Educational Researcher

http://er.aera.net Teacher Professional Development Focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Jan H. Van Driel and Amanda Berry EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 2012 41: 26 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11431010 The online version of this article can be found at: http://edr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/26

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Educational Researcher can be found at: Email Alerts: http://er.aera.net/alerts Subscriptions: http://er.aera.net/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions

>> Version of Record - Feb 3, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at OhioLink on April 17, 2012

Policy Forum
Teacher Professional Development Focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Jan H.Van Driel1 and Amanda Berry2
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 professional knowledge that is highly topic, person, and situation specific.This implies that professional development programs aimed at the development 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 practice 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

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 leadership and that mandated coaching and collaboration often turned genuine teacher inquiry into rituals of contrived or enforced collegiality that actually made teachers inclined to collaborate less (p. 290). In other words, there are reasons to be skeptical about the effects of PLCs, and it is important to focus on approaches that, at least potentially, may enhance their effectiveness. In this respect, we share the concern of Bausmith and Barry (2011) that teacher communities tend to ignore issues related to teaching and learning subject matter even though the research literature has demonstrated the importance of a focus on subject matter learning in programs of teacher professional development (e.g., Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Kennedy, 1998). Because 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 such programs. 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 research yielded great insight into what expert teaching across disciplines looks like (p. 176) seems to us to completely miss the essence of empirical studies on PCK. Not only is PCK specifically related to topics within certain disciplines (e.g., force within the domain of physics), but also research on PCK typically does not result in a description of expert teaching as if there would be one ideal or optimal way to teach certain subject matter (cf. Shulman, 1987). On the contrary, this research has demonstrated the complex nature of PCK as a form of teachers professional knowledge that is highly topic, person, and situation specific (for overviews see, e.g., Abell, 2007; Kind, 2009; Van Driel & Berry, 2010). For instance, Hashweh (2005) proposed to consider PCK as a repertoire of pedagogical constructions that teachers acquire when repeatedly teaching a certain topic. Even within one school, the same teacher may experience that an effective way to teach force on Monday morning in Grade 9 may not be half as effective on
ICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden, The Netherlands 2 Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
1

n their 2011 article in Educational Researcher, Jennifer Merriman Bausmith and Carol Barry draw attention to the importance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a focus of teacher professional learning communities (PLCs). In particular, the authors propose to compile an (online) library of video lessons, based on the research literature and taught by expert teachers, to be studied and discussed within PLCs as a way to enhance teachers PCK. They call on researchers and practitioners to suggest other potential levers for change (p. 176). As teacher educators and researchers of teacher knowledge and development, we feel compelled to respond to the ideas of Bausmith and Barry in order to problematize some of the issues raised in their article. To begin with, we agree with the authors on the importance of forms of professional development for teachers that are built on collaboration, collegial interactions, and the fostering of relationships. There seems to be consensus in the literature that the opportunity for teachers to participate actively and collaboratively in professional communities is an essential component of 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

26

EDUCATIONAL RESEArCHEr

Educational Researcher,Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 2628 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11431010 2012 AERA. http://er.aera.net
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at OhioLink on April 17, 2012

Wednesday afternoon in another Grade 9 class. An expert teacher, in our view, is sensitive to such differences and is flexible enough to adapt his or her approach, on the spot, to how students respond. Thus, PCK includes knowledge of enhancing student learning in a variety of ways. Implications for the Professional Development of Teachers By focusing on online videos of lessons taught by expert teachers that are indexed to the Common Core State Standards (p. 176), it seems to us that Bausmith and Barry (2011) view PCK as the enactment of a set of specific guidelines to teach certain subject matter, which can be captured on videos of expert teachers and subsequently used as input in large-scale professional development programs. Although the creation of an online library of such video lessons may serve certain purposes, we think this resource will be of limited value when it comes to fostering the development of teachers PCK. Apart from the discussion about who will qualify as expert teachers, we know from research that this approach does not do justice to how teachers actually develop their PCK. Such research has shown that the development of PCK is never a linear process (e.g., teacher knowledge development precedes changes in teacher behavior, which is then implemented in practice, and finally leads to certain student outcomes; cf. Guskey, 1986). First, this development is rooted in teachers specific professional contexts and influenced by factors such as characteristics of the school culture and its population, available time, and local support for professional development (see, e.g., Little, 2006). Moreover, individual teachers perceive these factors differently, even when they work in the same school (Kennedy, 2010). Finally, teachers usually hold strong personal beliefs about issues such as what they 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 towards teaching in Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). In short, we think that programs aiming at the development of PCK, like other recent forms of professional development, should be based on constructivist and situative theories rather than on behavioral approaches (cf. Borko et al., 2010). Of course, we agree that teachers should be focused on student learning, and in countries where a national curriculum or set of standards (such as the Common Core State Standards in the United States) is implemented, student learning needs to be geared toward such standards. To state, however, that this can be achieved by professional development providers who might help schools translate such lessons and work to align local instructional efforts to the college and career readiness standards (Bausmith & Barry, 2011, p. 177) is ignoring the complexity of PCK development and the fact that there are many ways in which teachers can develop their PCK, adapted to their local contexts and the needs of their students, to contribute to these goals. Conclusion To conclude this commentary, we assert that the development of PCK goes beyond the acquisition of instructional strategies and techniques, per se, to include an understanding of how students develop insights in specific subject matter. The research literature

clearly demonstrates that PCK development is a complex process that is highly specific to the context, situation, and person. This implies that professional development programs aimed at the development of teachers PCK should be organized in ways that closely align to teachers professional practice, including opportunities to enact certain (innovative) instructional strategies and materials and to reflect, individually and collectively, on their experiences. The research also shows that providing teachers with specific input can contribute to the development of their PCK. Examples of instructional practices, either good or flawed, can serve as input, as can evidence from the research literature and other resources. In this context, PLCs can have a very useful role in helping teachers to explicate and discuss key notions of teaching and learning a specific topic, thus contributing to the identification of a collective PCK, that is, a shared or common form of teachers professional practical knowledge about teaching certain subject matter. At the same time, there should be, of course, room for individual teachers to adapt this shared knowledge to and 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 learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40, 175178. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to 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). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic 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 education (pp. 289294). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Hashweh, M. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 273292. Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of in-service teacher education. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. 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 development in the learning-centered school. Arlington, VA: National Education Association. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
JANUArY/FEBrUArY 2012 27

Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at OhioLink on April 17, 2012

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 122. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2010). The teacher education knowledge base: 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 relationships between teachers general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 156171. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 8091.
AUTHORS

2333 AL, Leiden, The Netherlands; driel@iclon.leidenuniv.nl. His research focuses on the development of teacher knowledge and beliefs in the context of teacher education and educational reform and on the use of models and modeling in science teaching. AMANDA BERRY is an associate professor of teacher education in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Wellington Road, Building 6, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; amanda.berry@monash.edu. Her research is primarily concerned with the professional learning of teachers and teacher educators, the development of science teachers pedagogical content knowledge, and self-study methodology.

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

Manuscript received August 26, 2011 Revision received October 29, 2011 Accepted November 2, 2011

28

EDUCATIONAL RESEArCHEr
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at OhioLink on April 17, 2012