Technology
PCK in Science
Introduction
Science and
technology are natural, long-standing partners in school and out. Scientists
develop technologies for use in their work and they develop technologies for
commercial purposes. The science classroom is a natural place for technology
use since so much of science today depends on technology. It is fair to say
that one cannot be a scientist without being knowledgeable about computers and
other advanced technologies.
This article explores
the question of what knowledge teachers need in order to integrate technology
into their science teaching in ways that might help students learn science and
prepare them for future work in scientific fields. It starts from the
assumptions that technology should be used to do things that would otherwise be
difficult or impossible to do, not to replicate the same things ordinarily
done; and that technology has a place in science classrooms when it is integral
to the science being taught or when it solves a particular pedagogical problem.
Pedagogical content knowledge in science
Pedagogical content
knowledge is a teacher’s understanding of how to help students understand
specific subject matter. It includes knowledge of how particular subject matter
topics, problems, and issues can be organized, represented, and adapted to the
diverse interests and abilities of learners, and then presented for instruction
(Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 96).
The term pedagogical
content knowledge – PCK – has been used to mean many different things. Since Shulman’s (1986) seminal work on PCK, researchers have
pushed and pulled on the concept to understand how to define and use it in
specific domains and to make more crisp the distinction between this kind of
knowledge and other knowledge teachers use in practice. The most commonly used
definition comes from Grossman (1989; , 1990) who delineates four elements of PCK:
a) conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter; b) knowledge of
students' understanding; c) knowledge of instructional strategies; d)
curricular knowledge. Magnusson and colleagues (Magnusson et al.,
1999) provide a more
comprehensive definition, delineating five components of PCK as knowledge and
beliefs about (a) orientations toward
science teaching, (b) curriculum, (c) students’ understandings, (d) assessment,
and (e)instructional strategies. Van Driel and colleagues (van Driel et al., 1998) review versions and adaptations of
the concept of PCK in research on science teaching and suggest that most include
at least two of the elements proposed by Grossman: (a) knowledge of students’
understandings (and misconceptions) of particular topics, and (b) instructional
strategies and representations for teaching particular topics.
In science education,
researchers have used PCK to study what teachers know and how they teach
particular topics, and they have investigated how teachers develop PCK. Van
Driel and colleagues (1998) studied preservice teachers’
knowledge of chemical equilibrium, focusing on their use of
representations. In another study De
Jong, Van Driel & Verloop (2005) investigated preservice teachers’
knowledge and use of particle models in teaching chemistry. Along with other research on PCK in science (Daehler &
Shinohara, 2001; Loughran et al.,
2001; Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005), these studies make clear that PCK is
a topic-specific and context-specific kind of knowledge, and that teachers seem
to develop PCK in response to their experience as teachers.
Unfortunately, the
lack of clarity about the construct makes it difficult to draw conclusions
across studies, for the range of definitions of PCK is very broad: some
researchers include nearly all teacher reasoning
as part of PCK; others use nearly all content and pedagogical knowledge; and
others restrict PCK to the two categories mentioned above, briefly, student
errors and misconceptions, and representations. Thus, PCK includes at least specific knowledge
of student thinking about science topics and knowledge of representations and
instructional strategies for teaching particular topics, but beyond that, the
definition becomes unclear. In the next section, we use the narrower definition
of PCK and consider how to extend it to include technology in a way that makes
visible the knowledge needed to teach science with technology.
Elements of technology-PCK (TPCK) in science
Teachers’ knowledge
of technology, science, and pedagogy comes together in knowing where to use
technology, what technology to use, and how to teach with it. These three
aspects of TPCK are discussed below.
Where can technology help?
In deciding to use
technology in science teaching, it is fundamental to decide where technology
can help students learn or help the teacher teach. Technology is good for some
purposes, but not for others, especially in K-12 classrooms where uses of
technology are determined in part by the characteristics of the technology that
is available. In science, two questions guide decisions about technology use:
(1)
Are
there places in the curriculum that are hard to teach where technology might
help overcome pedagogical or cognitive difficulties?
(2)
Are
there topics in the curriculum for which technology is an essential element of
the science being taught?
These questions are
important and not trivial, and they define two kinds of technology use:
pedagogical and scientific.
