Development of enacted pedagogical content knowledge (ePCK) among pre-service chemistry teachers: the role of peer coaching enriched with content representation (CoRe) and teaching practice
Cansu Yildiz
a,
Hulya Gizem Urlua,
Kardelen Azra Atesb and
Yezdan Boz*a
aDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: yezdan@metu.edu.tr
bDepartment of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
First published on 9th May 2025
Abstract
This study investigated the development of enacted pedagogical content knowledge (ePCK) among pre-service teachers through teaching practice course, focusing on the influence of different factors on that development. The methodology involved semi-structured interviews, teaching observations, the use of CoRe representations, and peer coaching implementation and reflections to capture participants' perspectives and track changes in their ePCK over time. The findings highlighted an uneven development of PCK components among participants, indicating that while certain aspects like knowledge of instructional strategies improved, knowledge related to assessment showed limited progress. Furthermore, this research pointed out challenges in developing the components, such as assessment knowledge, compared to instructional strategies and learner understanding. The stability of science teaching orientation was noted for some participants, underscoring the persistence of core beliefs in chemistry instruction throughout the course. Additionally, various factors such as the use of CoRes, teaching experience and observation of peers’ instruction were effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ PCK development. Moreover, peer coaching was found to be potentially a factor affecting PCK development of participants. Findings were discussed in terms of development of PCK components and factors influencing PCK components including the effect of peer coaching.
Introduction
Many research studies showed that teachers play a pivotal role in several educational dimensions, including student learning (e.g., OECD, 2005, 2011 and Bourn, 2016). Thus, teachers’ competency and knowledge in those dimensions are central to their teachings. One area that has received significant attention in teacher education programs is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). It refers to the knowledge required to make subject matter comprehensible to students by going beyond having expertise in a subject; it also encompasses how to teach that subject effectively (Shulman, 1986). Shulman (1986) stated that it included “the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations” (p. 9) to teach the subject and “understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult” (p. 9). Building on Shulman's work, Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed a model of PCK comprising five key components: (1) science teaching orientation, (2) knowledge of curriculum, (3) knowledge of learners, (4) knowledge of instructional strategies, and (5) knowledge of assessment. These components reflect the broad competencies, skills, and understanding required for effective science teaching. These five components are interconnected and reflect the core competencies of effective teachers (Magnusson et al., 1999).In the related literature, PCK development of pre-service teachers has been studied extensively, and the results show that there are many differences among teacher candidates and diverse factors, such as the use of CoRes, teaching experience, reflections on teaching, etc., affecting this development (e.g., Aydin et al., 2013; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021).
The use of content representation (CoRe) can be considered as the factor that contributes most to the development of PCK. CoRe consists of several questions, such as writing objectives, determining assessment and teaching methods, implementing methods, etc. (Loughran et al., 2008), which are related to PCK. Since PCK basically focuses on how the teachers implement methods and set the goals and assess the students, CoRe helps teachers to organize their lessons regarding their PCK. We used CoRe as a lesson planning tool that would help to enhance pre-service teachers’ PCK in the present study.
On the other hand, besides these factors, peer coaching, which is a relatively recent field in teacher education, has been scarcely studied in relation to PCK, and several helpful aspects for developing future teachers have been indicated. Peer coaching was explained as a reflective process based on supervision (Pajak, 2003). Coaching has two different types, which are reciprocal and expert. Basically, reciprocal coaching is based on supervision among peers who have the same background or expertise like student–student. On the other hand, expert coaching is based on supervision between an expert and a novice like teacher–student. Peer coaching helps to improve the learning outcomes from childhood to higher education (Ladyshewsky, 2006 and Zwart et al. 2009). Moreover, it can be used in teachers’ professional development. Therefore, it can be concluded that not only the competencies, CoRe or teaching experiences but also peer coaching might have a positive effect on the development of PCK.
Despite some studies exploring pre-service teachers’ PCK development, Evens et al. (2015) emphasized the need for studies that explore the factors regarding the PCK development. Moreover, due to the dynamic nature of teaching and PCK, further studies are needed to enhance PCK (Van Driel et al., 2014). Nevertheless, peer coaching is a recent term in pre-service teacher education (Lu, 2010), and studies related to its effect on PCK are not enough yet (Weitzel and Blank, 2020). While studies that investigate the effect of peer coaching on the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK were limited (Jenkins and Veal, 2002 and Anwar, 2018), peer coaching has dominantly been investigated for the elementary level teachers rather than the secondary (Lu, 2010). To the extent of our knowledge, none of the research studies examined the effect of the reciprocal peer coaching on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK development. Therefore, this study investigates the development of pre-service chemistry teachers' ePCK in the solubility topics and if and how peer coaching contributes to ePCK, which is enriched with the use of CoRe and teaching practices, and what other factors are present. Based on the investigation, the research questions of the study are stated as the following:
RQ1: How did pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK with respect to solubility concepts develop by means of peer coaching enriched with CoRe and teaching practice?
RQ2: Which factors influenced the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK regarding solubility concepts?
Theoretical background
Shulman (1986) first proposed pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a third essential piece of teaching expertise, alongside instructors' content (subject–matter) knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (general knowledge of instructional procedures). PCK is mainly focused on how teachers connect what they know about teaching to what they know about the subject they teach (Shulman, 1986). PCK can be explained as a synthesis of subject matter and pedagogical knowledge. After Shulman's (1986) proposal, different PCK models have been developed by various researchers (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Gess-Newsome, 2015; and Carlson and Daehler, 2019). Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model was focused on due to its fit and specificity for science education in several research studies (Van Driel et al., 2023). Magnusson's model is based on science teaching and has five different components: (1) orientation to teaching science, (2) knowledge of science curricula, (3) knowledge of students’ understanding of science, (4) knowledge of assessment of scientific literacy, and (5) knowledge of instructional strategies. These components have also subcomponents. As Magnusson et al. (1999) stated, teachers' understanding of and convictions regarding the aims and objectives of teaching science at a specific grade level is the main aspect of PCK and is briefly called orientation to science teaching. Knowledge of science curriculum has two subcomponents, which are specific science curricula and science goals and objectives. As Magnusson et al. (1999) stated, knowledge of students’ understanding of science has two sub-components, which are knowledge of requirements for learning and areas of student difficulty and misconceptions, and it corresponds to the information teachers need to know about their students in order to assist them in acquiring specific scientific knowledge. With respect to knowledge of instructional strategies, both topic-specific (more specific) and subject-specific (broad) strategies take place. Subject-specific strategies involve comprehensive approaches or broad plans for implementing science instruction, while topic-specific strategies include both representations, such as illustrations, analogies, and models, and activities that can be utilized to support understanding of concepts and relationships. Knowledge of assessment of scientific literacy involves two sub-components, which are knowledge of methods of assessment for science learning, which is teachers’ knowledge of unique instruments, techniques, approaches, or activities that can be utilized throughout a specific context to evaluate key elements of science learning with the awareness of benefits and drawbacks, and the component of science learning to assess refers to teachers’ awareness of which aspects of each dimension of scientific literacy, such as conceptual understanding, nature of science, interdisciplinarity, problem-solving, and reasoning, should be evaluated in each unit.Recently, at the first PCK summit, several researchers studying PCK from different countries came together to discuss the divergences in understanding PCK to clarify the PCK construct (Carlson et al., 2015). A new model of teacher professional knowledge and skill (TPK&S) called the consensus model was developed. According to this model, PCK is described “as both a knowledge base used in planning for and the delivery of topic-specific instruction in a very specific classroom context, and as a skill when involved in the act of teaching” (Gess-Newsome, 2015, p. 30–31). Later, in the second PCK summit, a refined consensus model was developed based on especially the consensus model and Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model. As Carlson and Daehler (2019) stated, three types of PCK, collective PCK (cPCK), personal PCK (pPCK), and enacted PCK (ePCK), were described in the refined consensus model (RCM). cPCK was described as “a specialized knowledge base for science teaching that has been articulated and is shared among a group of professionals, which is related to teaching that particular subject matter knowledge to particular students in a particular learning context” (p. 88). On the other hand, while pPCK was “the personalized professional knowledge held by an individual teacher in science”, ePCK referred to “the unique subset of knowledge that a teacher draws on to engage in pedagogical reasoning during the planning of, teaching of, and reflecting on a lesson” (p. 82). Therefore, planning an instruction, implementing that instruction, and reflecting on the instruction are the components of ePCK. As Carlson and Daehler (2019) stated, there is a need to link the RCM to other models addressing aspects of PCK that are not explicitly mentioned in the RCM. They mentioned that Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model and the modified versions of it would provide a useful framework to explore teachers’ thinking and practices in developing and applying pPCK and ePCK. In the present study, we explored the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK by using a slightly modified Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model as seen in Table 1 (Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021, p. 416). We preferred Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model to unpack ePCK because it clearly defines PCK components and their sub-components that make it easier to study and understand (Jing-Jing, 2014) and provides a useful framework for PCK studies in science education (Van Driel et al., 2023) though no information regarding the integration among PCK components exists in Magnusson's model, which is one of its limitations (Şen, 2023). In terms of modifications for the science teaching orientation, we used the study of Friedrichsen et al. (2011), which described science teaching orientation as an interrelated set of beliefs, which are beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching, beliefs about science teaching and learning, and beliefs about the nature of science. In this study, the first two of the beliefs were examined. Another modification that was made to knowledge of curriculum included the addition of the link to other topics and disciplines (Grossman, 1990).
