The Nature of Relationships Among The Components of Pedagogical

This article was downloaded by: On: 11 April 2011 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher
Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283
The Nature of Relationships among the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Preservice Science Teachers: 'Ozone layer depletion' as an example
Osman N. Kayaa a Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
To cite this Article Kaya, Osman N.(2009) 'The Nature of Relationships among the Components of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge of Preservice Science Teachers: 'Ozone layer depletion' as an example', International Journal of Science Education, 31: 7, 961 988 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690801911326 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690801911326
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 31, No. 7, 1 May 2009, pp. 961988
RESEARCH REPORT
The Nature of Relationships among the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Preservice Science Teachers: Ozone layer depletion as an example
Osman N. Kaya*
Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011
okaya@wayne.edu Taylor 2008 0 00 Dr. 000002008 OsmanKaya & Francis International 10.1080/09500690801911326 TSED_A_291298.sgm 0950-0693 Research and Report (print)/1464-5289 Francis Journal Ltd of Science (online) Education
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among the components of preservice science teachers (PSTs) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) involving the topic ozone layer depletion. An open-ended survey was first administered to 216 PSTs in their final year at the Faculty of Education to determine their subject matter knowledge of ozone layer depletion. Then, the PSTs were classified as high-ability, average-ability, and low-ability groups according to their scores on the survey. The interviews were carried out with 25 randomly selected PSTs from each of these ability groups in order to determine their pedagogical knowledge and investigate the interrelationships and intra-relationships among the components of the PSTs PCK for teaching the topic ozone layer depletion. The results showed that there was a significant inter-relationship between the subject matter and pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs. There were also significant intra-relationships among the components of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge, except for the knowledge of assessment. The results of statistical analyses (multivariate analyses of variance) revealed that there was a significant difference in the degree of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge by the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge. These significant results were further supported by evidence from qualitative analyses of the interview data. The implications drawn contribute to the improvement of science teacher education.
Introduction Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), a special amalgam of content and pedagogical knowledge that is unique and represents teachers special form of professional
* Department of Science Education, Firat University, Elazig, 23169, Turkey. Email: onafizk@ yahoo.com ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/07096128 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690801911326
962 O. N. Kaya understanding, was first introduced by Shulman (1986, 1987). In Shulmans view, PCK is the knowledge of how to transform subject matter so that it is comprehensible to students, with the focus primarily on the teacher as a transformer of subject matter knowledge in teaching. Accordingly, PCK, which is connected with the teaching of specific topics, may differ from subject matter knowledge. However, some scholars have argued that there is not always a sharp distinction between PCK and subject matter knowledge because subject matter knowledge functions as a source to be transformed for teaching (Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). Since Shulman developed his idea of PCK, many science educators (e.g., Cochran, Deruiter & King, 1993; Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1992) have discussed and revised his model of PCK. For example, Cochran et al. (1993) revised Shulmans model of PCK as pedagogical content knowing by adding two other components based on the constructivist view of teaching and learning. Lederman and GessNewsome (1992) used an analogy of the ideal gas law to demonstrate that Shulmans model of PCK does not completely describe classroom teaching, just like the behaviour of real gases is not explained by the law of the ideal gas. Van Driel, Verloop, and De Vos (1998) proposed another view of PCK, emphasizing more craft or practical knowledge, meaning that PCK would be context dependent. Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) also conceptualized a teachers knowledge for the effective teaching of science as consisting of three forms of knowledge: subject matter, pedagogical knowledge, and contextual knowledge. In the PCK model of Magnusson et al. (1999), there are five components related to pedagogical knowledge as follows: orientation toward science teaching, knowledge of the curriculum, knowledge of science assessment, knowledge of science learners, and knowledge of instructional strategies. As shown in the literature, there is no universally accepted view of what constitutes PCK. Many researchers have criticized and extended Shulmans view of PCK by either including in PCK some of the knowledge categories (Van Driel et al., 1998), or by proposing different views of PCK (e.g., Cochran et al., 1993; Grossman, 1990). In fact, Shulmans initial description of teacher knowledge included many more categories (such as curriculum knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, etc.) in his different publications (e.g., Shulman, 1986; Shulman & Grossman, 1988). A common view of PCK is that it is a combination of a teachers pedagogy and understanding of content such that it influences the teaching in ways that best engender students learning for understanding (Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Van Driel et al., 1998). With respect to science education, most science educators agree on the following components of PCK: subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that consists of knowledge of students learning difficulties and conceptions, and instructional strategies (Van Driel et al., 1998). In addition to these initial components of PCK, knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of assessment are also considered individual elements of PCK in this study because having strong knowledge about the curriculum will enable science teachers to understand goals and objectives for students in the subject(s) that they are teaching, as well as the articulation of those guidelines across topics addressed during the
Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK
963
school year (Magnusson et al., 1999; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). In terms of knowledge of assessment, most science teachers prefer to use traditional assessment methods in many courses including laboratories (Abraham et al. 1997; Wiggins, 1996; Zoller, Ben-Chaim, & Kamm, 1997). However, the National Science Education Standards document (NRC, 1996) specifically declared that effective teachers of science must be knowledgeable about the various educational purposes for assessment, and it clearly emphasized that teachers should know how to implement and interpret a variety of authentic assessment approaches in their science classrooms and laboratories in order to improve students understanding of science. The purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-relationships and intra-relationships among the components of preservice science teachers (PSTs) PCK involving the topic ozone layer depletion. Figure 1 represents the components of PSTs PCK investigated in this study, and the following research questions formed the basis for this study.
Is there a significant relationship between the subject matter and pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs involving the topic ozone layer depletion? Are there significant intra-relationships among the components of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge involving the topic ozone layer depletion? Are there significant differences in the degree of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge, including its components, by the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge involving the topic ozone layer depletion?
Components of the PSTs PCK investigated
Figure 1.
Literature Review In the past two decades, there have been many studies (e.g., Lederman, GessNewsome, & Latz, 1994; Van Driel, De Jong, & Verloop, 2002) investigating preservice teachers PCK in science. The results of these studies showed that most PSTs had not only very superficial knowledge and various alternative conceptions in science topics, but they also did not have adequate pedagogical knowledge of the effective teaching of science. However, these results are not surprising and should be expected because Magnusson et al. (1999), for example, state that a teacher education programme could never completely address all the components of PCK for PSTs. The studies of PSTs PCK also indicated that a thorough and coherent understanding of subject matter acts as a prerequisite for the development of PCK that is necessary for the effective teaching of science (Borko, 2004; Van Driel et al., 2002). For example, in a series of studies with PSTs, Van Driel et al. (2002) concluded that the development of preservice teachers PCK depends to a large extent on their subject matter knowledge because PCK refers to the ability to transform subject matter knowledge in a manner accessible to students. In science education literature, very little is known about the ways PCK develops in PSTs (De Jong & Van Driel, 2004). However, a few scholars have recently focused on investigating the nature and development of PSTs PCK after
964 O. N. Kaya
Figure 1. Components of the PSTs PCK investigated
965
an educational innovation was implemented in teacher education programmes in The Netherlands (e.g., De Jong & Van Driel, 2004; De Jong, Van Driel, & Verloop, 2005; Van Driel et al., 2002). For example, Van Driel et al. (2002) specifically designed a teacher education course to investigate the development of PCK within a group of 12 preservice chemistry teachers. They identified that the growth of PCK was influenced mostly by the preservice teachers teaching experiences, university-based workshops, and meetings with mentors. The results of this study also showed that there were positive changes for most preservice teachers in their knowledge of students learning difficulties and teaching activities and strategies although this development varied among students. They deduced that the observed variations in the preservice teachers PCK were most probably because of differences in their subject matter knowledge. In another study, De Jong and Van Driel (2004) examined the development of eight preservice teachers PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry topics; that is, the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic meaning. The preservice teachers were asked to choose and teach a chemistry curriculum topic with a focus on the macromicrosymbolic issue. The results of this study obtained from the individual interviews showed an increase in most preservice teachers PCK. For example, preservice teachers not only elaborated but also added new teaching and students learning difficulties at the end of the study. In a recent study, De Jong et al. (2005) also investigated the changes of preservice teachers PCK in an experimental introductory course module. Their module emphasized learning from teaching, rather than learning of teaching, by connecting authentic teaching experiences with institutional workshops. Their findings indicated that through learning from teaching, the preservice teachers further developed their PCK of using particle models. For example, all preservice teachers demonstrated a deeper understanding of their students specific learning difficulties. They concluded the module succeeded in contributing to the development of the preservice teachers PCK. As a result of these studies, Van Driel and his colleagues reached two major research findings related to the ways PCK develops in preservice teachers. First, certain components of the preservice teacher education programme such as classroom teaching experiences and feedback from mentors have strong effects on this development. Second, there were noticeable relationships between the development of preservice teachers subject matter knowledge and their knowledge of students learning difficulties and instructional strategies. These kinds of relationships between subject matter knowledge and the components of the pedagogical knowledge of science teachers were also reported by Halim and Meerah (2002). They found strong relationships between the subject matter and the components of pedagogical knowledge of 12 PSTs, such as the unawareness of students misconceptions due to teachers lack of content knowledge of several physics concepts. These results indicated that one of the major obstacles to changing pedagogical practice in science classrooms was the poor knowledge of teachers in terms of the science content that they were supposed to teach. As a result, Van Driel and colleagues recommend addressing the subject matter knowledge explicitly as a
