See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271271710

The knowledge needed to teach science: Approaches, implications, and potential

research

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

6 1,217

5 authors, including:

Kathleen Hill Ryan S. Nixon

Pennsylvania State University Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
15 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Benjamin Campbell
University of Georgia
7 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study of Short-Term STEM Professional Development Programs View project

The Influence of Teaching Experience on Elementary Teachers' Grade-Level Subject Matter Knowledge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julie Luft on 24 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Knowledge Needed to Teach Science:
Approaches, Implications, and Potential Research

Julie A. Luft (contact author), University of Georgia, [email protected]

Kathy Hill, Bethany College
Ryan Nixon, University of Georgia
Ben Campbell, University of Georgia
Shannon Dubois, University of Virginia

Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education meeting, Portland, OR, 2015.

Abstract
Two events are impacting science teacher education: the release of the Next Generation
of Science Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2012) and the national focus on teacher quality (Darling-
Hammond, et al., 2011). Caught in the confluence of these two events, science teachers will need
to have sound content knowledge to meet these standards and as they are evaluated by student
achievement scores. Unfortunately, it is not clear what counts as sound science content
knowledge, nor is there agreement about what constitutes content knowledge that can lead to
sound instructional practice.
Some views of content knowledge are based on metrics that involve content courses
completed, subject matter assessments, or other competency assessments. Outside of these
assessments, there are different descriptions of what counts as content knowledge. Schwab
(1978) discusses content knowledge as consisting of substantive structures and syntactical
structures. Another discussion of teacher knowledge consists of content knowledge as composed
of declarative and procedural statements (e.g., Schraw, 2006). A topic that has a strong presence
in the science teacher education field is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Work in this area
has been primarily descriptive (e.g., Kind, 2009; Van Driel & Berry, 2010), but it has
implications for how teachers are supported in building their content knowledge for teaching.
While these areas offer useful characterizations of content knowledge, there is a need to
conceptualize content knowledge differently (National Research Council, 2011). We will explore
two different approaches. One approach uses a Science Knowledge for Teaching framework,
which draws upon the work on Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008). The other approach illustrates
content knowledge through different representational approaches. These approaches hold
different benefits and opportunities to science teacher educators as they work with new and
experienced science teachers.
 2

The Knowledge Needed to Teach Science:

Approaches, Implications, and Potential Research
Two events are impacting science teacher education: the release of the Next Generation
of Science Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2012) and the national focus on teacher quality (Darling-
Hammond, et al., 2011). Caught in the confluence of these two events, science teachers will need
to have sound content knowledge to meet these standards and as they are evaluated by student
achievement scores. Unfortunately, it is not clear what counts as sound science content
knowledge, nor is there agreement about what constitutes content knowledge that can lead to
sound instructional practice.
In science education, our understanding of science teacher knowledge has advanced
dramatically. Most of the explorations in this area have been focused on pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), which considers how science teachers turn content into a learning experience
for students. This work is highly descriptive and important to science teacher educators (Abell,
2007; Kind, 2009; Van Driel & Berry, 2010), but it offers little substantive direction for policy
makers, administrators, or professional development program organizers.
More recently, PCK researchers have turned their attention to topic-specific PCK. This
work varies from researcher to researcher, but it often focuses on a topic within a science
discipline (e.g., Rollnick et al., 2008). Work in this area often involves a teacher taking a written
assessment that focuses on a concept in science. Some assessments ask teachers to describe or
predict events associated with a diagram, while others require teachers to evaluate a classroom
event involving a science concept. Overall, these assessments are lengthy and time consuming
for the teacher.
An emerging area of research is the ‘science knowledge for teaching.’ The premise
behind this work is that without content knowledge, a science teacher would have little to teach.
In this foundational position, it is essential to characterize subject matter knowledge in a way that
captures its nuances. This likely transcends typical processes that utilize multiple choice tests
that focus on facts or the counting of completed science courses (e.g., Monk, 1994; Shugart &
Hounshell, 1995).
This paper addresses the void in the literature regarding science teacher knowledge. It
reports on two approaches, and suggests potential research in the field.
Background Literature
Content knowledge. The content of science for science teachers should focus on a
discipline, and consist of domains and knowledge statements According to Gardner (1972),
disciplines are specialized areas of study that “span the alphabet from aerodynamics to zoology
(p. 26),” while domains consist of the objects that are studied or explored, such as living things
or elements. Knowledge is what is produced by the discipline and can be a “set of assertions or
verifiable truth claims (p. 27).” This is often referred to as subject-matter knowledge.
Subject matter knowledge has a substantive structure, which is an “interrelated collection
of powerful ideas that guide research in a discipline (Gardner, 1972; p. 27).” In science, this
consists of theories, laws, facts and concepts that are important in studies in the discipline.
Subject matter knowledge also consists of syntactical structure (Schwab, 1978), which is the way
in which knowledge is generated by the discipline (Gardner, 1972). In science, this consists of
the logic and reasoning used by scientists that is found in the process of inquiry.
A common way to conceptualize content knowledge is through the lens of declarative
and procedural knowledge structures (e.g., Schraw, 2006). According to Schraw (2006),
 3