| PCK components | Sub-components |
|---|---|
| a Friedrichsen et al. (2011).b Grossman (1990). | |
| Science teaching orientation (STO) | • Beliefs about the purpose of science teachinga |
| • Beliefs about science teaching and learninga | |
| Knowledge of curriculum (KoC) | • Knowledge of goals and objectives |
| • Link with other topicsb | |
| • Link with other disciplinesb | |
| Knowledge of learners (KoL) | • Misconceptions |
| • Learning difficulties | |
| • Prerequisite knowledge | |
| Knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS) | • Knowledge of subject-specific strategies |
| • Knowledge of topic-specific strategies | |
| • Representations (e.g., illustrations, examples, models, or analogies) | |
| • Activities (e.g., problems, demonstrations, simulations, investigations, or experiments) | |
| Knowledge of assessment (KoA) | • Knowledge of dimensions of science learning to assess (what to assess) e.g., conceptual understanding, interdisciplinary themes, nature of science, scientific investigation, and practical reasoning |
| • Knowledge of methods of assessment (how to assess) | |
Development of pre-service science teachers’ PCK
Various research studies have been conducted on the development of pre-service science teachers’ PCK during teacher education programs (e.g., van Driel et al., 2002; Aydin et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2013; Adadan and Oner, 2014; Can Belge and Boz, 2022; Subramaniam, 2022; Deng et al., 2024). To illustrate, van Driel et al. (2002) explored the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK during a semester of a one-year teacher education program. Their awareness of students’ difficulties and teaching strategies enhanced. However, the extent of PCK development differed for the participants. Moreover, Brown et al. (2013) investigated pre-service biology teachers’ PCK development during a teacher education program over a year. They found that pre-service teachers’ science teaching orientation was resistant to change; however, their knowledge of learners’ difficulties as well as their knowledge of instructional strategies enhanced. Another study conducted by Adadan and Oner (2014), which explored the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK during the teaching method course, showed uneven development with respect to PCK components. The least developed PCK component was knowledge of the curriculum for both participants. Moreover, the development of PCK components differed for the participants.In another study, Aydin et al. (2013) reported the development of all PCK components of pre-service chemistry teachers during a practicum course enriched with educational mentoring. Similarly, Ekiz-Kiran et al. (2021) revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers’ science teaching orientation didn’t change while their knowledge of learners and instructional strategies were enhanced by means of a school experience course where pre-service teachers observed their mentor teachers’ instruction with the help of an observation form based on PCK components. However, some pre-service teachers’ knowledge of curriculum and assessment didn’t show any development. Recently, Can Belge and Boz (2022) investigated the PCK development of pre-service chemistry teachers while they were taking pedagogical content knowledge courses during a teacher education program for a two-year period. Although all PCK components showed development, the extent of development was not the same for PCK components, and it differed for each participant. Moreover, Subramaniam (2022) investigated pre-service teachers’ development of PCK in a science method course. In the course, pre-service teachers planned, enacted, and reflected on their microteaching instruction. Their orientation towards science teaching, knowledge of learners, instructional strategy, and assessment enhanced by the end of the course. Another recent research conducted by Deng et al. (2024) showed the improvement on pre-service teachers’ PCK components by the intervention that included collaborative learning experiences of pre-service chemistry teachers. Knowledge of learners and assessment improved the most while science teaching orientation enhanced the least. Similarly, Miheso and Mavhunga (2020) explored the effect of intervention in the teacher education program on the development of pre-service teachers’ topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge (TSPCK). Moreover, their TSPCK as beginning teachers were evaluated after two years as well. The intervention was based on discussing the components of TSPCK and CoRe construction. Pre-service teachers’ TSPCK developed at the end of the intervention in the teacher education and retention of TSPCK was observed after two years. Similarly, Ndlovu and Malcolm (2022) investigated the influence of practicum course on pre-service teachers’ TSPCK in stoichiometry. In the practicum course, components of TSPCK as “learner prior knowledge; curricular saliency; what is difficult to teach; representations; and conceptual teaching strategies” (p. 126) were discussed and some tasks regarding TSPCK components were completed by students. It was found that pre-service teachers’ TSPCK enhanced as a result of practicum. In relation to this study, Ndlovu (2024) tracked five of the participants in the study of Ndlovu and Malcolm (2022) after a year they participated in the practicum and investigated their planned TSPCK in stoichiometry. At the time of the study, these participants were first-year chemistry teachers and they had various postgraduate and classroom teaching experience. Though no significant difference was found with respect to overall planned TSPCK, participants’ knowledge of representations and conceptual teaching strategies enhanced after a year they participated in the practicum. Specifically teaching experience was effective for this growth. Similarly, a postgraduate study also contributed to this development.
Regarding solubility concepts, Boz and Belge-Can (2020) indicated that all components of pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategy were enhanced by means of a microteaching lesson study, while some components of knowledge of learners, curriculum, and assessment showed improvements.
Similarly, research studies indicated that interactions among PCK components enhanced in a more connected and integrated way throughout the teaching practicum course. Likewise, the development of interactions was idiosyncratic (Aydin et al., 2015; Oztay et al., 2023).
Factors affecting PCK development
PCK stands for an authentic type of science teachers’ knowledge base. As a consequence, the science education field has recently worked to ensure that science teachers’ PCK is improved. Following a review of the literature, we identified several primary instances that serve to promote the development of pre-service teachers' practical knowledge. Content Representations (CoRes) are commonly referred to in the literature as a tool for lesson planning (Aydin et al., 2013) and can be used as a lesson planning tool (Loughran et al., 2006). CoRe consists of a matrix where big concepts of the topic take place in the horizontal axis while the vertical axis involves teachers’ intentions of what students would learn related to the topic, students’ difficulties, teaching strategies, and assessment of students’ understanding regarding the topic. In this way, CoRe unpacks teachers’ PCK for a specific topic. The findings reported by Loughran et al. (2008) indicate that the student teachers developed a more sophisticated perspective on learning to teach science and how to teach for understanding due to the emphasis on PCK and the use of CoRes to frame their thinking about the connections between science subjects and pedagogy. Carpendale and Hume (2019) also revealed the positive impact of collaborative CoRe design on teachers’ pPCK and ePCK. Also, teaching experience in actual settings and educative mentoring has significant roles in the development of teachers’ PCK (Wang and Odell, 2002, Karal and Alev, 2016; Can Belge and Boz, 2022; Mientus et al., 2022). Previous research clearly showed that the development of pedagogical content knowledge was enhanced by coaching/mentoring (Appleton, 2008; Syh-Jong and Hsiu-Chuan, 2009; Jang, 2012; See, 2014; and Barnett and Friedrichsen, 2015). Mentors and cooperating teachers can be regarded as helping pre-service teachers develop teaching skills (Zanting et al., 1998 and Nilsson and van Driel, 2010) and their PCK during teaching (Nilssen, 2010). Classroom observation is another significant factor in the development of pre-service teachers’ PCK (van Driel et al., 2002; Barendsen and Henze, 2019; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021; Can Belge and Boz, 2022). The PCK of pre-service teachers was significantly influenced by reflection on teaching (Park and Oliver, 2008; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024). Coetzee et al. (2022) stated the impact of teaching experience with reflection on pre-service teachers’ PCK. Additionally, when peer coaching is included in the educational program, the results demonstrate an improvement in pre-service teachers' PCK (Jenkins, 2002). Peer coaching is a way to assist inexperienced teachers in learning theory and subsequently applying this new understanding of teaching techniques, models, and strategies to their microteaching. Also, peer mentoring is seen as beneficial and supportive by prospective teachers as it provides an opportunity for cooperation (Britton and Anderson, 2010).Peer coaching
While there are a variety of approaches that may be used to support pre-service teachers throughout their field-based experience, the approaches that have been investigated the most involve coaching, mentoring, and supervision (Lawson et al., 2015). Pajak (2003) argued that peer coaching is a progressive and reflective process of supervision, primarily based on Goldhammer's (1969) foundational research on clinical supervision. In the literature, there are many terms like peer coaching, cognitive coaching, technical coaching, collegial coaching, learning-centered supervision, and peer supervision that can be used alternatively (Pellicer and Anderson, 1995). We use the term peer coaching interchangeably with the terms peer mentoring and supervision as can also be observed in the literature (Ambrosetti et al., 2014). From a closer look, peer coaching can be divided into two types: reciprocal and expert. The former is described as a type of coaching where peers with similar experience and competency mentor each other, whereas the latter refers to one expert person coaching one inexperienced person (Ackland, 1991). In this study, although both types of coaching are present, we study reciprocal peer coaching since it appears to be an important factor in the PCK development of pre-service teachers as mentioned above (Jenkins and Veal, 2002).Unlike factors like CoRe or teaching practice, peer coaching is relatively new in pre-service teacher education research. The peer coaching model is utilized to improve students’ learning outcomes and practice in early childhood (Donegan et al. 2000), elementary educational settings (Swafford, 1998; Costa and Garmston, 2002; Buzbee-Little, 2005; Gathercole and Ruston, 2009; and Zwart et al. 2009), extending to higher education (Ladyshewsky, 2006 and Britton and Anderson, 2010). Peer coaching was used in teacher professional development programs widely (Lu, 2010), and the studies showed that pre-service teachers can benefit from peer coaching not only in terms of professionalism (Hasbrouck, 1997) but also in terms of affective support (Ovens, 2004). Peer coaching in teacher education typically begins with a collaborative approach among teachers, where they engage in activities such as determining focus areas, making observations, reflecting on these observations, providing feedback, and actively making improvements (Hudson et al., 1994). Similarly, Hasbrouck (1997) claimed that peer coaching has been observed to enhance pre-service teachers' receptiveness to constructive comments on their classroom instruction. Furthermore, McAllister and Neubert (1995) concluded that peer coaching should be incorporated into teacher preparation courses as a way to appropriately prepare pre-service teachers in a safe and stimulating classroom environment. Peer coaching makes it simpler for pre-service teachers to become active learners while concurrently fulfilling their dual responsibilities as coaches for their peers in the educational setting (Weiss and Weiss, 1998 and Goker, 2006). This process is aimed at enhancing the exchange of teaching materials and methods, developing teaching skills, and encouraging teachers to rethink their teaching styles (Karabuga, 2016). In this way, peer coaching has the potential to improve the quality of instruction and assessment for prospective teachers, which also results in a possible improvement of PCK. More recently, research of Anwar (2018) has shown that the proficiency of prospective teachers' PCK has improved when a peer coaching-based model was implemented. Similarly, Weitzel and Blank (2020) found that following peer coaching training, participants engaged in more extensive and diverse discussion of PCK issues than the control group and implemented more modifications to planning documents. Furthermore, peer coaching was found to be one of the core sources to improve some components of PCK (Chen and Chen, 2021). Likewise, in the study of Thilaworrakan and Ladachart (2021), variations were seen in each component of PCK, indicating that professional development for science teachers should prioritize the enhancement of PCK. Another study conducted by Can-Kucuk, et al. (2022) supported the correlation between coaching and the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK. In particular, they argued that PCK development depends on the academic performance of the pre-service teacher.
