www.le.ac.uk

1. School of Education Implementing Pedagogical Content Knowledge through partnership and relating this to the planning and assessment of practical activitiesMaarten Tas & Jon Heywood www.le.ac.uk

2. Overview • The problem • Why implementing PCK • What is PCK • Secondary Science PGCE course at Leicester • The PCK Toolkit • The PCK Framework • Example of the PCK Framework • Assessing Practicals • Example of Review of Intended Learning Outcomes • General findings • Comments from mentors and PGCE students

3. The problem? • Science teachers teaching out of specialism may become secure in their subject knowledge but may not have the pedagogical knowledge to deliver it in the most effective ways • A shortage of skilled physics and chemistry teachers means there may be increasing numbers of teachers teaching out of specialism • A lack of confidence with unfamiliar topics may promote teaching through ‘content delivery’ rather than developing opportunities for Inquiry Based Learning

4. Why? • Education White Paper (2010) 4.8 Teachers, not bureaucrats or Ministers, know best how to teach – how to convey knowledge effectively and how to unlock understanding. In order to bring the curriculum to life, teachers need the space to create lessons which engage their pupils, and children need the time to develop their ability to retain and apply knowledge. 4.9 Teachers must be free to use their professionalism and expertise to support all children to progress. So, in outlining what children should expect to know in core subjects, the new curriculum will allow a greater degree of freedom in how that knowledge might be acquired and what other teaching should complement this core.

5. Why? • Increasingly Science teachers are being asked to teach out of specialism: • Only 259 physics post-graduate teaching students went into teaching in 2010 compared to 442 chemists and 764 biologists. • ‘Given the difficulty of getting physics teachers, schools must be tempted to appoint biologists and hope they can teach physics’ Good Teacher Training Guide 2010

6. What is PCK? • The term Pedagogical Content Knowledge was introduced in 1986 by Shulman to reinforce the importance of links between: • teachers’ subject knowledge • pedagogical knowledge • understanding of classroom context and • the needs of individual learners. • PCK deconstructs the strategies successful teachers use to allow learners to access specific ideas or concepts effectively.

7. What is PCK? • PCK includes "the most useful forms of representation of [topics], the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations - in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” • “Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons.“ Shulman, 1986

8. Secondary Science PGCE course at Leicester • A pilot project took place during 2010-11 in which student teachers used a ‘PCK toolkit’ with their school mentors to explore a topic in a structured way before planning, teaching and evaluating a series of lessons. • The collaborative approach was highly rated by both students and mentors. • PCK is now introduced to all student Science teachers and integrated into their approach to lesson planning. • This was linked to a course activity on, and used as a tool to aid, planning and assessing practicals.

9. The PCK Toolkit • The toolkit comprises: • PCK framework (Berry and Loughram, 2010) • Exemplar frameworks (from literature) • Reflective journal • Skill level descriptors / rubrics (based on: Windschitl et al, 2010) The toolkit was designed to provide a structure for, and a means of recording, thinking and reflection while working through the task of creating and working with a framework.

10. The PCK Framework • The framework identifies important concepts with a topic and encourages reflection on the following: • What you intend the students to learn about this idea. • Why it is important for students to know this. • What else do you know about this idea (that you do not intend students to know yet). • Difficulties/limitations connected with teaching this idea. • Knowledge about students’ thinking (including misconceptions) which influences your teaching of this idea. • Other factors that influence your teaching of this idea. • Opportunities for How Science Works. • Opportunities for Assessment Activities (formative/summative). • Teaching procedures (and particular reasons for using these to engage with this idea).

11. An example of a PCK Framework

12. An example of a PCK Framework Framework adapted to develop student thinking about the place of activities linked to ‘How Science Works’

13. An example of a PCK Framework Assessment is now an integral component of the PCK framework

14. Assessing Practicals • The task has three components: • An overview of intended learning outcomes of a series of practicals; • A review of intended learning outcomes of each practical; • A more detailed evaluation of each practical: • Were the learning outcomes met? How do I know? • What worked well and why? • How does this practical session relate to How Science Works? • What other forms of assessment could I have included? • How would I change my ILOs for next time? • How could I modify the activity to meet the ILOs more effectively? • What links could I make to other topics? • What could I change in my PCK framework?

15. Review of Intended Learning Outcomes

16. General findings • Both students and mentors reported significantly increased familiarity with the concept of PCK • Both students and mentors reported significant increases in awareness of the potential for PCK as a planning tool and for encouraging collaborative planning and sharing best practice within departments • There was a clear awareness of wider issues associated with the topic that would benefit from inclusion in the PCK framework – notably approaches to: • Assessment for Learning • Practical work

17. Comments from mentors • ‘Helps to give new ideas and even changes ideas after teaching 14 years’ • ‘Made me stop and reconsider what I had done previously. I thought in more detail about the order I taught learning objectives and how they link together’ • ‘It made me think more carefully about what pupils do/don't understand’

18. Comments from PGCE students • ‘It made me think about… trying to think of new ways to teach the same topic and think about what is the best way to explain it’ • ‘Wow, some of the kids in the class…it was the best they had ever done, they were really proud of what they had done’ • ‘I found the collaboration with teachers was the most useful’ • ‘I felt a lot more prepared and I think the pupils benefited an awful lot because I had structured how I was gonna put things across’ • ‘…so again building through overall understanding of...the topic…I could do individual evaluations for each practical… and look at assessing practicals as part of the PCK framework overall’

19. Developments • Use of the PCK framework is now fully integrated into student teachers’ work on Assessing Practicals • A train the trainer course is being developed for dissemination of ‘Implementing PCK’ at all Science Learning Centres (SLC)

20. Wider implications? Duggan-Haas et al (2000) suggest clearer links are needed between Pedagogical Knowledge, Content Knowledge and other required standards for Science teaching in the US. Similar potential exists in the UK for new curriculum developments. Duggan-Haas, Enfield and Ashmann (2000) Electronic Journal of Science Education V4 N3. Accessed 13/4/12 at https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm

21. Inquiry Based Learning • A key component acknowledged in this US model for science teacher training is the importance of IBL to help students link understanding and application. • Similarly, we suggest that it is important for teachers to link content and pedagogical knowledge to consider and develop effective Inquiry Based Learning activities. • The collaboration with the Science Learning Centres will guarantee a wider dissemination of the concept of PCK and collaborative curriculum development

22. Collaborative Curriculum Development Schools ITE CPD Sharinggood practice Sustainable CPD Research SoE SLC

23. References • Berry, A. and Loughram, J. (2010) What do we know about effective CPD for developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge? Paper presented at the International Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York. Available as pdf: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/research-and-impact/research-seminars/NSLC%20UYSEG%20seminar%20Berry.pdf • Education White Paper (2010) • Duggan-Haas, Enfield and Ashmann (2000) Content and Pedagogy: Intersection in the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education. Electronic Journal of Science Education V4 N3. Accessed 13/4/12 at https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm • Good Teacher Training Guide (2010) • Millar, R. and Abrahams, I. (2009) Practical work: making it more effective. School Science Review, 91(334): 59–64 • Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15 (2), 4-14 • Windschitl, M., Thompson J. and Braaten M. (2010) Fostering Ambitious Pedagogy in Novice Teachers: The Role of Tool-Supported Analyses of Student Work. Paper presented at the International Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York. Available as pdf: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/research-and-impact/research-seminars/NSLC%20UYSEG%20seminar%20windschitl.pdf