The purpose of this study was to, first, examine the potential of lesson plans (LPs) of preservice science teachers (PSTs, N = 631) as a source for gathering rich data on their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and, second, qualitatively describe PSTs’ reasons for the level of data richness in their LPs on PCK. PSTs’ handwritten LPs were analyzed through an analytic rubric, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 79 randomly selected PSTs. Results revealed a range of the level of data richness of the PSTs’ LPs on PCK and five descriptive categories about the PSTs’ reasons for the richness of LP data on PCK. The study implies that researchers should consider the inclusion of the LP as a valid tool in their triangulation design; however, they should weigh the factors that influence the collection of rich data in their PCK studies to triangulate findings better to portray a holistic picture of PCK.
Abd-El-KhalickF. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.
2.
AbellS. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416.
3.
AbellS. K.AppletonK.HanuscinD. (2010). Designing the elementary science methods course. Routledge.
4.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
5.
ArnoneK. A.de AraujoZ.HanuscinD.GillstromK. (2015, January). Assessing elementary teachers’ PCK for magnetism: Challenges and insights [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR, United States.
6.
BozkurtO.KayaO. N. (2008). Teaching about ozone layer depletion in Turkey: Pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 261–276.
7.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.
8.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
9.
BeswickK. (2006). Changes in preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs: The net impact of two mathematics education units and intervening experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 106(1), 36–47.
10.
BeyerC.DavisE. A. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517–536.
11.
BloomfieldD. (2010). Emotions and “getting by”: A pre-service teacher navigating professional experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 221–234.
12.
ChanK. K. H.HumeA. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. In HumeA.CooperR.BorowskiA. (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 3–76). Springer.
13.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory. In SmithJ. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81–110). SAGE.
14.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
15.
CresswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
16.
De JongO. (2000). The teacher trainer as researcher: Exploring the initial pedagogical content concerns of prospective science teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23(2), 127–137.
17.
DenzinN. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88.
18.
EbenezerJ.KayaO.N.KassabD. (2020). High school students’ reasons for their science dispositions: Community-based innovative technology-embedded environmental research projects. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1341–1365.
19.
FriedrichsenP. J.AbellS. K.ParejaE. M.BrownP. L.LankfordD. M.VolkmannM. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357–383.
20.
GardnerA. L.Gess-NewsomeJ. (2011, April). A PCK rubric to measure teachers’ knowledge of inquiry-based instruction using three data sources [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL, United States.
21.
GlaserB. G. (2001). The Grounded theory perspective conceptualization contrasted with description. Sociology Press.
22.
GrossmanP.SchoenfeldA.LeeC. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 301–231). Jossey-Bass.
23.
HenzeI.Van DrielJ. (2015). Towards a more comprehensive way to capture PCK in its complexity. In BerryA.FreidrichsenP.LoughranJ. (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge.
24.
IngvarsonL.BeavisA.KleinhenzE. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.
25.
KayaO. N. (2009). The Nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content nnowledge of pre-service science teachers: ‘Ozone Layer Depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961–988.
26.
KayaZ.KayaO.N.AydemirS.EbenezerJ. (2022). Knowledge of student learning difficulties as a plausible conceptual change pathway between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 691–723.
27.
KindV. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations and beliefs about science. Science Education, 100(1), 122–152.
28.
KirschnerS.TaylorJ.RollnickM.BorowskiA.MavhungaE. (2015). Gathering evidence for the validity of PCK measures: Connecting ideas to analytic approaches. In BerryA.FriedrichsenP.LoughranJ. (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 229–242). Routledge.
29.
LoughranJ. J.CooperR. (2019). Foreword. In HumeA.CooperR.BorowskiA. (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. v–vii). Springer.
30.
MarksR. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.
31.
MartonF.BoothS. (1997). Learning and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
MorseJ. M. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design. Maintaining control, rigor and complexity. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 339–352). SAGE.
33.
NiazM. (2011). Innovating science teacher education: A history and philosophy of science perspective. Routledge.
34.
NiemeH. (2002). Active learning—A cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780.
35.
NormanK. A.SpencerB. H. (2005). Our lives as writers: Examining preservice teachers’ experiences and beliefs about the nature of writing and writing instruction. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 25–40.
36.
OgdenJ.CornwellD. (2010). The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociology of Health and Illness, 32(7), 1059–1071.
37.
Prat-SalaM.RedfordP. (2012). Writing essays: Does self-efficacy matter? The relationship between self-efficacy in reading and in writing and undergraduate students’ performance in writing. Educational Psychology, 32(1), 9–20.
38.
RohnerR. P. (1977). Advantages of comparative method of anthropology. Behavioral Science Review, 12(2), 117–144.
39.
SchneiderR. M. (2015). Pedagogical content knowledge reconsidered: A teacher educator’s perspective. In BerryA.FriedrichsenP.LoughranJ. (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 162–177). Routledge.
40.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
41.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
42.
SmithP. S.BanilowerE. R. (2015). Assessing PCK: A new application of the uncertainty principle. In BerryA.FriedrichsenP.LaughranJ. (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 88–103). Routledge.
Turkish Higher Education Council. (1998). Fakülte-Okul-İs Birligi [Faculty School Cooperation]. Ankara.
45.
van der ValkA. E.BroekmanH. (1999). The lesson preparation method: A way of investigating pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 11–22.
46.
WilsonC. D.BorowskiA.Van DrielJ. (2019). Perspectives on the future of PCK research in science education and beyond. In HumeA.CooperR.BorowskiA. (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 289–300). Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