Method
Research design
A qualitative research design was used in the present study since our aim was to obtain in-depth information about research questions of this study. Among different qualitative approaches we chose the case study described as a qualitative approach used to investigate the case(s) or explore an issue in depth through case(s) within a bounded system (bounded by time and place) by means of multiple forms of data collection (Cresswell, 2013). Specifically, a single instrumental case study was employed, where an issue was explored through the selection of one bounded case (Cresswell, 2013). The present study explored an issue (development of ePCK) by choosing three pre-service chemistry teachers (cases) enrolled in the Practice Teaching I course in the fall semester (bounded by time) within a chemistry education program focusing on the solubility topic (bounded by place).Sample
Three female pre-service chemistry teachers (Audrey, Catherine, and Mary), whose ages are 23–24 participated in data generation. All participants were 4th-year students enrolled in the four-year chemistry education program. They completed most of the chemistry courses (e.g., general chemistry, organic chemistry, and analytical chemistry). They also completed some pedagogical courses (e.g., introduction to education, curriculum development in science education, assessment in science education, and methods of science teaching I). At the time of the study, they were responsible for taking the practice teaching course, methods of chemistry teaching II, laboratory in science education classroom management, and instructional technology and material development courses. The instructor and teaching assistants of the “Practice Teaching I” course given within the secondary level chemistry teacher education program during the fall 2023 semester reached out to the enrolled students and informed them about the aim of the study, duration, format of the interviews, and peer coaching sessions. Among the volunteered students, the ones suitable for peer coaching pairs in terms of availability were chosen and contacted back. All of the participants were enthusiastic to learn in classes, and they participated in class discussions. Their cumulative grade average points (CGPA) were 2.89, 3.12, and 2.75 (where the minimum pass grade is 2.00) for Audrey, Catherine, and Mary respectively.Instruments
Four instruments, CoRes, semi-structured interviews, field notes, and reflection papers, were used for the data collection.CoRe
CoRe is a matrix that composes big concepts related to the topic and information of what students would learn, their difficulties/misconceptions, instructional strategies, and assessment parts regarding the topic. We used CoRes as a lesson planning tool in order to obtain the planning phase of pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK. Participants conducted two CoRes individually for the solubility topic. The first CoRe was prepared by pre-service chemistry teachers at the beginning of the semester while pre-service teachers prepared the second CoRe at the end of the course. We explored the planning phase of pre-service teachers’ ePCK by the help of CoRes.Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted for data collection as well. The interviews were collected twice for each participant; at the beginning of the course and at the end of the course within approximately three months. The purposes of the interviews were to get in-depth information about pre-service teachers’ reasonings about their responses in the CoRes and their instruction conducted in the high school in the context of solubility. Moreover, we wanted pre-service teachers to explain the effect of several factors, such as peer mentoring, CoRe, teaching practice, and other factors they thought to be effective for the development of their PCK in the second interview. The interview guide was designed to be semi-structured to leave space for reflection and follow-up questions (Horton et al., 2004). The interviews included 25 open-ended predetermined questions, including five components of Magnusson et al.'s (1999) PCK model (Table 2). The interviews lasted between 27 and 63 minutes. All the interviews were audiotaped after taking the consent of the participants.| PCK component | Number of questions | Example interview question |
|---|---|---|
| Orientation | 6 | “Why do you think we teach chemistry in high school?” |
| Knowledge of learner | 3 | “What might be your students’ prior knowledge about the topic of solubility?” |
| Knowledge of instructional strategies | 7 | “Why did you use this teaching method for your lecture on solubility?” |
| Knowledge of curriculum | 4 | “What are the prerequisites for the topic of solubility?” |
| Knowledge of assessment | 5 | “How will you assess your students?” |
Observation and field notes
Observation of participants’ instruction in the solubility concepts taught to 10th-grade students at the high school was conducted to reveal the teaching phase of ePCK. While observing, some field notes were also taken. We mainly focused on PCK components, such as knowledge of learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment during observation. To illustrate, we concentrated on the instructional strategies they used during instruction. One of the researchers observed each pre-service teacher's instruction at the school.Reflection papers
There were two types of reflection papers. One of them was the reflection papers prepared after each instruction (two microteaching and two instructions at the high school) based on the evaluations of their instruction with their peers based on knowledge of learners, instructional strategies, curriculum, and assessment. There were four peer-related reflection papers for each pre-service teacher. Their evaluations of instruction with their peers were audiotaped. The other reflection reports were prepared by pre-service teachers at the end of the semester. In that reflection paper, they evaluated their PCK development according to their knowledge of learners, instructional strategies, curriculum, and assessment during the course, and they also explained the factors contributing to this development. All the reflection papers were collected as a part of the data to understand the reflecting phase of ePCK.Selection of the topic
The solubility topic was chosen for two main reasons: (1) the complexity of the topic and (2) convenient timing. The complexity includes that solubility is open to misconceptions, student difficulties, and a variety of skills required for conceptual understanding of the topic. Students often struggle to grasp the fundamental principles underlying solubility, leading to misconceptions that can even hinder their overall understanding of chemistry (e.g., Raviolo, 2001; Salame and Nikolic, 2020; and Brea, 2024). By considering the components of PCK, especially knowledge of learners and knowledge of instructional strategies (Table 1), a topic open to misconceptions and students' difficulties would serve as a good base, especially for peer coaching opportunities. Additionally, the topic of solubility encompasses a range of skills that students need to master, such as interpreting graphs, performing calculations, and understanding key concepts. This provides pre-service teachers with the ability to reflect diversely. Finally, we selected this topic for practical reasons. In the Practice Teaching I course, students are given specific topics to teach within a set time frame. From the volunteers, we chose those whose entire lesson we could observe, which happened to be the chapter on solubility.Context of the study
The Practice Teaching I course was the context of the study. The course is given in the 4th grade of the chemistry teacher education program, in which pre-service teachers are expected to pass almost all previous courses, including both natural science subjects (e.g., Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry) and science teaching courses such as Teaching Method I. The core content of the course involves field experience, practice teaching including classroom observations, micro-teaching, instructional activity, material development, planning and preparation for teaching, classroom management, measurement, assessment, and reflection. Examples of the course objectives briefly include that students will be able to teach independently, communicate with students, discover their teaching strengths and weaknesses, and put theories into practice. At the beginning of the course, we described what PCK means, Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model, and the components of PCK. We also explained CoRe and how it can be prepared by showing an already prepared CoRe sample. Moreover, we gave information about peer coaching and how it would be conducted during the course. The course involved two-hour class sessions at the university and pre-service chemistry teachers were also placed at a high school for six hours a week in order to both observe their mentors’ instruction and teach chemistry. At the university, pre-service teachers made micro-teachings about chemistry topics and before microteaching, they prepared a CoRe related to that instruction. In total, each pre-service teacher made four teaching sessions: two microteachings at the university and two instructions in the high school during the semester. After each microteaching, pre-service teachers got feedback from the instructor and teaching assistants of the course. To be able to investigate the effect of peer coaching as a part of RQ2, we have implemented peer coaching activities where pre-service teachers discussed their instructions with their peers in a week. In these peer coaching sessions, after a short introduction to peer coaching, the participants were paired up with another classmate of their own choice. To establish reciprocal peer coaching with similar levels of experience and knowledge, we double-checked the pairs to make sure that they have similar levels of experience and knowledge. A short introduction to peer coaching and a feedback guide were given to the participants before the first session. Neither researchers nor teachers were present in the peer coaching sessions to ensure participants' comfort in giving and receiving feedback freely. They were also asked to audio record their discussions. After each session, the pre-service teacher, who instructed, submitted a peer reflection report within a week's time. The report included the discussion in the peer coaching session and an evaluation of her instruction in terms of content and pedagogical content knowledge as well as their classroom and time management skills. At the end of the report, they were also asked to add their planned actions for the next instruction accordingly. The same procedure was followed for all four sessions. At the end of the course, each pre-service teacher reflected on their PCK development with respect to their knowledge of learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment during the course.Analysis of data
For the data analysis, we conducted a content analysis of the transcribed data of the interviews and audio records as well as the abovementioned self-reflections of peer coaching sessions. After a thorough reading of the data as a whole, we focused on two things in the second round of reading: the development of PCK and its specific components with regard to peer coaching and other factors affecting this development. In this way, a comprehensive look at the PCK development of the pre-service chemistry teachers is aimed to be provided.Both deductive and inductive analyses were used for the data analysis. For the answer of the 1st research question, which was related to finding out the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK, data were analyzed deductively based on PCK components according to Magnusson et al.'s (1999) model. We referred to Table 1 for determination of categories. To illustrate, for the pre-service teachers’ knowledge of assessment, we searched responses that belong to two categories: how to assess and what to assess. For how to assess part, we included responses that explain the methods such as open-ended questions, short-answer questions, true-false, and multiple-choice questions pre-service teachers used to assess students’ understanding.
For the answer to the 2nd research question, we analyzed data inductively. Interviews and reflection papers provided data for this question. We read all data, and categories emerged from data. Use of CoRes, peer coaching, observations of peers and mentors, teaching experience, feedback given by tutors, and courses in the university were the categories that emerged from the analysis of data. For the reliability of coding, the first two authors formed the codes with explanations and those were given to the last two of the authors and they coded the data independently, and these codes were compared using the formula of Miles and Huberman (1994): Agreement % = Number of agreements/(Total number of agreements + disagreements) × 100. Intercoder reliability was found to be 0.87, showing a good level of agreement (Miles and Huberman, 1994). For the inconsistencies in coding, the last two authors discussed these inconsistencies and reached consensus in the end.
Ethical regulations
The present study followed the formalities and took the precautions of possible ethical considerations. Before the data generation, the study has been approved by the corresponding ethical committee. The consent form was signed by the participants, stating that they were informed about the aim of the study, the format and duration of the data being kept, and the people who would have access to their data. The consent form also included that the study was based on voluntary participation with the right to withdraw at any time, and no negative consequences would apply in the case of withdrawal. For anonymity concerns and protection of the participant's identity, the name of the university or the city is not given, and pseudonyms are used.Results
Science teaching orientations
In this part, the purpose of science teaching and participants’ beliefs about science teaching and learning with respect to the teacher and student roles were explained.There was no change in the perspectives of Catherine and Mary on the purpose of teaching chemistry throughout the semester. In the beginning, they mentioned that their main goal in teaching chemistry is to allow students to relate to daily life situations and enable them to understand the chemistry underlying these situations. This belief persisted throughout the semester. Consistent with this belief, both Catherine and Mary mentioned the importance of teaching solubility concepts in order to make connections with daily life in the pre- and post-Cores: to illustrate, Mary wrote “understanding saturated, unsaturated, supersaturated, diluted and concentrated solutions is useful to identify solutions and make a daily life connection with the solutions.” (Mary, pre- and post-CoRe). In the beginning, they also stated one more goal for teaching chemistry: interdisciplinarity. Both Catherine and Mary also underlined the significance of chemistry teaching in facilitating students understanding of physics, biology, and other subjects easily, and it was observed that both participants included interdisciplinary connections in their instructions during their teaching. Mary and Catherine had consistent beliefs throughout the semester, whereas Audrey has shifted her focus towards citizenship and interdisciplinary in addition to daily life issues. First, Audrey thought that chemistry is taught in schools to explain daily life events and prepare students for exams. However, her idea about preparing students for the exam disappeared at the end of the course though she still thought the purpose of chemistry teaching was to explain daily life events. Parallel with this view, she explained the rationale of teaching solubility concepts to understand the relationship of solution types in daily life in the pre- and post-CoRe. In addition to this, she highlighted that chemistry teaching is important to help students become 21st-century citizens as well as interdisciplinary at the end of semester:
“The primary purpose of teaching chemistry in high school is to help students become 21st-century citizens. We also aim to provide students with a better understanding of what they see in daily life. That's why we want to teach science to students. As I said, it is related to the 21st-century effect. In this way, students can find jobs. In fact, since we are producing more as a society, students need to be informed about these issues.”
