A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�CorrespondE-mail addr

(E.M. van Dijk

Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK andimproving teacher education

Esther M. van Dijka,�, Ulrich Kattmannb

aDidaktisches Zentrum, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, GermanybInstitute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Biology Education, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg,

D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany

Received 29 January 2006; received in revised form 7 May 2006; accepted 9 May 2006

Abstract

In this article, a new research model for the study of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is presented which aims to

improve teacher education. This model called ‘‘educational reconstruction for teacher education’’ (ERTE) represents the

framework for an integrative approach to the study of science teachers’ topic specific PCK, which is a largely unexplored

field. By integrating the PCK concept, originating in the American Curriculum tradition, into the German (Fach)didaktik

tradition, this model adds a new perspective to (Fach)didaktik. This paper, therefore, also aims to clarify the PCK concept

and its relation to Fachdidaktik.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pedagogical content knowledge; Science teachers; Teacher education; Research model; Teacher knowledge; Educational

reconstruction

Subject Didaktik and Curriculum research, asrepresented by [among others] Lee Shulman y

are dealing with the same set of questions.What all these efforts have in common is thestrong belief that we need an integrative ap-proach y that can do justice to each corner ofthe Didaktik triangle: the teacher, the content,and not least, the learner (Hopmann & Riquarts,2000, p. 10).

ee front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2006.05.002

ing author.

ess: [email protected]

).

1. Introduction

The main purpose of this article is to introducea new research model for the study of scienceteachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).This model, which is called ‘‘educational recon-struction for teacher education’’ (ERTE), hasbeen developed as the basis for a further re-search project on science teachers’ PCK. It repre-sents the framework for an integrative approachto the study of PCK which aims at improvingand designing teacher education. This modelcan be used to explore secondary school tea-chers’ (1) knowledge and beliefs of students’

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.002

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSE.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897886

pre-scientific1 conceptions, (2) knowledge and be-liefs of representations of the subject matter, and (3)‘subject matter knowledge for teaching’, in relationto (a) the design of learning environments orteaching–learning sequences, (b) the study ofstudents’ pre-scientific conceptions, and in relationto (c) a subject matter analysis. The ERTE model isbased on an established research model within theGerman Fachdidaktik2 tradition, the model ofeducational reconstruction (ER) (Didaktische Re-

konstruktion). This latter model has been developedin the biology education group at OldenburgUniversity in cooperation with the department ofphysics education at the Institut fur die Padagogik

der Naturwissenschaften (IPN) in Kiel (Duit, Gro-pengieXer, & Kattmann, 2005; Kattmann, Duit, &GropengieXer, 1998; Kattmann, Duit, Gropen-gieXer, & Komorek, 1997).

The ERTE model constitutes an example of howtwo traditions within educational research, theAmerican Curriculum tradition and the GermanDidaktik tradition, can be mingled to the benefit ofboth. Therefore, we will begin this introduction witha very short historical, comparative description ofthe different roles that the teacher and the teachingcontent, two essential elements of this paper andwithin educational research, have played in theAmerican Curriculum tradition and the GermanDidaktik tradition. We are not aiming to compareor even evaluate the two traditions as wholes.Rather we are aiming to identify two different waysof treating the role of the teacher and teachingcontent in educational studies. This limited andtherefore necessarily simplified overview is meant toprovide the context and starting-point for this

1We use the term ‘pre-scientific conception’ introduced by

Good (1991; see also Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994),

instead of the commonly used term ‘alternative conception’. In

our view this former term better describes the place of these

conceptions on the continuum of scientific understanding.2Because of language differences and fundamental cultural

differences the German terms Didaktik and Fachdidaktik are

difficult to translate into English. The term didactics is not a good

translation because ‘‘didactics has a negative valuation in the

Anglo-American mind’’ (see Hamilton, 1999, also for an excellent

description of the historical development of the terms: didactics

and curriculum).

German Didaktik is characterized by a differentiation between

the general Didaktik and the specific, that is focusing on specific

teaching subjects (Fachdidaktik). Didaktik is a theory of learning

and teaching that deals with the following questions: what is to be

taught and learned? How and why is the content to be taught and

learned? Traditionally Didaktik has been a more philosophical

than empirical field (Kunzli, 2000. pp. 43–44).

paper. To understand the issues within the field ofeducational research it is important to be aware ofthe fundamental differences between the Anglo-Saxon Curriculum tradition and the Central andNorth-European Didaktik tradition. Until recently,there has never been a comparison of these twotraditions. The first comparison was made in theproject called ‘‘Didaktik meets Curriculum—Didac-tical and Curricular Theories and Patterns: AnInternational Comparison (see Gundem & Hop-mann, 1998, for a description of this project). This‘dialogue’ has shown to stimulate internationalunderstanding and opportunities for cooperation.That such a comparative discussion can be usefulcan be concluded, for example, from the article byGudmundsdottir and Grankvist (1992). Accordingto these researchers the German Didaktik traditionis a well-kept secret within American educationalresearch. Only recently leading researchers like LeeShulman have rediscovered Didaktik and recog-nized the relationship with their own ideas.

Since the 17th century, the days of Comenius andRatke, Didaktik has been the way to plan, to enact,and to think about teaching in most of northern andcentral Europe (Hamilton, 1999; Hopmann &Riquarts, 2000). In American educational research,which has its roots in the 19th century, the variousthemes within the Didaktik field are addressed in thetwo separate fields of Curriculum and Instruction(Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000). According to West-bury (2000, p. 21) the ‘‘most dramatic difference inviewpoint’’ between both traditions, the Didaktik

and Curriculum tradition is ‘‘their respective viewsof the teacher, and the role the teacher is givenwithin their theoretical and institutional systems.’’Lagemann (2000) observes that the relation betweenscholars and practitioners of education that hasdeveloped in the history of American educationalresearch was hierarchical. It has been assumed thatknowledge for teaching should be generated at theuniversity and then used in the schools (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Westbury (2000) even statesthat the teacher was seen as the passive ‘conduit’ inthe school system who implements the system’s,teacher-proof, curricula. He observes that in theGerman Didaktik tradition, in contrast, the teachers‘‘are guaranteed professional autonomy, ‘freedomto teach’, without control by a curriculum in theAmerican sense’’ (Westbury, 2000, p. 17). The statecurriculum (Lehrplan) in Germany prescribes thecontent for teaching but is not meant to explicitlydirect a teachers’ work. The teacher works within

ARTICLE IN PRESSE.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897 887

the framework of the curriculum and translates thiscurriculum into teachable contents. Didaktik in allits forms is, in contrast to the Curriculum tradition,more teacher than system centered. Westbury (2000,p. 35) observes further that in recent years there hasemerged ‘‘a new focus on the role of the teacher asan active maker of the classroom curriculum’’.

From a present-day perspective a second differ-ence between the two traditions seems to be thefocus on the teaching content in educationalresearch. The observed difference between the twotraditions concerning the focus on the content beingtaught appears to be foremost a difference in timing.The Sputnik shock, in 1957, led to a reform ofnatural science curricula in Great-Britain andAmerica. In Germany, under the influence of theAmerican Curriculum tradition and the aforemen-tioned reforms of the natural science curricula, arenewed focus on teaching content in Didaktik

emerged. This led to the establishment of thedifferent Fachdidaktik (subject specific Didaktik)fields (Hedewig, 1990; Hopmann & Riquarts, 1995,2000; Sandfuchs, 1990). As Bayrhuber (1995, p. 335)for example observes: ‘‘In the mid-1960s, y theInstitut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften

(IPN in Kiel, Germany) was commencing its workin the wake of the ‘‘Sputnik shock’’ and a new phaseof focused and lasting support for biology, chem-istry and physics didaktik in Germany had thusbegun y’’. The Education Reconstruction programwhich aims to design learning environments inrelation to the empirical study of students’ pre-conceptions and a thorough analysis of the subjectmatter is an example of the (design) research that isbeing done within the domain of Fachdidaktik.

Shulman (1986) observes in his analysis of themajor research programs in American educationalresearch that the teaching content has rarely beengiven any serious attention. According to Doyle andWestbury (1992; see also Doyle, 1992; Westbury,2000) this lack of attention for teaching content hasresulted in the drifting apart of Curriculum andInstruction. Without the teaching content to bindthem together Curriculum and Instruction havebecome separate fields within educational research.They observe that the field of Instruction researchhas been focused on quality control throughmeasuring the effectiveness of teachers and teachingmethods without paying attention to the subjectcontent being taught. Curriculum research has beendealing foremost with curriculum implementationand with the construction of a curriculum on the

institutional level—defining what should be taughtand why. But also in curriculum research there wasno serious attention for the classroom curriculum,the subject content that was actually being taught inclass. It is on this level, the classroom level, thatCurriculum and Instruction come together in thedevelopment of learning environments by theteacher. Shulman’s work on professionalizing teach-ing and PCK is but one example of a researchprogram which focuses on the domain in whichInstruction and Curriculum intersect. (Doyle, 1992;Doyle &Westbury, 1992). As Gess-Newsome (1999)stated: the introduction of PCK in 1985 has led to arenewed interest in subject specific teaching fieldssuch as science education.

The developments of the last decades in Americanand German educational research could offeropportunities for cooperation between the two verydifferent traditions. The new focus on the teachingcontent in both traditions and the changed role ofthe teacher in the American Curriculum traditioncan create new possibilities for cooperation andcomparison within education research (compareHopmann & Riquarts, 1995, 2000). Especially theconcept of PCK and the German idea of Fachdi-

daktik seem to have a strong relationship, sinceFachdidaktik and PCK can both be seen as knowl-edge domains that consist of a combination ofsubject matter knowledge and general pedagogicalknowledge (Gudmundsdottir & Grankvist, 1992). Agood example of what the mingling of the twotraditions can look like is a study of Reinertsen,Nordtømme, Eidsvik, Weidemann, and Gudmunds-dottir (1996). They used Klafki’s (1996, 2000)Didaktik Analysis model for lesson planning, a veryinfluential model for Didaktik in Germany (Hop-mann, 2000; Kunzli, 2000), as a conceptual frame-work for the empirical research on certain aspects ofPCK (see Gudmundsdottir, Reinertsen, & Nord-tømme, 2000, for a description of this researchproject). Klafki’s model consists of five steps forlesson planning: (1) the contemporary meaning ofthe content for the children, (2) the future meaningof the content for the children, (3) the contentstructure, (4) the exemplary value of the content,and (5) the pedagogical representations of the ideas.Reinertsen et al. (1996; see Gudmundsdottir et al.,2000) show in their case study that a teacher’sdescription of his lesson planning concerning theteaching of the Norwegian constitution with theDidaktik Analysis model can provide a picture ofhis PCK.


We think that the integration of PCK in the ERmodel can provide us with a new perspective on thestudy of PCK and the design of learning environ-ments. Furthermore, we think that the concept andstudy of PCK can add a new perspective to theFachdidaktik research domain. As Van Driel, Veal,and Janssen (2001, p. 985) pointed out, ‘‘the‘Fachdidaktik’ tradition has not provided detailedinsight into y how they [teachers] relate theirtransformations [of their subject matter knowledge]to student understanding during classroom commu-nication in order to overcome student misconcep-tions, thus contributing to more meaningfullearning.’’ A study of teachers’ PCK can provideinsight in this instruction process. Furthermore,several recent articles mention that there is a lack ofstudies on science teachers’ topic specific PCK(Bucat, 2004; Van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos,1998). Van Driel et al. (1998) observe in their studyof science teachers’ PCK with respect to the specifictopic of chemical equilibrium that the studybenefited from incorporating research on studentlearning of chemical equilibrium. They state that inview of the vast amount of research on studentconceptions with respect to specific science topics,studies on the same topics from the teachers’perspective would be welcome.

As mentioned at the beginning of this introduc-tion, the main aim of this paper is to present a newmodel for an integrated approach to the study ofscience teachers’ PCK. But before we can introducethe new ERTE research model (in Section 3.4), weshall in Section 2 address the question: ‘‘What isPCK?’’. The history (Section 2.1), the nature(Section 2.2) and the sources (Section 2.3) of PCKwill be discussed in order to develop a clear idea ofPCK. After this discussion the research model ofERTE for the study of PCK will be introduced anddescribed in Section 3. In Section 4, the conclusionand an outlook are presented.

2. Pedagogical content knowledge

2.1. PCK as category within a knowledge base for

teaching

In 1983 (see Shulman, 1999), Lee Shulmandeclared at a national conference at the Universityof Texas that an element is missing within educa-tional research, especially the research on teachercognition: ‘‘Where the teacher cognition programhas clearly fallen short is in the elucidation of

teachers’ cognitive understanding of the subjectmatter content and the relationship between suchunderstanding and the instruction teachers providefor students.’’ (Shulman, 1986, p. 25). This observa-tion led Shulman, in his Presidential Address to theAmerican Educational Research Association in1985, to distinguish three categories within thedomain of content knowledge: curriculum knowl-edge, subject matter knowledge and a new categorynamed PCK (Carlsen, 1999). This was the first timePCK was mentioned and it was described as ‘‘theparticular form of content knowledge that embodiesthe aspects of content most germane to teachabil-ity’’ (Carlsen, 1999, p. 137).

Through addressing this goal for better researchShulman also aimed at addressing the political goalof professionalizing teaching (Carlsen, 1999). Theclaim that teaching is a profession is based on thebelief that there is a knowledge base for teaching(Shulman, 1987). In Shulman’s key publicationtitled ‘‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations ofthe new reform’’ (1987) PCK is included in aknowledge base for teaching that consists of sevencategories: (1) content knowledge, (2) generalpedagogical knowledge, (3) curriculum knowledge,(4) PCK, (5) knowledge of learners and theircharacteristics, (6) knowledge of educational con-texts, (7) knowledge of educational ends, purposesand values, and their philosophical and historicalgrounds. A quotation from this publication can helpus to understand what PCK, as part of theknowledge base for teaching, is:

[PCK] represents the blending of content andpedagogy into an understanding of how parti-cular topics, problems, or issues are organized,represented, and adapted to the diverse interestsand abilities of learners, and presented forinstruction (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).

Since then, Shulman and others have proposedvariants of this model of the domains of teacherknowledge (for example Carlsen, 1999; Magnusson,Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Tamir, 1988). The defini-tions of the components within the different modelsvary. Grossman (1990, p. 5) has tried to remedy thissituation by distinguishing ‘‘four general areas ofteacher knowledge [that] can be seen as thecornerstones of the emerging work on professionalknowledge for teaching: general pedagogical knowl-edge, subject matter knowledge, PCK, and knowl-edge of context.’’ (See also Fig. 1). WithinGrossman’s knowledge base for teaching, general

ARTICLE IN PRESS

knowledgeof context

pedagogicalknowledge

PCK

subjectmatter

knowledge

Fig. 1. The model of teacher knowledge. In this model PCK is

presented as a unique knowledge domain.

E.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897 889

pedagogical knowledge is defined as knowledgeconcerning learning and learners, knowledge ofgeneral principles of instructions, knowledge relatedto classroom management, and knowledge aboutthe aims and purposes of education. Knowledge ofcontext includes knowledge of school setting, forexample culture, and knowledge of individualstudents.

One aspect of PCK as defined by Shulmanremains unclear, since there seems to be nodistinction between PCK as an educational concept,an abstract idea used in teacher education andtextbooks, and PCK as a subjective representa-tion—an element of teachers’ professional knowl-edge (Bromme, 1995). Although Hashweh (2005)states that the PCK concepts needs to be furtherconceptualized, he does not solve the afore-mentioned conceptual problem. Hashweh (2005,pp. 277–278) defines PCK as personal and privateknowledge and says that ‘‘Efforts by some research-ers to capture and represent PCK, etc. can trans-form it into more public knowledge.’’ But he doesnot mention that it is necessary, for empiricalresearch on PCK, to distinguish between theeducational ideas that concern the integrated areaof content and pedagogy that can be used in teachereducation and its representation and transformationwithin a teacher’s mind. This is necessary because,when we study a teacher’s PCK, we should realizethat the knowledge that the teacher has acquiredduring his or her teaching career can differ from theavailable theoretical concepts within the educationalfield. Only if the researchers take this difference intoconsideration the real practical ‘wisdom’ of theteacher is discovered (Bromme, 1995). Bromme(1995) describes an interesting example of a study inwhich the researchers were not fully aware of theaforementioned difference. Carpenter, Fennema,

Peterson, and Carey (1988) aimed to study teachers’PCK concerning their knowledge of children’saddition strategies. The teachers in the study wereasked to assess the degree of difficulty of varioustask types. Although the majority of assessmentswere correct, the teachers did not refer to students’individual solving strategies but instead the teachersreferred to the difficulties students experience infinding out which type of task they have to work on.Carpenter et al. (1988) concluded that the teacherslacked PCK. Carpenter et al. (1988) did not fullyrecognize the teachers’ knowledge of the problemsthat students have with identifying the requiredoperation as adequately developed PCK (Bromme,1995).

Another reason for making the distinctionbetween PCK as an educational concept and PCKas a knowledge domain in a teacher’s mind withrespect to teacher training is that prospectiveteachers can not learn directly from expert teachers’PCK. The teachers’ PCK has to be structured or‘reconstructed’ in order to be transferred fromexpert teachers to other, prospective teachers inteacher education. The resulting educational ideas,are different from teachers’ PCK since they areextracted from their context: the knowledge, beliefsand experiences of the individual teacher. Theseeducational ideas can then be used to ‘reconstruct’teacher education. In our view the notion of PCKshould be understood as a knowledge domain andnot as an educational concept or idea. The modelfor ERTE, that we shall introduce in the nextsection, explicitly uses PCK as such.

This more limited conceptualization of PCKinfluences the relation between the concept ofPCK and the German idea of Fachdidaktik. In theintroduction it was mentioned that Fachdidaktik

and PCK can both be seen as knowledge domainsthat consist of a combination of content knowledgeand general pedagogical knowledge (Terhart, 1995).Gudmundsdottir and Grankvist (1992; see alsoKansanen & Meri, 1999) for this reason see PCKand Fachdidaktik as almost identical ideas. How-ever, as has been shown, PCK is in the first placepersonal and private knowledge and if Fachdidaktik

is defined in the same way, as a personal knowledgedomain that is, then we get a too narrow descriptionof Fachdidaktik. Fachdidaktik can also be seen as—and is usually seen as—a research domain, ascientific discipline that tries to answer questionsthat refer to the domain in which educationalscience and, for example, biology come together

ARTICLE IN PRESS

3‘Subject matter knowledge for teaching’ is comparable with

what Ball and Bass (2000, p. 89) describe as ‘pedagogical useful

mathematical understanding’. The main difference with our

conceptualization of teacher knowledge is that according to the

view of Ball and Bass (2000) this knowledge is not included in

PCK. However, we suggest that ‘Subject matter knowledge for

teaching’ consists of a blending of content and pedagogy and

should therefore be included in PCK.4See, for example, the comparative studies of the PCK of

experienced and novice teachers by Gudmundsdottir and Shul-

man (1987) and Clermont, Borko, and Krajcik (1994).

E.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897890

and that focuses on the transfer of the subjectmatter to the learner (Bayrhuber, 1995; Gropen-gieXer & Kattmann, 2006). For example, biologyDidaktik empirically studies, among others, priorknowledge and pre-scientific conceptions frompupils; learners’ motivation with respect to biologyand biology education; the effects of the implemen-tation of media and methods; and ER of biologicalcontents (GropengieXer & Kattmann, 2006; Hede-wig, 1990). If Fachdidaktik is considered to be, inthe first place, a field of science, then the study ofPCK should be seen as a research field, amongmany other fields within the Fachdidaktik researchdomain (for example Bayrhuber, 1995; Gropen-gieXer & Kattmann, 2006; Hedewig, 1990; Sand-fuchs, 1990). In contrast to Gudmundsdottir andGrankvist’s view, PCK and Fachdidaktik thus arenot identical. PCK is a teacher’s personal knowl-edge domain and the study of teachers’ PCK is afield of research within the research domain ofFachdidaktik.

2.2. The nature and key elements of PCK

There appears to be widespread agreementamong education researchers on the nature ofPCK as a unique knowledge domain. PCK refersto specific topics, and is therefore to be discernedfrom the general knowledge of pedagogy, and PCKconcerns the teaching of specific topics, and willtherefore differ considerably from subject matterknowledge (Van Driel et al., 1998, p. 677). PCK is aunique domain that is informed by, but does notcompletely subsume, the other knowledge areas.There seems to exist a reciprocal relationshipbetween PCK and the foundational knowledgedomains, subject matter, pedagogy, and context(Fig. 1). The foundational knowledge domainsinform PCK and PCK influences the teacher’sknowledge, of the subject matter, pedagogy, andthe context (Gess-Newsome, 1999).

There is no universally accepted conceptualiza-tion of PCK (Hashweh, 2005; Van Driel et al.,1998). Differences occur with respect to theelements that scholars include or integrate in PCKand with respect to the descriptions of theseelements. However, all scholars seem to agree withShulman that the understanding of students’ specificlearning difficulties and the knowledge of represen-tations of the subject matter to overcome thesedifficulties are two essential elements of PCK (VanDriel et al., 1998). During their teaching career

teachers acquire knowledge of strategies and repre-sentations for teaching particular topics and knowl-edge of students’ conceptions of these topics. ThisPCK enables teachers to anticipate students’ pro-blems with respect to a specific topic. However,according to Ball and Bass (2000), who wereconsidering mathematics education ‘‘a body of suchbundled knowledge [bundles of knowledge consist-ing of the two key elements of PCK] may not alwaysequip the teacher with the flexibility needed tomanage the complexity of practice. Teachers alsoneed to puzzle about the mathematics in a student’sidea, analyze a textbook presentation, consider therelative value of two different representations in theface of a particular mathematical issue. To do this,we argue, requires a kind of mathematical under-standing that is pedagogically useful and ready’’(Ball & Bass, 2000, p. 88). Based on their researchBall and Bass (2000) suggest that there is adifference between knowing the subject matter andusing this subject matter knowledge for teaching.Therefore we suggest that PCK includes a thirdelement.3 This element of PCK which we will simplecall ‘subject matter knowledge for teaching’ enablesthe teacher to react flexible in different andunanticipated situations.

2.3. The sources of PCK

Van Driel, De Jong, and Verloop (2002), VanDriel et al. (1998) state in their review of theliterature on PCK that studies of teachers’ PCKindicate that subject matter knowledge is a pre-requisite for the development of PCK and that PCKdevelops in the actual teaching practice of teachers.That teaching experience is essential for the devel-opment of PCK implies that beginning teachersusually have little or no PCK at their disposal.4

They further observe that specific courses or work-shops have the potential to influence the develop-ment of PCK.


These three sources of PCK are also identified byGrossman (1990) in her book ‘‘The making of ateacher’’. Complementary to these three sources sheidentified a fourth possible source from which PCKcan be developed, namely apprenticeship of observa-tion—the memories that prospective teachers have oftheir experiences as a student shape their expecta-tions of learners. She (Grossman, 1990, pp. 105–111)observed in her detailed study, using contrasting casestudies with a focus on professional coursework, sixnovice teachers of English who are all well preparedin their subject matter. The teachers, three havingdone professional coursework and three having noprofessional coursework experience, report to havelearned most of what they know about studentunderstanding from their teaching experience. How-ever, the teachers without professional training find itvery difficult to anticipate students’ prior knowledgeand are surprised about what the students do and donot know. They use memories of their ownexperiences at school to shape their expectations.Although they learn, from their experience, whattopics students find difficult, they do not learn why

the students find these topics difficult and how theycould integrate this newly acquired knowledge ofstudent understanding in their teaching. Grossman(1990) states that through professional trainingbeginning teachers can acquire a framework thatshapes their learning from experience.

Van Driel et al. (1998) showed in their study ofexperienced chemistry teachers’ PCK with respect tothe specific topic of chemical equilibrium that theteachers were aware of existing misconceptionsconcerning the dynamic conception of chemicalequilibrium. However, most of the teachers them-selves struggled with the abstract nature of thedynamic conception of chemical equilibrium:‘‘These teachers lacked theoretical arguments topromote student understanding. They admitted thattheir usual arguments are weak and not veryconvincing for most of their students. The best theyfelt they could do was to demonstrate the dynamicequilibrium conception with help of metaphors oranalogies’’ (Van Driel et al., 1998, p. 686). Thechemistry teachers discussed the strengths andweaknesses of each other’s favorite analogies:‘‘Remarkable in the discussion on the strengthsand weaknesses of each others favorite analogieswas the focus on the chemical validity, the students’perspective was not taken in to account.’’ (VanDriel et al., 1998, p. 686). These results areconfirmed by Magnusson et al. (1999) in their

review article of the literature on science teachers’PCK. They observe that, although the amount ofresearch on science teachers’ PCK of students’understanding is limited, the results of the existingstudies are consistent. ‘‘Although teachers havesome knowledge about students’ difficulties, theycommonly lack important knowledge necessary tohelp students overcome those difficulties’’ (Magnus-son et al., 1999, p. 106). Van Driel et al. (1998)showed that a workshop can enhance this compo-nent of PCK. Some participants in their researchreported to have extended their repertoire ofsuccessful strategies and representations with re-spect to the topic of the chemical equilibrium.

From this short discussion of the literature on thesources of PCK can be concluded that teachertraining is necessary for novice and experiencedteachers to enable them to learn from theirexperiences. According to the model of teacherknowledge (Fig. 1) prospective teachers not onlyneed to acquire deep and flexibly organized under-standing in the areas of subject matter, pedagogyand context but they also need to develop aframework that enables them to develop theirPCK through learning from experiences. This latteraim implies that knowledge should also be taught toteachers in training in a purposefully integratedmanner. Then teachers in training should be able todevelop more quickly the skills and knowledge theyneed to be effective teachers. For example Ball andBass (2000) suggest that analyzing and designing atask can help prospective teachers to develop their‘subject matter knowledge for teaching’. In the nextsection, we will introduce the ERTE model thataims to ‘reconstruct’ science teacher education inrelation to the design of learning environments andan empirical study of science teachers’ PCK.However, it is not enough to teach solely integratedpedagogical and subject matter knowledge. Thiswould, according to Gess-Newsome (1999), reduceteacher preparation to the presentation of a ‘box oftricks’. It will not enable teacher to learn from theirexperience and manage their teaching practiceflexible.

3. The model of educational reconstruction for

teacher education

3.1. Introduction

The main purpose of this article is to introduce aresearch model for the study of science teachers’


PCK. This new model of ERTE forms the frame-work for an integrative approach to the study ofPCK aimed at improving teacher education. Thismodel is explicitly based on an established researchmodel, the model of ER, that has been developed inthe biology education group at Oldenburg Uni-versity in cooperation with the department ofphysics education at the IPN in Kiel for the studyof students’ pre-scientific conceptions (descriptionsof the model can be found in Kattmann et al., 1997,1998).

The research model of ER integrates three well-known research domains within educational re-search: the empirical study of students’ conceptions,the analysis of the subject matter and the design oflearning environments or teaching–learning se-quences (Fig. 2). The research model represents aframework in which the three elements can bestudied in relation to each other. The threecomponents of the model are not to be dealt withone after another but influence each other mutually.The first component of the model, design of learningenvironments, is influenced by the two othercomponents within the model but also influences,from the start, these components—the study of thestudents’ pre-scientific conceptions and the analysisof the subject matter. This is because these studiesare performed with the explicit intention to developcontents for education (see also Duit et al., 2005;GropengieXer, 2001). A second characteristic of theER model is that the orientation toward the specificscience domain and the orientation on the studentare brought into balance. The science content andthe students’ conceptions are seen as being equallyimportant for ER (see also Duit et al., 2005). A

empirical study ofstudents' pre-scientificconceptions

subject matteranalysis

design of learningenvironments

Fig. 2. The research model of educational reconstruction

(Kattmann et al., 1998).

third feature of the ER model is its dual character—it involves both research and development. Itprovides a framework for designing and evaluatinglearning environments or teaching–learning se-quences (Duit et al., 2005; Meheut & Psillos,2004). In Europe and the USA there is a growinginterest in design research see for example the themeissues of Educational Researcher (Kelly, 2003) andthe International Journal of Science Education

(Meheut & Psillos, 2004).In Section 3.2, a thorough description of the

model of ER will be presented followed by adescription of the study of PCK in Section 3.3.Finally, in Section 3.4, the new model for the studyof PCK, the ERTE model, will be presented.

3.2. The model of educational reconstruction (ER)

The model of ER (Fig. 2) is based on two keyassumptions. The first assumption is that learningalways takes place in particular situational contextsand that these contexts are not prescribed byscientific knowledge. The concepts of scientifictheories have to be put in certain contexts:

The term reconstruction, therefore denotes thatissues that were lost in the process of formationof scientific knowledge have to be reconstructedin order to make the science point of viewunderstandable and meaningful to learners.Because the analysis of content structure isunavoidably influenced by educational issues weuse the term educational reconstruction (Katt-mann, Duit, & GropengieXer, 1998, p. 255).

The second assumption is that the researcher’s orthe teacher’s awareness of the students’ point ofview may substantially influence the reconstructionof the particular science content.

In order to design learning environments, the firstelement of the model, the science content needs tobe reconstructed based on the study of the concep-tions of the students in combination with theanalysis of the subject matter. Firstly, the simila-rities between students’ conceptions and the scien-tific conceptions must be considered mutually.Secondly, the educational objectives and the stu-dents’ ideas have to be put in a context that isunderstandable for students. The abstract scientificconceptions have to be enriched and embedded inthe science content for teaching (see also Duit et al.,2005). The relevant questions to the reconstructionof science teaching are: which are the most relevant

ARTICLE IN PRESS

5This model was developed in cooperation with Thomas A.C.

Reydon, Center for Philosophy and Ethics of Science (ZEWW),

University of Hanover.

E.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897 893

elements of the students’ conceptions? Whichopportunities are opened by certain elements ofstudents’ conceptions or perspectives? In which waydo clarified scientific conceptions promote or con-strain learning? Which conceptions of studentscorrespond with scientific conceptions in such away that they can be used for more adequate andfruitful learning?

The second component of the ER-model, theempirical research of students’ cognitive and affec-tive conceptions, is based on the important assump-tion that students’ conceptions are both the startingpoint for learning and an aid for learning. Learningis considered to be a constructive process. Thismeans that students enter the learning process withtheir own conceptions and they build their ownknowledge based on existing knowledge and experi-ences. Therefore educational researchers, designersand teachers must be aware of the learners’ priorknowledge or pre-scientific conceptions when theydevelop learning environments. The study ofstudents’ conception within the ER program aimsto answer at least some of the following questionsusing qualitative methods of empirical research:how are the scientific concepts represented instudents’ perspectives? Which conceptions are usedby the students? Which perspectives do studentshave about science? How do alternative conceptionsof students correspond with scientific conceptions?

The purpose of the analysis of the subject matter,the third component of the model, is to identify theessential concepts and their relationships in thescientific literature—science textbooks and bookson the philosophy and history of science. Theanalysis aims to answer, among others, the follow-ing questions: which are the scientific theories andconcepts on a specific subject? What is the genesis,function and meaning of the scientific concepts, andin which context are they placed? Which scientificterms are being used, and which of them constrainor promote learning because of their literal mean-ing? Which ethical and social implications areassociated with the scientific conceptions?

3.3. Pedagogical content knowledge studies

(PCK-S)

The model of ER is designed to better developlearning environments based on the integrated studyof students’ pre-scientific conceptions and thescientific conceptions. Complementary to the re-search on students’ pre-scientific conceptions, it is

also important to study the knowledge and beliefsthat teachers have, since the teacher plays animportant role in the instruction process. Theteacher tries to represent the subject matter to hisstudents in ways he thinks the students can relate to.Therefore, a teacher needs to have some developedPCK. The teacher should have developed ‘subjectmatter knowledge for teaching’ that enables him orher to follow a students’ reasoning and to analyzerepresentations of the subject matter. He or shemust have knowledge of students’ pre-scientificconceptions in order to understand the conceptualdifficulties that might arise when teaching a specifictopic and the teacher should have knowledge ofrepresentations of the subject matter to overcomethese difficulties.

As discussed in the previous section the term‘PCK’ refers to a unique knowledge domain withina teacher’s mind. The educational ideas that are theresults of what we call pedagogical content knowl-edge studies (PCK-S), the field within educationalresearch that focuses its research on the PCK thatteachers possess, are different from teachers’ PCKsince they are extracted from their context: theknowledge, beliefs and experiences of the individualteacher. These results are described, interpreted andabstracted by the researcher and reconstructed forteacher education with the intention that these ideasare internalized by the prospective teachers andform an element of the framework that enablesthem to learn from their experiences in their ownIndividual Teaching Practice (Fig. 3).5 Briefly said:teachers acquire PCK from their Individual Teach-ing Practice; this PCK forms the object forresearchers that study teachers’ PCK; these re-searchers try to construct new educational ideasfrom the PCK of experienced teachers; theseeducational ideas, in turn, can be taught to otherteachers in workshops and courses and in this wayflow into these teachers’ Individual TeachingPractice.

3.4. The model of educational reconstruction for

teacher education (ERTE)

The model of ER can be easily adapted into amodel that includes PCK-S: the original ER modelis integrated in the new model that is a copy of this

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Pedagogical ContentKnowledge (PCK)

educational ideas

PedagogicalContent

KnowledgeStudies (PCK-S)

internalizededucational ideas

teacher education

IndividualTeaching Practice

(ITP)

Fig. 3. A model which represents the subject, object and purpose of empirical research on PCK. The model aims to clarify the distinction

between PCK, the personal knowledge domain of the teacher, and educational ideas, the results from PCK-S.

EDUCATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OFTEACHER EDUCATION

PEDAGOGICALCONTENTKNOWLEDGESTUDIES

DESIGN OF LEARNINGENVIRONMENTS

study ofstudents'conceptions

subjectmatter

analysis

Fig. 4. The stack model of educational reconstruction for teacher education: In this model, the empirical study of teachers’ PCK is related

to the design of learning environments and the construction of teacher education.

E.M. van Dijk, U. Kattmann / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 885–897894

triangular model (Fig. 4). The result is a two-layeredmodel or a stack model in which the ER model fillsone of the corners of the ERTE model. We assume

that the content for teacher education needs to be‘reconstructed’ for teaching. In the ERTE model thefollowing research domains are integrated: (1) the


design of learning environments, (2) the empiricalstudy of students’ pre-conceptions, (3) the analysisof the subject matter, (4) PCK-S, and (5) the designof teacher education (Fig. 4). These elements arestrongly interrelated, they influence each othermutually. Within the framework of the ERTEmodel the PCK-S will be carried out in relation tothe research results of ER with the intention toconstruct teacher education. In this ERTE designresearch model the teacher has become an essentialelement. Lohmann (2006) has recently described asimilar enhanced ER model for the empirical studyof prospective teachers’ pre-conceptions instead ofthe PCK of experienced teachers.

The purpose of the study of teachers’ PCK is toanswer three questions that relate to the three key-elements of PCK6:

(1)

6T

JanX

2004

but

What ‘subject matter knowledge for teaching’do teachers have?

(2)
What conceptions do teachers have of students’pre-scientific conceptions on the subject matter?
(3)
What conceptions do teachers have of subjectmatter representations?
These three questions are fully in accord with theelements of the ER model: (1) analysis of the subjectmatter, (2) study of students’ pre-conceptions, and(3) design of learning environments or representa-tions of the subject matter.

The research design for the study of PCK can besketched as follows: A team of researchers works onthe analysis of the subject matter and a study of theliterature on students’ pre-conceptions. Some of theresearchers focus on the empirical research ofstudents’ pre-conceptions while the others focus onthe empirical research of teachers PCK. Theinteraction between the two studies is essential inthis research design. The analysis of the subjectmatter, the study of students’ pre-conceptions andthe process of designing a learning environment orteaching–learning sequences form the referencematerial for the PCK-S. This reference material isnot meant to set the standard on which the teacher’sknowledge is being measured. Rather, the functionof the reference material is to provide us with abroad picture of the different conceptions and

hese three questions are congruent with those of Anne

en-Bartels (2003; poster presentation ERIDOB-conference,

), who derived her research questions from the model of ER

without considering the concept of PCK.

representations of the subject matter that can beused as a context in which the teacher’s conceptionscan be fully explored. On the other hand can theresults of the PCK-S influence the design process ifthe teacher has acquired, during his or her teachingcareer, ways to present the subject knowledge in afor students understandable way. The results of thisresearch process can then be used to improveteacher education. We do not suggest that prospec-tive teachers try out the learning environments thatare designed for secondary school students butinstead we suggest that the above described researchprocess is ‘reconstructed’ for teacher education. Iffuture PCK studies within the framework of theERTE model confirm the findings of earlier studies,namely that teachers are aware of the conceptualdifficulties of their students but do not have theability to respond adequately, this integratedexploration of teacher knowledge may be able toprovide us with some solutions for this problem.

4. Conclusion and outlook

The main purpose of this paper is to introduce theERTE model. The model forms the basis for anintegrated approach of the study of science teachers’PCK which aims to improve teacher education.Within the framework of the ERTE model theteacher has become an essential element in thedesign process of learning environments. Theusefulness of the model and the proposed researchdesign will have to be substantiated in the future.

Our next step will be to use the ERTE model for aqualitative study of PCK of secondary schoolbiology teachers with respect to the topic ofevolution. Three research questions have beenformulated: (1) What ‘subject matter knowledgefor teaching’ do biology teachers have concerningthe topic of evolution? (2) What conceptions doteachers have of students’ pre-scientific conceptionson evolution? (3) What conceptions do biologyteachers have of subject matter representations ofevolution? Within the confines of our plannedresearch project it will be necessary to adapt theabove described ERTE research design: In view ofthe vast amount of research on student conceptionswith respect to evolution it is possible to reduce thestudy of students’ conceptions to a literature studyof students’ conceptions (Baalmann, Frerichs, &Kattmann, 1999, studied students’ pre-conceptionswith respect to evolution within the framework ofthe ER model). The analysis of the subject matter


will have to be more limited and the process ofdesigning a learning environment will be reduced tothe analysis of existing materials in relation to theaforementioned literature study and analysis of thesubject matter. The primary purpose of thisempirical study of PCK is to formulate recommen-dations for teacher education with respect to theteaching of evolution.

References

Baalmann, W., Frerichs, V., & Kattmann, U. (1999). How the

gorillas became dark—Research in students’ conceptions

leads to a rearrangement of teaching genetics and evolution.

In O. de Jong, K. Kortland, A. J. Waarlo, & J. Buddingh

(Eds.), Bridging the gap between theory and practice: What

research says to the science teacher, Proceedings of the 1998

international summer symposium, Utrecht University, The

Netherlands (pp. 171–189). Hong Kong: ICASE.

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and

pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and

using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on

mathematics teaching and learning. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Bayrhuber, H. (1995). Dimensions of the Didaktik of natural

sciences in Germany. In S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.),

Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 335–344). IPN: Kiel.

Bromme, R. (1995). What exactly is ‘pedagogical content

knowledge’?—Critical remarks regarding a fruitful research

program. In S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Didaktik

and/or curriculum (pp. 205–216). IPN: Kiel.

Bucat, R. (2004). Pedagogical content knowledge as a way

forward: Applied research in chemistry education. Chemistry

Education: Research and Practice, 5, 215–228.

Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-

Newsome, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical

content knowledge (pp. 133–144). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A.

(1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students’

problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal of Research

in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.

Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative

study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced

and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research on

Science Teaching, 31, 419–441.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher

research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the

American Educational Research Association. New York:

Macmillan.

Doyle, W., & Westbury, I. (1992). Die Ruckbesinnung auf de

Unterrichtsinhalt in der Curriculum- und Bildungsforschung

in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung, 45, 137–157.

Duit, R., GropengieXer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards

science education research that is relevant for improving

practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H.

Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science

education. The ESERA Summer School 2004. London: Palmer

Press.

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An

introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. G.

Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge

(pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Good, R. (Ed.). (1991). Editorial. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 28, 387.

GropengieXer, H. (2001). Didaktische Rekonstruktion des

Sehens; wissenschaftliche Theorien und die Sicht der Schuler

in der Perspektive der Vermittlung. In U. Kattmann (Ed.),

Beitrage zur Didaktische Rekonstruktion Band 1. Oldenburg:

Didaktisches Zentrum, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat.

GropengieXer, H., & Kattmann, U. (Eds.). (2006). Fachdidaktik

Biologie begrundet von Dieter Eschenhagen, Ulrich Kattmann

und Dieter Rodi. Koln: Aulis Verlag Deubner.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher

knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Gudmundsdottir, S., & Grankvist, R. (1992). Deutsche Didaktik

aus der Sicht neuerer empirischer Unterrichts- und Curricu-

lumforschung in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung, 45,

175–187.

Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content

knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-

tional Research, 31, 59–70.

Gudmundsdottir, S., Reinertsen, A., & Nordtømme, N. (2000).

Klafki’s Didaktik Analysis as a conceptual framework for

research on teaching. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K.

Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German

Didaktik tradition (pp. 319–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (1998). Introduction: Didaktik

meets Curriculum. In B. B. Gundem, & S. Hopmann

(Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue

(pp. 1–8). New York: Peter Lang.

Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no

didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 7,

135–152.

Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Constructions: A

reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers

and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 273–292.

Hedewig, R. (1990). Aufgaben einer zeitgemaXen Biologiedidak-

tik. In R. W. Keck, W. Kohnlein, & U. Sandfuchs (Eds.),

Fachdidaktik zwischen Allgemeiner Didaktik und Fachwis-

senschaft (pp. 289–306). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Hopmann, S. (2000). Klafki’s model of Didaktik analysis. In I.

Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching

as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition

(pp. 197–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Starting a dialogue:

Issues in a beginning conversation between Didaktik and

the curriculum traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27,

3–12.

Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Starting a dialogue: A

beginning conversation between Didaktik and the curriculum

traditions. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts

(Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik

tradition (pp. 9–11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

JanXen-Bartels, A. (2003). Schulervorstellungen zum Unterricht

uber ‘‘Menschenrassen’’. In H. Vog, D. Kruger, &

U. Unterbruner (Eds.), Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik

(pp. 57–71). Kassel: Universitat.


Kansanen, P., & Meri, M. (1999). The didactic relation in the

teaching–studying–learning process. The TNTEE Journal, 2,

107–116.

Kattmann, U., Duit, R., & GropengieXer, H. (1998). The model

of educational reconstruction. Bringing together issues of

scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. In H.

Bayrhuber, & F. Brinkman (Eds.), What– Why– How? Re-

search in Didaktik of biology (pp. 253–262). Kiel: IPN.

Kattmann, U., Duit, R., GropengieXer, H., & Komorek, M.

(1997). Das Modell der Didaktische Rekonstruktion—Ein

Rahmen fur naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung und

Entwicklung. Zeitschrift fur Didaktik der Naturwissenschaf-

ten, 3, 3–18.

Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in

educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.

Klafki, W. (1996). Zur Unterrichtsplanung im Sinne kritisch-

konstruktiver Didaktik. In W. Klafki (Ed.), Neue Studien zur

Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: ZeitgemaX e Allgemeinbildung

und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik (pp. 251–284). Weinheim:

Beltz Verlag.

Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of

instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts

(Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik

tradition (pp. 197–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kunzli, R. (2000). German Didaktik: Models of re-presentation

of intercourse, and of experience. In I. Westbury, S.

Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective

practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 41–54). Mah-

wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history

of educational research. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

Lohmann, G. (2006). Didaktische Rekonstruktion in der

Hochschuldidaktik. Journal fur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbil-

dung, 2 (in press).

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources,

and development of PCK. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. G.


(pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences:

Aims and tools for science education research. International

Journal of Science Education, 26, 515–535 (Special Issue).

Reinertsen, A., Nordtømme, N., Eidsvik, R., Weidemann, E., &

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1996). Fagdidaktisk kunnskap i historie

belyst grennom undervisning i hendelsene pa Eidsvoll 1814: Tre

kasusstudier av lærer i videregaende skole. Trondheim: Tapir.

Sandfuchs, U. (1990). Anmerkungen zur historischen Entwick-

lung und zum gegenwartigen Stand der Fachdidaktik als

Wissenschaft. In R. W. Keck, W. Kohnlein, & U. Sandfuchs

(Eds.), Fachdidaktik zwischen Allgemeiner Didaktik und

Fachwissenschaft (pp. 289–306). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs

for the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3–36). New York:

Macmillan.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of

the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–21.

Shulman, L. S. (1999). Foreword. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. G.


(pp. ix–xii). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowl-

edge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,

99–110.

Terhart, E. (1995). Didaktik/curriculum in teacher education:

Some German complications. In S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts

(Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 289–300). IPN: Kiel.

Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The

development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572–590.

Van Driel, J. H., Veal, W. R., & Janssen, F. J. J. M. (2001).

Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative component

within the knowledge base for teaching (an essay review).

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 979–986.

Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing

science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.

Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research

on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.),

Handbook of research on science teaching and learning

(pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.

Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might

Didaktik teach curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, &

K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The

German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15–39). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Documents

A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education