declarative knowledge includes the fact, concepts, and the relationship of concepts that lead to
overall conceptual understanding. In science, this would involve law statements or numbers that
represent constants in formulas, and it would include representations of topics, or phenomena,
such as rocks, flowers, or forces. Procedural knowledge, according to Schraw (2006), is about
how to do things. In science, this would involve the way in which science is done.
Studies of content knowledge. Early studies of science teacher knowledge often involved
an analysis of the college/university coursework taken by a teacher. Monk (1994) published one
of the most important studies in this area. In his study, he found a significant and positive
relationship between the number of courses teachers took in science and their students’
achievement in science. Yet, in a unique twist, he also found that a teacher with a background in
physical sciences had a larger impact on student performance in life science courses than in
physical science courses (Monk, 1994). Even with this finding, it is generally accepted among
policy makers and science teacher educators that science teachers need a sufficient background
in the subject they will be teaching.
More recently, science education researchers have focused on the unique knowledge that
teachers hold, which allows them to transform content knowledge into learning (Van Driel &
Berry, 2010). This knowledge- PCK - was initially described by Shulman (1986, 1987). PCK
requires that teachers draw upon their content knowledge and that they adjust this knowledge to
meet the needs of their students. The initial work in science education in the area of PCK has
been primarily descriptive in that most studies discuss science teachers’ PCK , and how PCK
changes in the midst of interventions, programs, or courses (see Abell, 2007; Kind, 2009; Van
Driel & Berry, 2010).
In the area of PCK, science educators can learn quite a bit from the mathematics teacher
education community, with Ball leading the way in this area. Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008)
articulate the need for content knowledge, which is a precursor to PCK. They call this knowledge
form the “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) (see Figure 1).” In their studies of this
area they have developed protocols that use content knowledge, knowledge of problems
associated with learning the content, and knowledge of learners to assess the MKT of teachers.
These protocols are used to document the development of teachers over time, and to understand
how teachers change in the midst of differing professional development programs. Ball and her
colleagues have changed the landscape in terms of how mathematics teacher educators
contemplate content knowledge, and how they educate preservice teachers.
Summary. It is generally accepted that the science knowledge of a teacher is essential to
his/her instruction. Most studies that explore teacher knowledge focus on PCK, and not content
or subject matter knowledge. There is a need to explore the subject matter knowledge of science
teachers, and this paper reports on the results of two methods.
Methods
This exploratory study takes place with early career teachers, who are known to construct
the content knowledge they will teach in their early years (Luft et al. 2014). Early career science
teachers are important to study in that they should have the best subject matter knowledge, but
often have the most difficult time linking their content knowledge to the classroom. The pool of
teachers in this study have between one and five years of teaching experience at the secondary
level. All of the teachers were teaching courses in their major and outside of their major (in and
out-of-field).
 4