Researcher: Can you give more detail? What do you mean by the 21st-century effect?
Audrey: “We are also focusing on other fields now with the increasing importance of STEM. We are not limited to the field of chemistry only. For example, engineering is included.” (Audrey—Post-interview)
Nevertheless, Audrey's shift in the orientation from exam preparation and everyday issues to citizenship and STEM was not observed in her teaching. Furthermore, participants expressed their opinions on how to teach and learn science in terms of teacher role and student role. All participants’ beliefs about the role of students and teachers showed no significant changes during the semester. The consensus among the participants was that the role of a teacher is to facilitate and guide students as they develop their knowledge. All participants stated that a student-centered perspective should be applied because direct lecturing results in memorization rather than understanding. For this reason, all participants believed that the teacher's role should be the facilitator.
Moreover, all participants emphasized that students’ role should be active during the learning process both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. To illustrate, Catherine explained her ideas about the student role as follows:
“Instead of learning chemistry directly, the student should constantly observe, research, and ask in order to fully understand how it happened and why. In fact, I think that learning can be much more meaningful when the student is actively asking questions and observing daily-life situations.” (Catherine—pre-interview)
Mary had one more different idea about the role of students and teachers. Mary claimed:
“The purpose of the teacher is to both explain the subject and open the horizons of the students. It doesn't seem right to me to force a student to listen to chemistry without motivating them or dealing with their problems. We must encourage them for the better as a teacher. Students should also contribute to the learning process by being active. They should be able to give examples and discuss.” (Mary—post-interview)
In line with what they stated, it was observed in their teachings that all participants designed a student-oriented lesson and their role was supportive as a teacher.
Knowledge of curriculum
This part describes the results of the participants' curriculum knowledge and the connections they made with other subjects and other disciplines.All participants claimed that they designed the lesson based on the objectives in the curriculum. They agreed that the objectives of the curriculum were not satisfactory. At the beginning of the semester, Mary stated that she found the objectives in the national chemistry curriculum insufficient regarding the solubility topic: “There was only one general objective on the topic, which was at a lower-order thinking objective. Therefore, I added some extra objectives that were not at a high level.” In the pre-CoRe, she wrote some objectives, some examples of them were “Students will be able to describe the differences between saturated and supersaturated”, “Students will be able to give examples for supersaturated solutions” (Mary, pre-CoRe). Similarly, Audrey and Catherine criticized that there are limited objectives in the curriculum. However, at the end of the semester, while Audrey and Mary added extra high-level specific objectives, Catherine did not add any extra objectives in her second microteaching. To illustrate, in the CoRe, Mary wrote an objective which is high-level: “Students will be able to write a lab report about saturated, unsaturated and supersaturated solutions.” (Mary, post-CoRe). Audrey and Mary both showed an improvement in their understanding of the curriculum, particularly with regard to comprehending its objectives. Also, the following dialogue is from Mary's interview that was carried out at the end of the semester:
Researcher: What do you know about the objectives related to solubility indicated in the chemistry curriculum?
Mary: The main objective of the curriculum on solubility was to classify solutions based on the concept of solubility. However, I added some high-order thinking objectives. For example, can they explain all these concepts? Can they give examples of these? Can they solve questions about them? Can they write a lab report on these? (Mary, post-interview).
Unlike Audrey and Mary, Catherine began to criticize these curriculum objectives from different aspects. She reflected on this curriculum at the end of the semester and she critiqued the curriculum for this topic, including more comprehensive explanations, most of which were related to technological integration:
“The shortage I realized in the curriculum is the lack of connection with technology. In fact, we can show students a lot of visual materials, simulations, and animations by using technology.” (Audrey, post-interview)
We observed that all of the general curriculum objectives were covered by all the participants in their instructions as they planned for their teachings.
All participants demonstrated improvement in their understanding of how classification of solutions relates to other topics in the prior units. In her pre-interview, Audrey stated that students need to know the concepts of homogeneous and heterogeneous, interactions between species, and endothermic and exothermic reactions. At the end of the semester, she highlighted that in addition to these concepts, students should know the concepts of the periodic table and molarity. Moreover, she claimed that it would be better if students knew about chemical reaction types such as precipitation reactions from the 10th grade. Likewise, Catherine and Mary showed improvement in knowledge of curriculum in terms of the knowledge relating to other topics. To illustrate, in the interview held at the beginning of the semester, Catherine only mentioned the interaction between species, and in the interview at the end of the semester, she stated that students should also know the solution, solute, solvent concepts, and physical–chemical changes. Moreover, Mary emphasized that colligative properties and interactions between species provided a basis for the topic of the classification of solutions in the post-interview in addition to what she stated in the preliminary interview.
Although all participants mentioned several prior topics that students should know to learn the classification of solutions, it was observed that they did not integrate all of them into their teaching. Also, as seen in their teaching, Audrey was restricted to mathematical computations linkage, but Mary and Catherine mostly made a connection with biology as well as mathematics.
Throughout the semester, Catherine's opinions did not change much about subsequent topics. Both at the beginning and in the end, she stated that this topic is the basis for the calculation of the concentration of solutions. Similarly, in both pre- and post-CoRes, Catherine mentioned that understanding the classification of solutions would provide a basis to learn the subsequent topic, which was related to calculations regarding solubility. Compared to Catherine's, Audrey's and Mary's views about subsequent topics developed gradually. At the beginning, Audrey stated that the topic of solubility constitutes only the basis of the chemical reactions. However, at the end of the semester, she gave a detailed explanation for the next topics:
“Students will start solving questions through the concept of solubility. Later, they will learn about factors that affect solubility, such as pressure and temperature. In fact, this concept is the basis for all of them. Maybe it is also necessary for the chemical equilibrium topic.” (Audrey, post-interview)
Similarly, Mary stated that factors affecting solubility were a subsequent topic in her post-interview. In particular, she highlighted the temperature effect in relation to explaining everyday issues: “For example, how does the temperature change affect jam when we put it in the refrigerator? If students don't know the concept of solubility and supersaturation, they may not figure it out.”
Considering the connection of the classification of solutions with other disciplines, in the beginning, Audrey and Catherine stated that only mathematics can be linked because the topic continued with some problems that included calculation. While Audrey's view showed no development throughout the semester, Catherine and Mary visibly improved their knowledge of establishing relationships with other disciplines. Although at first Catherine only linked to mathematics, she linked the topic to biology at the end of the semester. Catherine explained how she established the relationship between chemistry and biology on this subject:
“I asked the students about the concentration of stomach acid, which is HCl acid because I thought they were familiar with biology. If I had continued on the subject, I would have continued with the concept of solubility. Then I was going to mention solubility graphics. I would have made connections with mathematics and physics in the following topics.” (Catherine, post-interview)
Similarly, in the post-CoRe, she linked the stomach acid with concentration by asking “Is stomach acid diluted or concentrated” as well during planning of her instruction.
At the beginning of the semester, unlike Audrey and Catherine, Mary stated that this topic cannot be linked to physics and mathematics, but it can be linked to biology. She gave the diluted and concentrated solutions as an example of the biology link but could not give a detailed explanation. However, at the end of the semester, Mary could not relate the topic with mathematics; she interrelated the topic with biology, geography, and physics:
“I linked solution types with biology by giving example sugar types such as sucrose. Then, I showed pictures of the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea which contain different amounts of salt as an example, and I asked the students to compare their lifting force. Here, I asked about physics, and I also mentioned geography.” (Mary, post-interview)
The link of the topic with biology, geography and physics was also mentioned in the post-CoRe Mary prepared.
Knowledge of learners
This part was analyzed in terms of the participants' knowledge about the prerequisite knowledge that students need to have in order to learn solubility topics and the participants' knowledge about students' difficulties and misconceptions.All participants mentioned the prerequisite knowledge necessary for students to learn the classification of solutions similarly in their pre-interviews. In particular, they emphasized the importance of knowing the concepts of mixtures, diluted/concentrated solutions, solutes, and solvents as prerequisite knowledge. In addition, in the pre-interview, Catherine emphasized that students should also know the chemical species, interactions between species, formation of precipitation, and the difference between dissolution and melting processes in order to learn the classification of solutions. Similarly, Audrey explained the basic concepts that students need to understand about the classification of solutions as:
“Students should know the concepts of chemical species, such as atoms, ions, and molecules, that were learned in 9th grade in the strong/weak interactions topic. This topic is fundamental for them to understand the concepts of solvent and solute and to distinguish dissolution from melting. In addition, students need to know the concept of homogeneous-heterogeneous mixtures taught in 10th grade. For example, when we add salt to water, students should know that homogeneous distribution occurs. It is important to understand the solute and solvent concepts. Another concept that students need to know is endothermic and exothermic reactions because temperature has an effect on both solubility and the rate of solubility. Therefore, the student at least needs to know whether it is written on the side of the product or on the side of the reactant in the reaction.”(Audrey, pre-interview)
In both the pre- and post-interviews, Catherine mentioned the same concepts, like solubility, solute, solvent, and melting process, as prerequisite knowledge. As opposed to her, Mary's and Audrey's knowledge regarding prerequisite knowledge improved at the end of the course. Post-interviews demonstrated that Mary added the types of chemical species and the molecular dissolution of sugar to the list of concepts of prerequisite knowledge for the subject in addition to solubility, solute, and solvent. Also, Audrey added equilibrium, periodic table, and molarity as prerequisite knowledge for the classification of solutions.
All participants mentioned important prerequisite knowledge, such as concepts of mixtures, diluted/concentrated solutions, solute, and solvent that students should know to learn the classification of solutions, and it was observed that they integrated all of them into their teaching. However, it was observed that Audrey and Mary did not address some of the prerequisite knowledge that they mentioned in the interview during their teaching.