966 O. N. Kaya basis for the development of preservice teachers PCK in science teacher education programmes. Significance of the Study The significance of this study can be summarized under three headings. First, all previous studies (e.g., De Jong & Van Driel, 2004; De Jong et al., 2005; Van Driel et al., 2002) opened a fruitful avenue of exploration of the complex relationships among the components of preservice teachers PCK in science. However, in the field of science education, there has not been a study investigating these kinds of relationships with PSTsespecially from a quantitative perspective. Thus, there is a need to study the relationships among the components of PSTs PCK to be able to better understand how PCK is developed in PSTs when they are becoming teachers of science. All of the previous studies were also carried out involving Shulmans two key elements of PCK, the knowledge of students learning difficulties and knowledge of instructional strategies, from only a qualitative perspective with a small number of preservice teachers. However, this study from both quantitative and qualitative aspects particularly focuses on exploring the relationships among the components of the PSTs PCK involving an environmental science topic. Second, the selection of the topic of ozone layer depletion could be seen an important difference because the National Science Education Standards document (NRC, 1996) specifically declared that students in the middle school level start developing awareness of the issues related to various natural phenomena, including ozone layer depletion. The results of the studies (e.g., Boyes, Chamber, & Stainsstreet, 1995; Boyes & Stainsstreet, 1994; Dove, 1996) related to ozone layer depletion indicated that students at different educational levels had various alternative conceptions that may result in an ill-informed citizenry with a reduced possibility of appropriate preventive actions by these citizens (Boyes et al., 1995). In this situation, teachers can play an important role in teaching these concepts. With this in mind, an investigation of the relationships among the components of PSTs PCK in an environmental science topic becomes important as these PSTs will soon be teachers in schools preparing students to meet the general obligations that all citizens face in our society. Third, this research was simultaneously conducted with one of the most comprehensive science education reforms carried out in the past 60 years in Turkey (Turkish Ministry of National Education, 2005). The PSTs participated in this study were the first teachers of science who graduated from the science teacher education programmes to implement the new ScienceTechnologySociety (STS)oriented curriculum in Turkey. The PSTs are expected to teach students major environmental problems, including the ozone layer depletion, through contemporary teaching approaches. Accordingly, understanding the relationships among the components of the PSTs PCK involving an environmental science topic can help in conceptualizing how science teachers could be trained and develop their PCK better in Turkey as an example for other developing countries.
Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK Method Sample
967
The subjects were 216 students (118 females and 98 males, aged 2123 years) in their final year (fourth year of their undergraduate degree) enrolled in science teacher education programmes at two universities in Turkey. They were seniors who completed their BA of Education degree three months later after this study. Seventyfive students (40 females and 35 males) were randomly selected from these 216 students based on the level of their subject matter knowledge in order to explore possible relationships among the PSTs PCK.
Science Teacher Education in Turkey In Turkey, PSTs are placed in undergraduate teacher education programmes through a nationwide university entrance examination after graduating from high schools. Students must submit a list of programmes that they would like to study in their order of preference after taking the examination. Students grade point averages in high school are also important to be accepted by science teacher education programmes. Most of the candidates for science teacher education programmes come from science programmes in Turkish high schools. These students take more science courses and more advanced science courses at the high school level than other students. There are currently 37 universities that have middle school science teacher preparation programmes in Turkey. Specifically, the middle school science teacher education programme is a four-year programme (eight semesters) in all education faculties after the government established the Turkish Higher Educational Council in 1981. The PSTs sole responsibility is to teach science to their students from Grades 6 to 8 after graduating from the faculty. In this programme, the PSTs needed to complete 154 credits of course work distributed in six areas: general science and laboratory courses; more specific science courses, such as analytical chemistry; mathematics courses; general culture and language courses; general education courses, such as Educational Psychology; and science methods courses (Turkish Higher Educational Council, 2006). Currently, most faculty members teaching PSTs in the science teacher education programmes have backgrounds and research interests in science such as analytic chemistry and solid-state physics rather than science education because science education is a very new academic field in Turkish higher education. Many Turkish graduate students have been supported by the Turkish Higher Educational Council and the Turkish Ministry of National Education for completing masters and PhD theses in science education in universities in the UK and the USA for the past 710 years. As in any other developing country, because of the lack of financial resources and a huge number of teacher candidates, chalk and talk is the dominant teaching method in the programmes.
968 O. N. Kaya Data Collection Subject matter knowledge of the PSTs. A five-item open-ended survey was used to determine the PSTs conceptual understanding of ozone layer depletion. The survey was developed based on the literature on preservice teachers understanding of ozone layer depletion (Boyes et al., 1995; Dove, 1996; Khalid, 2003). The literature review indicated that there were five main areas in which preservice teachers did not have adequate conceptual understanding but rather held various alternative conceptions related to the depletion of the ozone layer. The survey therefore focused on these five main areas involving ozone layer depletion as follows: nature of the ozone layer; causes of ozone layer depletion; consequences of ozone layer depletion; functions of ozone in the stratosphere; and relationships among ozone layer depletion, global warming and acid rain. To further substantiate the instruments validity, three specialists (one each in the fields of environmental education, environmental science, and survey construction) have examined the items on this survey. The alpha reliability coefficient of the survey was 0.87. All survey questions are stated in Appendix A.
Pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs. A semi-structured individual interview was used to determine the PSTs pedagogical knowledge on ozone layer depletion. Development of the interview questions was based on the review of the relevant literature (e.g., Magnusson et al., 1999) and negotiation with non-participant PSTs (n = 30) in the previous academic year. The structure of the interviews was composed of four main sections that make up the pedagogical knowledge for teaching the topic of ozone layer depletion. Each section of interviews individually dealt with each component of the pedagogical knowledge. In choosing the PSTs for the interview portion of the study, all 216 PSTs were first placed into one of three ability groups based on the level of their subject matter knowledge as determined by their responses to the open-ended survey. These groups briefly described below were created based on two important reasons: First, classification of these groups should allow making possible random selection of the 25 PSTs from each group in order to avoid or minimize possible researcher bias and thus statistically better facilitate the investigation of the relationships among the PSTs PCK. Second, the levels of subject matter knowledge of the PSTs in these three groups should be significantly different from each other because one of the major goals of this study was to examine whether or not the differences in the degree of the PSTs subject matter knowledge could be used to understand the differences in the degree of their pedagogical knowledge involving the topic of ozone layer depletion. Different types of classifications were also possible, but the grouping below is the most appropriate in terms of the nature and purpose of this research and the requirements of the statistical analyses.
High-ability group: PSTs giving the appropriate answers to four or all of the five questions.
969
Average-ability group: PSTs giving the appropriate answers to two or three of the five questions. Low-ability group: PSTs giving the appropriate answer to only one of the five questions at most.
The semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 75 randomly selected PSTs (40 females, 35 males). There was no time limit for the interviews. Each interview conducted by the researcher lasted about 3040 min. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Some of the interview questions are presented in Appendix B. Data Analysis PSTs responses to the open-ended survey and interview questions were assessed based on the same three knowledge categories (appropriate, plausible, and naive) that were used by Vazquez-Alanso and Manassero-Mas (1999). A scoring outline for the three knowledge categories (3.5/1/0), suggested by Vazquez-Alanso and Manassero-Mas (1999), was used to evaluate the PSTs responses to the survey and interview questions. This gradual scoring rubric assesses respondents answers according to their proximity to the category scheme that judges have derived from current scientific knowledge of ozone layer depletion and current understanding in the reform documents (e.g., NRC, 1996) and the pertinent literature (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999) about the pedagogical knowledge that a science teacher should have. These three knowledge categories are briefly described below:

Appropriate (3.5 points): PSTs response expresses an appropriate view. Plausible (1 point): While not completely appropriate, PSTs response expresses some plausible points. Naive (0 point): PSTs response expresses a view that is inappropriate or not plausible.
An example of the scoring rubric, criteria for the open-ended survey and interview questions are given in Appendix C. Sample comments from three PSTs on the second question of the survey are included in Appendix D to illustrate differences among the three knowledge categories and how the scoring was done. The interview transcripts for all 75 PSTs were read and interpreted by the researcher. Cumulative scores of PSTs pedagogical knowledge were calculated using individual scores of all components of their pedagogical knowledge. PSTs responses to the surveys and interview questions such as I do not know and no response were assigned to the naive category. One external expert cross-checked the analyses of the PSTs survey and interview data with the original surveys and transcripts of the PSTs based on the scoring rubric and criteria. There were 95.30% and 94.70% agreements between the expert and the researcher for the analyses of the PSTs survey and interview data, respectively.
970 O. N. Kaya The inter-relationships and intra-relationships among the components of the PSTs PCK were investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. To qualitatively identify the relationships between the subject matter and pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs, the transition of each PST in the three ability groups of the subject matter knowledge level to the knowledge categories of appropriate, plausible, and nave in each component of their pedagogical knowledge were tracked. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to explore the impact of the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge on their pedagogical knowledge and its components. In this analysis, the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge was independent variable, and the levels of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge and its components were dependent variables. SPSS 14.0 was used for tests of assumptions for MANOVA, analysis of variance, and inferential statistical analyses. Results The result section has been divided into the three following subsections: general results of the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, inter-relationships and intra-relationships among the components of PSTs PCK, and differences in the degree of PSTs pedagogical knowledge by the level of their subject matter knowledge. PSTs Subject Matter and Pedagogical Knowledge The results of all 216 PSTs responses to the open-ended survey of ozone layer depletion are presented in Table 1 according to their understanding of each question in the survey. The results showed that, on average, 101.40 (46.94%) PSTs had nave, 52.80 (24.44%) PSTs had plausible and 61.80 (28.61%) PSTs had appropriate understanding about the topic of ozone layer depletion. Comparison of the mean (M = 6.23, SD = 5.70) of all 216 PSTs total scores with the maximum value of 17.50 of the survey indicated a success rate of 35.60%, which is low. However, this result is not surprising and is compatible with those of the previous studies on preservice teachers understanding of ozone layer depletion (e.g., Boyes et al., 1995; Dove, 1996; Khalid, 2003). With respect to the level of the PSTs subject matter knowledge, 126 (58.33%) PSTs were classified in the low-ability group because of giving only one appropriate answer in the survey at most. It was found that there were 45 (20.83%) of the PSTs in the average-ability group because they were able to give an appropriate answer to two or three questions of the survey. Forty-five (20.83%) of the PSTs were classified in the high-ability group because of giving appropriate answers to four or all questions in the survey. Compared with the results of other questions in the survey, the PSTs had a better understanding of the nature of the ozone layer and consequences of ozone layer depletion. For example, 97 (44.91%) PSTs were well informed about the location of the ozone layer in the atmosphere as well as the chemical structure and some physical properties of ozone. In the third question, 95 (43.98%) PSTs had sound