In order to look at the subject matter knowledge that is needed for teaching (SMKT), two
approaches were used with early career teachers. The first approach involved an interview format
and that drew directly upon the work of Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008). In this approach, a
teacher should have a conceptual understanding of a core idea in science, a deep understanding
of the area (in order to identify reasons students may have difficulty with the concept), and an
ability to determine what content should be addressed prior to and following a core idea.
In the interview, a content knowledge (CK) question was asked that required the teacher
to discuss the content area and its connection to a big idea (e.g., Why is ‘this’ important? What
do you know about ‘this topic’?). Next a specialized content knowledge (SCK) question
pertaining to the complexity of the content and potential problems students may have with the
content (e.g., What makes ‘this content’ difficult to learn?) was asked. The teacher then
responded to a scenario in order to determine the connection of the content area to his or her
instruction in the classroom. An example scenario is;
You are in the middle of a series of lessons in which you are teaching students about
Mendelian Genetics. You move to a group a students, who are working on a series of
genetic problems that you have posed. Most of the problems involve determining the
phenotypic outcome of the individuals from parents who have heterozygous alleles for a
trait. The students consistently conclude that the first and second generation off spring
will have the dominant characteristic 100% of the time. In this lesson, what is the concept
that is important for students to know? As a teacher, what do you do next? Why?
A final question, progressional content knowledge (PrCK), required the teacher to discuss what
content should be taught prior to and following this topic.
The participating teachers engaged in one interview in their major and one interview
outside of their major. Most of the teachers were teaching in and outside of their majors. The
interviews with the teachers were audiotaped and transcribed. They were then assessed with a
rubric, which focused on the quality of the answers to the posed questions. There were three
areas of coding: CK, SCK, and PrCK. The scoring ranged from 1 – wrong, but they think they
had it right, to 5-comprehensive discussion that captures the important components of the topic.
The other approach involved a conceptual diagram. The diagram process is based upon
the work of Johnson and Reynolds (2004). According to Johnson and Reynolds (2004), a concept
sketch is a simplified sketch illustrating the main aspects of a concept or system, annotated with
concise but complete labels that (1) identify the features, (2) depict the processes that are
occurring, and (3) characterize the relationships among features and processes. In addition, a
concept sketch is more than a labeled diagram. There are concept captions in a concept sketch
that describes the processes and outcomes within conceptual area depicted, and there are places
where evidence about the phenomena can be included.
The participating teachers drew a concept sketch either in their major area, or in an area
in which they did not have a major. The drawings were evaluated with a rubric, which focused
on the quality of the drawing. The four areas were: marco (relates to the CCK)- overall drawing
that represents the concept; relationship/action/change (relates to the SCK) – represents the
phenomena changes; micro (relates to SCK) – the invisible changes that are made visible; and
the drawing (relates to the PrCK) – shows what forms of knowledge are needed. The scoring
ranged from Present and corrent (score of 1), to Absent (score of 4).
 5

Results
The first results of the interviews are reported in Figure 2. In this figure, there is a
significant difference between the in-field teachers and the out-of-field teachers in terms of their
SMKT. Overtime, this difference becomes much greater. These results suggest that the interview
process is sensitive to the differences in subject matter knowledge between the teachers.
An additional analysis revealed that early career teachers know less about PrCK than the
other forms of knowledge. Figure 3 shows the results of the in-field analysis of physics, biology,
and Earth science teachers.
The results of the concept sketches reveal an uneven representation of among macro and
micro characteristics among the different content areas, and different degrees of representations
of relationships within the content representation. In addition, the sketches reveal no
representation of PrCK. Two sketches, Figure 4 and 5, highlight the differences between early
career teachers.
In terms of the in and out-of-field qualities, out-of-field teachers scored consistently less
than their in-field peers on the rubric. No quantitative analysis was conducted with this metric, as
this was more of an assessment to measure the merits or promise of this assessment.
Discussion & Conclusion
Understanding how teachers comprehend their subject matter knowledge is important.
Current approaches to measuring content knowledge are often focused on learning the facts
within a discipline. To move beyond the teaching of facts, an educative stance towards learning
about content knowledge should be adopted. An educative stance suggests that an early career
teacher will learn how to conceptualize the content area, while learning about the content area. In
order to build an educative orientation towards content knowledge, it is important to consider
different ways to assess and prompt a teacher’s understanding of the content.
This paper reports on two approaches to assess and prompt the conceptual understanding
of early career science teachers. One approach involves interviews, which are modeled after the
work of Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008). In using this approach, the interviews demonstrated
differences in conceptual understanding among the early career teachers. Those early career
science teachers who had majors in their current teaching area and those early career teachers
who taught overtime appeared to have the most robust SMKT. Within the SMKT construct, PrCk
appeared to be least formulated among the science teachers.
The differences in the composition of SMKT suggests that early career teachers need to
explicitly discuss the progression of concepts, and that a strong knowledge base – one’s
knowledge will improve over time. For those who work with early career teachers, making these
areas explicit will help early career science teachers in their understanding of SMKT. This
involves having early career science teachers consider the important ideas of what they are
teaching, the difficulties that students may have with the topic, and the sequence of the different
conceptual ideas.
The other approach that is reported in this paper pertains to concept sketches. The data
collected from early career science teachers suggest that this educative assessment may not have
the potential of the interviews. Among the teachers, there was significant variability, with only
the teacher who had a content area master’s degree providing a robust and acceptable drawing.
The lack of potential may be related to the prompts that were provided to the teachers
when they were asked to draw a concept sketch. The teachers were not asked to draw micro or
macro trends, even though the assessment looked for these events. Also, among the different
 6

