Educational Researcher 2012 Van Driel 26 8

8/12/2019 Educational Researcher 2012 Van Driel 26 8

1/4

http://er.aera.netEducational Researcher

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11431010

2012 41: 26EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERJan H. Van Driel and Amanda Berry

Teacher Professional Development Focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Educational ResearcherAdditional services and information for

http://er.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://er.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 3, 2012Version of Record>>

at OhioLink on April 17, 2012http://er.aera.netDownloaded from
http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26http://www.aera.net/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://er.aera.net/alertshttp://er.aera.net/alertshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26.full.pdfhttp://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26.full.pdfhttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://er.aera.net/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.aera.net/http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26http://er.aera.net/


2/4

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER26

Educational Researcher, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 2628

DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11431010

2012 AERA. http://er.aera.net

Because pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) includes teachers

understanding of how students learn, or fail to learn, specific subject

matter, the development of PCK is an important goal to focus on in

professional development programs. The research literature clearly

indicates the complex nature of PCK as a form of teachers profes-

sional knowledge that is highly topic, person, and situation specific. This

implies that professional development programs aimed at the develop-

ment of teachers PCK cannot be limited to supplying teachers with

input, such as examples of expert teaching of subject matter. Instead,

such programs should be closely aligned to teachers professional prac-tice and, in addition to providing teachers with specific input, should

include opportunities to enact certain instructional strategies and to

reflect, individually and collectively, on their experiences.

Keywords: policy analysis; professional development; teacher

education/development; teacher knowledge

In their 2011 article in Educational Researcher, Jennifer

Merriman Bausmith and Carol Barry draw attention to theimportance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as afocus of teacher professional learning communities (PLCs). Inparticular, the authors propose to compile an (online) library ofvideo lessons, based on the research literature and taught byexpert teachers, to be studied and discussed within PLCs as a wayto enhance teachers PCK. They call on researchers and practitio-ners to suggest other potential levers for change (p. 176). Asteacher educators and researchers of teacher knowledge anddevelopment, we feel compelled to respond to the ideas ofBausmith and Barry in order to problematize some of the issuesraised in their article.

To begin with, we agree with the authors on the importance

of forms of professional development for teachers that are builton collaboration, collegial interactions, and the fostering of rela-tionships. There seems to be consensus in the literature that theopportunity for teachers to participate actively and collabora-tively in professional communities is an essential componentof high-quality [professional development] (Borko, Jacobs,& Koellner, 2010, p. 550; see also Hawley & Valli, 1999; Little,2006). At the same time, however, there is limited research

evidence on the effects of such forms of professional development(Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). In particular, Hargreaves (2010)argued that teacher communities often suffered from weak lead-ership and that mandated coaching and collaboration oftenturned genuine teacher inquiry into rituals of contrived orenforced collegiality that actually made teachers inclined to col-laborate less (p. 290). In other words, there are reasons to beskeptical about the effects of PLCs, and it is important to focuson approaches that, at least potentially, may enhance their effec-tiveness. In this respect, we share the concern of Bausmith andBarry (2011) that teacher communities tend to ignore issues

related to teaching and learning subject matter even though theresearch literature has demonstrated the importance of a focuson subject matter learning in programs of teacher professionaldevelopment (e.g., Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Kennedy,1998). Because PCK includes teachers understanding ofhow students learn, or fail to learn, specific subject matter, thedevelopment of PCK is an important goal to focus on in suchprograms.

Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge

By mentioning only studies that were reported up until 1997,Bausmith and Barry (2011) give a rather limited account of

research on PCK. More important, stating that this researchyielded great insight into what expert teaching across disciplineslooks like (p. 176) seems to us to completely miss the essence ofempirical studies on PCK. Not only is PCK specifically related totopics withincertain disciplines (e.g., force within the domainof physics), but also research on PCK typically does not result ina description of expert teaching as if there would be one idealor optimal way to teach certain subject matter (cf. Shulman,1987). On the contrary, this research has demonstrated the com-plex nature of PCK as a form of teachers professional knowledgethat is highly topic, person, and situation specific (for overviewssee, e.g., Abell, 2007; Kind, 2009; Van Driel & Berry, 2010). Forinstance, Hashweh (2005) proposed to consider PCK as a reper-

toire of pedagogical constructions that teachers acquire whenrepeatedly teaching a certain topic. Even within one school, thesame teacher may experience that an effective way to teach forceon Monday morning in Grade 9 may not be half as effective on

Teacher Professional Development Focusing onPedagogical Content Knowledge

Jan H. Van Driel

1

and Amanda Berry

2

Policy Forum

1ICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden, The

Netherlands2Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/


3/4

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 27

Wednesday afternoon in another Grade 9 class. An expert teacher,in our view, is sensitive to such differences and is flexible enoughto adapt his or her approach, on the spot, to how studentsrespond. Thus, PCK includes knowledge of enhancing studentlearning in a variety of ways.

