examined the cases of two middle-level science teachers and claimed that teacher practice was governed not only by SMK, but also by “deeply held patterns of thought and action that have developed over many years” (p. 176). Anderson et al. (2000), using interviews as primary data sources, described the development of five preservice teachers’ “conceptions” across one year of teacher education. The authors claimed that the students entered the teacher education program along a particular trajectory and focused their learning on aspects of teaching congruent with these conceptions. However, one student, Mindy, experienced a more dramatic change: from a teacher-centered conception of science teaching to a view where students took center stage. Bryan and Abell (1999), although not studying orientations directly, found a similar progression in one student teacher's thinking. Barbara began student teaching with a teacher-centered view that blamed students for their inability to learn and progressed to a deeper understanding of the requirements for learning. This line of research changed over time from a concern with labeling specific teaching orientations to understanding how these orientations develop.
Another line of research on orientations introduced the term “conceptions of teaching” as “the set of ideas, understandings, and interpretations of experience” concerning teaching, learning, and the nature of science that teachers use to make decisions (Hewson & Hewson, 1989, p. 194). Hewson and Hewson (1987) defended the construct and then designed an interview task (1989) for identifying teacher conceptions of teaching science. In subsequent studies, they refined the protocol and used it to study the conceptions of teaching held by both preservice and practicing science teachers (Hewson, Kerby, & Cook, 1995; Lemberger, Hewson, & Park, 1999; Lyons, Freitag, & Hewson, 1997; Meyer, Tabachnick, Hewson, Lemberger, & Park, 1999). In particular, they were interested in how teachers built their understanding of conceptual change science teaching.
Other than these two lines of research, studies of teacher orientations have not formed a coherent line of thought, often because researchers introduced their own terms rather than building on the existing literature. Several studies categorized teaching orientations. Lantz and Kass (1987) studied how three chemistry teachers translated curriculum materials into practice. They interpreted teacher comments to represent three views of teaching: pedagogical efficiency, academic rigor, and motivating students. They used the term “functional paradigm” to describe the teachers’ views of chemistry, teaching, students, and the school setting and claimed that a teacher's functional paradigm (or what Shulman might call PK or Magnusson et al. (1999) would call orientation) influenced how curriculum materials were interpreted and implemented. Freire and Sanches (1992) used both “orientations” and “conceptions of teaching” to describe Portuguese physics teachers’ views. They derived five conceptions of teaching physics—traditional, experimentalist, constructivist, pragmatist, and social—but did not find them demonstrated in practice. Huibregtse, Korthagen, and Wubbels (1994) identified goals and approaches to teaching held by Dutch physics teachers. They found that the teachers favored approaches to teaching that fit their own learning preference, but had limited conceptions of teaching overall. In one of the few studies on college science teacher PCK, Trigwell et al. (1994) found 24 chemistry and physics professors to hold one of five “approaches to teaching”: (a) teacher-centered to transmit information (13 instructors); (b) teacher-centered so students acquire concepts (6 instructors); (c) teacher-student interaction so that students acquire concepts (3 instructors); (d) student-centered so students develop conceptions (1 instructor); and (e) student-centered aimed at students changing their conceptions (1 instructor). Huston (1975) measured the “values orientations” of chemistry teachers and students in Canada and found that students were more highly oriented to the humanistic and technological aspects of chemistry, whereas teachers were oriented to the more abstract and theoretical. Cheung and Ng (2000) defined five curriculum orientations: academic, cognitive processes, society-centered, humanistic, and technological, and asked secondary science teachers in Hong Kong which orientations they most valued. They found that teachers were most enthusiastic about the cognitive processes orientation but valued all of the orientations. These findings resonate with Friedrichsen's (2002) study of secondary biology teachers. Orientations shifted based on which course the teacher was teaching and the “perceived needs of a particular group of students” (p. 143). Thus a teacher's orientation is not a single static entity with neat boundaries, but a fluid set of components influenced by a host of issues.
Attempting to categorize and understand orientations by the use of common terms from the literature is not the only approach that has been used to study this component of PCK. Some studies used open-ended questionnaires to ask teachers about their conceptions of science teaching and learning (Aguirre, Haggerty, & Linder, 1990; Gurney, 1995; Parsons, 1991) or a survey to find out their “conceptions of purposes” for science teaching (Zeitler, 1984). Another strategy for studying teaching orientations has been to examine teacher views of good science teaching (Brickhouse, 1993; Guillaume, 1995; Skamp, 1995; Skamp & Mueller, 2001; Stofflett & Stefanon, 1996). Other researchers adopted a case-study methodology as a way to understand science teachers’ frameworks (Adams & Krockover, 1997; Cornett, Yeotis, & Terwilliger, 1990; Feldman, 2002; Geddis & Roberts, 1998; Johnston, 1991; Maor & Taylor, 1995; Ritchie, 1999; Sweeney, Bula, & Cornett, 2001). Mellado (1998) constructed cases of four Spanish student teachers—elementary and secondary— and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. All four teachers demonstrated an “apparent constructivist orientation” (p. 204) toward learning, but they assigned different values to student ideas. Furthermore, their classroom practices were closer to traditional models of teaching than to the orientation they espoused.
Orientation is indeed a messy construct. Some researchers adopt PCK as their theoretical perspective, some use theories other than Shulman's to guide their work, and others appear to be atheoretical in their approach. Researchers need to come to a clear consensus about what they are studying in this realm. Rather than introduce new terms, it would benefit the field to more deeply understand the existing constructs. Nevertheless, a few conclusions seem reasonable based on the literature: (a) orientations influence teacher learning and practice, although that influence is not direct (Anderson et al., 2000; Lantz & Kass, 1987; Lemberger et al., 1999); (b) orientations (or whatever they are termed) are much less coherently held and much more context-specific than the theoretical literature led us to believe (Cheung & Ng, 2000; Friedrichsen, 2002; Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005); (c) teachers often do not possess a tacit knowledge of their conceptual framework (Gallagher, 1989); (d) although teachers possess or value a range of orientations that guide practice, their set of teaching strategies is much more narrow (Freire & Sanches, 1992; Gallagher, 1989; Huibregtse et al., 1994; Mellado, 1998); and (e) orientations can change over time (Anderson et al., 2000; Bryan & Abell, 1999; Feldman, 2002; Sweeney et al., 2001). However, much more work is needed to understand the frameworks that guide science teachers in their planning and enactment of instruction.
Knowledge of Science Learners
This category of PCK pertains to knowledge teachers have about student science learning: requirements for learning certain concepts, areas that students find difficult, approaches to learning science, and common alternative conceptions (Magnusson et al., 1999). The research in this area has concentrated on teacher knowledge of alternative conceptions, teacher images of the ideal science student, and more general views of science learning.
A logical extension of the research on children's and teachers’ science conceptions was to examine teacher knowledge of student science ideas. As early as 1981, Nussbaum asked biology and chemistry student teachers to respond to hypothetical students’ science explanations about the structure of matter that contained three major misconceptions. Although 45 percent of the teachers detected one misconception, only 7 percent found all three and 22 percent found none. The chemistry student teachers performed no better than the biology student teachers. In a similar study, Kokkotas et al. (1998) found that preservice secondary teachers could not identify student problems in thinking about the particulate nature of matter. Deficiencies in teacher knowledge of student ideas about heat and temperature (Frederik et al., 1999) and electricity (Stocklmayer & Treagust, 1996) have also been found.