Pedagogical uses.
There are many ways
that technology could be pedagogically useful:
· Speeding up time via
simulations of natural events
· Saving time through
data collection devices
· Seeing things that
could not otherwise be seen
· Recording data that
would otherwise be hard to gather
· Organizing data that
would otherwise be hard to organize
· Sharing information
in new ways across time and/or space
· Communicating with
experts or others remotely located
The teacher needs to
know, with respect to her subject and her students, where technology could
solve a pedagogical problem that she faces.
For example, if she is teaching biology, she may face the common problem
that students do not learn much from dissecting real animals. Some students are repulsed by dissection and
do not engage in it, and those who do often make a mess of it and fail to learn
the intended lessons about animal biology.
A technological solution could be to supplement or replace real
dissection with virtual dissection.
Another example of a
pedagogical problem is teaching the importance of accurate and organized data
collection. Because time is short in school science, it often happens that
students are unable to collect enough data to experience for themselves the
need for precision and organization of data.
Technology could be used in several ways to change this. For example, technology can speed up experiments through simulation or
pool data from multiple experiments for sharing. Or, technological devices can
be used to collect and simultaneously record data in the lab or in the field.
In each of these uses, the increased volume of data collected could be used to
teach students about the importance of methods for collecting and organizing
data in science.
Scientific uses
There are times when
technology is integral to the topic being taught, when science is embedded in
technology. For example Niess (2005) describes a preservice teacher’s use
of a computer-based laboratory (CBL) PH probe.
This teacher expressed her reluctance to have the students explore how
the probe worked or how its function differed scientifically from litmus paper
or cabbage juice tests. Niess argues
that in this case, the probe technology is part of the science itself, not
merely a tool for data collection, suggesting that students could learn science
both by using the tool and by learning about the tool. In fact, in
the world of science outside of schools, many technologies are part of science,
not simply tools to do science. This raises another question for teachers, and
another aspect of TPCK: When is
technology such an integral part of science that it should become the object of
study?
Categories of
technology
We can classify
technology for science teaching in three categories:
1)
Technology
that is unrelated to science but is used in the service of science. Word processing, spread sheets, or graphic
software fall into this category.
2)
Technology
designed for teaching and learning science. Programs like Model-It™, Virtual
Frog, Cooties™, BIOKids, and WISE have been developed specifically for teaching
K-12 science.[i]
3)
Technology
designed and used to do science. This includes instruments such as microscopes,
remote (Web-based) telescopes, CBL probes, and scientific calculators.
Science teachers at
all grade levels have reasons to use each of these categories of technology,
yet the focus of teaching may be quite different in each case.
What technology is
available?
The second piece of
teachers’ TPCK is knowing what technology is available for his students. The
range of possibilities in science classrooms is enormous. Hardware possibilities include handheld
devices, laptop computers, calculators, and probes. These may be connected wirelessly or through
wired hubs. Devices may be loaded with
software designed for classrooms (such as SimCalc for graphing calculators[ii])
or they may be available as platforms to which software can be added.
Every school is
different, so a large element of each teachers’ knowledge is knowing his own
school’s resources. Having a lab full of desktop computers has different
implications for teaching than having a portable set of wireless laptops or individual
handheld devices. The conditions of use,
the possibilities for teaching and learning, and the timely availability of
resources all change from school to school, or even classroom to classroom.
How can technology be
integrated into the classroom?
The final piece of
TPCK is knowing how to integrate technology into teaching and learning. As with
using any new resource in teaching, this is a risky business. No matter how
ineffective previous teaching has seemed (e.g., the messy frog dissection from
which some students learned very little), it has been successful in some
degree, if only in getting through the content without delay. Using something new means risking failure.
Anticipating how to use technology is very hard and calls on teachers’
knowledge in many different ways.
Technology failure often occurs at the first attempt, and for many
teachers, the first attempt is the last one.
It is at this stage
that teachers need to mine their own internal resources – their knowledge of
science, of students, and of pedagogy – to anticipate and prepare for what will
likely happen when the technology is used.
