What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors

Hava Greensfeld; Tirza Gross

doi:10.29333/ejmste/8473

Full Text (PDF)

Hava Greensfeld ¹ ^* , Tirza Gross ² ³

More Detail

¹ Michlalah Jerusalem College, ISRAEL² David Yellin College, ISRAEL³ Herzog College, ISRAEL^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study concerns the importance of assessing teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and it is one of the very few international studies that directly measures science teachers’ CK. We developed a comprehensive content knowledge test (CKT), relating to the content strand: states of matter. The study compared teachers from the Jewish and the Arab sectors in three stages of professional development: Results showed that all participants’ CK level was low (M = 61.3%). Comparison between the sectors showed that CK scores among the Arab pre-service and science teachers were significantly higher than CK scores among the Jewish pre-service and science teachers. Our study is an example of a direct CK assessment of teachers that provides valuable diagnostic information. Its dismal findings illuminate the need for innovative methods to measure teachers’ CK directly in various disciplines, and contributes strong impetus for a renewed focus on the training and professional development of teachers.

Keywords

content knowledge
science teachers
states of matter
teachers’ assessment

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2020, Volume 16, Issue 10, Article No: em1885

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

Publication date: 22 Aug 2020

Article Views: 1872

Article Downloads: 1047

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T. (2008). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17‐year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20239
Ayas, A., Özmen, H., & Çalik, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the PNM at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 265-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9167-x
Aydeniz, A., & Kotowski, E. L. (2012). What do middle school students know about the particular nature of matter after instruction? Implications for practice. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00120.x
Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: A research annual, 1991: teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Baluyut, J. Y., & Holme, T. A. (2019). Eye tracking student strategies for solving stoichiometry problems involving particulate nature of matter diagrams. Chemistry Teacher International, 1(1), 20180003. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2018-0003
Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling? Teaching and teacher Education, 27(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.015
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Bloom, B., Englhart, M. D., Frust, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1- Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Boothe, J. R., Barnard, R. A., Peterson, L. J., & Coppola, B. P. (2018). The relationship between subject matter knowledge and teaching effectiveness of undergraduate chemistry peer facilitators. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 276-304. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00171A
Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish pupils’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9003-9
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, P. F., Rust, A. H., Nishio, M., DePiper, J. N., Smith, T. M., Frank, T. J., … Choi, Y. (2014). The Relationship between teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ perceptions, and student achievement. Journal of Research in Mathematical Education, 45(4), 419-459. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0419
Carr, E. P. (2017). Creating a model of conceptual change (Doctoral dissertation), Dublin City University.‏
Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students’ understanding of structure-property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699-721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21093
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
Demircioglu, G., & Yadigaroglu, M. (2014). A Comparison of level of understanding of student teachers and high school students related to the gas concept. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2890-2894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.675
Demirdogen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Koseglu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z
Etkina, E., Gitomer, D., Iaconangelo, C., Phelps, G., Seeley, L., & Vokos, S. (2018). Design of an assessment to probe teachers’ content knowledge for teaching: An example from energy in high school physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010127-1-0127-20. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010127
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 3-57. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X020001003
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed064p695
Großschedl, J., Welter, V., & Harms, U. (2019). A new instrument for measuring pre-service biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: The PCK-IBI. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56, 402-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21482
Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Israel’s Ministry of Education, the Division of Planning and Curriculum Development (2015). The science curriculum. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.il/mazhap/science/professions-Curricula/Pages/curriculum.aspx
Jüttner, M., Boone, W., Park, S., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9157-y
Karsli, B. F., Ayas, A., & Çalik, M. (2020). Effects of 5Es learning model on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding and science process skills: A case of gases and gas laws. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 85(4), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.2298/jsc190329123d
Kind, V. (2014). A degree is not enough: A quantitative study of aspects of pre-service science teachers’ chemistry content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1313-1345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.860497
Kirbulut, Z. D., & Geban, O. (2014). Using three-tier diagnostic test to assess students’ misconceptions of states of matter. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 509-521. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1128a
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kruse, R. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2005). A comparison study: Assessing teachers’ conceptions with the chemistry concepts inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1246-1250. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1246
Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2015). The status of preservice science teacher education: A global perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9422-7
Maerten‐Rivera, J. L., Huggins‐Manley, A. C., Adamson, K., Lee, O., & Llosa, L. (2015). Development and validation of a measure of elementary teachers’ science content knowledge in two multiyear teacher professional development intervention projects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 371-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21198
Markic, S., Eilks, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hugerat, M., Kortam, N., Dkeidek, I., & Hofstein, A. (2016). One country, two cultures – a multi-perspective view on Israeli chemistry teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055423
McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2013). Assessing teachers’ science content knowledge: A strategy for assessing depth of understanding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 717-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9342-3‏
Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739-744. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p739
National Academies, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council‏, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education‏, Board on Science Education‏, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, (1996). National science education standards (Ch. 6, pp. 106-206.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
Özalp, D., & Kahveci, A. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of student misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter from ontological perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 619-639. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00096C
Özmen, H., & Naseriazar, A. (2018). Effect of simulations enhanced with conceptual change texts on university students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(1), 121-137.‏ https://doi.org/10.2298/jsc161222065o
Pabuccu, A., & Erduran, S. (2016). Investigating students’ engagement in epistemic and narrative practices of chemistry in the context of a story on gas behavior. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 523-531.‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00011H
Pitjeng-Mosabala, P., & Rollnick, M. (2018). Exploring the development of novice unqualified graduate teachers’ topic-specific PCK in teaching the particulate nature of matter in South Africa’s classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 742-770.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1446569
Pope, A. (1711). An essay on criticism (1 ed.). London: Lewis.
RAMA, The National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (2016). Research findings from the OECD program for international student assessment (PISA) 2015 for Israel. Retrieved from http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Rama/PISA_2015_Summary_English.pdf
Rice, D. C. (2005). I didn’t know oxygen could boil! What preservice and inservice elementary teachers answers to ‘simple’ science questions reveal about their subject matter knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1059-1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069426
Reichel, N., & Arnon, S. (2009). A multicultural view of the good teacher in Israel. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 59-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802661329
Rollnick, M., & Mavhunga, E. (2016). The place of subject matter knowledge in teacher education. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 423-452). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_11
Sadler, P. M., Sonnet, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213477680
Scheiner, T., Montes, M. A., Godino, J. D., Carrillo, J., & Pino-Fan, L. R. (2019). What makes mathematics teacher knowledge specialized? Offering alternative views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9859-6
Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., ... & Santillan, M. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. MT21 Report. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 32(12), 53-85.‏
Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significance. In G. W. Ford, & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Schwartz, P., & Barbera, J. (2014). Evaluating the content and response process validity of data from the chemical concepts inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 630-640. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400716p
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Skamp, K. (2009). Atoms and molecules in primary science: What are teachers to do? Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 69, 5-16. ISSN 1445-9698.
Tatar, E. (2011). Prospective primary school teachers’ misconceptions about states of matter. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(2), 197-200. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Crowley, J., Yung, B. H. W., & Othman, J. (2010). Evaluating students’ understanding of kinetic theory concepts relating to the states of matter, changes of state and diffusion: A cross-national study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9166-y
Tretter, T. R., Brown, S. L., Bush, W. S., Saderholm, J. C., & Holmes, V. L. (2013). Valid and reliable science content assessments for science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 269-295.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9299-7
Tsaparlis, G. (2018). Challenges, barriers, and achievements in chemistry education: The case of Greece. In C. Cox & W. E. Schatzberg (Eds.), International perspectives on chemistry education research and practice. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 1293, (pp. 93-110). Washington, DC: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1293.ch007
van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed.) (Vol. II., pp. 848-870). New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-415-62937-9. ‏
Yalçınkaya, E., & Boz, Y. (2015). The effect of case-based instruction on 10th grade students’ understanding of gas concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 104-120.‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00156g
Zuzovsky, R. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic versus linguistic factors on achievement gaps between Hebrew-speaking and Arabic-speaking students in Israel reading literacy and in mathematics and science achievements. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.02.004

How to cite this article

APA

Greensfeld, H., & Gross, T. (2020). What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10), em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

Vancouver

Greensfeld H, Gross T. What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(10):em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

AMA

Greensfeld H, Gross T. What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(10), em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

Chicago

Greensfeld, Hava, and Tirza Gross. "What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 10 (2020): em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

Harvard

Greensfeld, H., and Gross, T. (2020). What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10), em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473

MLA

Greensfeld, Hava et al. "What Do We Know about Teachers’ Knowledge? Assessing Primary Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge in the Jewish and Arab Sectors". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 10, 2020, em1885. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8473