Survey methods were used in some studies to determine teacher knowledge about student science ideas. Pine, Messer, and St. John (2001) surveyed 122 elementary science teachers in the United Kingdom. When asked to give examples of common ideas held by students, 90 of the teachers produced 130 responses, in all areas of the science curriculum. The researchers concluded that teachers had a strong awareness of student alternative ideas. This finding stands in stark contrast to the results of other studies. For example, McNay (1991) asked a small group of Canadian elementary teachers to read several research articles about students’ science ideas. Some teachers did not believe what they read until they interviewed their own students and heard the ideas firsthand. In a study of secondary physical science teachers in Portugal (Sequeira, Leite, & Duarte, 1993), only 45 percent stated they had heard about alternative conceptions, even though 80 percent of university instructors claimed it was part of the preservice program. Of the teachers who had heard of alternative conceptions, most recognized them from a list and stated that such ideas can be hard to change. In Malaysia, Halim and Meerah (2002) asked 12 prospective physics teachers how they thought students would respond to a set of questions. The researchers found that many teachers were unaware of students’ likely misconceptions and had inadequate SMK. In an interview setting, Berg and Brouwer (1991) asked 20 high school physics teachers to predict student responses to questions about force and gravity. In addition to demonstrating several alternative conceptions themselves, the teachers underestimated the number of students who would hold various conceptions and overestimated the number of students who would respond with the correct answer.
Several studies examined teacher knowledge of student conceptions within the context of teaching. de Jong and van Driel (2001) asked prospective chemistry teachers to discuss their concerns before teaching a lesson in grade 9 and then to discuss the difficulties they had after teaching. Prior to the lesson, only 3 of the 8 students mentioned any concerns about student learning. After the lesson, a few more discussed student learning difficulties in their reflection. Jones et al. (1999) engaged elementary and middle-level teachers in interviewing students and teaching lessons and assessed their pre/post SMK and knowledge of teaching. They found that teachers were “shocked” by the science concepts revealed by students and that student concepts served as catalysts for the teachers to reevaluate both their SMK and their pedagogical practices. Geddis, Onslow, Beynon, and Oesch (1993) found that two chemistry student teachers, in the context of teaching about isotopes, did not realize the difficulties students would encounter in learning weighted averages, given their familiarity with simple averages. The veteran teacher, in contrast, was able to predict and plan around these difficulties. Likewise, Akerson, Flick, and Lederman (2000) found a big difference between how two veteran elementary teachers and a student teacher dealt with student ideas. The veterans viewed children's ideas as perceptually dominated, structured, coherent, experience-based, and resistant to change and repeatedly tried to elicit student ideas. The student teacher, on the other hand, discouraged student expression of their science ideas, and focused on eliminating student ideas so she could proceed with her instruction. Morrison and Lederman (2003) found that the four secondary science teachers in their study valued diagnosis of student preconceptions, but had varying degrees of understanding of possible preconceptions.
A host of other studies have attempted to understand teacher knowledge of students with the use of various frameworks. For example, Pinnegar (1989) used an expert/novice frame and a repeated interview technique to study high school science teachers’ knowledge of students. She found that teachers’ knowledge of students came mostly from classroom observations and interactions, and that their knowledge increased over time. Experienced teachers were able to provide evidence to support their interpretations of students. Two studies examined teacher views of excellent science students (Bailey, Boylan, Francis, & Hill, 1986; Raina, 1970). Teachers often mentioned traits of good students (e.g., obedience, good listener, completing tasks), as well as personality traits (organized, neat), as opposed to traits associated with scientific or creative thinking.
As views of science learning broadened, so did attempts to understand teacher knowledge of science learning. In a study of exemplary secondary science teachers in Australia (Gallagher, 1989), teachers characterized learning as driven by motivation. Several studies of preservice teachers (Geddis & Roberts, 1998; Gustafson & Rowell, 1995; Lemberger et al., 1999; Zembal-Saul, Blumenfeld, & Krajcik, 2000) described teacher views of science learning as part of an overall orientation to science teaching. Others related teachers’ views of learning to their views of the nature of science (Abell & Smith, 1994; Flores, Lopez, Gallegos, & Barojas, 2000; Hashweh, 1996a, 1996b). These researchers claimed a connection between a positivist epistemology and a behaviorist or discovery-oriented view of science learning. Hashweh demonstrated that teachers holding what he called “empirical” beliefs of knowledge and learning were more apt to judge student alternative conceptions as acceptable than were teachers holding “constructivist” views. The research on teacher knowledge of science learning has employed a broad range of methods and lacks cohesion in terms of the research questions addressed. Overall it appears that teachers lack knowledge of student science conceptions, but that this knowledge improves with teaching experience.
Knowledge of Science Curriculum
Magnusson et al. (1999) defined two types of science curriculum knowledge: (a) knowledge of mandated goals and objectives (e.g., state and national standards) and (b) knowledge of specific curriculum programs and materials. Few studies attempted to directly study teacher knowledge of science curriculum, or cited Shulman's model as a theoretical foundation for the research. One notable exception is Peterson and Treagust (1995), who found that knowledge of curriculum was an essential component of preservice teacher pedagogical reasoning around lesson planning and instruction.
Science teacher knowledge of curricular goals has been researched, but studies typically asked teachers to rank the relative importance of the goals, rather than examine teacher knowledge directly. Tamir and Jungwirth (1972) asked Israeli biology teachers familiar with the BSCS biology curriculum to rank 18 teaching objectives. A majority ranked “developing critical thinking” as most important, and 54 percent assigned bottom rank to “accumulation of biological knowledge.” However, there was not agreement about objectives such as “understanding the role of science in everyday life” or “understanding the nature and aims of science.” In 1982, Finley, Stewart, and Yarroch surveyed 400 U.S. science teachers in four science disciplines about their perceptions of the difficulty and importance of 50 topics in their discipline. Teachers rated a number of topics important, but not difficult, for students to learn (e.g., cell theory, periodic table, energy and energy conservation, Earth/Moon system). Finley and colleagues made no attempt to link teacher perceptions with local or state curricular goals. Science teachers’ goals have been studied around the world, with the use of terms such as “goal conceptions,” “goal orientations,” and “views of goals,” in Australia (Schibeci, 1981), Finland (Hirvonen & Viiri, 2002), France (Boyer & Tiberghien, 1989), Israel (Hofstein, Mandler, Ben-Zvi, & Samuel, 1980), Spain (Furio, Vilches, Guisasola, & Romo, 2002), the United Kingdom (Carrick, 1983), and the United States (McIntosh & Zeidler, 1988). Although science teachers recognize a variety of goals for science teaching, they tend to emphasize content goals over attitudinal or process goals.
In a study of teaching goals in action, Geddis et al. (1993) examined the curricular knowledge that comes into play in the teaching of a particular topic. The researchers introduced the term “curricular saliency,” to explain how veteran teachers cope with a curriculum full of concepts and decide what is important to teach. Teacher rankings of goals is only a small part of the knowledge that comes into play when curricular decisions are made.
In the wake of the standards-based science education reforms of the 1990s, it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to understanding teacher knowledge of science standards. A few studies have addressed this (Fischer-Mueller & Zeidler, 2002; Furió et al., 2002; Lynch, 1997), but more are needed. Although educators often bemoan the lack of reform-minded science teaching, researchers have not contributed an understanding of the curriculum knowledge that is necessary for the reforms to be effective.