In terms of areas of student difficulties with the classification of solutions topic, in the beginning, all participants mentioned that students may be confused about differentiating saturated solutions and supersaturated solutions in the pre-CoRes and the interviews. For example, Catherine stated that “students may think that a solution with an undissolved solute at the bottom is a supersaturated solution” (Catherine, pre-CoRe). Moreover, the participants also agreed that the students had difficulty distinguishing between the dissolution and melting processes. They mentioned this difficulty both in the pre-CoRes and interviews. In fact, in the beginning, Mary gave more detailed explanations for the reasons for “Students hear that the sugar has melted in their daily life experiences, so this causes a misconception and they begin to use the concepts of melting and dissolution as if their meaning was the same”. Similarly, in her post-interview, Catherine stated that since it is a very important and known misconception, she wanted to start the lesson with this misconception. She aimed to start the lecture by creating a conceptual confusion in the minds of the students as to whether sugar melts or dissolves when we add it to the tea. Differently, only Audrey stated that this difficulty was a result of students' inability to visualize the particles at the submicroscopic level by explaining:
“Students may not establish the relationship between macroscopic and symbolic drawings. When something is drawn, it can be difficult for the student to actually match it. In fact, the students think that because the salt mixes with the liquids and disappears, a new substance is formed.” (Audrey, pre-interview)
In her pre-CoRe, she also mentioned this difficulty: “Students have difficulties in connecting macroscopic and symbolic images” (Audrey, pre-CoRe).
Moreover, Mary stated that the concept of classification of different types of solutions may be difficult for students to understand:
“Depending on how much solvent is present in the solution, the solutions can be categorized into two categories: concentrated and diluted. Students are familiar with these concepts from 9th or 10th grade. However, we also see that solutions can be divided into three categories depending on the amount of solute present in the solution which are unsaturated, saturated, and supersaturated. This classification is taught in 11th grade. I think students may be confused in understanding the difference between these classifications. Since we use the concepts of concentrated and dilute more in our daily lives, it seems as if they are similar to the concepts of unsaturated and saturated. This leads to a misconception. Students think that the terms concentrated/dilute and unsaturated/saturated/supersaturated will be used interchangeably.” (Mary, pre-interview)
Mary had the same knowledge at the beginning and end of the semester regarding the difficulties and misconceptions of students with the classification of solutions topic. However, Audrey's and Catherine's knowledge showed progress in terms of learners' difficulty and misconceptions. In the beginning, Catherine mentioned that students may have the misconception that “chalks do not dissolve in water or hydrogen and oxygen are a homogeneous mixture”. After completing the course, Catherine stated that “some students may confuse the concepts of unsaturated-saturated with the concepts of dilute-concentrated”. She wrote this difficulty in her CoRe as well: “Some of the students are confusing saturated solutions and unsaturated solutions with dilute and concentrated solutions” (Catherine, post-CoRe).
Moreover, Audrey's knowledge regarding student difficulty and misconceptions showed progress. In her post-interview, she highlighted that there is a degree to which a substance dissolves in a solvent to make a solution while explaining solubility to classify saturated, unsaturated, and supersaturated solutions. However, she stated that students have the misconception of using this knowledge when classifying which solution is concentrated and which is diluted. Additionally, as participants mentioned in the interview, it was observed that each participant focused on ideas that students found challenging or had misconceptions about the topic.
Knowledge of instructional strategies
In this part, subject-specific and topic-specific strategies and representation/activity results were explained.The subject-specific strategies were analyzed by CoRe, which was written by the participants, twice both at the beginning and at the end of the semester, in addition to the interviews. The question “Which teaching strategy did you choose and how did you apply it?” is the key question for determining the subject-specific strategy. All participants' answers to the question were about the 5E Learning Cycle Model in the pre-CoRes and the first interview. As a second question, the reasons for choosing the strategy were asked in the interviews.
While Catherine stated that she chose the 5E Learning Cycle Strategy at the beginning of the semester because she thought that it could help students participate more in the lesson. Audrey emphasized that she preferred 5E only because she wanted to try 5E since she had just learned this method. On the other hand, Mary explained that she preferred 5E because she thought that she could learn better with the 5E method when she empathized and thought of herself as a student:
I think 5E learning cycle is a great model. First you get students’ attention. Then you give students the chance to explore through different activities such as experiments. Then explanation part comes. I think students learn better. It makes students more active and more interested in class. When I was a high school student, we used to write what teacher wrote on board. It was a teacher-centered strategy. We studied the topic by memorizing for the exam. But we did not remember anything after exam. If I was taught by 5E, I would learn. (Mary, pre-interview)
When the second CoRe and microteaching were followed, at the end of the semester, it was seen that Mary and Audrey did not change their subject-specific teaching strategy. However, Catherine changed her 5E Learning Cycle Strategy to inquiry-based lecturing. When questioned about the rationale behind the shift, she responded that she intended to use inquiry-based lecturing because she felt it would allow her to engage the students more actively in the class and that she could not fit the steps of 5E into the solutions topic:
I could not adapt the steps of 5E into this topic. But I had to choose something student-centered so that students would be more active in class. I think making students more active helps to enhance students’ learning and they can more comfortably ask questions when they do not understand something. (Catherine, post-interview)
On the other hand, when the participants who did not change their methods were examined, it was observed that they were more conscious about the implementation of the 5E learning cycle, and significant changes were observed in their examples, objectives, and purposes during the instruction. To illustrate, Audrey criticized the use of 5E at the beginning of the course: “I read my first CoRe. I did not like it at all. I read it, watched the video. I did not understand myself. It was not suitable. I realized I could not implement 5E effectively. Therefore, I prepared my instruction from the beginning.” In order to analyze how much the method's steps were applied, examples and videos were integrated into the lecture, and the topic-specific strategy was examined.
While the 5E learning cycle contains certain steps, inquiry-based lecturing does not have any steps; instead, given both approaches are grounded in constructivism, the primary goal is to encourage students to ask questions in order to assist them in discovering the answers. From these characteristics, it was found that there were improvements in the application of methods when the first and second CoRes and teaching of participants were taken into consideration. Catherine updated the material using an entirely different method while Mary and Audrey changed the topic-specific strategy. For example, when Mary started the teaching in the first CoRe, in the engagement part, she asked, “How many sugars do you drink tea with?” (Mary, pre-CoRe) and then started the lesson by asking, “What is the difference between tea with one sugar cube and tea with three sugar cubes?” (Mary, pre-CoRe). Her aim here was to hear the definitions of dilute and concentrated solutions from the students. In this way, she said that she aimed both to check prior knowledge and to make the lesson interactive and attract attention. At the end of the semester, looking at the teaching and second core of Mary, in the engagement part, she started the lesson with the concept of diabetes, thinking that it would be appropriate to choose examples that they could associate with daily life. She reasoned this by comparing her two lectures as well as linking her instructional strategy to her orientation of teaching chemistry:
“I applied 5E in both of my lectures, but in the second one I used many more examples from daily life. And since I used many examples from daily life in my lectures, I noticed that the students participated more actively. If I had gone straight to the board and written saturated, unsaturated, oversaturated, etc., the student's role would most likely have been passive.” (Mary, post-interview)
It can be said that Mary was able to make the necessary changes in order to apply the steps more clearly in the process. In addition to this, she stated that the only purpose of conducting experiments was to attract students' interest in the first interview. In the second interview, she stated that it was important for students to recognize and understand the concepts. Therefore, she changed her experiment and its purpose during the semester. Similar changes took place in the same way in Audrey. To illustrate, at the beginning, Audrey stated that she would use “a video of an experiment about unsaturated, saturated, supersaturated solutions, a simulation about diluted/concentrated solutions and a bus/passenger analogy about solubility concepts taught in class” (Audrey, pre-CoRe). However, when asked about how she would use simulation, she could not give precise explanations in the interview: “I do not know which questions I would ask during simulation.” Similarly, she could not link the analog and target properly and could not give explanations about effective use of the analogy:
Researcher: What does men and women passengers refer to in this analogy?
Audrey: I thought this analogy as a puzzle that students could do to apply their knowledge about solubility concepts.
Researcher: How can you use this analogy in order not to cause any misconception?
Audrey: Normally, there was a visual related to this analogy. Our instructor used it in class. But I could not find it. Therefore, I used it in the form of table. Should I use the visual one? Should I ask questions by using the visual? (Audrey, pre-interview)
Audrey linked the topic with daily life examples and considered students’ misconceptions more in her post-CoRe and instruction. For example, she linked the topic with the formation of jam by asking questions. She explained the reason for using jam example since she could integrate solubility concepts with daily life and had the chance to assess students’ misconceptions by the help of this example:
I asked questions regarding formation of jam. I also tried to deal with students’ misconceptions. For example, I asked “does sugar melt?” since students may think that sugar melts instead it dissolves. Another question I asked “why do we keep jam at room temperature instead of refrigerator? (Audrey, post-interview)
On the other hand, Catherine changed the demonstrations, representations, and activities because she completely changed her strategy. To illustrate, while Catherine explained the topic of saturation in the elaboration part, she gave an example of divers diving to the bottom of the sea. She said that the reason for this was that she wanted to give an example of daily life and to prepare for this next topic. In addition, she stated that this was wrong, but she did not know how to correct it:
Researcher: You gave a daily life example in the elaboration part.
Catherine: Yes. It was related to how divers dive deep into the sea or the gas that comes out when we open a soda bottle. By giving these examples, I actually tried to make a connection with daily life and also prepare them better for the next topic. I tried to implement steps of 5E as far as I could, But, I think elaboration part is wrong
Researcher: Did this example reinforce your topic?
Catherine: No, I just aimed to prepare students for the next topic. (Catherine, pre-interview).
In the second interview and post-CoRe, daily life examples were more related to the topic. She asked the students to write their observations about the jam and the formation of sugar crystals on it after boiling the jam, the serum, and which solution class it is in. When Catherine's examples are examined, it is observed that in the first CoRe, with the example she gave in the elaborate part of 5E, she actually did not know how to apply 5E and could not integrate the steps and objectives. However, in the second CoRe and interview, it can be interpreted as the fact that she changed her strategy and improved her examples as a strategy and practice on her behalf.
To summarize briefly, in this respect, the topic-specific strategies of all three participants changed during the semester, and changes were observed in the videos, animations, and simulations used; daily life examples, activities, and representations; and their purposes of use.
Knowledge of assessment
The assessment part was analyzed in two different components. The first one is what to assess, and the other one is how to assess.In the “what to assess” component, all participants stated that they would use formative assessment in both pre- and post-CoRes. However, the purposes of using formative assessment changed at the end of the semester. At the beginning, they said that they prefer to use formative assessment to see the learning process, to determine students’ prior knowledge, and to interact instantly. For example, Catherine stated the importance of the formative assessment in terms of monitoring students’ understanding:
By formative assessment, the student and the teacher interact constantly and this allows us to track the student's learning at all times. We can understand whether students learn or not. We can understand their prior knowledge. That's why I think formative assessment is important for a teacher (Catherine, pre-interview).
