Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in a collaborative school-based professional development program for inquiry-based science teaching

As the above review shows, the development of school-based university-school collaborative efforts to articulate and develop teachers’ PCK and SMK for the design and implementation of inquiry-based instruction is a successful strategy. This study seeks to answer the following two further research questions.

To what extent can the process of collaborative school-based professional development advocated in this research help within-school communities of primary teachers to develop SMK and PCK for teaching science through inquiry?
What challenges do teachers and teacher educators encounter in applying this model within the school context?

Teacher educator’s tasks

Collaborating with teachers;
Coaching and facilitating teachers to develop and integrate knowledge bases;
Facilitating peer interaction and collaboration;
Providing technical advice

Observing and supporting

Facilitate teacher evaluation

Stage in the teaching cycle

Planning
1. Selecting the theme/problems for scientific inquiry
2.Eliciting students’ alternative conceptions
3. Setting learning objectives and designing inquiry tasks
4. Preparing lessons (e.g., resource management)

Teachers’ tasks

Researching knowledge of learners
Clarifying their own SMK
Making connections with different knowledge bases to develop PCK
Interacting and collaborating with peers and teacher educators to enrich PCK

Applying PCK
Reflecting on their SMK and PCK
Supporting peers in teaching

Reflecting on their SMK and PCK in relation to student learning
Suggesting future development and changes

Implementation
5. Delivering instructions, guiding students to learn through inquiry, providing explanations

Evaluation
Evaluating teaching and learning

Table 1: A tentative model of collaborative school-based professional development for GS teachers

In this study, primary school teachers collaborated with a teacher educator, the author of this article, to develop and reflect upon lessons that promote inquiry-based science teaching. To guide the actions of both parties, the following professional development model was proposed.

Both the teachers and the teacher educator were engaged in the same teaching cycle, but their focus was different. The teachers were concerned with how they could make use of the inquiry-based approach to teach science and what knowledge, particularly SMK and PCK, they needed to develop to do so. The teacher educator was focused on how in-service teachers can be helped to develop the necessary knowledge base to teach through inquiry and what role the teacher educator plays in this process. Thus, this research can be considered to be both ethnographic and interpretive. The researcher experienced the process of knowledge construction and reflection with the teachers, while collecting data for his own research.

Two learning communities were established in two different schools. The panel heads of the two schools had previously participated in an in-service training workshop on inquiry-based teaching and had tried out some of the workshop activities in their classrooms. Both expressed interest in developing the capability to implement inquiry-based teaching in their schools. Four teachers were involved in School A, and six in School B, all co-opted by their panel heads. They were thoroughly briefed on the research framework so that they were clear about the roles expected of them. The School A teachers worked with Primary 3 students (aged 8-9) and the School B teachers with Primary 5 (aged 10-11). The topics chosen were, respectively, the expansion and contraction of air and electricity. For each school, a wide range of evidence was collected from the following sources.

1. Lesson planning meetings (LPM)

Lesson planning meetings (LPM) were conducted with the teaching team to plan the lessons. In the first meeting, apart from brainstorming how the lesson could be designed, the teachers were encouraged to elicit the students’ conceptions and misconceptions by designing a pre-lesson test. This test was also utilized by the teacher educator to explore the teachers’ SMK, so as to help them clarify their own understanding of the topic. The same test was administered to the students after the lessons. In subsequent meetings, the teachers suggested inquiry activities to develop concepts relevant to the topic. These meetings served the dual purpose of eliciting teachers’ PCK in the form of teaching ideas, and further developing those ideas and their underlying knowledge bases through collaboration with the teacher educator. All the meetings were videotaped, and transcribed for further analysis.

2. Field notes of observers (VRL/FN)

Field notes were taken by the teacher educator who observed some of the lessons. Records were made of teachers’ instructions and explanations, and teacher-student and researcher-student interactions in the inquiry process, with particular focus on identifying teachers’ SMK and PCK. All lessons were videotaped to supplement the field notes.

3. Teachers’ reflection journals (TJ)

Teachers wrote reflection journals shortly after each lesson. These journals were divided into three parts: (1) teachers’ SMK for teaching through inquiry; (2) teachers’ conceptions of students’ knowledge and their ability to inquire; and (3) teaching strategies and their perceived effectiveness. The teachers were encouraged to substantiate their reflections with specific classroom episodes.

4. Team evaluation meeting (TEM)

Team evaluation meetings were held to analyze the post-test results, facilitate the in-depth sharing of teachers’ reflections, and discuss further improvements to the lesson design and instructions.

5. Teachers’ questionnaire (TQ)

Anonymous teachers’ questionnaires with items ranked on a 5-point Likert scale were administered after the evaluation meetings to elicit teachers’ perceptions of the study outcomes in five aspects: their development of SMK, their understanding of students’ knowledge and skills, their perceived knowledge of instruction design, their confidence about teaching through inquiry, and collaboration with the teacher educator. The questionnaire items were reviewed by two science educators to ensure face validity. The analysis presented here focuses on the transcribed video-records of the LPMs, TJs, and TEMs, supplemented with the field notes taken by the teacher educator on six observed lessons. These qualitative data, including statements made by teachers/students/the teacher educator or dialogues among these parties, were read thoroughly before coding them as short episodes. These episodes were classified into three categories that reflected (1) teachers’ SMK, (2) their understanding of students’ conceptions and reasoning, and (3) their understanding of their own instructional strategies. The latter two reflect teachers’ PCK.