Science teacher knowledge of curriculum programs and materials (the second type of knowledge of science curriculum defined by Magnusson and her colleagues (1999)) likewise suffers from a dearth of research attention. One of the earliest studies of this type of knowledge looked at teacher awareness and use of population education materials (O'Brien, Huether, & Philliber, 1978) and found that 60–70 percent of U.S. population education teachers were not familiar with a range of curriculum materials. Schriver and Czerniak (1999) compared U.S. middle school science teachers to those in junior high settings on a number of variables, including self-efficacy and knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum. Knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum was higher for the middle school teachers, positively correlated with level of outcome expectancy, but unrelated to self-efficacy. Peacock and Gates (2000) examined the perceptions of 23 newly qualified elementary teachers in the United Kingdom regarding the role of the textbook in science learning. Teachers thought of the text as peripheral to science activities and as needing to be adapted before use. Textbook selection was based on surface features and was not related to a teacher's SMK. Although several tools have been generated in the United States for teacher use in curriculum analysis (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; National Research Council, 1999), we know little about the knowledge teachers bring to bear on the analysis, selection, or design of science curriculum materials. One recent study (Lynch, Pyke, & Jansen, 2003) offers insight into this process.
Knowledge of Science Instructional Strategies
This type of teacher knowledge includes subject-specific strategies (e.g., learning cycle, use of analogies or demos or labs) and topic-specific teaching methods and strategies, including representations (examples, models, metaphors), demonstrations, and activities (labs, problems, cases) (Magnusson et al., 1999). The research has examined both categories of teacher knowledge but is lacking in studies of teacher representations of science content.
A small group of researchers has studied teacher understanding of science teaching approaches (Jones, Thompson, & Miller, 1980), including the learning cycle (Marek, Eubanks, & Gallagher; 1990; Marek, Laubach, & Pedersen, 2003; Odom & Settlage, 1996; Settlage, 2000), the Generative Learning Model (GLM) (Flick, 1996), and STS instruction (Tsai, 2001). Flick found that U.S. elementary teachers could not completely distinguish between the GLM and direct instruction teaching models. Olson (1990) found a similar confusion among UK teachers: “They tended to think of discovery teaching approaches as if they were variants of more familiar teacher directed forms” (p. 210). Settlage and colleagues reported a lack of understanding of the learning cycle among preservice elementary teachers after instruction but found no relation between this knowledge and anxiety about teaching science. Marek and colleagues found that both elementary and secondary science teachers who demonstrated a sound understanding of a Piagetian view of learning also had a deeper understanding of the learning cycle. Hashweh (1996a) related teachers’ epistemological views to their knowledge of conceptual change teaching strategies and found that teachers holding constructivist views possessed richer repertoires of such strategies.
Although we emphasize inquiry-based teaching and instructional models such as the learning cycle in science teacher education programs, we have little empirical knowledge of what teachers learn. According to Keys and Bryan (2001), research on teacher knowledge of inquiry-based instructional strategies has not been sufficiently developed. More science education research should be devoted to examining what teachers understand about classroom inquiry strategies and science teaching models, and how they translate their knowledge into instruction.
Other studies have looked at PCK related to strategies for teaching specific topics within chemistry (de Jong, Acampo, & Verdonk, 1995; de Jong & van Driel, 2001; Geddis et al., 1993; Tulberg et al., 1994; van Driel et al., 1998, 2002; see also de Jong et al., 2002, for a review), biology (Mastrilli, 1997; Treagust, 1991), and physics (Halim & Meerah, 2002). Geddis and colleagues compared the teaching of isotopes between two novices and a veteran teacher. Both of the novices taught procedural knowledge—calculating average atomic masses—with the use of accurate examples. The veteran, however, was more concerned with conceptual understanding and used inaccurate examples to scaffold student learning. The researchers claimed that this is a clear instance of a teacher transforming SMK by using instructional strategies that take student learning into account. In contrast, de Jong, Acampo, and Verdonk observed the teaching of redox reactions by two experienced chemistry teachers and found that the teachers had many difficulties developing viable instructional strategies.
Researchers have also studied teacher knowledge and use of general science instructional strategies. Enochs, Oliver, and Wright (1990) found that one-third or more of Kansas science teachers never used teaching strategies such as demonstrations, cooperative learning, or laboratories. Others examined the use of strategies such as analogies (Mastrilli, 1997; Nottis & McFarland, 2001), models (Justi & Gilbert, 2002a, 2002b; van Driel & Verloop, 2002), and demonstrations (Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994; Clermont, Krajcik, & Borko, 1993). Clermont and his colleagues found differences in the PCK for chemical demonstrations between experienced and novice demonstrators. The experienced teachers discussed more alternative chemical demonstrations for each topic and provided more detail about their alternatives than the novices. They also generated more variations on the demonstration presented. Novices occasionally discussed inappropriate content or pedagogically unsound demonstrations. These studies demonstrate that knowledge of instructional strategies is linked to SMK and knowledge of learners, but also demands understanding of the subtleties of the strategy in use.
A conceptually rich study of the content representations of two elementary student teachers as they engaged in two cycles of planning, teaching, and reflecting (Zembal-Saul et al., 2000) provides a window into the development of teacher knowledge of instructional strategies. In an initial teaching cycle, these preservice teachers were able to plan many scientifically accurate content representations but included too many topics that were not sequenced well. Furthermore, during teaching, they had difficulty in helping students make connections among the topics. In a second cycle, the teachers again planned multiple and accurate representations of the content, but were more selective and better able to connect activities and representations during class discussions. Following these teachers into student teaching, the researchers found that although one of the teachers was able to maintain and enhance content representations in science, the second teacher was not (Zembal-Saul, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2002). These studies demonstrate the complexity of science teaching in terms of the interplay of SMK and PCK. They also illustrate how future teachers can learn from the authority of experience (Munby & Russell, 1994) and how context affects a student teacher's content representations.
Knowledge of Science Assessment
According to Magnusson et al. (1999), this type of teacher knowledge includes knowledge of what to assess in science as well as methods for assessing. A few studies have attempted to directly study teacher assessment knowledge by a variety of methods. Pine, Messer, and St. John (2001) described the methods UK elementary teachers used to find out what students know, which included discussion, brainstorming, past records, questioning, testing, and predicting. Duffee and Aikenhead (1992) interviewed six 10th-grade urban science teachers regarding student evaluation decisions within an STS curriculum. Although teachers used a variety of techniques, tests and lab assignments were weighted most heavily to determine final grades. How and what the teachers chose to assess were mediated by their beliefs and values. For example, the four teachers who integrated STS and the nature of science into their teaching assessed students’ abilities to solve problems and reason, and the two teachers who thought of science as factual relied more on objectively scored items with one right answer.
However, knowing what assessment methods teachers use does not provide insight into how assessment is enacted. In attempting to understand science teacher assessment knowledge in action, Sanders (1993) asked 136 South African biology teachers to mark student answers about respiration. The teachers used different criteria to mark the answers, resulting in a wide distribution of final scores. Many teachers looked for correct statements only, ignored wrong answers, and failed to provide feedback to students. The majority of positive feedback referred to the logical structure of the essay (34 percent) or neatness (22 percent), and 11 percent gave general positive comments even when student ideas were wrong. Kokkotas et al. (1998) attributed Greek preservice secondary teachers’ inability to identify problems in student answers about the particulate nature of matter to their lack of SMK. In addition, teachers scored answers too strictly or leniently based on factors other than student responses, including their perceptions of the difficulty of the topic and their attitude toward the need to encourage students. Morrison and Lederman (2003) found that the science teachers in their study did not use any assessment tools to diagnose student preconceptions, even though they recognized the importance of student prior knowledge. Bol and Strage (1996) found a similar contradiction between biology teacher goals and assessment practices.