For example, to use
graphing calculators to simulate time and distance problems with SimCalc, what
might a teacher consider before his first use? This teacher has identified a
problem: students have a hard time understanding the relationships among time,
rate, and distance especially as shown on graphs. He has identified a technology that is
available: his school has calculators with SimCalc software and he has a
classroom computer, a wireless hub and a projector that can be used to collect
data from individuals or groups of students and display it to the class.
Questions he needs to
think about include:
·
Is
there anything I need to teach my students about the calculators before we
begin a project?
·
Would
it be useful to give them time to “play” with the system before we get down to
business? For how long? (Do I have time
for this?)
·
What
are the possible or likely failure points for the software or hardware and what
will I do if it fails?
·
How
will I organize the classroom for this activity? (e.g., Individual or small groups? All doing the same thing or doing different
things? Timed or open-ended?)
·
What
is the nature of the activity I will ask students to engage in? For example, will it be an activity for which
there are right and wrong answers? How will I respond to wrong answers?
·
What
do I imagine will happen in the classroom while students are using this
technology? (e.g., Will it be noisy or quiet? Will all students have accees to
the hardware or will some be only watching?)
·
What
are the main things I want students to learn from this activity?
·
How
will I know if this activity is successful?
The more specific the
scenario he can build in his head about the likely events when he uses the
technology, the more likely he is to experience success. This is not unlike
planning for any new activity in the classroom using any new resource. One main difference is the near certainty
that something will go wrong with the technology and the consequent need for
detailed backup planning. Another
difference is that teachers’ have ample experience with other kinds of
activities such as individual or group seatwork, presentations by individuals
or groups, going over homework, managing a standard lab activity, etc. With technology, especially using hardware or
software for the first time, even an experienced teacher becomes a novice. The classroom experience of teaching and
learning can be unlike any other, depending on exactly how new and how
different the technology is for teacher and students.
In the process of
building a scenario like the one described above, and, after the fact,
reflecting on what happened, a teacher develops knowledge that he can use the
next time he uses the technology. It is
very context and content specific knowledge, depending on the technology
available, the students,and the subject matter.
This essay has posed
three questions that teachers need to ask to teach with technology in science
classrooms: (1) Where can technology
help? (2) What technology is
available? (3) How can tecnology be
integrated into the classroom? The next section discusses the implications of
these three questions for teacher knowledge.
Teacher knowledge
What is the knowledge
that enables teachers adequtely to answer the questions posed above? It is a
combination of things including knowledge of subject matter, of students, of
pedagogy, and of technology. Each of
these is discussed below.
Knowledge of science
The first demand on
teacher knowledge is knowing the science they are teaching. Although the precise content knowledge
teachers’ need has not been well specified (by theory or empirical research),
it is certainly true that they need at least to know the science they expect
their students to learn. Beyond this, they probably need to know much more
science. For example, it may be helpful
and important to know what comes after the content they are teaching, e.g.,
what a student might learn next; to know what science precedes or is a
prerequisite for the topic being studied; to know how what they teach relates
to applications in the world and to the work scientists actually do; and to
know the big open questions in the field related to the topic at hand.
Knowledge of students
One aspect of teacher
knowledge that is critical is knowing for the particular students being taught,
what they find hard to learn and where they hold misconceptions or stubborn
misinformation. Teachers learn this in at least two ways: from their formal
eduation in teacher preparation, and from their own experience as teachers.
Experienced teachers have a long list of specifics in their subject where
students stumble. They may know, for example, that students hang on to the idea
that an eclipse is caused by the shadow of the earth or that seasons are cause
by distance from the sun. Students
misinterpret graphs of velocity as graphs of location. They confuse temperature
and heat. And so on. Science teachers
use detailed knowledge of students’ knowledge as they decide what to emphasize
and what tools and techniques to use.
Their knowledge of students helps them define a landscape of teaching
and learning that is appropriate to both the subject matter and the characteristics
of their particular students.
Knowledge of pedagogy
Teachers need to know
how to teach. They need knowledge of
pedagogy both general to all teaching and specific to their subject
matter. At a general level, they need to
know how to manage the classroom effectively to avoid unnecessary disruptions
and delays. In the subject-specific domain, teachers’ need a repertoire of
tools and techniques to adress the particular content they are teaching. They may have supplementary materials like
films, posters, or extra readings; they may have lesson plans incorporating a
range of activities such as simulations or modeling; they may have outside
experts they call on for particular pieces of the curriculum.