Table 1.
971
Number (percentage) of all 216 PSTs responding to the survey questions of ozone layer depletion based on the knowledge categories Knowledge category
Question Nature of the ozone layer Causes of ozone layer depletion Consequences of ozone layer depletion Functions of ozone in the stratosphere Relationships among ozone layer depletion, global warming and acid rains Mean
Appropriate 97 (44.91) 39 (18.06) 95 (43.98) 50 (23.15) 28 (12.96) 61.80 (28.61)
Plausible 33 (15.28) 59 (27.31) 78 (36.11) 41 (18.98) 53 (24.54) 52.80 (24.44)
Nave 86 (39.81) 118 (54.63) 43 (19.91) 125 (57.87) 135 (62.50) 101.40 (46.94)
understanding that the ozone layer protects human beings or other forms of life on Earth from harmful radiation, and more ultraviolet radiation that the ozone layer filters out increases the incidence of skin cancer, eye problems and immunosuppressive diseases in humans and other animals. However, in the second question, only 39 (18.06%) of the PSTs referred to the role of chlorines in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) splitting the chemical structure of ozone and could explain how chlorine from CFCs break down the ozone molecule into free oxygen. With respect to the functions of the ozone layer, 125 (51.87%) PSTs did not fully understand how ozone works in the stratosphere; 135 (62.50%) PSTs also constructed incorrect relationships among ozone layer depletion, global warming and acid rain. For example, some PSTs had an alternative conception that depletion of the ozone layer is one of the main reasons for global warming because the increase of high-frequency radiation as a result of depletion of the ozone layer will produce more heat on the Earth. All results in relation to the components of PSTs pedagogical knowledge obtained from the interviews are presented in Table 2 based on the three knowledge categories. The clear finding was that about one-half of the 75 PSTs had plausible knowledge in all four components of the pedagogical knowledge, and only about 25% of the PSTs had appropriate knowledge in the components of the pedagogical knowledge, except for the knowledge of assessment. Regardless of the level of the PSTs subject matter knowledge, there were on average 14.50 (19.33%) PSTs in appropriate, 38.75 (51.67%) PSTs in plausible, and 21.75 (29.00%) PSTs in nave knowledge categories with regard to their pedagogical knowledge involving the topic of ozone layer depletion. In general, the results of PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge indicated that most PSTs did not have enough knowledge to be able to teach the topic of ozone later depletion. However, this result should be considered reasonable for beginning teachers because of the following two reasons. First, many science teacher educators agree that the crucial factor in the development of PCK is teaching experience in authentic classrooms; however, the PSTs will adequately have this opportunity only after graduating from education faculties (Grossman, 1990; Lederman et al., 1994; Magnusson et al., 1999; Van Driel et al.,
972 O. N. Kaya
Table 2. Number (percentage) of the 75 PSTs with respect to the level of pedagogical knowledge based on the knowledge categories Pedagogical knowledge Knowledge Knowledge of Knowledge of Knowledge of students learning instructional strategies of curriculum difficulties and activities assessment 18 (24.00) 39 (52.00) 18 (24.00) 17 (22.67) 38 (50.67) 20 (26.67) 19 (25.33) 36 (48.00) 20 (26.67)
Knowledge category Appropriate Plausible Nave
Mean
4 (5.33) 14.50 (19.33) 42 (56.00) 38.75 (51.67) 29 (38.67) 21.75 (29.00)
2002). Second, most science teacher education programmes do not integrate courses on subject matter, pedagogy, and field experiences in order to develop preservice teachers PCK as a whole (Van Driel et al., 2002). The Inter-relationships and Intra-relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK Pearson correlation coefficients among the components of the 75 selected PSTs PCK are presented in Table 3. The results showed that there were significant positive correlations between the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, including all of its components. With respect to intra-relationships among the components of PSTs pedagogical knowledge, there were also significant positive correlations, except for the relationships between PSTs knowledge of assessment and other components of the pedagogical knowledge (p > .05). Based on Cohens (1988) interpretation of the strength of correlation coefficients into three levelsr = 0.100.29 (small), r = 0.300.49 (moderate), and r = 0.501.0 (large)there were quite strong relationships between the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge (r = 0.77, p < .0001), and the components of the pedagogical knowledge (r = 0.63, 0.55, 0.60, p < .001), except for the knowledge of assessment (r = 0.33, p < .01), which is moderate. There were generally moderate intra-relationships among the components of the pedagogical knowledge, except for the knowledge of assessment. For example, a significant correlation was found between PSTs knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of students learning difficulties (r = 0.49, p < .001) and instructional strategies and activities (r = 0.32, p < .01). There was also another significant correlation (r = 0.48, p < .001) between the PSTs knowledge of students learning difficulties and instructional strategies and activities. The significant relationships between PSTs subject matter and the components of the pedagogical knowledge as well as intra-relationships among the components of their pedagogical knowledge as revealed from the statistical analyses are also clearly shown in Table 4 and Figure 2 in terms of the qualitative perspective. With respect to the PSTs in the high-ability group of the subject matter knowledge level (see Table 4 and Figure 2), about 60% of the PSTs had appropriate knowledge of all

Table 3. Measures 1. Subject matter knowledge 2. Pedagogical knowledge 2.1. Knowledge of curriculum 2.2. Knowledge of students learning difficulties 2.3. Knowledge of instructional strategies and activities 2.4. Knowledge of assessment *p < .01; **p < .001; ***p < .0001. Correlation coefcients among the components of PSTs PCK 1 0.77*** 0.63** 0.55** 0.60** 0.33* 2 2.1 2.2
973
2.3 2.4
0.63** 0.76** 0.76** 0.42*
0.49** 0.32* 0.01
0.48** 0.01
0.17
components of their pedagogical knowledge, except for the knowledge of assessment (see Figure 2d). The tabulated data for the PSTs of the high-ability group showed that there were on average 12.50 (50%) PSTs in appropriate, 8.25 (33.00%) PSTs in plausible, and only 4.25 (17.00%) PSTs in nave knowledge categories in all components of their pedagogical knowledge. Most PSTs in the high-ability group could distinguish the differences between the old and new curriculum with respect to not only the topic of ozone layer depletion but also the structure and general objectives of the curriculum. Most of them appropriately mentioned the status of the subject and speculated about the balance between the environmental topics and the other science topics in the new STS-oriented science curriculum. Many PSTs gave details about the possible learning barriers of students together with appropriate reasons indicating why students may have these difficulties or develop alternative conceptions. Most of the teaching strategies and activities presented by the PSTs in this ability group were the contemporary teaching approaches, emphasized in the reform documents (e.g., NRC, 1996) and the literature (e.g., Grandy & Duschl,
Table 4. Relationships between the level of the PSTs subject matter knowledge and the components of their pedagogical knowledge with respect to the knowledge categories Level of subject matter knowledge Components of pedagogical knowledge
High (n = 25)
Average (n = 25)
Low (n = 25)
Knowledge of curriculum 16 A, 7 P, 2 N 2 A, 18 P, 5 N 14 P, 11 N Knowledge of students 15 A, 4 P, 6 N 1 A, 20 P, 4 N 1 A, 14 P, 10 N learning difficulties Knowledge of instructional 15 A, 7 P, 3 N 4 A, 16 P, 5 N 13 P, 12 N strategies and activities Knowledge of assessment 4 A, 15 P, 6 N 15 P, 10 N 12 P, 13 N Mean 12.5 A, 8.25 P, 4.25 N 1.75 A, 17.25 P, 6N 0.25 A, 13.25 P, 11.5N A, P and N, knowledge categories of appropriate, plausible and nave, respectively.
974 O. N. Kaya
M A@CA B +KHHE?K K +
' & $" % #$ & )FFH FHE=JA 2= KIE> A =_LA
' & $ & #$
M A@CA B 5JK@A JI A=H E C ,EBBE?K JEAI 5 ,

" " )FFH FHE=JA 2= KIE> A =_LA
2AH?A J=CA B 256I
2AH?A J=CA B 256I
% $ # " !
% $ # " !
$ " " $ )LAH=CA M
& & 0ECD )LAH=CA
""
0ECD
.ECKHA =
.ECKHA >
M A@CA B 1 IJHK?JE = 5JH=JACEAI = @ )?JELEJEAI 5 ,

' & % $ # " ! 0ECD & )LAH=CA M "& $ $" $ # )FFH FHE=JA 2= KIE> A =_LA
' & $
M A@CA B )IIAII A J )
)FFH FHE=JA 2= KIE> A =_LA $ $ "&
2AH?A J=CA B 256I
2AH?A J=CA B 256I
% $ # " ! 0ECD "
"
)LAH=CA
.ECKHA ?
.ECKHA @
Figure 2. Percentage distributions of the PSTs in the components of their pedagogical knowledge with respect to the three ability groups of their subject matter knowledge level in the topic ozone layer depletion
2005; Yager, 2000), such as conceptual change strategies, inquiry-based learning, and problem-based learning. For example, in their teaching approaches they first focused on elaborating students learning difficulties and then incorporating them into their teaching. With respect to the knowledge of assessment, more than one-half of the PSTs mentioned some authentic assessment approaches such as portfolio assessment and concept mapping, but most of them did not successfully intertwine the assessment with their teaching to improve students learning as revealed from the statistical analysis. The following interview excerpts of one PST in the high-ability group exemplify about these kinds of relationships among the PSTs subject matter and the components of the pedagogical knowledge as well as the intra-relationships among the components of PSTs pedagogical knowledge. The codes A, P and N at the end of each interview excerpt represent appropriate, plausible and nave knowledge, respectively. All of the interviews were carried out in Turkish, the native language of all participants.
There was nothing about the topic of ozone layer depletion or other environmental problems. Fortunately, in the new curriculum, we have some aspects related to ozone layer depletion because of the effects of the new STS approach to the curriculum.