Two case studies of science teachers emphasized assessment knowledge and practices. Kamen (1996) found that a third-grade teacher was able to shift her assessment practices when her image of science instruction changed from hands-on to minds-on, supported by learning new assessment methods. Briscoe (1993) claimed that Brad, a veteran high school chemistry teacher, viewed assessment as rewards and punishments and equated assessment to testing, thus was resistant to change. According to Briscoe, a teacher's ability to change his/her assessment practices is “influenced by what the teacher already knows or understands about teaching, learning, and the nature of schooling” (p. 983). These studies of teacher knowledge of assessment in science provide rich research models that demonstrate a link between PCK for assessment and science teaching orientation. More studies are needed to better understand what teachers know about assessment, and how they design, enact, and score assessments in their science classes.
DISCUSSION
The science education research on teacher knowledge rests on firm theoretical and empirical foundations, yet continues to develop both conceptually and methodologically. The research on SMK is cohesive, partly because definitions of SMK are commonly shared even when research methods differ. In contrast, the research on PCK is less cohesive. Researchers do not agree about what constitutes PCK, or do not evenly apply their meanings to their research. In addition, frames other than PCK have been used to ground research on teacher pedagogical knowledge. Nevertheless, I believe we can use this review of this literature to derive implications both for science teacher education and for further research.
Implications for Science Teacher Education
Science educators have recognized the value of Shulman's model of teacher knowledge as an organizer for science teacher education. Cochran, DeRuiter, and King (1993) proposed a revision to Shulman's model that combined SMK and PCK, claiming that all teacher knowledge is pedagogical. They also posited that, because knowledge is not a static state but an active process, PCK should be changed to PCKg, pedagogical content knowing, and that such a model could inform teacher education programs. However, this idea has not been pursued in the literature.
Several science educators have used the PCK framework to design teacher preparation programs for elementary (Mellado, Blanco, & Ruiz, 1998) and middle-level (Doster, Jackson, and Smith, 1997) science teacher education. Zembal-Saul, Haefner, Avraamidou, Severs, & Dana (2002) demonstrated how to employ the PCK framework not only to structure learning goals and teaching methods, but also to design performance-based tools for evaluating teacher learning. Although Shulman's model is useful for practice in science teacher education, the teacher knowledge framework is necessary, but not sufficient. Windschitl (2002) reminds us that, although teacher knowledge is essential in what he calls constructivist instruction, considerations of cultural and political dilemmas are also necessary if a teacher is to be successful. Science teacher education must honor not only formal teacher knowledge, but also the local and practical knowledge of teachers in the field and the sociocultural contexts that frame their work.
Understanding the development and interaction of science teacher SMK and PCK is critical for our success in science teacher education. It also has implications for teacher education policy. Teacher certification in many countries is governed by accrediting agencies that define necessary SMK and PCK in terms of university coursework and/or teaching standards. Policy makers decide how much SMK, PCK, and other kinds of knowledge are needed for beginning teachers. Current U.S. federal policy implies that only SMK is needed to produce highly qualified teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). This review provides evidence to the contrary.
Recommendations for Future Research
Science education researchers are often queried by our scientist colleagues about the value of educational research. Within our own research community, we wonder if progress has been made. Have we built on the work of earlier research to generate a viable knowledge base about science teacher knowledge?
In the area of science teacher SMK, much “normal science” (Kuhn, 1996) has occurred. Landmark studies are commonly cited, research methods are fairly consistent, and findings confirm theory, perhaps because science conceptual understanding for all learners has an agreed-upon meaning. Although researchers are unlikely to turn up anything revolutionary here, they fit a few more pieces into the puzzle with each study. The area in which the SMK literature is less clear is the relation of SMK to other forms of teacher knowledge, to teacher beliefs and values, and to classroom practice. We need more studies that take place within the teaching context to examine how SMK develops, how it plays out in teaching, and how it is related to other kinds of teacher knowledge (see Ball & McDiarmid, 1996).
The research on science teacher PCK is markedly different from the SMK literature. It is more like what Kuhn (1996) would call pre-science. Researchers do not yet agree about terminology or methodology. The research as a whole is less coherent; and researchers do not build on previous studies or reference a common body of literature. As researchers continue to sort out the viability of Shulman's framework and introduce new variations into it, we must ask ourselves if these new terms are conceptually necessary to understand science teacher knowledge. It would benefit the research if conceptual frameworks were made explicit. Furthermore, it would behoove researchers in this area to become more familiar with the literature and attempt to build a coherent conceptualization of PCK. More studies need to focus on the essence of PCK—how teachers transform SMK of specific science topics into viable instruction (see van Driel et al., 1998).
The research in both SMK and PCK has predominantly been at the level of description. In the current area of standards-based education and accountability for student learning, science education researchers should make more efforts to connect what we know about teacher knowledge to student learning. Although we have a good understanding of the kinds of knowledge that teachers bring to bear on science teaching, we know little about how teacher knowledge affects students. Answering this question will require more work in classroom settings of all kinds (see Fernández-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Keys & Bryan, 2001) and more complex research designs. The ultimate goal for science teacher knowledge research must be not only to understand teacher knowledge, but also to improve practice, thereby improving student learning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Maher Hashweh and Jan van Driel for reviewing this chapter.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673–699.
Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82, 491–510.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581–595.
Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.
Abell, S. K., Smith, D. C., Schmidt, J. A., & Magnusson, S. J. (1996, April). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis.
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 633–653.
Aguirre, J. M., & Haggerty, S. M. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meaning of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 119–131.
Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390.
Aiello-Nicosia, M. L., Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M., & Valenza, M. A. (1984). The relationship between science process abilities of teachers and science achievement of students: An experiential study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 853–858.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1984). Teacher decision-making: The case of Prairie High. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 167–186.
Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children's ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 363–385.
Ameh, C. (1987). An analysis of teachers’ and their students’ views of the concept of “gravity.” Research in Science Education, 17, 212–219.
Ameh, C., & Gunstone, R. (1985). Teachers’ concepts in science. Research in Science Education, 15, 151–157.
Ameh, C., & Gunstone, R. (1986). Science teachers’ concepts in Nigeria and Australia. Research in Science Education, 16, 73–81.
Anderson, C. W. (1979). An observational study of classroom management and information structuring in elementary school science lessons. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (11), 5810A (UMI no. 8009823).
Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York: Longman.
Anderson, L. M., Smith, D. C., & Peasley, K. (2000). Integrating learner and learning concerns: Prospective elementary science teachers’ paths and progress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 547–574.
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel, (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.
Appleton, K. (1992). Discipline knowledge and confidence to teach science: Self-perceptions of primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 22, 11–19.
Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357–369.
Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393–410.
Aron, R. H., Francek, M. A., Nelson, B. D., & Bisard, W. J. (1994). Atmospheric misconceptions: How they cloud our judgment. The Science Teacher, 61(1), 30–33.
Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T. (2004, April). Seeking change in teachers’ knowledge of science: A 17-year longitudinal study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 553–563.
Atwood, V. A., & Atwood, R. K. (1995). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of what causes night and day. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 290–294.
