How do Early-career Biology Faculty Develop Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Exploring Variation and Longitudinal Development.

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Alex H Waugh, Kathryn E Green, Tessa C Andrews
{"title":"How do Early-career Biology Faculty Develop Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Exploring Variation and Longitudinal Development.","authors":"Alex H Waugh, Kathryn E Green, Tessa C Andrews","doi":"10.1187/cbe.24-08-0211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Active-learning instructors are more effective when they use pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to anticipate, interpret, and respond to student thinking. PCK is topic-specific and includes knowledge of student thinking (e.g., common difficulties) and knowledge of instructional strategies (e.g., effective learning tasks). Currently, we know little about how instructors develop PCK. We documented how 11 early-career undergraduate life science instructors developed PCK over multiple semesters by eliciting knowledge as instructors planned, implemented, and reflected on instruction. Qualitative content analysis indicated that instructors' PCK about student thinking was not necessarily grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies varied in whether and how it considered student thinking. We adapted a rubric to test hypotheses about PCK development trajectories. Participants' PCK about student thinking tended to become more grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies tended to focus more on student thinking over time. However, teaching experience did not necessarily lead to PCK development. Case study analysis revealed that pedagogical knowledge and specific practices supported PCK development. We propose a hypothetical model to explain how teaching knowledge and practices support PCK development. We also suggest reflections and actions for instructors who want to develop their PCK.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"ar13"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-08-0211","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Active-learning instructors are more effective when they use pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to anticipate, interpret, and respond to student thinking. PCK is topic-specific and includes knowledge of student thinking (e.g., common difficulties) and knowledge of instructional strategies (e.g., effective learning tasks). Currently, we know little about how instructors develop PCK. We documented how 11 early-career undergraduate life science instructors developed PCK over multiple semesters by eliciting knowledge as instructors planned, implemented, and reflected on instruction. Qualitative content analysis indicated that instructors' PCK about student thinking was not necessarily grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies varied in whether and how it considered student thinking. We adapted a rubric to test hypotheses about PCK development trajectories. Participants' PCK about student thinking tended to become more grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies tended to focus more on student thinking over time. However, teaching experience did not necessarily lead to PCK development. Case study analysis revealed that pedagogical knowledge and specific practices supported PCK development. We propose a hypothetical model to explain how teaching knowledge and practices support PCK development. We also suggest reflections and actions for instructors who want to develop their PCK.

早期职业生物学教师如何发展教学内容知识?探索变异和纵向发展。
当主动学习教师使用教学内容知识(PCK)来预测、解释和回应学生的思维时,他们会更有效。PCK是特定主题的,包括对学生思维的了解(例如,常见的困难)和对教学策略的了解(例如,有效的学习任务)。目前,我们对教师如何培养PCK知之甚少。我们记录了11名早期职业生涯的本科生生命科学教师是如何在多个学期中通过在教师计划、实施和教学中反思时获取知识来发展PCK的。定性内容分析表明,教师对学生思维的PCK不一定以学生的证据为基础,教师对教学策略的PCK在是否考虑学生思维以及如何考虑学生思维方面存在差异。我们采用了一个标题来测试关于PCK发展轨迹的假设。随着时间的推移,参与者对学生思维的PCK倾向于更多地基于学生的证据,他们对教学策略的PCK倾向于更多地关注学生的思维。然而,教学经验并不一定导致PCK的发展。案例分析表明,教学知识和具体实践支持PCK的发展。我们提出一个假设模型来解释教学知识和实践如何支持PCK的发展。我们还建议想要发展PCK的教师反思和行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信