However, it is not enough to have environmentally literate citizens who keep these problems in mind because even new curricula do not have specific educational objectives emphasizing the ozone layer depletion. The environmental issues are used as fragments to make several science units such as matter and energy more related to the life of humans or other living creatures. (Knowledge of curriculumA) Students may have difficulties in understanding especially how ozone is depleted and prevents UV radiation from reaching the earth probably because of their age and level of their chemistry knowledge. They may also have difficulties in linking the depletion of ozone layer to other environmental issues. For example, they may think that the depletion of the ozone layer is one of the main reasons for global warming because the hole in the ozone layer allows a greater penetration of sunlight which results in raising the temperature of the earth. (Knowledge of students learning difficultiesA) I start revealing my students prior ideas about the ozone layer depletion. How can you identify their preconceptions? I ask them to draw what they know about the ozone layer depletion on paper and explain their drawings in a small paragraph. Then, I ask them to form small groups of 3-4 and share their drawings with their peers in their groups. What do you expect to have after this activity? At least I will have a clear picture of what my students already know about the topic and so am ready to teach this topic. How do you teach the topic then? For example, I can develop either several scenarios that are written as text or a 3-D model about the ozone layer depletion based on my observations of my students preconceptions. Some parts of the scenarios or the model will certainly have incorrect scientific information about ozone layer depletion. Students will be asked to evaluate the scenarios or the model and determine their scientific validity. At the end of a paragraph in which a question is posed, students are asked to stop reading. The evidence is presented that a misconception is incorrect, or a concept is explained scientifically. Then, I ask them to discuss the statements in the text among them and with me. During these discussions, I direct students along a path that would lead them to correct conclusions. (Knowledge of instructional strategies and activitiesA) I can ask them to draw what they learned about ozone layer depletion and explain their drawings in a small paragraph again. Then, the students may be also asked to compare their pre and post-drawings and paragraphs as self-assessment. Looking at the changes in students drawings and their own explanations will not only show me what they learned but also provide feedback to them about their own success in learning about ozone layer depletion. (Knowledge of assessmentA)
Figure 2.
975
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, most PSTs in the average-ability group of the subject matter knowledge level have plausible knowledge in all four components of their pedagogical knowledge. For the PSTs of this ability group, it was found that, on average, 1.75 (7%) PSTs have appropriate, 17.25 (69%) PSTs have plausible, and six (24%) PSTs have nave knowledge in all components of their pedagogical knowledge. In detail, many PSTs in the average-ability group had some knowledge about the new curriculum involving the topic ozone layer depletion and were able to talk about the general changes in the science curriculum. Most of them could identify the possible learning difficulties of students but not with the appropriate reasons of how or why students may have these learning difficulties or develop alternative conceptions in the topic ozone layer depletion. The teaching approaches represented by most PSTs in this ability group were between traditional and contemporary
Percentage distributions of the PSTs in the components of their pedagogical knowledge with respect to the three ability groups of their subject matter knowledge level in the topic ozone layer depletion
976 O. N. Kaya teaching methods. Even though they believed teaching science should be studentcentred rather than teacher-initiated, they could not appropriately portray these ideas in the relevant part of the interviews. Their approaches to assessment were generally traditional and did not allow them or students to monitor students progress in conceptual understanding, reflecting lower-order thinking skills. In particular, their purpose for assessment of 10 PSTs in this ability group was to test what their students learned rather than to improve the learning and teaching. The following interview excerpts of one PST in the average-ability group supports the claim that the subject matter and the components of pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs as well as the components of their pedagogical knowledge are strongly related to each other.
Teachers can teach this topic within the new curriculum because it is developed based on the STS perspective although there may not be a specific educational objective in the curriculum related to this subject. (Knowledge of curriculumP) Some specific difficulties for students are the process of ozone layer depletion and the relationship between the ozone layer depletion and other environmental problems Many middle school students may be used to thinking that there was a hole in ozone layer in a physical meaning. (Knowledge of students learning difficultiesP) I teach ozone layer depletion in five to six headings such as how it is depleted and what the consequences of ozone layer depletion are. I use several different deodorants to show them the primary responsibility for the depletion of ozone layer goes to chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases. At this point, I ask questions such as do you think these deodorants are harmful to the living creatures? If the ozone layer does not exist, what will be happen? As a result of their answers, I try to understand their prior understanding and then lead them to the more scientific conceptions. Can you explain more how you lead them to the scientific conceptions? I use pictorial models representing the scientifically accepted ideas related to each of my questions. (Knowledge of instructional strategies and activitiesP) At the end of each lesson, I will ask the students to keep a journal indicating what they learned At the end of my teaching, I also administer a survey that I develop based on the students learning difficulties in the topic of ozone layer depletion. (Knowledge of assessmentP)
As seen in Table 4 and Figure 2, a certain type of the relationships between the subject matter knowledge and the components of the pedagogical knowledge also exists for the PSTs in the low-ability group of the subject matter knowledge level. It was deduced from Table 4 that on average 11.50 (46%) PSTs had nave, 13.25 (53%) PSTs had plausible and only 0.25 (1%) PSTs had appropriate knowledge in all four components of the pedagogical knowledge. More than one-half of the PSTs in this group had superficial knowledge about the status of the subject in the new curriculum, and the remaining PSTs had no knowledge about the curriculum with respect to either any change in the curriculum or the status of the subject. In the knowledge of students learning difficulties, many PSTs, except for only one, had either plausible or nave knowledge because they could not speculate the possible learning barriers of the students together with the logical reasons for these difficulties in the topic of ozone layer depletion. The teaching approaches presented by many
977
PSTs in this ability group were close to the traditional teaching methods. They believed teaching science primarily involves lecturing, explaining basic facts of ozone layer depletion to the students. The primary underlying principle was that knowledge resides with the teacher and that it is the teachers responsibility to transfer that factual knowledge to students. Much of their teaching approaches did not have a structure that presents many opportunities for students to contextualise science in terms of their own experience and prior knowledge. With respect to the knowledge of assessment, about one-half of the PSTs preferred to use traditional assessment methods, a single-occasion and timed exercise, after they taught the subject to students. The relationship between the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge as well as the intra-relationships among the components of PSTs pedagogical knowledge are portrayed in the following interview excerpts of one PST in the low-ability group.
The curriculum has been recently changed based on the contemporary teaching approaches. The old curriculum might not emphasize this subject. But I do not have detailed information about what changed in it. (Knowledge of CurriculumN)
Students may have more alternative conceptions or partial understanding about ozone layer depletion than many other science topics. But, unfortunately, I have no opinion about their possible learning difficulties related to this subject. (Knowledge of students learning difficultiesN) I can teach the subject based on some video records of TV programs, newspaper and magazine articles and other visual materials. While students observe and read these materials, I first explain to them what the ozone layer is. Can you explain it more? I can tell them, the ozone is a gas which occurs when three oxygen atoms are combined. Based on these materials, I can ask some students to answer certain critical questions in relation to this topic . If their responses to my questions are not enough, I can explain to them what the response should be in detail. At the end of the lesson, I summarize the important points of the topic that students had difficulties in understanding. (Knowledge of instructional strategies and activitiesN) After teaching the topic, I will use a survey consisting of multiple choice and shortanswer questions to determine what they learned. Following the exam, I explain the correct answer for each question to my students. (Knowledge of assessmentN)
Differences in the Degree of PSTs Pedagogical Knowledge by the Level of their Subject Matter Knowledge The results of the 75 selected PSTs responses to the open-ended survey indicated that high-ability, average-ability, and low-ability groups had means and standard deviations as follows: Mhigh = 15.68 (SD = 1.38), Mave = 7.76 (SD = 1.15), and Mlow = 1.34 (SD = 1.28). The results of MANOVA, as shown in Table 5, indicated there was a statistically significant difference among the three ability groups on the dependent variables, consisting of the pedagogical knowledge and its components, simultaneously, F(10,136) = 11.49, p < .001; Wilks Lambda = 0.29; 2 = 0.46. Based on Cohens (1988, pp. 283288, see Table 8.2.2) interpretation of the strength of partial eta squared values into three levels0.01 (small effect), 0.06
978 O. N. Kaya (moderate effect), and 0.14 (large effect)this value (2 = 0.46) indicated that the magnitude of significant difference among the three ability groups with respect to the level of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge and its components was very large. The results of analyses of variance presented in Table 5 indicated that there was a statistically significant difference with respect to the PSTs pedagogical knowledge, F(2,72) = 56.94, p < .0001, and the components of the pedagogical knowledge, FKC(2,72) = 28.04, p < .001; FKSLD(2,72) = 15.08, p < .001; FKISA(2,72) = 18.90, p < .001; FKA(2,72) = 5.57, p < .01, among the three ability groups. As shown in Table 6, the results of post-hoc comparisons indicated that there was a significant increase (p < .001) in the mean scores of PSTs pedagogical knowledge from lowability to average-ability groups, and from average-ability to high-ability groups. With respect to each component of the pedagogical knowledge, there was also a significant difference (p < .001) in favour of the PSTs in the high-ability group. However, the differences in mean scores were not statistically significant (p > .05) in any component of the pedagogical knowledge between average and low-ability groups. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the interview data of the 75 PSTs regarding the level of their subject matter knowledge provide strong evidence for the relationships between the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, including all of its components, as well as among the components of their pedagogical knowledge, except for the knowledge of assessment. The qualitative results given in Figure 2 and Table 4 also show that there were, of course, some discrepancies between the survey and interview data of the PSTs. For example, 24% of the PSTs in the high-ability group of the subject matter knowledge level had naive knowledge in the following two components of their pedagogical knowledge: the knowledge of students learning difficulties and assessment (see Figure 2b,d and Table 4). The MANOVA results also showed that the level of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge significantly depends on the level of their subject matter knowledge in the topic of ozone layer depletion. Discussion Since Shulman stated the key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy (1987, p. 15), teachers have been
Table 5. Results of multivariate and univariate analyses of variance for PSTs pedagogical knowledge and its components with respect to the three ability groups of the PSTs Analysis of variance Knowledge of Knowledge Knowledge of Knowledge of instructional students learning of Pedagogical strategies and assessment, difficulties, MANOVA, knowledge, curriculum, activities, F(2,72) F(2,72) F(2,72) F(2,72) Variable F(10,136) F(2,72) Group 11.49** 56.94*** 28.04** 15.08** 18.90** 5.57*
*p < .01; **p < .001; ***p < .0001.