At a more detailed
level, a teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy extends to how she presents and
explains material, how she organizes a lab activity to enhance learning, and
how she designs group and individual assignments. These are all closely
connected to subject matter, probably falling into what Shulman called
pedagogical content knowledge.
Knowledge of technology
Technology is a term
that can be used broadly to describe tools and techniques used for practical
purposes. Derry (1999) describes the difference between
science and technology this way:
Science is a way of
understanding the world...Technology, on the other hand, is a way of
controlling the world, a set of tools that we can use to make things happen as
we wish. So science and technology can sometimes be separate and unrelated...
More typically, science and technology are highly intetwined. (p. 133-4)
In this broad
definition, technology includes tools and machines, but also methods, skills
and processes. Using the expansive
definition, it is hard to distinguish knowledge of technology from knowledge of
curriculum and pedagogy, since both are kinds of technologies. In this case, TPCK and PCK merge, since
pedagogy itself is a form of technology.
For clarity, we will
confine the use of the word technology here to include only digital technologies
of recent vintage, like computers, hand-held devices, digital cameras, and
software to make all of these devices function. It is with respect to these
technologies that we use the concept of TPCK. As to these, teachers need
knowledge of what they are, what is available, and how to use them. This is a
very large set of possibilities, for not only are there many technologies tht
fall into this list, but they change rapidly and regularly. What is “high-tech” today is outdated
tomorrow.
What does this rapid
turn-over of devices and software mean for teacher knowledge? It is unreasonable to expect science teachers
to be “techies” who keep up with every current trend in technology. What, then, is reasonable?
A proposal for reasonable and manageable technology
knowledge for a science teacher might have these characteristics: he or she
should be a regular computer user who knows how to use and manage her own
computer; she should be able to troubleshoot problems she encounters on her own
computer; she should be able to approach a new technology with confidence and
should know where to get help; she should be willing to try new technologies,
even if not first in line to do so.
This list is vague
and does not include specifics. Should a science teacher know how to set up a
wireless network? To make video DVD’s or
edit video? To create web pages? These
are specifics that depend on the teacher’s circumstance and what is available
in the school. Although there are lists
of skills and dispositions that define adequate technology knowledge for
teachers (eg., International
Society for Technology in Education, 2000) what is suggested here is that no
list of skills is appropriate for all teachers because technology availability
and use is highly dependent on context.
It is much easier to make a list of what a high school science teacher
needs to know about biology than about technology.
Technology pedagogical content knowledge
All of this knowledge
comes together when a teacher uses technology in his teaching. This happens in
one of two ways: (a) He knows a topic or place in the curriculum that is
problematic for teaching and/or learning.
He thinks technology could be used to solve the problem because of
characteristics of technology as related to the subject. He knows what technology is available and has
an idea about how it could be used. Or, (b) He is teaching a topic in science
which is embedded in a technology or for which a technology is essential.
What is special about
this knowledge? Two characteristics are fundamental: (1) it is local and
specific; 2) it is usually developed in practice in response to specific
students and contexts.
(1) Local and
specific. TPCK is about a specific topic
within a domain using a specific technology.
There is no general version. For
example, TPCK for teaching the weather cycle could include a wide range of
technologies and models, but for a specific teacher with a specific class, it
means knowing many things in detail: e.g., that her 9th grade
students studied weather in the 6th grade; that the American
Meteorological Society web site has a set of tools that make generating simple
weather maps possible; that her classroom has an internet connection; that she
can get the set of laptops the days she need them, etc. It also means knowing how to design a lesson
that uses the AMS maps as a representation of some aspects of weather. For another teacher, at a different grade
level in another school, all of this would be different.
2) Knowledge such as
that described above could be taught in teacher education programs or
professional development, but two problems with trying to teach such specific
content are (a) it may prove to be useless to some or all of the students when
they become teachers and find that they do not have access to the technologies
required or that the class they are teaching does not include the topic they
learned about; and (b) it is impossible to “cover” the terrain of science to
teach either TPCK or PCK across the domain.