Bailey, J., Boylan, C., Francis, R., & Hill, D. (1986). Constructs used by science teachers to describe able students: A pilot study. Research in Science Education, 16, 111–118.
Baird, W. E., & Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1988). Changes in preservice elementary teachers’ hypothesizing skills following group or individual study with computer simulations. Science Education, 72, 209–223.
Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1996). The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437–449). New York: Macmillan.
Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 487–494.
Barass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings perpetuated by teachers and textbooks in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18, 201–206.
Barba, R. H., & Rubba, P. A. (1992). A comparison of preservice and in-service earth and space science teachers’ general mental abilities, content knowledge, and problem-solving skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1021–1035.
Barba, R. H., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Expert and novice, earth and space science: Teachers’ declarative, procedural and structural knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 273–282.
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.
Bellamy, M. L. (1990). Teacher knowledge, instruction, and student understandings: The relationship evidenced in the teaching of high school Mendelian genetics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(12), 4079A (UMI no. 9110272).
Bendall, S., Goldberg, F., & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1169–1187.
Berg, T., & Brouwer, W. (1991). Teacher awareness of student alternate conceptions about rotational motion and gravity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 3–18.
Birnie, H. H. (1989). The alternative conceptions of a particle theory of air possessed by year 1–5 primary students, their parents, and their teachers. Research in Science Education, 19, 25–36.
Blanchet, W. W. E. (1952). Prevalence of belief in science misconceptions among a group of in-service teachers in Georgia. Science Education, 36, 221–227.
Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145–163.
Borko, H., & Putman, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Caffee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.
Boyer, R., & Tiberghien, A. (1989). Goals in physics and chemistry education as seen by teachers and high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 297–308.
Bradford, C. S., & Dana, T. M. (1996). Exploring science teacher metaphorical thinking: A case study of a high school science teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 197–211.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1993). What counts as successful instruction? An account of a teacher's self-assessment. Science Education, 77, 115–129.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education, 75, 185–199.
Briscoe, C. (1993). Using cognitive referents in making sense of teaching: A chemistry teacher's struggle to change assessment practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 971–987.
Bruce, L. R. (1971). A study of the relationship between the SCIS teachers’ attitude toward the teacher-student relationship and question types. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 157–164.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). The development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1221–139.
Butts, D. P., & Raun, C. E. (1969). A study of teacher change. Science Education, 53, 3–8.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Carlsen, W. S. (1988). The effects of science teacher subject-matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(06), 1421A (UMI no. 8814986).
Carlsen, W. S. (1991a). Effect of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge on curricular planning. Science Education, 75, 631–647.
Carlsen, W. S. (1991b). Saying what you know in the biology laboratory. Teaching Education, 3(2), 17–29.
Carlsen, W. S. (1991c). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 115–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 471–481.
Carré, C. (1993). Performance in subject-matter knowledge in science. In N. Bennett & C. Carré (Eds.), Learning to teach (pp. 18–35). London: Routledge.
Carrick, T. (1983). Some biology teachers’ goals for advanced level teaching. Journal of Biological Education, 17, 205–214.
Carter, D. S. G., Carré, C. G., & Bennett, S. N. (1993). Students teachers’ changing perceptions of their subject matter competence during an initial teacher training program. Educational Research, 35, 89–95.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
Cheung, D., & Ng, P. (2000). Science teachers’ beliefs about curriculum design. Research in Science Education, 30, 357–375.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teachers stories-stories of teachers-school stories-stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419–441.
Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive in-service workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 21–43.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272.
Cochran, K. F., & Jones, L. L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707–718). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cornett, J. W., Yeotis, C., & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal practical theories and their influence upon teacher curricular and instructional actions: A case study of a secondary science teacher. Science Education, 74, 517–529.
Daehler, K. R., & Shinohara, M. (2001). A complete circuit is a complete circle: Exploring the potential of case materials and methods to develop teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of science. Research in Science Education, 31, 267–288.
Davies, D., & Rogers, M. (2000). Pre-service primary teachers’ planning for science and technology activities: Influences and constraints. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18, 215–225.
de Jong, O. (2000). The teacher trainer as researcher: Exploring the initial pedagogical content concerns of prospective science teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 127–137.
de Jong, O., Acampo, J., & Verdonk, A. (1995). Problems in teaching the topic of redox reactions. Actions and conceptions of chemistry teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1097–1110.
de Jong, O., Ahtee, M., Goodwin, A., Hatzinikita, V., & Koulaidis, V. (1999). An international study of prospective teachers’ initial teaching conceptions and concerns: The case of teaching “combustion.” European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 45–59.
de Jong, O., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1998). Research on science teacher education in Europe: Teacher thinking and conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 745–758). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
de Jong, O., & Van Driel, J. (2001). The development of prospective teachers’ concerns about teaching chemistry topics at a macro-micro-symbolic interface. In H. Behrednt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education: Past, present and future (pp. 271–276). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
de Jong, O., Veal, W. R., & van Driel, J. H. (2002). Exploring chemistry teachers’ knowledge base. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 369–390). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Dobey, D. C. (1980). The effects of knowledge on elementary science inquiry teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(09), 3973A (UMI no. 8104519).
Dobey, D. C., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). The effects of knowledge on elementary science inquiry teaching. Science Education, 68, 39–51.
Doster, E. C., Jackson, D. F., & Smith, D. W. (1997). Modeling pedagogical content knowledge in physical science for prospective middle school teachers: Problems and possibilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(4), 51–65.
Douvdevany, O., Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1997). Diagnostic instrument for determining junior high-school science teachers’ understanding of functional relationships within the “living cell.” International Journal of Science Education, 19, 593–606.
Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 467–479.
Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493–506.
Enochs, L., Oliver, S., & Wright, E. L. (1990). An evaluation of the perceived needs of secondary science teachers in Kansas. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1, 74–79.
Feher, E., & Rice, K. (1987). A comparison of teacher-student conceptions in optics. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Education Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Vol. II, pp. 108–117). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
Feldman, A. (2002). Multiple perspectives for the study of teaching: Knowledge, reason, understanding, and being. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1032–1055.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fernández-Balboa, J.-M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 293–306.
Ferry, B. (1996). Probing personal knowledge: The use of a computer-based tool to help preservice teachers map subject matter knowledge. Research in Science Education, 26, 233–245.
Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66, 531–538.
Fischer-Mueller, J., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). A case study of teacher beliefs in contemporary science education goals and classroom practices. Science Educator, 11, 46–57.
Flick, L. B. (1996). Understanding a generative learning model of instruction: A case study of elementary teacher planning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 95–122.
Flores, F., Lopez, A., Gallegos, L., & Barojas J. (2000). Transforming science and learning concepts of physics teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 197–208.
Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.). (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Frederik, I., van der Valk, T., Leite, L., & Thorén, I. (1999). Pre-service physics teachers and conceptual difficulties on temperature and heat. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 61–74.
Freire, A. M., & Sanches, M. (1992). Elements for a typology of teachers’ conceptions of physics teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 497–507.
Friedrichsen, P. (2002). A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(07), 2496A (UMI No. 3060018).
Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Using a card-sort task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 291–309.
Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 218–244.
Furio, C., Vilches, A., Guisasola, J., & Romo, V. (2002). Spanish teachers’ views of the goals of science education in secondary education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 39–52.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V, & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695–697.