Table 6.
979
Descriptive statistics of the 25 PSTs in each ability group with post hoc comparisons for PSTs pedagogical knowledge and its components High-ability group (1) Average-ability group (2) M 3.74 1.00 0.94 1.20 0.60 SD 1.57 0.85 0.65 1.09 0.50 Low-ability group (3) M 2.30 0.56 0.70 0.52 0.52 SD 1.22 0.51 0.68 0.51 0.51 Post hoc 3<2<1 3, 2 < 1 3, 2 < 1 3, 2 < 1 3, 2 < 1
Measure Pedagogical knowledge Knowledge of curriculum Knowledge of students learning difficulties Knowledge of instructional strategies and activities Knowledge of assessment
M 8.32 2.52 2.26 2.38 1.16
SD 3.03 1.36 1.58 1.43 1.12
considered specialists at this intersection. Today there is a connection between subject matter and pedagogical knowledge in science teaching, either implicitly or explicitly emphasized in many of the statements in the current science education reform documents (e.g., NRC, 1996). Thus, if the aim is to improve science learning, it must start with science teaching, requiring more research on this complex intersection among the components of the PSTs PCK because it will help us better understand how PCK develops in the PSTs and what the nature of their PCK is. The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of the PSTs PCK involving the topic of ozone layer depletion. Accordingly, the results of this study contribute to the literature with respect to what are the kinds of relationships among the components of their PCK, and, thus, how PSTs PCK can be developed better in science teacher education programmes. In particular, science teacher education reforms currently taking place in many developing countries, including Turkey, can benefit from the results of this study. These first showed that many Turkish PSTs, who are supposed to teach science based on the newly developed STSoriented curriculum, are not capable of the primary purpose of universal science educationthat is, to prepare students to act appropriately as citizens, which includes participating in issues related to the environment. However, this result, showing the starting point of the PSTs PCK, should be considered reasonable or normal because becoming a successful teacher takes many years in real classroom settings. The first research question of this study was to examine the relationship between the subject matter and pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs involving the topic of ozone layer depletion. The statistical results indicated that the PSTs subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, including all of its components, are significantly related to each other (p < .001). In other words, for the PSTs with strong subject matter knowledge, there was more appropriate pedagogical knowledge, whereas there was more nave pedagogical knowledge for those with low subject matter knowledge. This statistically significant relationship was further supported by evidence from
980 O. N. Kaya qualitative analysis of the interview data. For example, it was found that most of the PSTs with the less knowledge of the subject matter had very superficial knowledge about the newly developed STS-oriented curriculum that they are supposed to follow in their own teaching probably within threefour months following the study. On the other hand, PSTs who are more knowledgeable in subject matter have been able to better know, discuss and adapt the curricular materials, guidelines and mandates to cover the interests, knowledge, and abilities of the students in order to increase student understanding. In contrast to the PSTs with low knowledge in the subject matter, the PSTs with sound understanding of the subject matter had a better understanding of the knowledge of the students difficulties in learning the topic of ozone layer depletion because they could present and speculate possible conceptions that students have some challenges in understanding and alternative conceptions that students already had before learning the topic or develop when they learn the topic. With respect to the instructional strategies and activities, the PSTs who have more subject matter knowledge also have a better understanding of many possible strategies that can be used to diagnose students preconceptions. They are also aware that students preconceptions should be the starting point for instruction rather than starting with the textbook or lecture. Moreover, these PSTs are more knowledgeable about how to ascertain and challenge learners ideas in productive ways and represent the subject matter in the interface between teaching and learning. These results are consistent with the results of the previous studies with PSTs (e.g., De Jong & Van Driel, 2004; De Jong et al., 2005; Van Driel et al., 2002). These researchers reporting similar results from the qualitative perspective found that the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge plays an important role in the development of their PCK. A significant correlation (r = 0.33, p < .01) was also found between the subject matter knowledge and knowledge of assessment of the PSTs; however, this correlation was not as strong as other relationships. The reason for this inconsistent result is that only four of the 75 PSTs had appropriate assessment knowledge. Regardless of the level of the PSTs subject matter, the assessment methods of most PSTs were traditional rather than authentic. They thought that assessment and instruction are separate entities rather than partners, and the purpose of the assessment was usually giving students traditional tests to only inform them about their grade or ranking after the instruction. This finding may be understood when the assessment approaches that the PSTs experienced in the education faculties in Turkey were considered because most of the assessments of the PSTs conceptual understanding particularly in science courses have been primarily done through traditional methods, usually objective paper and pencil measures. This result about the PSTs knowledge of assessment is compatible with the findings of Magnusson et al. (1999), who defined the knowledge of assessment as one of the components of science teachers PCK. They reported that research examining science teachers use of assessment showed that science teachers at all levels of schooling largely depend upon teacher-constructed objective tests to evaluate their students conceptual understanding.
981
The second research question of this study was to explore the intra-relationships among the components of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge involving the topic ozone layer depletion. The statistical analyses indicated that there were significant correlations among the components of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge. This means that the PSTs who had more appropriate knowledge in one of the components of the pedagogical knowledge had a better understanding of other components of the pedagogical knowledge. This finding, however, is not valid for the PSTs knowledge of assessment, which is not significantly related to the other components of their pedagogical knowledge. Thus, the component of knowledge of assessment seems that it may not be an appropriate element of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge. This contradictory result may be due to the way that the PSTs were educated from pre-schools to universities because of specific cultural factors (elementary-level, secondary-level, and university-level curricula, assessment system, textbooks, etc.). For instance, the selection of PSTs for teacher education programmes in Turkish universities is primarily based on the results of a central examination in which they have to answer 180 multiple-choice questions in 195 min after high school. Moreover, although the PSTs in all Turkish universities have to complete 154 credits of course work distributed over six areas, there is only one course concerning the assessment strategies and techniques named measurement and assessment in the category of general education courses as a three-credit hour. None of the courses in science teacher education programmes provide the PSTs with another opportunity concerning assessment methods in science. As a result, the Turkish PSTs do not have fruitful experience to learn and practice their knowledge of assessment as a science teacher using science content. A reasonable explanation for this situation is that the development of PSTs knowledge and practice of assessment may be considered the last skill in PSTs PCK in most science teacher education programmes; alternatively, science teacher educators assume that this knowledge can be spontaneously and simultaneously developed in PSTs without specifically focusing on it during training. This explanation is also supported by the view of Magnusson et al. (1999) that science teachers knowledge and practice in assessment methods is the most urgent need to be changed in all of the components of teachers PCK over the next 10 years. The last research question of this study was to investigate the effect of the level of PSTs subject matter knowledge involving the topic of ozone layer depletion on the degree of the PSTs pedagogical knowledge, including its components. The MANOVA results supporting the correlational findings of this study also showed that the poor pedagogical knowledge of the PSTs could be explained equally well by the lack of their subject matter knowledge in the topic of ozone layer depletion. The results of qualitative analyses of the interview data are strong evidence for this significant difference in favour of the PSTs in the high ability group. For example, most PSTs in the high-ability group had either appropriate or plausible knowledge rather than nave knowledge in terms of all components of the pedagogical knowledge, while most PSTs in the low-ability group had either plausible or naive knowledge rather than appropriate knowledge with respect to all components of the pedagogical knowledge. One of the possible reasons for this finding of this study may be the structure of
982 O. N. Kaya Turkish science teacher education programmes because Turkish PSTs are learning much of their subject matter knowledge when taking science and laboratory courses during their first two years. They then take methods courses, which aim to promote the PSTs pedagogical knowledge, in their last two years when they are becoming teachers of science at education faculties in Turkey. Accordingly, this structure, with pedagogy and subject matter knowledge as separate entities in the programme, will impede the PSTs, who gain low subject matter knowledge in the first two years, to develop appropriate pedagogical knowledge in the last two years in the Turkish education faculties. In contrast, the PSTs with strong subject matter knowledge from the first two years may have more opportunities to integrate their content knowledge into their pedagogical knowledge that results in pedagogical content knowledge for science education. Additionally, in all 61 courses that the PSTs have to take to become a science teacher, there are only three (5%) science methods courses in which they may develop their pedagogical knowledge for the effective teaching of science. Overall, the major concern based on the results of this study may be what we as science teacher educators need to do for the PSTs having inadequate PCK to be able to teach science to students after graduating from science teacher education programmes. Most teacher educators agree that there is an urgent need to have courses integrating all the components of PCK as a whole in science teacher education programmes so that PSTs adequately develop their PCK before graduating from the programmes (e.g., De Jong & Van Driel, 2004; Lederman et al., 1994; Van Driel et al., 2002). However, in the Turkish middle school science teacher education programme, there is no such course focusing on combining subject matter, pedagogical knowledge, and field experiences. Because the current programme is already very intensive, a reasonable solution may be to include an additional year to the programme as a postundergraduate teacher education programme. There should be only a single goal of this programme: to provide an opportunity for the PSTs to develop their PCK. This will be a very fruitful opportunity especially for the PSTs who have low or average levels of PCK at the end of their undergraduate years. At the beginning of this programme, teacher educators should first identify the pre-existing level of each component of PSTs PCK in specific science topics and pay attention to the PSTs pedagogical content concerns. Therefore, the PSTs who are more aware of the level of their PCK and teaching concerns explicitly will be easily motivated to develop their PCK, and teacher trainers will be also more effective to help the PSTs (De Jong, 2000). This should be the beginning step in this programme because changing PCK, like scientific knowledge, will not occur through replication but through reconstruction. If PSTs try to develop their PCK, they must undergo a process of conceptual change. Implications for Science Teacher Education The results of this study allow us to begin to ask important questions of the model of PCK as related to science teacher education, such as How do the relationships among the components of the model of PCK help us think differently about science teacher education? and How can we as science teacher educators help the PSTs,