At the end of the semester, Catherine and Audrey stated that they preferred to use formative assessment not only for instant detection of student understanding and to see the process but also to measure misconceptions and learning difficulties. To exemplify, Audrey stated that the activity sheet helped to assess students’ misconceptions: “I prepared the activity sheet based on students’ possible misconceptions and difficulties. Students answered this activity sheet during class. Therefore, I could assess their misconceptions.” (Audrey, post-interview). Mary stated that she preferred formative assessment not only to assess prior knowledge but also to attract students' attention in the classroom and to get instant feedback: “In order to get students’ attention, I used formative assessment therefore I asked questions continuously during instruction. By this way, I can also get feedback with respect to my instruction and understand the effectiveness of my instruction.” (Mary, post-interview).
All three participants' answers to the question of “how to assess” at the beginning and at the end of the semester were short answers, true-false questions, open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, and activity sheets. In addition, these answers did not change throughout the semester. Moreover, they made a summative assessment by combining open-ended questions, short-answer questions, true–false questions, and multiple-choice questions to use at the end of the lesson in both the first and second CoRe. When asked about the reasons for these different question type choices, they stated that they thought that using different question types would be more effective in measuring students. To illustrate, Mary gave the following explanations regarding the use of different question types:
The best way to measure what a student understands is through variety. If you use a full test, maybe that student will get it right by chance. If you do a full classic, maybe the student's writing skills are not very good. If I use a full true false, there will be a factor of guessing again, if I do a fill in the blank, maybe I will test students’ content knowledge. That's why it's good to use variety like this (Mary, post-interview).
They gave some examples of different kinds of questions both in the pre- and post-CoRes. To illustrate, Audrey gave some examples of open-ended questions in the post-Core: “When some water is added to the container, does it become a concentrated solution or a dilute solution? “If we evaporate some water from the container, will we get a concentrated solution or a dilute solution?”.
Factors affecting the development of PCK components
The reflections of the participants, including also the peer coaching implementation, preparing CoRe, teaching experiences both at the university and high school, feedback from the instructors, and peer coaching, influenced their PCK development. However, we have observed that different factors affected different components. The overview can be observed in Table 3 below.| PCK component | Factors affecting |
|---|---|
| Science teaching orientation | STEM related elective course |
| Knowledge of curriculum | CoRe, teaching experience, and observations of peer and mentor instructions |
| Knowledge of learners | CoRe, teaching experience, peer coaching, and laboratory experiments in science education course |
| Knowledge of instructional strategies | CoRe, teaching experience, observations of peer instructions, feedback given by the instructors, and methods of chemistry teaching courses |
| Knowledge of assessment | CoRe, teaching experience, observations of peer and mentor instructions, peer coaching, and feedback given by the instructors and peers |
“In the instructional technology and material development course, we made a project with respect to the quality of the air. Air pollution is an important problem in our lives. First, we developed a research problem, and by using a device that measures air quality, we collected data and analyzed it. We learned that we could also teach students citizen science by chemistry instruction in order to help students become 21st-century citizens.” (Audrey-post-interview)
Besides teaching experience and observations, Audrey and Mary stated the role of preparation of CoRes in the improvement of their knowledge of the curriculum. While Mary mentioned the importance of the preparation of CoRe with respect to the development of her knowledge about objectives in the curriculum, Audrey stated the role of CoRe in the development of her curriculum knowledge with respect to the link of the topic with different disciplines and other chemistry concepts in the previous, same, and next grades.
Regarding peer coaching, Catherine mentioned the observation of her peer on the development of knowledge of curriculum: “I had the opportunity to observe my peer due to peer reflection; I had the opportunity to observe her link chemistry with other branches in her lectures. This improved my knowledge.”
Besides these factors, Mary mentioned the importance of her observations in high school and university on her knowledge of learners: “I had the chance to observe students’ misconceptions in the real context. In the university, I learned about misconceptions about different topics by observing my peers’ microteaching. I mentioned these misconceptions in my high school instruction and microteaching”.
In addition to teaching experience and CoRe, Audrey stated the importance of laboratory courses on her knowledge of learners since misconceptions about chemistry concepts were discussed in the course.
Catherine stated that peer coaching was useful in order to improve her knowledge of learners: “My peer told me that I should ask students explicitly, “Is there something like a rope or stick that holds atoms together?” I tried to eliminate possible misconceptions by drama in my instruction, and it was not so effective.”
They stated that CoRe helped them plan their instruction in detail with respect to instructional strategies. Observation of peers’ instruction was also listed as one of the factors since observation of the application of different instructional strategies by their peers caused the development of their knowledge of instructional strategies.
Moreover, Mary and Catherine stated the importance of feedback given by tutors on the development of knowledge of instructional strategy. Mary explained it in the following:
“I discussed what I should involve in the engagement stage of the 5E learning cycle model with the assistants. They gave me some ideas about it. When I elaborated on these ideas, I decided to use 5E in order to provide interaction with students” (Mary, post-interview).
Audrey stated the importance of the method course on her knowledge of instructional strategies since different instructional strategies and methods were discussed in that course.
Lastly, peer coaching was also stated as useful for classroom management. To illustrate, Mary stated:
“I observed my peer's instruction; it was useful for me to improve my classroom management. I did not normally want students to raise their hands. I observed that my peer did like this, and I saw that students do not talk all together. I applied this strategy in my instruction as well. I also learned that it is important not to give a response to the same student but choose different students to reply. I learned such kinds of things by observing my peer.” (Mary, post-interview)
In terms of time management, Audrey stated that peer coaching was useful:
“In my high school instruction, I could not arrange my time so that I could not show my simulation. My peer told me that I wasted too much time in order to reveal students’ previous knowledge. I should not give too much time to assess students’ prior knowledge for my next instruction in order to manage time more effectively” (Audrey, peer reflection, high school instruction-1).
Mary also mentioned the effect of her peer's comment on the use of her voice tone: “In my first high school instruction, my voice was a bit monotone because I was anxious. My peer commented on this issue. For my next instruction, I considered this and adjusted my voice.” (Mary, final reflection)
Similarly, Catherine considered her peer's suggestion for her next instruction: “I can use my tone a little more effectively in order to prevent the disruption that can sometimes arise during the lesson” (Catherine, peer reflection, high school instruction-1).
As another factor, both Audrey and Catherine stated the role of peer coaching. Audrey stated that reflection on her peer's assessment methods caused the development of her knowledge of assessment:
“One of the most significant factors affecting the development in my assessment process of students during and at the end of the course was peer reflection. While watching the lecture, I had the opportunity to examine my peer's way of asking questions and assessment methods. This helped me shape my method of evaluating students.” (Audrey, post-interview)
On the other hand, Catherine stated the importance of the feedback her peer gave related to her assessment:
“In fact, my partner gave feedback on how and when I evaluated students in my lectures. For example, in my first university lecture, I used journaling as an activity to find out students’ prior knowledge about the topic. However, I did not collect them. My peer suggested that I should collect them so that I could evaluate the students more accurately.” (Catherine, post-interview)
She explained the role of feedback given by a peer in the development of her PCK:
“I absolutely think that peer coaching should take place in the course. I may tell my peer's mistakes in a kinder way, but I still mention her mistakes. Actually, if a person who is close to you guides you and tells your mistakes, you consider them, and it is more helpful. We (I and my peer) understand each other more. Sometimes we may not like the guidance of a person who is distant.” (Catherine, post-interview)
Moreover, Catherine said the benefit of receiving feedback later than just after instruction: “After we complete our instruction, tutors give feedback. However, since we are too excited, we cannot concentrate on the feedback. Your close friend (your peer) gives feedback later, and since you are more settled, this feedback is useful.” (Catherine, post-interview)
Discussion
The present study investigated the development of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ ePCK in the context of solubility concepts throughout the practice teaching course based on peer coaching enriched with CoRe and teaching practice. Among the components, science teaching orientation was found to be stable and did not show any change for two of the participants, Mary and Catherine, while Audrey's science teaching orientation changed by the end of the course. The stable nature of science teaching orientation was also mentioned by several researchers (Park and Oliver, 2008 and Brown et al., 2010, 2013). However, all participants had a core belief, the importance of chemistry instruction to explain daily life events, that did not change throughout the course and was also observed in their instruction. The belief of pre-service chemistry teachers in relating the importance of teaching chemistry to daily life was also confirmed by several research studies (Can Belge and Boz, 2022; Gencer and Akkus, 2022). We could also state the interdisciplinary integration of chemistry with other disciplines as a core belief for Mary and Catherine since we could observe this link in their instruction. As Haney and McArthur (2002) stated, core beliefs were the beliefs that were both stated and implemented in instruction, while peripheral beliefs were those that were only stated but not observed in instruction. Though Audrey had the belief about the importance of chemistry teaching in terms of preparing students as 21st-century citizens, this belief was not observed in her instruction, making it a peripheral belief. The core belief of interdisciplinary seems to be beneficial for pre-service science teachers as interdisciplinary instruction appears to be an effective method to foster deeper conceptual understanding of science among their future students (Lewis et al., 2014). Since all of the participants stated the importance of student-oriented instruction and this was also observed in their CoRes and microteachings, this is in line with the constructivist national curriculum in Turkey (Ozturk-Akar, 2023).Another finding the present study revealed was the uneven development of PCK components, which was also indicated by several research studies (Henze et al., 2008; Mavhunga, 2016; and Aydin-Gunbatar and Akin, 2022). To illustrate, though Audrey's science teaching orientation was developed, her knowledge of curriculum with respect to the link of solubility with other disciplines did not show any development. Uneven development of PCK components was also apparent for the other participants. To exemplify, Mary developed her knowledge of instructional strategies while her knowledge of students’ difficulties and misconceptions did not develop. Moreover, development in PCK components was not the same for each participant. To illustrate, while Catherine's knowledge of students’ pre-requisite knowledge did not develop, Mary showed development regarding this knowledge. This also indicates the idiosyncratic nature of PCK, which means that PCK is unique for each (pre-service) teacher (Adadan and Oner, 2014 and Can-Kucuk et al., 2022). The causes for this may include, namely, differences in pre-service teachers' subject matter knowledge (Kim, 2020).