Gallagher, J. J. (1989). Research on secondary school science teachers’ practices, knowledge, and beliefs: A basis for restructuring. In M. Matyas, K. Tobin, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Looking into windows: Qualitative research in science education (pp. 43–57). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Gayford, C. (1998). The perspectives of science teachers in relation to current thinking about environmental education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 16, 101–113.
Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673–683.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77, 575–591.
Geddis, A. N., & Roberts, D. A. (1998). As science students become science teachers: A perspective on learning orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 271–292.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51–94). Boston: Kluwer.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25–45.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers’ perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 301–325.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Boston: Kluwer.
Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understanding of preservice elementary teacher education students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 205–222.
Golby, M., Martin, A., & Porter, M. (1995). Some researchers’ understanding of primary teaching: Comments on Mant and Summers’ “Some primary-school teachers’ understanding of the Earth's place in the universe.” Research Papers in Education, 10, 297–302.
Gorin, G. (1994). Mole and chemical amount: A discussion of the fundamental measurements of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 114–116.
Greene, E. D., Jr. (1990). The logic of university students’ misunderstanding of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 875–885.
Greenwood, A. M. (2003). Factors influencing the development of career-change teachers’ science teaching orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 217–234.
Grimmett, P. P., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. Review of Research in Education, 18, 385–456.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23–36). New York: Pergamon.
Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 75–81.
Guillaume, A. M. (1995). Elementary student teachers’ situated learning of science education: The big, Big, BIG picture. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 89–101.
Gurney, B. F. (1995). Tugboats and tennis games: Preservice conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 569–583.
Gustafson, B., Guilbert, S., & MacDonald, D. (2002). Beginning elementary science teachers: Developing professional knowledge during a limited mentoring experience. Research in Science Education, 32, 281–302.
Gustafson, B. J., & Rowell, P. M. (1995). Elementary preservice teachers: Constructing conceptions about learning science, teaching science and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 589–605.
Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 181–197.
Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 215–225.
Hand, B., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). Monitoring teachers’ referents for classroom practice using metaphors. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 183–192.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27, 323–337.
Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105.
Harty, H., Andersen, H. O., & Enochs, L. G. (1984). Science teaching attitudes and class control ideologies of preservice elementary teachers with and without early field experiences. Science Education, 68, 53–59.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1985). An exploratory study of teacher knowledge and teaching: The effects of science teachers’ knowledge of subject-matter and their conceptions of learning on their teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(12), 3672A (UMI no. 8602482).
Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996a). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47–63.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996b). Palestinian science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: A preliminary survey. Research in Science Education, 26, 89–102.
Hauslein, P. (1989). The effect of teaching upon the biology content cognitive structure of teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(08), 2369A (UMI no. 9002148).
Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology content cognitive structure: From science student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 939–964.
Heller, P. (1987). Use of core propositions in solving current electricity problems. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. III, pp. 225–235). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A'B. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 425–440.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A'B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.
Hewson, P. W., Kerby, H. W., & Cook, P. A. (1995). Determining the conceptions of teaching science held by experienced high school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 503–520.
Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 869–885.
Hirvonen, P. E., & Viiri, J. (2002). Physics student teachers’ ideas about the objectives of practical work. Science & Education, 11, 305–316.
Hofstein, A., Mandler, V., Ben-Zvi, R., & Samuel, D. (1980). Teaching objectives in chemistry: A comparison of teachers’ and students’ priorities. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 61–66.
Hollon, R. E., Roth, K. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 145–186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hope, J., & Townsend, M. (1983). Student teachers’ understanding of science concepts. Research in Science Education, 13, 177–183.
Hoz, R., Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 973–985.
Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learning, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 539–561.
Huston, P. H. (1975). A study of value orientations as a characteristic of secondary school students and teachers of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 25–30.
Jasien, P. G., & Oberem, G. E. (2002). Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature among college students and K–12 teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 889–895.
Jena, S. B. P. (1964). An analysis of errors of pupil teachers teaching general science in criticism lessons. Science Education, 48, 488–490.
Johnston, K. (1991). High school science teachers’ conceptualizations of teaching and learning: Theory and practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 65–78.
Jones, D. R., & Harty, H. (1981). Classroom management—Pupil control ideologies before and after secondary school science student teaching. Science Education, 65, 3–10.
Jones, H. L., Thompson, B., & Miller, A. H. (1980). How teachers perceive similarities and differences among various teaching models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 321–326.
Jones, M. G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. J. (1999). Children's concepts: Tools for transforming science teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 83, 545–557.
Jones, M. G., Rua, M. J., & Carter, G. (1998). Science teachers’ conceptual growth within Vygotsky's zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 967–985.
Jones, P. L., & Blankenship, J. W. (1970). A correlation of biology teachers’ pupil control ideology and their classroom teaching practices. Science Education, 54, 263–265.
Jungwirth, E. (1975). Preconceived adaptation and inverted evolution: A case of distorted concept-formation in high-school biology. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 21(1), 95–100.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002a). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 369–387.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1273–1292.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1369–1386.
Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher's implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 859–877.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 249–263.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.
Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 432–448.
Koballa, T. R., Jr., Gräber, W., Coleman, D., & Kemp, A. C. (1999). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the knowledge base for teaching chemistry at the German gymnasium. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 269–286.
Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topics of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 291–303.
Kruger, C. (1990). Some primary teachers’ ideas about energy. Physics Education, 25, 86–91.
Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary school teachers’ conceptions of force, energy, and materials. Science Education, 76, 339–351.
Kruger, C., & Summers, M. (1988). Primary school teachers’ understanding of science concepts. Journal of Education for Teaching, 14, 259–265.
Kruger, C., & Summers, M. (1989). An investigation of some primary school teachers’ understanding of changes in materials. School Science Review, 71, 17–27.
Kruger, C., Summers, M., & Palacio. (1990a). An investigation of some English primary school teachers’ understanding of the concepts force and gravity. British Educational Research Journal, 16, 383–397.
Kruger, C., Summers, M., & Palacio, D. (1990b). A survey of primary school teachers’ conceptions of force and motion. Educational Research, 32, 83–95.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education, 71, 117–134.
Latz, M. (1992). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and concerns about classroom management and discipline: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 1–4.
Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 654–660.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 237–252.
Lederman, N. G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Do subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge constitute the ideal gas law of science teaching? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 16–20.
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129–146.
Lederman, N. G., & Latz, M. S. (1995). Knowledge structures in the preservice science teacher: Sources, development, interactions, and relationships to teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 1–19.
Lee, K. L. (1999). A comparison of university lecturers’ and pre-service teachers’ understanding of a chemical reaction at the particulate level. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1008–1012.
Lee, O. (1995). Subject matter knowledge, classroom management, and instructional practices in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 423–440.
Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospective secondary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83, 347–371.
Lin, H., Cheng, H., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students’ and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 235–238.
Linder, C. J., & Erickson, G. L. (1989). A study of tertiary physics students’ conceptualizations of sound. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 491–501.
Lloyd, J. K., Smith, R. G., Fay, C. L., Khang, G. N., Kam Wah, L. L., & Sai, C. L. (1998). Subject knowledge for science teaching at primary level: A comparison of pre-service teachers in England and Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 521–532.
Loughran, J., Gunstone, R., Berry, A., Milroy, P., & Mulhall, P. (2000, April). Science cases in action: Developing an understanding of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31, 289–307.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370–391.
Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 3–17.
Lynch, S., Pyke, C., & Jansen, J. (2003). Deepening understanding of science and mathematics education reform principles: Novice teachers design web-based units using Project 2061’s curriculum analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 193–216.