983
who have low and average subject matter knowledge, to improve their pedagogical knowledge for the effective teaching of science? First, the results of this study imply that the current structure of the programmethat pedagogy and subject matter knowledge are separate entitiesshould be changed. For example, while waiting for the third year at the education faculties, the PSTs may simultaneously take their courses of subject matter and pedagogical knowledge beginning from the first years in the programmes so that there are more opportunities for the PSTs, who came to the programme with low science background from the high school or gain low knowledge in science in the programme, to develop appropriate pedagogical knowledge in the following years. Second, science teacher education programmes should also have specific courses related to all components of pedagogical knowledge. For example, besides the current methods courses, other courses should be added to the programme related to the following: the structure, general aims, and content of the current curriculum; students learning difficulties in science topics; teaching strategy and activities for specific science topics; and assessment approaches in science. Even if the recommended changes above are accomplished, it may not be thought enough to sufficiently develop PSTs PCK within the current undergraduate programme, or these changes may be considered unfeasible or unrealistic for the current programme, consisting of 154 credits of course work (n = 61). Accordingly, another way to efficiently develop PSTs PCK is an additional year on a post-undergraduate teacher education programme. The sole goal of this programme would be to develop PSTs PCK for the effective teaching of science. Furthermore, in this programme, the knowledge of assessment can be examined as an individual part of PSTs PCK through their experiences with authentic assessment approaches such as portfolios and concept mapping. The major limitation of this study was that the PSTs practical or craft knowledge involving ozone layer depletion could not be investigated because the PSTs did not have a long enough practicum period, and most of the school administrators and many inservice science teachers with whom the PSTs are doing their practicum as student-teachers are anxious and reluctant to let the PSTs teach the topic of ozone layer depletion due to the newly developed and practiced STS-oriented science curriculum. Accordingly, future research should focus on questions related to the triadic relationships among the subject matter, the pedagogical and practical knowledge of the PSTs and especially the way they transform their subject matter knowledge into the real classroom settings. In particular, future research should also investigate the difference of how PSTs having different levels of PCK, such as high subject matter/high pedagogical knowledge versus high subject matter/low pedagogical knowledge, are teaching science topics to students in real classrooms.
References
Abraham, M.R., Cracolice, M.S., Graves, A.P., Aladamash, A.H., Kihega, J.G., Palma Gil, J.G., et al. (1997). The nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and universities in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 591594.
984 O. N. Kaya
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426453. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 315. Boyes, E., Chamber, W., & Stanisstreet, M. (1995). Trainee primary teachers ideas about the ozone layer. Environmental Education Research, 1, 133145 Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1994). The Ideas of secondary school children concerning ozone layer damage. Global Environmental Change, 4, 317330. Cochran, K.R., Deruiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263270. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 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, 127137 De Jong, O., & Van Driel, J. (2004). Exploring the development of student teachers PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 477491 De Jong., O., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models when teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947964. Dove, J. (1996). Student teacher understanding of the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain. Environmental Education Research, 2, 89100. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2005). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. NSF Inquiry Conference Proceedings. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/rgrandy/NSFConSched.html. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York & London: Teachers College Press. 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, 215225. Khalid, T. (2003). Pre-service high school teachers perceptions of three environmental phenomena. Environmental Education Research, 9, 3550. Lederman, N.G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Do subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge constitute the ideal gas law of science teaching? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 1620. Lederman, N.G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M.S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129146. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge Growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 414. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 122. Shulman L.S., & Grossman, P.L. (1988). Knowledge growth in teaching: A final report to the Spencer Foundation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
985
Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 4593). New York: Macmillan. Turkish Higher Educational Council. (2006). Turkish science teacher education. Retrieved August 23, 2006, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/egitim/ogretmen/fen_bilgisi.doc Turkish Ministry of National Education (2005). New curriculum of science and technology education. Retrieved December 24, 2005, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/ Van Driel, J., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of pre-service chemistry teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572590 Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673695. Vazquez-Alonso, A., & Manassero-Mas, M.-A. (1999). Response and scoring models for the Views on ScienceTechnologySociety instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 231247. Wiggins, G. (1996). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership, 54, 1825. Yager, R.E. (2000). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 67, 4445. Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., & Kamm, S.D. (1997). Examination type preferences of college science students and their faculty in Israel and USA: A comparative study. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 312.
986 O. N. Kaya Appendix A. Survey questions 1. What is the ozone layer? Please also explain the chemical structure and physical properties of ozone. 2. What is the main cause of ozone depletion? Explain how it depletes the ozone layer. 3. What are the effects of ozone depletion on human beings or other forms of life on the planet? Explain your answer with reasons. 4. Explain how the ozone works in the atmosphere? 5. What do you think are the relationships among ozone layer depletion, global warming and acid rain? Explain your answer with reasons.
Appendix B. Some interview questions in each component of the pedagogical knowledge The knowledge of curriculum
What do you know about the place of ozone layer depletion in the middle school curriculum? Is there any specific educational objective in the curriculum related to this subject?
The knowledge of students learning difficulties
Do you know the possible learning difficulties (e.g., alternative conceptions or partial understanding) of students on the concepts related to ozone layer depletion? Can you explain how students may or develop these difficulties in learning the concepts related to ozone layer depletion?
The knowledge of instructional strategies and activities
What kinds of teaching approaches do you think to use for teaching the concepts of ozone layer depletion to the middle school students? What would you do in your teaching to help students gain a better understanding of the concepts of ozone layer depletion?
The knowledge of assessment
What kinds of assessment approaches do you think to use to evaluate students understanding of the concepts of ozone layer depletion? Could you explain how you assess students learning of the concepts of ozone layer depletion?
Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK Appendix C. Examples of the scoring rubric, criteria for the survey and interview questions
987
Appropriate (3.5 points) Causes of ozone layer depletion (1) Referring the CFCs as the main cause of ozone layer depletion. (2) Explaining how chlorine from CFCs breaks down ozone molecule into free oxygen. (1) Giving details about students difficulties in understanding the subject, including alternative conceptions and partial understandings. (2) Explaining how and why students may have these learning difficulties or develop alternative conceptions.
Plausible (1 point)
Nave (0 point)
Knowledge of students learning difficulties
(1) Referring the CFCs (1) Referring other as the main cause of sources such as car ozone layer depletion. emissions and toxic gases for the main cause of ozone layer depletion rather than CFCs. (1) Not describing any (1) Giving details students difficulty in about students understanding the difficulties in subject. understanding the subject, including alternative conceptions and partial understandings.
988 O. N. Kaya Appendix D. Sample comments from three PSTs on the second question of the survey PST-17: Ozone is a molecule composing of three oxygen atoms. Depletion of ozone means splitting the chemical structure of ozone, leading to the decrease of its concentration. Destruction involves chemical reactions. This occurs because of human rather than natural input. I mean we introduce chemicals into the atmosphere that cause the ozone to be destroyed because these chemicals were either used as solvents, propellants, or refrigerants. The major chemical is chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). I can summarize this chemical process as follows: First, the CFCs in the stratosphere are bombarded with UV radiation from the sun. This causes the CFC molecule to release a chlorine atom which is free to interact with other atoms. Then, the free chlorine atom can collide with an ozone molecule. The chlorine atom strips an oxygen atom from the ozone molecule, leading to the formation of two new molecules, O2 and ClO. Each chlorine atom will probably destroy over a thousand ozone molecules because the chlorine monoxide can interact with a free oxygen atom, resulting in the formation of oxygen molecule and a free chlorine atom again. This chlorine atom is now free to react with more ozone molecules. (Appropriate idea) PST-78: The depletion of the ozone layer means decreasing the number of ozone molecules in the stratosphere. Unfortunately, they are being catalyzed by chemicals. The major threat is chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This chemical is used in industry such as solvents and in our refrigerator or freezer. The amount of the CFCs determines the degree of ozone depletion, making the ozone layer thinner than before. (Plausible idea) PST-197: The hole in the ozone is getting bigger because of human impact on nature. Our environment is becoming worse compared to a hundred years ago because today there are many more factories and other facilities in our lives such as our cars. CO and CO2 from car emissions and all atmospheric pollution especially coming from factories are responsible for ozone layer depletion. (Nave idea)