Implications for the Professional Development

of Teachers

By focusing on online videos of lessons taught by expert teach-

ers that are indexed to the Common Core State Standards(p. 176), it seems to us that Bausmith and Barry (2011) viewPCK as the enactment of a set of specific guidelines to teachcertain subject matter, which can be captured on videos ofexpert teachers and subsequently used as input in large-scaleprofessional development programs. Although the creation of anonline library of such video lessons may serve certain purposes,

we think this resource will be of limited value when it comes tofostering the development of teachers PCK. Apart from the dis-cussion about who will qualify as expert teachers, we knowfrom research that this approach does not do justice to howteachers actually develop their PCK. Such research has shownthat the development of PCK is never a linear process (e.g.,teacher knowledge development precedes changes in teacherbehavior, which is then implemented in practice, and finallyleads to certain student outcomes; cf. Guskey, 1986). First, thisdevelopment is rooted in teachers specific professional contextsand influenced by factors such as characteristics of the schoolculture and its population, available time, and local support forprofessional development (see, e.g., Little, 2006). Moreover,individual teachers perceive these factors differently, even whenthey work in the same school (Kennedy, 2010). Finally, teachersusually hold strong personal beliefs about issues such as whatthey view as good teaching, how they think students learn, and

which standards they wish to stress in a curriculum (Van Driel,

Bulte, & Verloop, 2007; cf. the notion of orientations towardsteaching in Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). In short, wethink that programs aiming at the development of PCK, likeother recent forms of professional development, should be basedon constructivist and situative theories rather than on behavioralapproaches (cf. Borko et al., 2010). Of course, we agree thatteachers should be focused on student learning, and in countries

where a national curriculum or set of standards (such as theCommon Core State Standards in the United States) is imple-mented, student learning needs to be geared toward such stan-dards. To state, however, that this can be achieved by professionaldevelopment providers who might help schools translate suchlessons and work to align local instructional efforts to the collegeand career readiness standards (Bausmith & Barry, 2011, p.177) is ignoring the complexity of PCK development and thefact that there are many ways in which teachers can develop theirPCK, adapted to their local contexts and the needs of their stu-dents, to contribute to these goals.

Conclusion

To conclude this commentary, we assert that the development ofPCK goes beyond the acquisition of instructional strategies andtechniques, per se, to include an understanding of how studentsdevelop insights in specific subject matter. The research literature

clearly demonstrates that PCK development is a complex processthat is highly specific to the context, situation, and person. Thisimplies that professional development programs aimed at thedevelopment of teachers PCK should be organized in ways thatclosely align to teachers professional practice, including oppor-tunities to enact certain (innovative) instructional strategies andmaterials and to reflect, individually and collectively, on theirexperiences. The research also shows that providing teachers withspecific input can contribute to the development of their PCK.

Examples of instructional practices, either good or flawed, canserve as input, as can evidence from the research literature andother resources. In this context, PLCs can have a very useful rolein helping teachers to explicate and discuss key notions of teach-ing and learning a specific topic, thus contributing to the identi-fication of a collective PCK, that is, a shared or common form ofteachers professional practical knowledge about teaching certainsubject matter. At the same time, there should be, of course,room for individual teachers to adapt this shared knowledge toand complement it with their own situations.

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. Abell& N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education(pp. 11051149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learningcommunities to increase college readiness: The importance of peda-gogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40,175178.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approachesto teacher professional development. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, &B. McGaw (Eds.), Third international encyclopedia of education(Vol. 7, pp. 548556). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linkingteacher and student learning to improve professional development insystemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,643658.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher

change. Educational Researcher, 15,512.Hargreaves, A. (2010). Sustainable educational reform. In P. L. Peterson,

E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), Third international encyclopedia of edu-cation(pp. 289294). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfigura-tion of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theoryand Practice, 11,273292.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professionaldevelopment: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and prac-tice(pp. 127150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of in-service teacher education.Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University ofWisconsin.

Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacherquality. Educational Researcher, 39,591598.

Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education:Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education,45,169204.

Little, J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional developmentin the learning-centered school. Arlington, VA: National EducationAssociation.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources anddevelopment of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge(pp. 95132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.



4/4

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER28

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of thenew reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 122.

Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2010). The teacher education knowledgebase: Pedagogical content knowledge. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, &B. McGaw (Eds.), Third international encyclopedia of education(Vol.7, pp. 656661). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationshipsbetween teachers general beliefs about teaching and learning andtheir domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17,156171.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on theimpact of professional learning communities on teaching practice andstudent learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,8091.

AUTHORS

JAN H. VAN DRIEL is a professor of science education at ICLONLeiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Wassenaarseweg 62A,

2333 AL, Leiden, The Netherlands; [email protected]. Hisresearch focuses on the development of teacher knowledge and beliefs inthe context of teacher education and educational reform and on the useof models and modeling in science teaching.

AMANDA BERRYis an associate professor of teacher education in theFaculty of Education at Monash University, Wellington Road, Building6, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; [email protected] is primarily concerned with the professional learning of teachersand teacher educators, the development of science teachers pedagogical

content knowledge, and self-study methodology.

Manuscript received August 26, 2011

Revision received October 29, 2011

Accepted November 2, 2011


Documents

Educational Researcher 2012 Van Driel 26 8