On the other hand, all the pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies developed at the end of the course. Earlier studies showed that knowledge of instructional strategies was more easily developed (Henze et al., 2008; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021). In terms of knowledge of learners, two of the pre-service teachers showed development in terms of both students’ pre-requisite knowledge and their difficulties and misconceptions. In contrast to some research findings (e.g. Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci et al., 2017), knowledge of curriculum developed for most of the participants. The least developed component for all participants was knowledge of assessment. Schneider and Plasman (2011) stated that assessment can be used to what students know, think and give feedback to students instantly, which is consistent with the participants’ knowledge of assessment in this study. In line with the previous literature showing the pre-service teachers’ insufficient development of assessment abilities (Henze et al., 2008; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021; Sağbilge, 2022), the present study showed that, though the what to assess component developed slightly, the how to assess component did not show any development at all.
In terms of the factors influencing PCK components, courses given at the university were helpful for science teaching orientation, knowledge of instructional strategies, and learner components of PCK; CoRes were helpful for knowledge of assessment, instructional strategies, learners and curriculum components of PCK; teachings in both university and high school were the factors influencing the knowledge of assessment, instructional strategies, learners and curriculum components; observations of peers and mentors were effective for the development of knowledge of assessment, instructional strategies, learners and curriculum components; feedback given by tutors was mentioned to be effective in enhancing participants’ knowledge of instructional strategies; and peer coaching was the factor affecting participants’ PCK development in terms of knowledge of assessment, learners and curriculum components. Effectiveness of use of CoRes, teaching practice and observation of peers in the pre-service teachers’ PCK development was also mentioned by several research studies (Aydin et al., 2013; Evens et al., 2015; Ekiz-Kiran et al., 2021).
Peer coaching was effective, especially for Catherine in terms of her knowledge of learners, curriculum, and assessment. For Audrey, t was useful for her knowledge of assessment only. On the other hand, peer coaching was not effective regarding Mary's PCK components. For Catherine and Audrey, feedback and suggestions given by peers were useful to enhance their PCK. Catherine stated the importance of feedback given by a close peer since she/he would understand her much better. Peers are more likely to share similar contexts and experiences in their teaching roles. Previous research indicates that pre-service teachers perceived the coaching experience positively, with most asserting that peer feedback enhanced teacher effectiveness (Anderson and Radencich, 2001 and Rock et al., 2009). This shared context enables them to provide more relevant and practical advice to each other, tailored to their specific needs and challenges (Lovell, 2018). Additionally, shared experiences and contexts among peers at the same level in science teaching enable more relevant and practical advice to be exchanged, contributing to professional growth and development (Barr and Nieuwerburgh, 2015) due to assistance (Gemmell and Carlisle, 2003) and enjoyment (Vacilotto and Cummings, 2007).
Therefore, for successful peer coaching, constructive feedback from peers would be important. In the present study, participants were not trained about how to give effective feedback. Although peer coaching guidelines were given to the participants, more extensive training for peer coaching seems to be crucial for PCK development. This training might require relatively long training times by experts in the field (e.g., Jenkins, 2002); therefore, training might need careful implementation in teacher education programs.
In addition, the fact that the participants found the objectives in the national curriculum insufficient might give the teacher candidates more autonomy, such as implementing their own as well as their peers’ objectives, and this might create further opportunities for teachers’ agency.
The present study has several implications for chemistry teacher education programs. Since teaching experience, preparation of CoRes, and observation of peers’ instruction were found to enhance the development of all PCK components except science teaching orientation, pre-service teachers should be given enough teaching experience about different chemistry topics in schools and universities because as mentioned in the literature, pre-service teachers are limited in their opportunities to engage in teaching practices in an actual classroom setting throughout their undergraduate education (Alonzo and Kim, 2016), and they should be given the chance to observe their peers since the coaching approach engaged their significant potential influence on the advancement of pre-service teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (Van Driel et al., 2002). By observing their peers and mentors, pre-service teachers can be knowledgeable about teaching activities, strategies, and students’ misconceptions based on various chemistry topics and they can make use of them in their chemistry classes. Moreover, they should be encouraged to prepare CoRes for different chemistry topics. In addition, various assessment tools for chemistry topics should be discussed and pre-service teachers should be encouraged to use them in their instruction in teacher education programs since their knowledge of assessment did not show much development.
Although peer coaching influenced only some of the PCK components, we believe that its effectiveness can be increased by providing more extensive training to pre-service teachers before coaching sessions. Moreover, Audrey's peripheral belief of the 21st-century citizenship might be indicating a gap in teacher education. As it is known in the literature that teacher education programs might not always align with pre-service teachers’ expectations of what and how to teach (Streller and Bolte, 2018), application of the citizenship concept might be more clearly implemented in teacher education programs, making it more applicable for prospective teachers to apply.
Lastly, peer coaching appeared to be an important factor for pre-service teachers to notice and overcome different student misconceptions. This might have both theoretical and practical implications; further research can be conducted to investigate deeper how peer coaching contributes to the detection of misconceptions, and teacher educators might consider this as a tool to improve pre-service teachers’ knowledge of learners. Moreover, prior research has established that the quality of topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge among teachers and pre-service teachers varies according to the subject matter. Aydın (2012) investigated the pedagogical content knowledge of two chemistry teachers regarding electrochemistry and radioactivity topics. The researcher asserted that the existence of two distinct forms of PCK for these disparate scientific subjects. Consequently, given that the quality of pre-service teachers' PCK and e-PCK may differ in various subjects (Mazibe, 2020), that is why there is still a need to examine the development of PCK. As a further suggestion besides the development of PCK, future research should be extended to integrate peer coaching in different topics to offer empirical evidence to researchers on teacher education.
Data availability
Data were collected from human participants and are not available for ethical confidentiality reasons.Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.References
- Ackland R., (1991), A review of the peer coaching literature, J. Staff Dev., 12(1), 22–27.
- Adadan E. and Oner D., (2014), Exploring the progression in preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge representations: the case of “behavior of gases”, Res. Sci. Educ., 44, 829–858.
- Alonzo A. C. and Kim J., (2016), Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 53(8), 1259–1286.
- Ambrosetti A., Knight B. A. and Dekkers J., (2014), Maximizing the potential of mentoring: a framework for pre-service teacher education, Mentoring Tutoring: Partnership Learn., 22(3), 224–239.
- Anderson N. A. and Radencich M. C., (2001), The Value of feedback in an early field experience: Peer, teacher, and supervisor coaching, Action Teach. Educ., 23(3), 66–74.
- Anwar Y., (2018), Enhancing the prospective biology teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) through a peer coaching based model, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1022(1), 012059.
- Appleton K., (2008), Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 19(6), 523–545.
- Aydın S., (2012), Examination of chemistry teachers’ topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge in electrochemistry and radioactivity, [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Middle East Technical University.
- Aydin S., Demirdogen B., Akin F. N., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E. and Tarkin A., (2015), The nature and development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in practicum, Teach. Teach. Educ., 46, 37–50.
- Aydin S., Demirdogen B., Tarkin A., Kutucu S., Ekiz B., Akin F. N., Tuysuz M. and Uzuntiryaki E., (2013), Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term professional development as learners of science teaching, Sci. Educ., 97(6), 903–935.
- Aydin-Gunbatar S. and Akin F. N., (2022), Pre-service chemistry teachers’ use of pedagogical transformation competence to develop topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for planning to teach acid–base equilibrium, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(1), 137–158.
- Barendsen E. and Henze I., (2019), Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observation, Res. Sci. Educ., 49(5), 1141–1175.
- Barnett E. and Friedrichsen P. J., (2015), Educative mentoring: How a mentor supported a preservice biology teacher's pedagogical content knowledge development, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 26, 647–668.
- Barr M. and Van Nieuwerburgh C., (2015), Teachers’ experiences of an introductory coaching training workshop in Scotland: an interpretative phenomenological analysis, Int. Coach. Psychol. Rev., 10(2), 190–204.
- Bourn D., (2016), Teachers as agents of social change, Int. J. Dev. Educ. Global Learn., 7(3), 63–77.
- Boz Y. and Belge-Can H., (2020), Do Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers' Collective Pedagogical Content Knowledge Regarding Solubility Concepts Enhance after Participating in a Microteaching Lesson Study?. Sci. Educ. Int., 31(1), 29–40.
- Brea R., (2024), Deciphering the concept of solubility by strategically using the counterion effect in charged molecules, J. Chem. Educ., 101(8), 3390–3395.
- Britton L. R. and Anderson K. A., (2010), Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: examining an underutilised concept, Teach. Teach. Educ., 26(2), 306–314.
- Brown P., Friedrichsen P. and Abell S., (2010), Do beliefs change? Investigating prospective teachers’ science teaching orientations during an accelerated post-baccalaureate program, Contemp. Sci. Educ. Res. Teach., 41–51.
- Brown P., Friedrichsen P. and Abell S., (2013), The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 24(1), 133–155.
- Buzbee-Little P. F., (2005), Peer coaching as a support to collaborative teaching, Mentor. Tutoring, 13(1), 83–94.
- Can Belge H. and Boz Y., (2022), Development of pre-service teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and the factors affecting that development: a longitudinal study, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(4), 980–997.
- Can-Kucuk D., Gencer S. and Akkus H., (2022), Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(3), 599–615.
- Carlson J. and Daehler K. R., (2019), The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education, in Hume A., Cooper R. and Borowski A. (ed.) Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science, Springer, pp. 77–94.
- Carlson J., Stokes L., Helms J., Gess-Newsome J. and Gardner A., (2015), The PCK Summit: a process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, Routledge, pp. 14–27.
- Carpendale J. and Hume A., (2019), Critiquing collaborative CoRe design as an effective professional development intervention for developing teachers' PCK for teaching science, in Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference 2019.
- Chen B. and Chen L., (2021), Examining the sources of high school chemistry teachers’ practical knowledge of teaching with practical work: from the teachers’ perspective, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(2), 476–485.
- Coetzee C., Rollnick M. and Gaigher E., (2022), Teaching electromagnetism for the first time: A case study of preservice science teachers' enacted pedagogical content knowledge, Res. Sci. Educ., 52(1), 357–378.
- Costa A. and Garmston R., (2002), The mediator's toolbox. Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools, 2nd edn, Christopher Gordon.
- Cresswell J., (2013), Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, SAGE Publications.
- Deng F., Xiao C., Jia F., Tian P. and Zhu J., (2024), Developing Chemistry Preservice Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) through the Learning by Collaborative Design (LBCD) Curriculum Model, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 23(4), 615–631.
- Donegan M. M., Ostrosky M. M. and Fowler S. A., (2000), Peer coaching: teachers supporting teachers, Young Except. Child., 3(9), 9–16.
