DEVELOPMENTAL PATHS OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN MODELING-BASED TEACHING: ANALYSIS FROM A LONGITUDINAL SOCIO-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2024v29n1p172Palavras-chave:
Teachers’ professional knowledge, Professional development, Modeling-based teaching, Longitudinal study, Socio-historical perspectiveResumo
This study seeks to understand the development of teacher professional knowledge about models and modeling of a Chemistry Education associate professor, experienced and specialized in modeling-based teaching from a longitudinal socio-historical perspective. To do so, we analyzed her statements about her life history in terms of school and academic education, as well as professional practices for the last 18 years. Data were constructed from the transcription of those statements and interpreted according to theoretical-methodological procedures based on both a microgenetic analysis, promoting the decontextualization of contexts, and a macrogenetic analysis, from the recontextualization of contexts. This made it possible to trace her experiences from the student context at the secondary school to the experiences as university professor about to teach a course on models and modeling to a class of future teachers. The data analysis showed that, in her teaching history, various educational situations and contexts involving modeling-based teaching influenced her teacher professional knowledge about models and modeling, as well as how some turning points influenced and took part of the development of such knowledge. This study favors an understanding of the constitution of the subject (the associate professor) as it allows entering into her life contexts in which developmental paths of her teacher professional knowledge were identified and characterized. Furthermore, it contributes to the understanding of how science teachers can develop such knowledge from a longitudinal socio-historical perspective, which may have implications for teachers education.Referências
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585
Alonzo, A. C., Berry, A., & Nilsson, P. (2019). Unpacking the Complexity of Science Teachers’ PCK in Action: Enacted and Personal PCK. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 271-286). Singapore: Springer.
Allchin, D., & Zemplén, G. Á. (2020). Finding the Place of Argumentation in Science Education: Epistemics and Whole Science. Science Education, 104(5), 907-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21589
Bardin, L. (1977). L’analyse de contenu [Content Analysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bolzan, D. P. V., & Isaia, S. M. A. (2010). Pedagogia Universitária e Aprendizagem Docente: Relações e Novos Sentidos da Professoralidade [University Pedagogy and Teacher Learning: Relationships and New Meanings]. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 10(29), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.7213/rde.v10i29.3043
Carlson, J., Cooper, R., Daehler, K. R., Friedrichsen, P. J., Heller, J. I., Kirschner, S., Elliott, N. L., Marangio, K., & Wong, N. (2019). Vignettes Illustrating Practitioners’ and Researchers’ Applications of the Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 93-113). Singapore: Springer.
Carlson, J.; & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski. (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 77-92). Singapore: Springer.
Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions of Modeling in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673775
Engeström, Y., & Miettinan, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Findlay, M., & Bryce, T. G. (2012). From teaching physics to teaching children: Beginning teachers learning from pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2727-2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.728012
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-Based Teaching in Science Education. Cham: Springer.
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science Teachers’ Knowledge about Teaching Models and Modelling in the Context of a New Syllabus on Public Understanding of Science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9017-6
Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321-1342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187017
Jovchelovitch, S., & Bauer, M. (2000). Narrative Interview. In A. S. Carneiro et al. (Eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook for Social Research. (pp. 57-74). London: Sage.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. (2002). Modelling, Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Modelling, Implications for the Education of Modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
Justi, R. & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teacher’s knowledge on models and modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education. 27(5), 549-573. http://doi.org/10.1080/095006904200032377
Justi, R. & van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth for understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 437-450. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.011
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Student's interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693-707. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<693::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
Kind, P. E. R., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education?. Science Education, 101(1), 8-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251
Kunter, M., Kleickmann, T., Klusmann, U., & Richter, D. (2013). The Development of Teachers’ Professional Competence. In M. Kunter et al. (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. (pp. 63-77). New York: Springer.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Louca, L, T., & Zacharia, Z, C. (2012). Modeling-based Learning in Science Education: Cognitive, Metacognitive, Social, Material and Epistemological Contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2013). Interactive micro-processes in classroom discourse: turning points and emergent meanings. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 196-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.610900
Mazibe, E. N., Coetzee, C., & Gaigher, E. (2020). A Comparison between Reported and Enacted Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) about Graphs of Motion. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 941-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9718-7
Nielsen, S. S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2021). A competence-oriented approach to models and modeling in lower secondary science education: practices and rationales among Danish teachers. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 565-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09900-1
Park, S. (2019). Reconciliation Between the Refined Consensus Model of PCK and Extant PCK Models for Advancing PCK Research in Science. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski. (Eds.). Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 117-128). Singapore: Springer.
Roth, W. M., & Jornet, A. (2014). Toward a Theory of Experience. Science Education, 98(1), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21085
Rüsen, J. (1990). Rhetoric and aesthetics of History: Leopold von Ranke. History and Theory, 29(2), 190-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505225
Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of Memory. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.
Schneider, R. M. (2015). Pedagogical Content Knowledge Reconsidered: A teacher educator’s perspective. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 162-177). New York and London: Routledge.
Schneider, R. M. (2019). Illustrating and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Through Learning Study. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 167-186). Singapore: Springer.
Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Sickel, A. J., Banilower, E. R., Carlson, J., & Van, D. J. H. (2015). Examining PCK Research in the Context of Current Policy Initiatives. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, (pp.199-213). New York and London: Routledge.
Sorge, S., Stender, A., & Neumann, K. (2019). The Development of Science Teachers’ Professional Competence. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science. (pp. 149-164). Singapore: Springer.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007002005
Tardif, M., & Lessard, C. (1999). Le travail enseignant au quotidien. Contribution à l’étude du travail dans les métiers et les professions d’interactions humaines [The teacher daily work. Contributions to the study of work in human interaction trades and professions]. Quebec: De Boeck/PUL.
van Driel, J., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher Professional Development Focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11431010
van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. A. (2014). Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In N. G. Lederman, S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 848-870). New York and London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Leandro Oliveira, Rosária Justi
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
A IENCI é uma revista de acesso aberto (Open Access), sem que haja a necessidade de pagamentos de taxas, seja para submissão ou processamento dos artigos. A revista adota a definição da Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), ou seja, os usuários possuem o direito de ler, baixar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar e fazer links diretos para os textos completos dos artigos nela publicados.
O autor responsável pela submissão representa todos os autores do trabalho e, ao enviar o artigo para a revista, está garantindo que tem a permissão de todos para fazê-lo. Da mesma forma, assegura que o artigo não viola direitos autorais e que não há plágio no trabalho. A revista não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões emitidas.
Todos os artigos são publicados com a licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional. Os autores mantém os direitos autorais sobre suas produções, devendo ser contatados diretamente se houver interesse em uso comercial dos trabalhos.