The Nature of Relationships Among The Components of Pedagogical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Nature of Relationships Among The Components of Pedagogical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: On: 11 April 2011 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher

International Journal of Science Education

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Figure 1. Components of the PSTs PCK investigated

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK Method Sample

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Appropriate 97 (44.91) 39 (18.06) 95 (43.98) 50 (23.15) 28 (12.96) 61.80 (28.61)

Plausible 33 (15.28) 59 (27.31) 78 (36.11) 41 (18.98) 53 (24.54) 52.80 (24.44)

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Knowledge category Appropriate Plausible Nave

4 (5.33) 14.50 (19.33) 42 (56.00) 38.75 (51.67) 29 (38.67) 21.75 (29.00)

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

0.63** 0.76** 0.76** 0.42*

0.49** 0.32* 0.01

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

M A@CA B 5JK@A JI A=H E C ,EBBE?K JEAI  5 ,

2AH?A J=CA B 256I

2AH?A J=CA B 256I

% $ # " !   

% $ # " !   

$ " " $ )LAH=CA M

& & 0ECD  )LAH=CA

M A@CA B 1 IJHK?JE = 5JH=JACEAI = @ )?JELEJEAI  5 ,

2AH?A J=CA B 256I

2AH?A J=CA B 256I

% $ # " !    0ECD "

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

*p < .01; **p < .001; ***p < .0001.

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

M 8.32 2.52 2.26 2.38 1.16

SD 3.03 1.36 1.58 1.43 1.12

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

Relationships among the Components of PSTs PCK

The knowledge of students learning difficulties

The knowledge of instructional strategies and activities

The knowledge of assessment

Knowledge of students learning difficulties

Downloaded At: 08:23 11 April 2011

0.63 0.76 0.76** 0.42*

M A@CA B 5JK@A JI A=H E C ,EBBE?K JEAI 5 ,

% $ # " !

% $ # " !

$ " " $ )LAH=CA M

& & 0ECD )LAH=CA

M A@CA B 1 IJHK?JE = 5JH=JACEAI = @ )?JELEJEAI 5 ,

% $ # " ! 0ECD "

p < .01; p < .001; p < .0001.