Preservice Teachers’ Transforming Perceptions of Science and Mathematics Teacher Knowledge

Year 2018, Volume: 4 Issue: 4, 227 - 241, 15.11.2018

Heather Peace Sarah Quebec Fuentes Mark Bloom

https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.4.227

Abstract

Teacher Education Programs (TEPs) are intended to prepare students to become qualified professionals in the field of education. Yet, many preservice teachers (PSTs) have difficulty recognizing their new roles, not simply as students in the TEP, but as future educators. As PSTs progress through their coursework, field experiences, and student teaching, their perceptions of teacher knowledge evolves. Teacher educators may assist in positively influencing such transformation through reflective exercises, learning activities, and thoughtful discourse. The present research examines four classroom discussions centered on a mathematics and science activity. These discussions illustrate the changes in perspective with respect to mathematics and science teacher knowledge, among a cohort of elementary PSTs between the beginning and end of their first year in a TEP.  

Keywords

Interpreting, visual reading, picture story books

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087-2107.
• Abell, S.K. (2007). Research in science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York. NY: Oxford Press.
• Anderson, H., & Kim, S. (2003). A missing piece in an elementary school mathematics teacher’s knowledge base. Issues in Teacher Education, 12(2), 17-23.
• Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40-48.
• Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389 – 407.
• Baptiste, P., Daniel, L., Hackett, J., Moyer, R., Stryker, P., & Vasquez, J. (2000). McGraw-Hill science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Biggs, A., Daniel, L., Feather, R. M., Snyder, S., & Zike, D. (2002). Texas science: Grade 6. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Charles, R., Fennell, F., Caldwell, J., Sammons, K., Cavanagh, M., Schielack, J., … Crown, W. (2009). Envision math: Texas grade K -5. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53 – 65.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
• Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Hill, H. & Ball, D. L. (2009). The curious – and crucial – case of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Kappan, 91(2), 68 – 71.
• Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D.L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
• Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004).Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Lappan, G., Friel, S., Fey, J., & Phillips, E. D. (2009).Connected mathematics project 2: Grade 6. Boston, MA: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
• 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(4), 370-391.
• Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Magnusson, S., Kracik, 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). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
• McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA: Author.
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• NGSS Lead States (2013).Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
• Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008).Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one?(NBER Working Chapter 14485). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/chapters/w14485
• Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365-1387.
• Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meaning and significance. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugnow (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
• 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 – 23.
• Sutherland, L., Howard, S., & Markauskaite, L. (2010). Professional identity creation: Examining the development of beginning preservice teachers’ understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 455-465.
• Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.