Lyons, L. L., Freitag, P. K., & Hewson, P. W. (1997). Dichotomy in thinking, dilemma in actions: Researcher and teacher perspectives on a chemistry teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 239–254.
MacDonald, D. (1992). Novice science teachers learn about interactive lesson revision. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 85–91.
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: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.
Mallinson, G. G., & Sturm, H. E. (1955). The science backgrounds and competencies of students preparing to teach in the elementary school. Science Education, 39, 398–405.
Mant, J., & Summers, M. (1993). Some primary school teachers’ understanding of the Earth's place in the universe. Research Papers in Education, 8(1), 101–129.
Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerized classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 839–854.
Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallagher, T. H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821–834.
Marek, E. A., Laubach, T. A., & Pedersen, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers’ understanding of theory based science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 147–159.
Martín del Pozo, R. M. (2001). Prospective teachers’ ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 353–371.
Mastrilli, T. M. (1997). Instructional analogies used by biology teachers: Implications for practice and teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 187–204.
McIntosh, W. J., & Zeidler, D. L. (1988). Teachers’ conceptions of the contemporary goals of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 93–102.
McNay, M. (1991). Teachers’ responses to original research in children's science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2, 57–60.
Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82, 197–214.
Mellado, V., Blanco, L. J., & Ruiz, C. (1998). A framework for learning to teach science in initial primary teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 195–219.
Meyer, H., Tabachnick, B. R., Hewson, P. W., Lemberger, J., & Park, H. (1999). Relationship between prospective elementary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83, 323–346.
Mills, R. A. (1997). Expert teaching and successful learning at the middle level: One teacher's story. Middle School Journal, 29, 30–39.
Mohapatra, J. K., & Bhattacharyya, S. (1989). Pupils, teachers, induced incorrect generalization and the concept of “force.” International Journal of Science Education, 11, 429–436.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1989). Preservice teachers’ conceptions of content and pedagogy: Measuring growth in reflective, pedagogical decision-making. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 46–52.
Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’ preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849–867.
Moscovici, H. (2001). Task dynamics in a college biology course for prospective elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 372–379.
Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 197–209.
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84, 193–211.
Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1992). Transforming chemistry research into teaching: The complexities of adopting new frames for experience. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 9–108). London: Falmer Press.
Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
National Research Council. (1999). Selecting instructional materials. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Science Teachers Association. (1998). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved August 28, 2003 from http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/nsta98standards.pdf
Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2001). Subject content knowledge and teacher talk in the primary science classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 369–379.
Northfield, J. R., & Fraser, B. J. (1977). Teacher characteristics and pupil outcomes in secondary science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 7, 113–121.
Nottis, K. E. K., & McFarland, J. (2001). A comparative analysis of pre-service teacher analogies generated for process and structure concepts. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejse5n4.html
Nussbaum, J. (1981). Towards the diagnosis by science teachers of pupils’ misconceptions: An exercise with student teachers. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 159–169.
O'Brien, P. J., Huether, C. A., & Philliber, S. G. (1978). Teacher knowledge and use of population education materials: Report from national surveys. Science Education, 62, 429–442.
Odom, A. L., & Settlage, J., Jr. (1996). Teachers’ understandings of the learning cycle as assessed with a two-tier test. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 123–142.
Olson, J. K. (1990). Teachers’ conceptions of their subject and laboratory work in science. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 201–220). London: Routledge.
Pardhan, H., & Bano, Y. (2001). Science teachers’ alternative conceptions about direct-currents. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 301–318.
Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (1998). The earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 503–520.
Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 89–111.
Parsons, S. (1991). Preservice secondary science teachers making sense of constructivism. Research in Science Education, 21, 271–280.
Peacock, A., & Gates, S. (2000). Newly qualified primary teachers’ perceptions of the role of text material in teaching science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18, 155–171.
Perkes, V. A. (1975). Relationships between a teacher's background and sensed adequacy to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 85–88.
Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1995). Developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical reasoning ability. Research in Science Education, 25, 291–305.
Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children's misconceptions in primary science: A survey of teachers’ views. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 79–96.
Pinnegar, S. E. (1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students and classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (01), 0142A (UMI no. 9014676).
Porlán, R., & Martín del Pozo, R. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospective primary school teachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 39–62.
Preece, P. F. W. (1997). Force and motion: Pre-service and practicing secondary science teachers’ language and understanding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15, 123–128.
Quílez-Pardo, J., & Solaz-Portolés, J. J. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ misapplication of Le Chatelier's principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 939–957.
Raina, M. K. (1970). Prospective science teachers’ perception of the ideal pupil. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 169–172.
Raina, T. N. (1967). How well prospective teachers know general science? Science Education, 51, 234–239.
Ralya, L. L., & Ralya, L. L. (1938). Some misconceptions in science held by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 22, 244–251.
Reynolds, M. C. (Ed.). (1989). Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Ritchie, S. M. (1999). The craft of intervention: A personal practical theory for a teacher's within-group interactions. Science Education, 83, 213–231.
Roberts, D. A., & Chastko, A. M. (1990). Absorption, refraction, reflection: An exploration of beginning science teacher thinking. Science Education, 74, 197–224.
Rollnick, M., & Rutherford, M. (1990). African primary school teachers—what ideas do they hold on air and air pressure? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 101–113.
Roth, K. J. (1987, April). Helping science teachers change: The critical role of teachers’ knowledge about science and science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Roth, W.-M. (1992). The particulate theory of matter for preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 115–122.
Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, M. G. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25–48.
Rothman, A. I., Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1969). Physics teacher characteristics and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 59–63.
Russell, T., Bell, D., McGuigan, L., Qualter, A., Quinn, J., & Schilling, M. (1992). Teachers’ conceptual understanding in science: Needs and possibilities in the primary phase. In L. D. Newton (Ed.), Primary science (pp. 69–83). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1991). Reframing: The role of experience in developing teachers’ professional knowledge. In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 164–187). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ryan, C., Sanchez Jimenez, J. M., & Onorbe de Torre, A. M. (1989). Scientific ideas held by intending primary teachers in Britain and Spain. European Journal of Teacher Education, 12, 239–251.
Sanchez, G., & Valcárcel, M. V. (1999). Science teachers’ views and practices in planning for teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 493–513.
Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 723–736.
Sanders, M. (1993). Erroneous ideas about respiration: The teacher factor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 919–934.
Schibeci, R. A. (1981). Do teachers rate science attitude objectives as highly as cognitive objectives? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 69–72.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schoon, K. J. (1995). The origin and extent of alternative conceptions in the earth and space sciences: A survey of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 7(2), 27–46.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.
Schriver, M., & Czerniak, C. M. (1999). A comparison of middle and junior high science teachers’ levels of efficacy and knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum and instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 21–42.
Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of disciplines: Meanings and significance. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sciarretta, M. R., Stilli, R., & Vicentini Missoni, M. (1990). On the thermal properties of materials: Common-sense knowledge of Italian students and teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 369–379.
Sequeira, M., Leite, L., & Duarte, M. D. C. (1993). Portuguese science teachers’ education, attitudes, and practice relative to the issue of alternative conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 845–856.
Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.
Shallcross, T., Spink, E., Stephenson, P., & Warwick, P. (2002). How primary trainee teachers perceive the development of their own scientific knowledge: Links between confidence, content and competence? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1293–1312.
Shrigley, R. L. (1974). The correlation of science attitude and science knowledge of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 58, 143–151.