content areas there was a great degree of variability, which suggests that there is a need to
consider how to create comparable questions across the different science disciplines. In general,
the concept sketches seemed to be more fruitful for illustrating and assessing the conceptual
correctness of an idea, and not as a educative activity.
In thinking about the SMKT among early career science teachers, there is much work to
be done. There is a need to conceptualize this construct, and there is a need to understand how
SMKT develops among early career teachers. Studies that follow teachers over time, and studies
that contrast different groups of teachers will be useful in defining and refining this construct.
Final Comments
The SMKT that a teacher holds is important to his or her instruction. This knowledge is
the basis for the transformation of content knowledge to instruction, which is important to the
learning of science among students. By better understanding SMKT, teacher educators can foster
an understanding among early career teachers about how to consider the content they will be
teaching. If early career teachers have specific orientations towards teaching the content, they
can better support student learning.
In addition, a better of understanding of SMKT will also ensure that undergraduate
faculty will know how to represent the content they will teach to future teachers. Often subject
matter knowledge is represented as facts, and not as relationships. By considering a different
view about subject matter knowledge, science faculty who work with future teachers, can know
what areas to emphasize during lectures, laboratories or recitation sections.

References
Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In Abell, S. & Lederman,
N.G., (Eds), Handbook of research on science education, 1105-1149. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbarum Associates.
Achieve (2012). Next generation of science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 49(5), 389-407.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amerin-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2011). Getting teacher
evaluation right: A challenge for policy makers. American Education Research
Association & National Academy of Education, Research briefing, September 14, 2011.
Executive summary at
http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/New%20Logo%20Research%20on%20Teacher%20E
valuation%20AERA-NAE%20Briefing.pdf
Gardner, P. L. (1972). Structure-of-knowledge theory and science education. Educational
Philosophy & Theory, 4(2), 25-28.
Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2004). Concept Sketches—using student-and instructor
generated annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology
courses. Journal of Geological Education, 53 (1), 85-95.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential
for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45, 169-204.
Luft, J. A., Dubois, S. L., Nixon, R. S., & Campbell, B. K. (2014). Supporting newly hired
teachers of science: attaining teacher professional standards. Studies in Science
Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-48.
 7

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and
student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly
Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education, Board on Science Education
and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H., Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, second edition (pgs. 245-263). New York:
Taylor and Francis.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). The nature of scientific knowledge as related to liberal education. In I.
Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected
Essays. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Shugart, S. S., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Subject matter competence and the recruitment and
retention of secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1),
63–70.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2010). The teacher education knowledge base: Pedagogical
content knowledge. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, B. McGaw (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of education, pp. 656-661. Oxford: Elsevier.
 8

Figure 1. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (Ball, Thames, and Phelps, 2008)
 9

Figure 2. Different in SMKT over time, and between out of field and in-field teachers
 10

Figure 3. Differences among in-field teachrs in their differnet knowledge bases

 11

Figure 4. In-field physics teacher concept sketch

 12

Figure 5. Out-of-field physics teacher concept sketch

View publication stats