- Ekiz-Kiran B., Boz Y. and Oztay E. S., (2021), Development of pre-service teachers' pedagogical content knowledge through a PCK-based school experience course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(2), 415–430.
- Evens M., Elen J. and Depaepe F., (2015), Developing pedagogical content knowledge: lessons learned from intervention studies, Educ. Res. Int., 2015, 790417 DOI:10.1155/2015/790417.
- Friedrichsen P., Driel J. H. V. and Abell S. K., (2011), Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations, Sci. Educ., 95, 358–376 DOI:10.1002/sce.20428.
- Gathercole C. and Ruston D., (2009), Internationalising learning—A teacher 2 teacher approach, Educ. Rev., 21(2), 6–14.
- Gemmell J. and Carlisle L., (2003), Building a professional learning community in preservice teacher education: Peer coaching and video analysis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
- Gencer S. and Akkus H., (2022), The changes in pre-service chemistry teachers' orientations towards chemistry teaching during chemistry teaching method courses, J. Turkish Sci. Educ., 19(3), 830–851.
- Gess-Newsome J., (2015), A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: results of the thinking from the PCK Summit, in Berry A., Friedrichsen P. and Loughran J. (ed.) Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education, Routledge, pp. 28–42.
- Goker S. D., (2006), Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education, System, 34(2), 239–254 DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.12.002.
- Goldhammer R., (1969), Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- Grossman. P., (1990), The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education, New York: Teachers College Press.
- Haney J. J. and McArthur J., (2002), Four case studies of prospective science teachers' beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices, Sci. Educ., 86(6), 783–802.
- Hasbrouck J. E., (1997), Mediated peer coaching for training preservice teachers, J. Spec. Educ., 31(2), 251–271.
- Henze I., Van Driel J. H. and Verloop N., (2008), Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1321–1342.
- Horton J., Macve R. and Struyven G., (2004), Qualitative research: experiences in using semi-structured interviews, The real lifereal-life guide to accounting research, Elsevier, pp. 339–357.
- Hudson P., Miller S., Salzberg C. and Morgan R., (1994), The role of peer coaching in teacher education programs, Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ., 17(4), 224–235.
- Jang S. J., (2012), Developing a peer-coaching model for enhancing the pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers, Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 107–123.
- Jenkins J. M., (2002), Peer coaching for preservice teachers in a field setting, J. Sport Pedagogy, 8, 20–37.
- Jenkins J. M. and Veal M. L., (2002), Preservice teachers’ PCK development during peer coaching, J. Teach. Phys. Educ., 22(1), 49–68.
- Jing-Jing H. U., (2014), A critical review of pedagogical content knowledge’components: nature, principle and trend, Int. J. Educ. Res., 2(4), 411–424.
- Karabuga F., (2016), Perceptions of In-Service EFL Teachers Regarding the Features of an Effective Peer Coach in the Process of Professional Development, Int. J. Lang. Educ. Teach., 4(3), 139–150.
- Karal I. S. and Alev N., (2016), Development of pre-service physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) throughout their initial training, Teach. Dev., 20(2), 162–180.
- Kim J., (2020), Connecting pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to teaching practice: Investigating physics teachers’ enacted PCK, personal PCK, and engagement with student ideas in classroom discussions, [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
- Ladyshewsky R. K., (2006), Peer coaching: a constructivist methodology for enhancing critical thinking in postgraduate business education, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 25(1), 67–84.
- Lewis E., Dema O. and Harshbarger D., (2014), Preparation for practice: elementary preservice teachers learning and using scientific classroom discourse community instructional strategies, School Sci. Math., 114(4), 154–165 DOI:10.1111/ssm.12067.
- Lawson T., Çakmak M., Gündüz M. and Busher H., (2015), Research on teaching practicum-a systematic review, Eur. J. Teach. Educ., 38(3), 392–407 DOI:10.1080/02619768.2014.994060.
- Li X., Li F., Chen X. and Wang L., (2024), Using reflection and dialog feedback to promote the development of situated and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res., 6(1), 23 DOI:10.1186/s43031-024-00114-8.
- Loughran J., Berry A. and Mulhall P., (2006), Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, vol. 1, Sense Publishers.
- Loughran J., Mulhall P. and Berry A., (2008), Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(10), 1301–1320.
- Lovell B., (2018), What do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review, Med. Educ., 52(4), 376–390.
- Lu H. L., (2010), Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher education–A review of literature, Teach. Teach. Educ., 26(4), 748–753.
- Magnusson S., Krajcik J. and Borko H., (1999), Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching, in Gess-Newsome J. and Lederman N. G. (ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 95–132.
- Mavhunga E., (2016), Transfer of the pedagogical transformation competence across chemistry topics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(4), 1081–1097.
- Mazibe E. N., (2020), The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about electrostatics and learners’ performance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Pretoria.
- McAllister E. A. and Neubert G. A., (1995), New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching, EDINFO Press.
- Mientus L., Hume A., Wulff P., Meiners A. and Borowski A., (2022), Modelling STEM teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the framework of the refined consensus model: a systematic literature review, Educ. Sci., 12, 385 DOI:10.3390/educsci12060385.
- Miheso J. M. and Mavhunga E. (2020), The retention of topic specific PCK: A longitudinal study with beginning chemistry teachers, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(3), 789–805.
- Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M., (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Sage.
- Ndlovu B. P., (2024), Retaining Knowledge for Practice: A Study of First-Year Chemistry Teachers’ Planned TSPCK in Stoichiometry, S. Afr. J. Chem., 78, 283–292.
- Ndlovu, B. P. and Malcolm, S. A., (2022), Changes in pre-service teachers’ planned TSPCK in stoichiometry after a TSPCK-based practicum. Af. J. Rese. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 26(2), 125–141.
- Nilssen V. L., (2010), Guided planning in first-year student teachers’ teaching, Scand. J. Educ. Res., 54(5), 431–449.
- Nilsson P. and Van Driel J., (2010), Teaching together and learning together–Primary science student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint teaching and learning in the primary classroom, Teach. Teach. Educ., 26(6), 1309–1318.
- OECD, (2005), Annual Report. Retrieved on 14th of March, 2023 from https://www.oecd.org/about/34711139.pdf.
- OECD, (2011), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retrieved on 6th of July, 2023 from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf.
- Ovens A., (2004), Using peer coaching and action research to structure the practicum: an analysis of student teacher perceptions, New Zealand Phys. Educ., 37(1), 45.
- Oztay E. S., Ekiz-Kiran B. and Boz Y., (2023), Revealing the development of interaction among components of pedagogical content knowledge in teaching chemical equilibrium, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(2), 624–636.
- Ozturk-Akar E., (2023), State-based curriculum making in Turkey: curriculum modernization initiative and the latest science curriculum, Curriculum J., 34(2), 298–314.
- Pajak E., (2003), Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors, ASCD.
- Park S. and Oliver J. S., (2008), Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals, Res. Sci. Educ., 38(3), 261–284.
- Pellicer L. O. and Anderson L. W., (1995), A handbook for teacher leaders, Corwin Press, Inc.
- Raviolo, A., (2001), Assessing students' conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. J. Chem. Educ., 78(5), 629.
- Rock M. L., Gregg M., Thead B. K., Acker S. E., Gable R. A. and Zigmond N. P., (2009), Can you hear me now? Evaluation of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback to special education teachers-in-training, Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 32(1), 64– 82.
- Sağbilge K., (2022), Investigation of science teachers’ topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge regarding climate, weather and seasons: from the dual perspective [Unpublished master's thesis], Middle East Technical University.
- Salame I. and Nikolic D., (2020), Examining some of the challenges students face in learning about solubility and the dissolution process, Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ., 17(3), e2237.
- Schneider R. M. and Plasman K., (2011), Science Teacher Learning Progressions: A Review of Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development, Rev. Educ. Res., 81(4), 530–565.
- See N. L. M., (2014), Mentoring and developing pedagogical content knowledge in beginning teachers, Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci., 123, 53–62.
- Şen M., (2023), Suggestions for the analysis of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge components and their interactions, Res. Sci. Educ., 53(6), 1081–1095.
- Shulman L. S., (1986), Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res., 15(2), 4–14.
- Streller S. and Bolte C., (2018), Becoming a Chemistry Teacher—Expectations for Chemistry Education Courses, Nordic Stud. Sci. Educ., 14, 125–137.
- Subramaniam K., (2022), Prospective teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development in an elementary science methods course, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 33(4), 345–367.
- Swafford J., (1998), Teachers supporting teachers through peer coaching, Support Learn., 13(2), 54–58.
- Syh-Jong J. and Hsiu-Chuan S., (2009), Developing in-Service Science Teachers' PCK Through a Peer Coaching-Based Model, J. Educ. Res., 3(1/2), 87–108.
- Thilaworrakan N. and Ladachart L., (2021), Reflective Coaching for the Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Biology Teachers in Thailand, ABAC ODI J. Vision. Action. Outcome, 9(1), 116–129.
- Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E., Demirdöğen B., Akın F. N., Tarkin A. and Aydın-Günbatar S., (2017), Exploring the complexity of teaching: the interaction between teacher self-regulation and pedagogical content knowledge, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 250–270.
- Vacilotto S. and Cummings R., (2007), Peer coaching in TEFL/TESL programmes, ELT J., 61(2), 153–160.
- Van Driel J. H., Berry A. and Meirink J. A., (2014), Research on science teacher knowledge, in Lederman N. and Abell S. K. (ed.), Handbook of research on science education, 2nd edn, Taylor & Francis, pp. 848–870.
- Van Driel J. H., De Jong O. and Verloop, N., (2002), The development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, Sci. Educ., 86(4), 572–590.
- Van Driel J. H., Hume A. and Berry A., (2023), Research on science teacher knowledge and its development, in Lederman N. G., Zeidler D. L. and Lederman J. S. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Routledge, pp. 1123–1161.
- Wang J. and Odell S. J., (2002), Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: a critical review, Rev. Educ. Res., 72(3), 481–546.
- Weiss E. M. and Weiss S. G., (1998), New directions in teacher evaluation, (ED429052), ERIC.
- Weitzel H. and Blank R., (2020), Pedagogical Content Knowledge in peer dialogues between pre-service biology teachers in the planning of science lessons. Results of an intervention Study, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 31(1), 75–93.
- Zanting A., Verloop N., Vermunt J. D. and Van Driel J. H., (1998), Explicating practical knowledge: an extension of mentor teachers’ roles, Eur. J. Teach. Educ., 21(1), 11–28.
- Zwart R. C., Wubbels T., Bergen T. and Bolhuis S., (2009), Which characteristics of a reciprocal peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by teachers and their students? J. Teach. Educ., 60(3), 243–257.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |