Journal of Science Teacher Education 11(1): 27-46, 2000, (©2000 Kitover Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands, Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Elementary Science Teacher Educators: Knowing our Students Deborah C. Smith Deparunent of Teacher Education, Michigan State Univesity, Fast Lansing, Michigan, 48823, USA In the last decade, studies documenting teachers’ knowledge and its uses have contributed to our understanding of the complexity of teaching (.g., Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, & Carey, 1993; Smith & Neale, 1991). In science, these studies have described both novice (€.g.. Abell & Smith, 1994; Carisen, 1993) and experienced (e.g., Hashweh, 1985; Lederman, 1992) teachers’ knowledge and its uses in teaching, Studies of the kinds of content and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK} (Shulman, 1986) that science teachers use for helping elementary students ‘understand important scientific ideas have been of special interest to science teacher educators Asascience teacher educator, Ihave used the PCK construct as both a map for the design of my senior science methods course (TE 401) and as a mirror within ‘which to reflect on my work. In this article I first describe the current content of the ‘course. Next, I consider the transformations of that content into pedagogical content knowledge that I find useful in my teaching (Abell, Magnusson, & Smith, 1996). ‘Then, I provide examples of three kinds of pedagogical content knowledge about preservice elementary teachers that inform my planning and teaching with them. Finally, I suggest some reasons whiy building a common knowledge base about content and pedagogical content knowledge for science teacher education might be beneficial ‘The Content of Elementary Science Teacher Education: TE 401 Describing pedagogical content knowledge of any kind presupposes a content that is the goal ofthe teaching and the focus of transformations into PCK. In the case provided here, the content of the methods course is the knowledge that preservice elementary teachers need for teaching elementary science, The learners for whom T am transforming that content are seniors in a five-year elementary teacher education program, In identifying the content for my work with future teachers, I draw on several sources of knowledge about elementary science teaching. First, I think about the knowledge that has proven important and useful in my own science teaching with ‘This work was funded by a Spencer Foundation postdoctoral fellowship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Spencer Foundation,28 DEBORAH. SMITH children (Smith, 1999, Second, Iyemember the kinds of knowledge that [have seen experienced elementary teachers construct and use, in learning to teach science in ‘ways that are compatible with the new reforms (e.g., 8s documented in Eberhart, Phithower, Sabatino, Smith & Waterhouse, 1990; Smith, Christensen, Henriksen, & Wesley, under review). Finally, I draw on my knowledge ofthe research on science teachers’ knowledge and its Telationships to students’ learning in science (e.g., Andetson and Smith, 1987; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scot, 1994), Out of those knowledge bases, I have chosen several kinds of knowledge as the goals of ‘my coursework with teacher education (TE) students. Si ific Content Knowledge for Teaching Elementary Science want my students to construct conceptual understanding of substantive scientific ideas (Schwab, 1978), in at least one area of science during the course. For example, we might focus on theories accounting for the behavior of light, and how they have changed historically (McKenzie, 1988). For many of my students, this will be the first time they have deeply understood any scientific ideas. In addition, I want them to know about the form of important scientific ideas as well as knowledge of those ideas. I want students to know that understanding something important in science involves more than knowing the term or being able to give the definition. Rather, it usually involves the flexible use of theories and data to explain some interesting and important phenomena (D. Smith & C. Anderson, 1999), In the process of coming to understand something well in science, I want my students to modify their ideas about the syntax of scientific work (Driver, Leach, Millar & Scott, 1996; Schwab, 1978), i, of ways that scientific knowledge is generated and collectively negotiated in a scientific community (e.g., Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Longino, 1990). IF they believe that scientific knowledge is rigid and unchanging, there is little possibility that they will convey an image of dynamic and changing theories with children (D. Smith & Anderson, 1999; Songer and Linn, 1991), Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching Elementary Science want students (0 construct useful pedagogical content knowledge of the conteat area that we will be teaching children in the field placements during the course. One kind of PCK involves knowing children and the ideas they bring to Iessors, and the usual barriers they encounter in understanding conceptual content. Before our preservice students plan orteach, they read about children’s usual naive ideas in the topic — for example, that shadows get pushed out of the front of your body by the sun (DeVries, 1986). They learn about state and national reform documents and standards (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996), and how to use them to inform their choices of developmentally appropriate science content. They prepare an interview (o find out about those ideas, analyze what children have told them, and use that information to design lessons,CONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 29 Another kind of PCK that I want students to develop is a beginning set of teaching strategics that facilitate children’s learning, For example, they consider the teacher's role of posing discrepant events that provide puzzling evidence for children to consider (Anderson and Smith, 1987; Driver, eta, 1994). This kind of PCK includes knowledge of strategies for helping girls (e.g., Watts & Bentley, 1994), minorities and bilingual students (e.., Rosebery, Warren & Conant, 1990) and special education students (e-g., Anderson and Fetters, 1993) engage and learn in science, ‘When students are designing curriculum activities and materials, { want them to begin to build a curviculum repertoire in the content area we are teaching. They consider the usefulness of objects like pancake turners that have holes in them and make surprising shadows (e.g., Eberhart eta, 1990), and how the shadows with “holes” of light in them can provoke children’s thinking about where the light “goes through.” [As part of students’ work on the tescher’s role in selecting and designing materials and activities, [also want them to construct an initial understanding of the role of representations, examples, and metaphors in facilitating children’s understanding. For example, teachers make choices about ways to represent light, by using yellow ribbons on black paper or spaghetti stuck into clay (Smith, 1999) ‘These representations have both benefits and potential dangers, and teachers need {0 be able to weigh both, in selecting them. In constructing pedagosical content knowledge, I want students to have PCK notonly of the substantive content, but also of the syntactical content, For example, ‘we consider possible orientations that elementary teachers can take towards teaching science (Anderson & Smith, 1987), and how our own stances change over the course. Students observe videotapes of experienced science teachers and discuss ‘which approach(es) they think a teacher is taking, e.g, an activities-based or content mastery approach. If we take these goals as the content of elementary science teacher education, then what would a science teacher educator need to know about his/her students, and their entering conceptions, to be effective in helping them make progre: towards accomplished science teaching knowledge and practices? Next, I describe three kinds of PCK about preservice elementary teachers" entering conceptions and experiences that I have found useful in my work. PCK for Science Teacher Educators We know quite a lot about the kinds of content understandings that children bring to school science lessons (e.g, Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien, 1985) and are beginning to understand what they believe about how scientists work (c.g., Driver, etal., 1996). If we were planning to teach fifth grade children about photosynthesis, for example, we would have well-documented information about their usual naive ideas about sources of food for plants (Bell, 1985), and teaching strategies, curriculum materials, and representations that are effective in helping them modify those ideas and construct new ones (Roth, 1997),30 DEBORAH. SMITH As elementary science teacher educators, We could take a similar view of our roles as teacher educators helping future teachers to construct knowledge for elementary science teaching (Widen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). We might ‘expect that knowing about (1) the conceptions that our students bring to the science methods classroom door, (2) strategies for teaching them, (3) curriculum materials and activities that are effective in helping them construct knowledge of children's naive ideas, and (4) representations of content that help them learn would be important for facilitating their growth as clementary scicnce teachers. Magnusson (1996) has outlined a model of science teacher educators’ pedagogical content knowledge that provides a map for researchers and instructors interested in these issues. In this article, T focus on just one of those categories of science teacher educators’ PCK (#1 above), what Shulman (1986, p. 9) has called“... an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the ‘conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them (0 the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons.” For example, what do preservice teachers believe about how scientists work or how learners come to understand scientific ideas? What do we know about their backgrounds in earning science? What do they bring in their conceptions of learning to teach science’? How would knowledge of our students’ entering beliefs and knowledge be helpful for science teacher educators? Tn the following sections, I describe three kinds of knowledge about my students that inform both my views of what is difficult for them and my planning and teaching with them, Figure 1 provides an overview of the content of my elementary science methods course and the three forms of PCK for knowing. preservice elementary teachers that I will discuss. Context for the Study and Sources of Data The work described here is part of a larger two-year study of preservice elementary teachers in a five-year eacher preparation program, My colleagues and I studied students in their senior year course (TE 401) on “teaching subject matter to diverse learners” and students who took a special physics course concurrently. We interviewed students before and after the courses, and copied students’ work with their permission. Class sessions were also videotaped. For the work reported here, have chosen one student — Karen — to illustrate the kinds of knowledge and beliefs that many of the students brought with them to their course on learning to teach science. Karen had encountered many roadblocks in her own school learning, especially in science. She had persisted in becoming a learner despite those experiences. She was articulate about her struggles and her learning, and made considerable progress in constructing new knowledge and ways Of thinking, over the semester, Excerpts from her journal and interviews are used31 CONTENT AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ave soja pepe iar 28pasouy stomonpy 4 ate) ouatog Cappuowary *{ 24g32 DEBORAHC. SMITH here to highlight the kinds of knowledge about preservice elementary teachers that | find useful and why they are important to my teaching and their learning. Three Examples of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Knowing Preservice Teachers PCK for Knowing Students: Preservice Teachers’ Backgrounds as Science Learners Knowledge about my students’ histories as science learners has become of increasing importance to me, because it has implications for several of the categories of knowledge that I want them to construct for their elementary science teaching (see Smith, Conway, & Levine-Rose, 1995). Farly in the semester, I ask them to write an autobiography of their experiences in K-16 science classrooms. These autobiograpies enable me to know my students personally, respond privately to their writing, and look for patterns in their experiences, They reveal whether any students consider themselves to be “successful” students in science, and how many students lack confidence in their abilities to lear science, much less to teach science. They also serve as the focus of class discussions about why learners have aahard time understanding science and what teachers can do to help them learn with more success In these autobiographies, I find that students often do not remember science elementary school. If they do, they remember reading from texibooks and answering ‘questions. For example, Karen wrote’ Snudents would take turns reading each chapter out loud. Next, the teacher would write out the “important” facts we would be tested on, then we would copy them down in our notebooks. For the next day, we were expected 10 have studied the notes we took the day before and he/ she would question us on them, The cycle would then repeat itself. (1/L1/ 96) A few of them will have participated in science activities (what they refer to as “hands on”), and some of these will have been engaging and fun (an important criterion for my students). Hovsever, they typically will not be able to tell me winat they learned in those activities, Many will have concluded what Karen did: “What learned about science in elementary school is that you have to be smattin order to learn it” (1/1196) In their middle school or junior high school experiences, they report that selence became harder, more demanding, and less comfortable for them. There was lots of memorizing terms and definitions, lectures and notetaking, tests and (usually) anxiety and failure. Karen talked about taking open book tests in middle school: “The night before each fest I would read over the chapter/notes I took waiting for the famous “click” to happen, but it never did. What was DNA and RNA, funky ladder thing with sugar, ete.?” (1/11/96)CONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 33, ‘There will be a few students who “did experiments” in their science classes, By this, have found that TE students usually mean they followed directions to produce results that confirmed (or sometimes, didn’t) what they had already been told. The exceptions to these stories of textbooks, lectures, and cookbook experiments are often stories about teachers with great personal charisma who were ‘more engaging than others and who treated students with more kindness and support. In high school and college science courses, the story is uch the same. Science usually was boring, dry, lecture-driven, and consisted of memorizing and tests, (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). If there were experiments, they were again procedures to be followed in order to get the “right answer.” Karen describes her experience in ‘a physics course on light and color this way: After Isat through the first class, I thought to myself, Lam never going to learn this material, The teacher presented the information we were supposed to learn similar (sic) to the way my middle school teachers did. All the professor would do is write notes on the board, hanily explaining them, and jrom this we were to copy them down, study them, and somehow learn the material. (1/11/96) Students’ own ideas were not the focus of any talk that went on, and student talk of any kind was rare (Lemke, 1990). The exceptions are, again, teachers who were charismatic and engaging, and who provided activites that were “hands on.” Students are generally defailed and eloquent about what they didn't understand, but vague about anything that they did understand from these experiences. Karen speaks for many of my students. who feel that there was something missing in their science learning experiences: Just because I did not do well in science during middle schoo! does not ‘mean I hated it. I was intrigued by it, how things worked, why things happened, what made what, but T was not given the opportunity 10 properly learn it. 1 always hoped a teacher would sit down with me and really explain the concepts to me instead of just having the class copy down notes and try to learn fromt them on your own. (1/11/86) My uses of PCK about preservice teachers’ backgrounds as science learners. Why is this knowledge about my students important to me, as their teacher? First, I know — early in the semester — that what they bring to our classroom is not memories of “hot cognition” (Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993) and success, but of cold sludge and failure. The cold sludge is the built up residue of many experiences in which they were bored, scared, confused and ashamed of their inability to do well in science, In addition, most of my TE students are young women and these experiences have been inextricably woven into their identities abou: who they are, ‘whether they belong in sciemific arenas, and what they can do, This has implication for their ability and willingness to see themselves as successful sciece teachers in the future, and for their abilities to see girls in their classes as potentially successful34 DEBORAH. SMITH in science, Karen is eloquent in putting this into words A slow sick feeling crept from my toes to the roots of my hair when Dr Smith informed the class we would be teaching a whole unit on shadows to a group of second graders. I’m dead, I thought to myself, the children are going to find out I know nothing about this subject and are going to eat me alive. (3/15/96) Remember that Karen had already taken a college course on optics. This Knowledge about my students is imporiant because it provides me with a clearer picture of the problems we will face and their sources. Second, knowledge about my students’ experiences in science is important because it guides my planning. Tknow that we need to work on their images of what science learning is and can be, and of their images of themselves as learners of science, because they are going to have tore-construct and teach themselves science content forthe rest oftheir teaching careers. We read Tobias’ (1991) piece on what makes science hard and lear that many other people, including people with Ph.Ds, have a hard time understanding science in courses as they are traditionally taught ‘We watch the Private Universe videotapes (Schneps, 1989) and learn thatthe “best and brightest” at Harvard University can complete their education without understanding fundamental scientific ideas none course [cannot undo years of failure to learn the most basic of scientific ideas. I they are to understand those ideas well enough to teach them with children, they will need new confidence and new ways of teaching themselves stience. So, 1 need to provide the environment for. and the encouragement for, learning to learn soience in new ways (as Well as for learning to teach science in ways they hadn't expected). For example, I engage students in scientific activites that are similar to those that I use wth children, so that they can lear science in reform-minded ways. We read children's storybooks about shadows, and draw and write about how shadows get bigger. Students then test their ideas with materials and document their findings for later discussion. Counter evidence about themselves as learners is important for many of my students. In our first class, Karen described inher journal how making shadows felt As soon as I got to the spot where I was working, I shined the flashlight ‘on my pop can, moved it closer, then away, and abserved what went on. A feeling of understanding and excitement filled my body as I witnessed the shadow growing larger when I moved the flashlight closer to the can. (1115196) Talso need to work on my students” images of what science learning is and can be, because they will inevitably reproduce in their own future classrooms What has happened to them (even though they know they want to do something radicall different), unless an alternative is available and viable for them (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Stofflet & Stoddard, 1994), Karen talks about this in herCONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENTKNOWLEDGE 35 self-assessment, atthe end of our work: Before 1 100k this class t thought “real” science could only be learned through io ways: memorization of facts, and by carrying out step specific experiments in which every participant would get the same result... 1 now have acquired information on how to format science lessons which allow children to take on active roles in each activity through the exploration of materials, making conjectures, testing conjectures, representing data, formatting group discussions, and doing journal entries. (3/15/96) Formany of my students this kind of progress turns out to be more complicated than one might expect, because of the ideas they bring in another area — knowledge about science and scientific work. Next, I describe my students’ views in that area PCK for Knowing Students: Preservice Teachers’ Ideas about Science and. Scientists at Work [find that i is important for me to find out what my students think about scientists and their work (see Abell & Smit, 1994; Lederman, 1992; Smith, Conway & Levine-Rose, 1995). I often have them draw a scientist and describe what that person is doing and why he/she is doing it.I also ask them to write about what scientists do and how they know what they know. Tn pre-course interviews, T ask ists disagree and probe their ideas students to talk abont what happens when sc about the role of evidence and theories. In general, students believe that scientists follow specific steps inthe “scientific method” to “discover” new knowledge. The scientific method usually begins with observing some phenomenon, but students rarely give any explanation for why the scientist chose that phenomenon to observe or how she/he chose the methods 10 use, Students sometimes use words like “experimentation” in describing the scientific method, but when asked what that means, deseribe it as “trial and error.” For example, Karen responds this way, in describing what she means by “experiment”: “It could be anything, not just a lab setting. It could be cooking something you haven’t done before, experimenting with chicken, you add and take away things” (1/8/96), Students talk about scientists “making hypotheses” but, when probed, these usually curn out to mean predictions or guesses, They report that scientists collect “data” but often have vague ideas about how they decide what to collet and how, tor how this might be influenced by theoretical frameworks. The “discovery” of scientific knowledge that my students describe is usually something that scientists “see” directly in the observations or data, as if the knowledge is transmitted directly somehow to the scientists brain (as children also36 DEBORAH. SMITH think, see Carey & Smith, 1993; Driver et al., 1996). Students rarely mention disagreements of any kind among scientists. When asked about disagreements, they describe these as due to personal opinions of the scientists, not theoretical ‘commitments. For example, when asked if scientists disgree and why, Karen says: I'm sare it does (happen). They have different opinions, diferent ways people think, they see things different ways. Some people don't like new things or changes. Or. if her (the scientists) work hasn't been good inthe pas, people think this (her findings) isa luke and don’t believe her: (1/ 8/96) TE students usually believe that if scientists do disagree, they will then proceed by “tial and error” to gather more data, and eventually they will all “see” the same thing in the data, They often view the generation of scientific knowledge as taking. place in a relatively short time frame, with few disagreements (because the data are ‘obvious to anyone who sees them), and almost entirely i a rational, logical fashion. My uses of PCK about preservice teachers’ views of science and scientists Why is this knowledge about my students important io me? One reason is tha their views of science and scientists turn out to be closely linked to their views of what science learning and teaching should look like. For them, knowing what and how to observe is unproblematic, scientific knowledge is obvious to anyone who makes the observations, and very little time or confusion is involved. Thus, their expectations for science learning — both for themselves and for children — are equally straightforward and unproblematic. While this sounds contradictory to atudents’ own experiences of confusion in learning science, remember that most of their science learning experiences have been textbook and lecture based, Many are convinced that if they had just had “hands on” activities instead, they would have learned the science, because the materials and activities would have allowed them to “discover” the scientific concepts directly. So, when we begin investigating a science topic ourselves, TE students are often impatient and frustrated when things aren't obvious or don’t become clear quickly. Working on the same question/problem for more than one class period is iaken asa sign that Iam not “doing the right thing” as the teacher, or as a sign that they are, in fact, not capable of learning science. Karen’s journal entry reveals her frustration after the TE students spent two class periods exploring how a shadow ots bigger and why: feel the second day did not match up with the standards (TE student- ‘generated criteria for what makes learning science easier). even though (TE) students were given an opportunity 10 demonstrate and respond 10 things said, [believe the discussion got out of control and therefore did not allow me to gain knowledge from it... By the end of class, Iwas so confused all I wanted Debbie to do is go up to the board and write the facis down we need to know about shadows (something Uhate for teachers to do, but I just wanted t0 know who was right). (1/18/06)CONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 37 Encouraging students to persist, to talk about the evidence supporting or challenging different ideas, and to help each other is difficult, because they believe we are “wasting time” or “beating a dead horse:” They sometimes comment that they do not see why this is important for them, in learning to teach science, in spite of their admitted confusion and lack of knowledge about science. ‘Knowing about my students’ conceptions of scienitic work informs my choices ‘of how to spend our time. For example, students doa set of readings about scientists, ‘at work and then teach each other. They read excerpts from Cry of the Kalahari (Owens & Owens, 1984), and learn about scientists who care deeply about the lions they are studying, who lie on their bellies in the dust for hours, who work together as husband and wife and convey their emotions in their writing. They read Gruber's (1974) account of Charles Darwin's struggles to put together his ideas about evolution, the decades it took him to work them out and then make them public, his isolation from colleagues, and his fears about how his ideas would be received both by scientists and by the public. They read Gould's (1981) account of how racial and gender biases shaped the methods of measuring intelligence and filtered the interpretation of the data. They read excerpts from Keller's (1983) biography of Barbara McClintock and learn of the biases against women scientists and McClintock's passion for her work choose these readings with a purpose in mind — that of providing images of scientists and sciemtific work that are different from those that my students usually bring with thet, These stories reveal scientists who work for decades, not just days, to figure something out. They describe scientists who are confused and uncertain, and who are afraid of what others will think. In these stories, scientists don’t get their new ideas or theories straightforwardly from observations; they sometimes don't know what the data mean and have to make up plausible stores to see if they fit the data (Latour & Woolgar, 1986). They show scientists who are fallible and ‘sometimes not rational or fogical in their ideas, methods, and interpretations. They portray scientists who are different in gender, race and culture, And they show the role ofthe larger community of colleagues within which scientists write, argue, and persuade each other (e.g., MeKenzie’s {1988] account of scientists’ progress in conceptualizing light as a particle and as a wave). When students read these stories about scientists and their work, they view their own work as learners of science in our classroom in a new way. They are more comfortable with being confused, more patient with themselves and their peers when things don’t come easily. They decrease their anxious demands for me to“tell, them the right answer." And when they figure out, for example, thatthe illustrations. in a popular children’s book are inaccurate in their depiction of how shadows change and why, they are victorious, confident, and exuberant. Karen reported: After careful consideration of the illustrations in the book in addition to the experiments our group conducted in class, 1am doubiful there is a light source which can produce shadows similar to those found in the book Dreams (Keats, 1992). When testing out different theories people38 DEBORAHC. SMITH ‘came up with in our group .. no matter which way we positioned the light and the angle of i, the results would be off slightly. Our shadow could only get very close 10 the illustrations inthe book if we moved our light source just a tiny bit closer and tothe left each time she (the mouse in the story) fellto the ground. (1/23/96) Students slowly begin to believe that they can be successful science learners and can teach themselves the science they will need to know in their careers as elementary teachers. They have learned firsthand that time and persistence — just as for scientists — generate understanding, ‘This has implications for their teaching, as well. In their teaching with children, they are less likely o back away from posing interesting but puzzling problems, out of fear that children will experience frustration and failure, as they themselves did in their earlier science experiences. Karen’s critique of one of her lessons escribes it this way. 1 formatted the lesson so the children would be the ones conducting the experiment and testing out their guesses, instead of me being the one 10 tell them if they were right or wrong. This way the children are involved in more authentic scientific research rather than the old “I tll you, you listen” routine. 1 also encouraged participation from everyone in the group in order to generate a discussion centered around what all the Children think and not just on the child who figured out the “right answers, (1/22/96) ‘Students are also more likely to persist in helping children work on solving the puzzles, over several days, instead of feeling obligated to “tell them the right answer" a the end of the first lesson. In commenting on one of her first small group lessons with second graders, Karen wrote: Teaching children about light and shadows is harder than F originally thought. I believed it would be relatively easy for them to grasp the concept, “Light is blocked and that creates a shadow”. .. they are just starting 10 mention some ideas about it, but none of them has mentioned specifically “blocked” yet. (2/15/96) ‘A week later, in describing what happened in one of her lessons, she wrote: A child’s thinking can be completely backwards on a subject. Then all of a sudden, you try to understand the child's thinking processes and ask them questions to clarify their answers to you. In the midst of giving his! her answer, they give a correct explanation of the processes occurring This happened to me this week. It helped me to see the importance of not only letting children explorefexperiment, but also have him/her explain what they think is happening or taking place. (2/22/96)‘CONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 39 ‘There isa final set of knowledge and beliefs that find useful to understand — students’ ideas about what learning to teach science should involve and look like. Inext describe what I have learned and how L use that knowledge in my teaching. PCK for Knowing Students: Preservice Teachers’ Views of Learning to Teach Science When my students walk through the methods classroom door, they already have ideas about what they and I ought to be doing in the next weeks. Again, these ideas are related to their ideas about what science is and what scientists do, and to their ideas about what science teaching and learning are about. But they seem to be related to broxder conceptions about knowledge itself and how learners come to know something (Hofer & Pintich, 1997). Anderson & Smith (1987) have discussed ‘experienced elementary teachers’ orientations to teaching science. 1 am finding, that TE students bring related orientations to learning to teach seience that are fairly predictabe. ‘To get inside my students’ heads and understand their views about learning to teach science, Task them (0 draw a picture of and then waite about an “ideal” science lesson, onc in which everything i going well and they have all the supplies they need. In addition, 1 ask them to construct a CAT scan of an experienced elementary science teacher's head and write in all the kinds of knowledge they tink they will need, in order to become one. Finally, Lask them to write about what they believe they will need from the course, and how they think they will best learn to become an elementary science teacher. Finding out what my TE students think about learning to teach science is always an eye-opening experience for me. “Most of my students enter my science methods classroom door believing that ‘what they need is the opportunity to “learn by experience” or by “ trial and error” or by “exposure.” [think of this as the “discovery” orientation 10 learning to teach science. In my pre-course interview with Keren, for example, she thought it would be important for her to do science activities herself, and then do them with children She wanted to be “doing things rather than having someone explain’ in science activities. And her comments about her “ideal” science lesson and what childten should be doing were also related: Just like anyehing in life, 1 elieve that in order to make sense of something, which is something you have never encountered or heard of before, 10 Just read about it won't make it clear, but by doing it, you are discovering the unknown in a way which makes those concepts clear (1/13/96) When students apply this to learning to teach science, they usually mean that ry role asthe instructor is to arrange for them to (1) be in classrooms as soon and as ‘uch as possible, so that they are “exposed” to science teaching, (2) plan and teach lessons for whole groups, s0 that they can practice by trial and error what “real” teachers do, and (3) learn by doing, either vicariously by watching experienced teachers or by teaching lessons themselves and “discovering” effective science40 DEBORAHC. SMITH teaching. They believe that itis obvious that “hands on discovery” is what is needed in science lessons, and that how to do this will be equally obvious, if they can get into a classroom and “just do it. ‘Sometimes students also bring an expectation that there are simple, obvious and accepted rules (Berliner, 1989) for elementary science teaching (much like the straightforward processes of the scientific method), and if they just follow them, they will know how to teach science. I think of this as the “processes” orientation {o learning to teach science. It is often combined with a “content mastery” view in which students believe T will transmit the needed science content for all of kindergarten through sixth grade science, during the course. In this view, my role to give students a list of strategies and alist of activities to be taught for each of the topics in the elementary science curriculum, and then arrange for them to follow these instructions, and practice them, ‘The problem is, what I have to offer in our time together is quite different from what they want, and this poses inevitable conflicts, as they become increasingly anxious that I'm not providing it. In fact, not only am I not providing what they wanted, but I'm actively trying to complicate their ideas about what science is, what science teaching and learning are all about, what it means (0 understand something, and how we ought to be spending our time together “My uses of PCK about preservice teachers’ views of learning to teach science. ‘Why is it important for me to know about these orientations to learning to teach science that my stodents bring? First, knowing that there are similarities in their ideas about science, about science teaching and learning, and about learning to teach science helps me to think about the sequence of curriculum that I plan. For example, if Ian shift students’ conceptions of how scientists generatc knowledge, sometimes I can ereate a question about how children might generate knowledge in science lessons. From there, [can ask about implications for how knowledge about to teach science might develop. Sometimes I start our work with the readings about scientists and their work, in an attempt to broaden their views of knowiedge construction frst, before we move into thinking about teaching classroom seience, Other times, I stat with their own ‘work at learning something in science in our methods classroom, in order to raise the usual frustrations and problems about the length of time and lack of clarity involved. Then I use those issues as the focus for discussions about students” assumptions about teaching and learning science. When we read about the seientists ‘work, they recognize many of the same issues that have come up for us, as learners of science and learners of science teaching, ‘Second, knowing about the expectations that my students bring helps me to be patient and persistent with them. [ can plan for their ideas, instead of having them surprise me like hidden land mines. | know that ignoring these ideas or hoping they go away probably won't work. They will persist and become obstacles to our progress, unless I can arrange an environment and opportunity for discussing them and challenging them. I don't expect them to “get it” right away. I know that what Tm doing is quite different from what they expected, and that i's a big change for them to make progress enough to understand why we are doing what we are. I canCONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENTKNOWLEDGE 41 also acknowledge with them that it's uncomfortable and frustrating and confusing and frightening — and sometimes maddening! — not to “get what you paid for.” ‘Third, knowledge ofthis sort helps me to recognize the underlying assumptions that are common in students’ comments and questions, and to respond to the core beliefs and ideas, in addition to addressing the specifies. In that way, I can use classroom incidents at multiple levels, to emphasize common themes across our work as learners of science, as teachers of children, and as learners of teaching science. For example, when TE students are concerned that the children in the small _groups they are eaching are not “getting i" ater the firs lesson, Tean ask how long, it took Darwin to “gett,” of how long we took to figure out what was happening in our own work with light and shadows, Or, Tean share my own comparable dilemmas and struggles in choosing activities and framing discussions in our course, when they don’t “get it” immediately. [ can model conscious decisionmaking, as their teacher, to provide more time and “cover” less, so that they, as learners of science teaching, are able to learn with understanding. Discussion Ihave found my pedagogical content knowledge of (a) students” experiences as science learners, (b} their assumptions about scientists and their work, and (c) their ideas about what learning to teach science ought to involve, to be critical for our progress together. It helps me to predict problems and barriers, to plan to raise and provide time for discussing those issues, and to offer opportunities for students, to build on what they bring and construct new knowledge that they will need as elementary science teachers. Many of my students have already experienced the shame and embsrrassinent of feeling unable to understand science. They are already committed to learning to teach science so that children in their classrooms do not experience those feelings. What they need are the knowledge and tools to enact that commitment. 1 often think of my work as a science teacher educator as a kind of weaving that lam doing with students, What know about my students’ entering knowledge and beliefs influences the colors and pattems that I choose as starting places for our ‘weaving. Sometimes I choose a pattern I've woven many times before, like the autobiographies of learning in science, because it has proven to be an important start for the weaving. Its 4 way to get students involved personally with the work: almost everyone engages and contributes something to that piece of the weaving. Sometimes I re-work something I've tried before, like the readings about scientists — unraveling some of the usual pieces and weaving in new themes or new connections 8, the students’ own work as learners of science in our classroom, ‘This sometimes turns out to be too far to strech the yarn. At other times, students, may eagerly move back and forth between the two pieces and make the connections strong and vibrant. Sometimes the sequences I choose are familiar ones, like the sequence: autobiography —> leaming science ourselves —> reading about scientists. And42 DEBORAH. SMITH sometimes T make mistakes inthe choices and fearn only later that another piece ‘would have made more sense closer io the beginning ofthe wcaving. For example, sometimes reading Raizen and Mickelson’s (1994) description of the qualities of effective elementary science teachers works well up front, sometimes it works well as an ending piece. More recently, [have used it as bookends for the course, both framing our vork and serving to recapitulate what we've learned. In the same way that we need more effective ways to find out what children bring to science lessons, we nced to leara more about preservice teachers and what they bring to our science methods courses. In many ways, finding out what my students Know and believe when they walk in the methods classtoom door has complexified my life and my teaching. Sometimes, I egret asking, because what I learn means J will have to add, rearrange, modily or otherwise work harder in my planning and teaching. But itis precisely that knowledge of our students that will help us to make more effective choices about what to do and read and talk about, as ‘we support their learning (with understanding) to teach science (with understanding) ‘There are, of course, other kinds of knowledge about my students that aro useful for my planning and teaching. Knowledge about the range of conceptual understanding ofthe scientific content that we will each with children is important. When only one of twenty-four students can provide an explanation of photosynthesis, and most believe thet plants obtain their food from the soil (as children do, Roth, 1997), thishas important implications for what we do in preparing ‘o teach children. Knowing ahead of time that students do not realize that children have naive ideas about most science topics and that they therefore have litle inclination toassess children’s knowledge before teaching, also shapes my choices. ‘Their theories about the teacher's role in helping children learn seience, or their ideas about vhat kinds of curriculum activities are most appropriate for different grade levels, are all helpful in planning my work with them. But the three kinds of CK about preservice teacher’ entering conceptions that I have chosen to discuss here are the ones that have found to be the most difficult thet we usually encounter along the way, and I have focused on them for that reason. Implications for Other Aspects of Science Teacher Education In this article, I have mapped one small piece of pedagogical content knowledge fer elementary science teacher educators —-knowing students’ entering conceptions, experiences and beliefs, and the related problems they encounter in learning to texch elementary science. There are clearly other possible content maps and other pieces of the pedagogical content knowledge base that need to be explored. Making explicit the knowledge bases for our professional expertise as elementary science teacher educators would advance our understanding of our work and our students’ progress. In sharing and building on each others’ content and pedagogical content knowledge, we could identify important gaps and areas for future research, For example, how do particular tasks engage our students inCONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 43 developing knowledge about how to respond to children’s naive ideas? In thinking about the field of science education and how we can improve our collective knowledge, there are broader issues that arise. For example, as an elementary science teacher educator, T've been working 10 identity the kinds of PCK that [ use with preservice elementary teachers. Similar questions arise about the PCK needed for working with practicing elementary teachers. In what ways is this knowledge different from that used for teaching preservice teachers, and in ‘what ways might it be similar? Interins of future science teacher educators, we might explore together how to arrange opportunities for graduate students to engage with the larger professional community of science teacher educators in exploring these questions and constructing knowledge in preparation for their roles as the next generation of elementary science teacher educators. I look forward to learning from both my students and my colleagues, as we develop our understanding of these questions. Acknowledgements This work was funded by a Spencer Foundation postdoctoral fellowship. [am ‘grateful to them for this support. Many thanks to Kara Suzuka and Angia Macomber ‘who videotaped lessons, interviewed students, and most importantly shared their insights into my teaching and my students’ learning during the project. My thanks also to Charles W, Anderson, who read earlier drafts, and to several anonymous reviewers, who helped me clarify the focus of my writing References Abell, S. & Smith, D. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers" conceptions of the nature of science, International Journal of Science Education. 16(4), 415-487, Abell, S., Magnusson, S., & Smith, D. (1996). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Symposium presented atthe annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis. MO. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks {for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, C. & Fetters, M. (1996). Science education trends and special education. In C. L. Warger and M. C. Pugach (Eds ), Curriculum trends, special education, and reform: Refocusing the conversation. (pp. 33-68). New York: Teachers College Press, Anderson, C. & Smith, E, (1987). Teaching science. InV. Koehler (Fd), The educator's handbook: A research perspective. (pp. 80-111). New York: Longman. Bell, B, (1985). Students’ ideas about plant natrition: What are they? Journal of Biology Education, 193), 213-218, Berliner, D. 1989. Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for4a DEBORAH. SMITH teacher educétion and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment, Proceedings of the 1988 Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Carey, §. & Smith, C. (1993), On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist. 28(3), 235-251 arisen, W. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative ‘evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teacking. 30{5), 471-481 DeVries, R. (1986). Children’s conceptions of shadow phenomena. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112 (4) , 419-530, Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J, Mortimer, E, & Seot,P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher. 23(1), 5-12. Driver, R., Guesne, E, & Tiberghien, A. Eds.) (1985), Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Driver, R, Leach, J. Milla, R., & Scott, P. 1996, Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Eberhart, S., Philhower, M., Sabatino, M., Smith, D. & Waterhouse, R, (4990). Takirg misconceptions into account can throw new light on shadows, Powerlines HM), 1-5. Fennema, E., Franke, M, Carpenter, T. & Carey, S, (1993). Using children’s mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583. Gould, S. (1981). The mismeasure of mar. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Gruber, H. (1974), Courage and cognitive growth in children and scientists. InM. Schwebel & J. Ralph (Eds.), Piaget in the classroom. New York: Basic Books, Hashweh, M. (1985). An exploratory study of teacher knowledge and reaching: The effects of scionce teachers" knowledge of subject matter and their conceptions ef learning on their teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA. Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P, 1997, The development of epistemological theories Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 88-140. Keats, F. (1992). Dreams. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company Keller, E, (1983). A feeling for the organism: The lije and work of Barbara ‘MoCliniock. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Latour, B. & Woolgar, 8. 1986. Laboratory Life: The construction of ‘scientific facts. Princeton:, NJ: Princeton University Press. ‘Lederman, N. (1992), Students’ and teachers” conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal af Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 3314 Lemke, J. (1990), Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation Longino, H. (1990), Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonCONTENTAND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 45 University Press. Magnusson, S. (1996), Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. MeKenzie, A. (1988). The major achievements of science: The development of science from ancient times to the present. Ames, lowa: lowa State University Press National Research Council, (1996). National science education standards. ‘Washington, DC: National Academy Press ‘Owens, M. & Owens, D. (1984), Cry of the Kalahari. Boston: Houghton Mittin Company. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P, & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of 4 scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. Pintrich, P, Marx, R. & Boyle, R. 1993. Beyond cold conceptual change: ‘The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 167-200, Raizen, S, & Michelson, A. (1993). The fire of science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F (1990). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Boston: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Ine. Roth, K. (1997). Food for plants: Student text and teacher's guide. Kast Lansing, MI: Michigan State University ‘Schneps, M. (1989). A private universe, Santa Monica, CA: Pyramid Film and Video. Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (selected ‘essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ‘Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. (1997), Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Shulman, L, (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14 ‘Smith, D. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science. Annuat Yearbook, Association for Educators ‘of Teachers of Science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers ‘Smith, D. & Anderson, C. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 36 (7), 755-716. Sinith, D,, Conway, P, & Levine-Rose, 8. (1995), Re-constructing preservice teachers’ conceptions of knowing in science in a teacher education ‘course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Smith, D. & Neale, D. (1991), The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In I. Brophy (Fa), Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 2, pages 187-243.46 DEBORAH. SMITH Songer, N. & Linn, M. (1991), How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28(9), 761- 784, StofMlet, R. & Stoddard, T: (1994). The ability to understand and use ‘conceptual change pedagogy s a function of prior content learning experience Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1}, 31-51 ‘Tobias, S. (1991, May). What makes science hard? National Science ‘Teachers Association Reports!, pp. 18 and 38. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association ‘Watts, M. & Bentley, D., (1994). Humanizing and feminizing science: Reviving anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International Journal of Seience Education, 16(1), 83-97. ‘Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. 1998. A critical analysis of the rescarch on learning (o teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry, Review of Educational Research. 68(2), 130-178,