Shugart, S. S., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Subject matter competence and the recruitment and retention of secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 63–70.
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.
Shulman, L. S. (1999). Foreword. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. ix–xii). Boston: Kluwer
Skamp, K. (1995). Student teachers’ conceptions of how to recognize a “good” primary science teacher: Does two years in a teacher education program make a difference? Research in Science Education, 25, 395–429.
Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about effective primary science teaching: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 331–351.
Smith, D. C. (1987). Primary teachers’ misconceptions about light and shadows. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. II, pp. 461–476). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 27–46.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 5, 1–20.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 187–244). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Smith, D. M., & Cooper, B. (1967). A study of various techniques in teaching science in the elementary school. School Science and Mathematics, 67, 559–566.
Smith, R. G. (1997). “Before teaching this I'd do a lot of reading.” Preparing primary student teachers to teach science. Research in Science Education, 27, 141–154.
Smith, R. G., & Peacock, G. (1992). Tackling contradictions in teachers’ understanding of gravity and air resistance. Evaluation and Research in Education, 6, 113–127.
So, W. W. (1997). A study of teacher cognition in planning elementary science lessons. Research in Science Education, 27, 71–86.
Sorsby, B. D., & Watson, E. (1993). Students’ and teachers’ confidence about their own science knowledge and skills in relation to the science national curriculum. British Journal of In-service Education, 19(3), 43–49.
Stalheim, W. (1986). Teacher characteristics and characteristics of the teaching environment as predictors of the use of inquiry laboratory activities by high school biology teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(07), 2530A (UMI no. 8624669).
Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effects of two instructional models in bringing about a conceptual change in the understanding of science concepts by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 72, 185–195.
Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 2–9.
Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Images of electricity: How do novices and experts model electric current? International Journal of Science Education, 18, 163–178.
Stofflett, R. T., & Stefanon, L. (1996). Elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of successful conceptual change teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 1–20.
Strömdahl, H., Tulberg, A., & Lybeck, L. (1994). The qualitatively different conceptions of 1 mol. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 17–26.
Summers, M. (1992). Improving primary school teachers’ understanding of science concepts: Theory into practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 25–40.
Summers, M., & Kruger, C. (1992). Research into English primary school teachers’ understanding of the concept of energy. Evaluation and Research in Education, 6, 95–111.
Summers, M., & Kruger, C. (1994). A longitudinal study of a constructivist approach to improving primary science teachers’ subject matter knowledge in science. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 499–519.
Summers, M., & Mant, J. (1995). A misconceived view of subject-matter knowledge in primary science education: A response to Golby et al. “Some researchers’ understanding of primary teaching.” Research Papers in Education, 10, 303–307.
Suzuki, M. (2003). Conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in Japan. Science Education, 87, 892–910.
Swann, A. H. (1969). Qualification of Mississippi public high school teachers of physics, chemistry, and physical science survey. Science Education, 53, 135–136.
Sweeney, A. E., Bula, O. A., & Cornett, J. W. (2001). The role of personal practice theories in the professional development of a beginning high school chemistry teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 408–441.
Symington, D. (1980). Primary school teachers’ knowledge of science and its effect on choice between alternative verbal behaviors. Research in Science Education, 10, 69–76.
Symington, D. (1982). Lack of background in science: Is it likely to always adversely affect the classroom performance of primary teachers in science lessons? Research in Science Education, 12, 64–70.
Symington, D., & Hayes, D. (1989). What do you need to know to teach science in the primary school? Research in Science Education, 19, 278–285.
Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 99–110.
Tamir, P. (1992). High school biology teachers’ image of subject matter: An exploratory study. American Biology Teacher, 54, 212–217.
Tamir, P., & Jungwirth, E. (1972). Teaching objectives in biology: Priorities and expectations. Science Education, 56, 31–39.
Taylor, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of scientific evidence: An exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 721–736.
Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. U. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 225–242.
Treagust, D. F. (1991). A case study of two exemplary biology teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 329–342.
Trend, R. D. (2000). Conceptions of geological time among primary teacher trainees with reference to their engagement with geoscience, history and science. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 539–555.
Trend, D. R. (2001). Deep time framework: A preliminary study of U.K. primary teachers’ conceptions of geological time and perceptions of geoscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 191–221.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.
Trumper, R. (1997). A survey of conceptions of energy of Israeli pre-service high school biology teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 31–46.
Trumper, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 247–258.
Trumper, R., & Gorsky, P. (1997). A survey of biology students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15, 133–147.
Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 633–658.
Tsai, C. (2001). A science teacher's reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86, 23–41.
Tulberg, A., Strömdahl, H., & Lybeck, L. (1994). Students’ conceptions of 1 mol and educators’ conceptions of how they teach “the mole.” International Journal of Science Education, 16, 145–156.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning, and Innovation.
Uselton, H. W., Bledsoe J. C., & Koelsche, C. L. (1963). Factors related to competence in science of prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 47, 506–508.
van der Valk, T., & Broekman, H. (1999). The lesson preparation method: A way of investigating pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 11–22.
van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572–590.
van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141–1153.
van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modeling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1255–1272.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.
Veal, W. R. (1997). The evolution of pedagogical content knowledge in chemistry and physics prospective secondary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Veiga, M., Costa Pereira, D., & Maskill, R. (1989). Teachers’ language and pupils’ ideas in science lessons: Can teachers avoid reinforcing wrong ideas? International Journal of Science Education, 11, 465–479.
Waldrip, B. G., Knight, B. A., & Webb, G. (2002). “Science words and explanations”: What do student teachers think they mean? Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 1. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from http://sweeneyhall.sjsu.edu/ejlts/current_issue/articles/index.html
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.
Webb, P. (1992). Primary science teachers’ understanding of electric current. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 423–429.
Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 53–60.
Wenner, G. (1993). Relationship between science knowledge levels and beliefs toward science instruction held by preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 461–468.
Wenner, G. (1995). Science knowledge and efficacy beliefs among preservice elementary teachers: A follow-up study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 307–315.
Willson, M., & Williams, D. (1996). Trainee teachers’ misunderstandings in chemistry: Diagnosis and evaluation using concept mapping. School Science Review, 77, 107–113.
Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachers’ preconceptions. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 137–149.
Yip, D. Y. (2001). Assessing and developing the concept of assumptions in science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 173–179.
Yip, D. Y., Chung, C. M., & Mak, S. Y. (1998). The subject matter knowledge in physics related topics of Hong Kong junior secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 319–328.
Zeitler, W. R. (1984). Science backgrounds, conceptions of purposes, and concerns of preservice teachers about teaching children science. Science Education, 68, 505–520.
Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 318–339.
Zembal-Saul, C., Haefner, L. A., Avraamidou, L., Severs, M., & Dana, T. (2002). Web-based portfolios: A vehicle for examining prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 283–302.
Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002). Elementary student teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 443–463.
Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.
1. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Abdulkadir Demir in performing library searches, requesting and copying books and articles, and constructing the final bibliography for this chapter. His work was invaluable to me.
2. Although I recognize the problematic nature of the term, and am aware of possible alternatives, I use misconceptions when the authors of these studies do.
3. For convenience and clarity, I use the American elementary throughout to refer to this grade range.
4. Some topics could be reasonably classified as either physics or chemistry. I chose to include studies of SMK of the particulate nature of matter and conservation of mass under chemistry, while placing studies of SMK of thermal properties of materials under physics.