Only with a PCK class to accompany every science class a prospective
teacher takes in college could the content be taught in a comprehensive way
(assuming that someone was available to teach such classes who had such a
wealth of PCK across subjects and topics.)
This is very specfic
knowledge, constituting a repertoire of
tools a techniques, rather than a list of items. What works for one teacher in one school for
one class may be impossible for another, even someone in apparently similar
circumstances. Part of this knowledge is knowing what will not work, what is
outside of one’s repertoire of technologies for teaching.
This knowledge allows
teachers to pinpoint spots in the curriculum where a different approach to
teaching might help. Knowing what to do in these hard spots is part of what
Shulman called pedagogical content knowledge.
Adding technology to the mix, we identify this as TPCK – knowing the
places in the subject matter where technology can be used to improve pedagogy
Discussion
Describing or
discussing PCK in science parallels the problem of describing science
itself. Even if we know exactly what it
is when we see it (a doubtful claim itself), there is so much of it, and it is
so varied across the domains of science, that discussing PCK in general is not
especially helpful. PCK is made up of
very specific knowledge that happens to live in the boundary between subject
matter and teaching. Technological
pedagogical content knowledge names one small part of PCK, special because it
involves knowledge of of digital technology.
What can we say in
general about T-PCK? Although it would clearly be useful for teachers to have
knowledge that lets them use technology effectively in science teaching, they
face the same problem with technology as with other tools, techniques, and even
subject matters for teaching. Because
there is not enough time to learn everything it would be useful to know – or
even to learn everything that others could teach them (a subset of the former),
the best teachers can do is “equip” themselves to learn from their practice and
from ongoing education. Teachers must choose what technologies to use, a choice
based on availability and their own knowledge along with factors outlined above
related to science itself. Here we see
something of a vicious circle – teachers choose technology based on knowledge,
yet sometimes the only way they can gain knowledge is through experience. T-PCK
in science depends on teachers’ learning about technology in their
undergraduate education, in professional development, or on their own
initiative.
What should be taught
in preservice and inservice education for teachers? Time is not elastic and it is limited, so
choices must be made. Can teacher
educators now assume that their students – both prospective and practicing
teachers – have basic technology skills such as using email, searching the web,
creating a web page, using a word processor? On what content-specific
technology should teacher educators focus?
Since time is limited, if we add a technology to the semester or
session, what do we remove? More importantly, can there be general answers to
these questions?
As with other issues
for teacher education, detailed answers to these questions are surely local.
There is one general proposition, however, that may hold up to scrutiny: in
formal inservice and preservice education, teachers can learn to learn about
teaching with technology. No matter what technologies are used or what topics
are taught, the goal can be to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to try new technologies and to learn from their own experience; to
anticipate problems that may arise and to persist in using technology in ways
that support their students’ learning.
References
Daehler, K. R., & Shinohara, M. (2001). A
complete circuit is a complete circle: Exploring the potential of case
materials and methods to develop teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge of science. Research in
Science Education, 31(2), 267-288.
de Jong, O., van
Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8),
947064.
Derry, G. N. (1999). What science is and how it works.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Grossman, P. L.
(1989). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for
secondary english. Journal of Teacher
Education, 40(5), 24-31.
Grossman, P. L.
(1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher
knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
International Society
for Technology in Education. (2000). National
educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project.
Loughran, J., Milroy,
P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science
teachers' pedagogical content knowledge through pap-ers. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 290-307.
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. 95-132). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Niess, M. L. (2005).
Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing
a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
Shulman, L. S.
(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
van Driel, J. H.,
Verloop, N., & Vos, W. d. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
Zohar, A., &
Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers' pedagogical knowledge in the context
of teaching higher-order thinking. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595-1620.
[i] Information about
these technologies can be found at the following Web sites: Model-It™:
http://goknow.com/Products/Model-It/
Virtual Frog:
http://froggy.lbl.gov/virtual/
Cooties™:
http://goknow.com/Products/Cooties/
BIOKids:
ttp://www.biokids.umich.edu/
WISE:
http://wise.berkeley.edu/
[ii]
SimCalc information is available at http://www.simcalc.umassd.edu/.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar