Exploring the Roles of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teacher Noticing: An Expert–Novice Comparative Study

IF 4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Science & Education Pub Date : 2026-08-07 Epub Date: 2026-05-05 DOI:10.1002/sce.70073
Kennedy Kam Ho Chan, Jan van Driel
{"title":"Exploring the Roles of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teacher Noticing: An Expert–Novice Comparative Study","authors":"Kennedy Kam Ho Chan,&nbsp;Jan van Driel","doi":"10.1002/sce.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This exploratory study examined the theoretically assumed, but empirically underexplored, reciprocal relationships between teacher noticing and professional knowledge by comparing the noticing processes of expert and novice science teachers. It examined how their domain-specific knowledge (content knowledge [CK] and pedagogical content knowledge [PCK]) influenced these processes. A video-based interview was conducted with 15 preservice and 12 expert science teachers to elicit and approximate their noticing processes, including perception, interpretation, and proposed instructional responses to atypical student thinking. The quantitative analysis revealed that experts more often evaluated teacher pedagogy and classroom activities, interpreted student thinking and referenced science content in their comments. They also more readily proposed content-specific next instructional moves linked to students' content-specific thinking. The qualitative analysis showed that novices relied mainly on their CK to evaluate student thinking, while experts' CK and PCK supported their more nuanced analysis of student thinking. Moreover, while novices' limited PCK hindered their ability to evaluate teacher pedagogy and classroom activities, as well as to propose subsequent instructional moves, experts' deeper CK and PCK enabled more content-specific evaluations and proposals for instructional moves. Novices tended to emulate the teacher's approaches in the videos, while some experts engaged in knowledge-building, proposing new instructional strategies after noticing the limitations of the teacher's strategies for conveying specific scientific ideas. We conclude that experts, unlike novices, notice teaching interactions as a dynamic interplay among teachers, students, and science content, rather than simply focusing on teacher actions. We discuss the implications of these findings for science teacher education.</p>","PeriodicalId":771,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"110 5","pages":"1447-1468"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sce.70073","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.70073","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This exploratory study examined the theoretically assumed, but empirically underexplored, reciprocal relationships between teacher noticing and professional knowledge by comparing the noticing processes of expert and novice science teachers. It examined how their domain-specific knowledge (content knowledge [CK] and pedagogical content knowledge [PCK]) influenced these processes. A video-based interview was conducted with 15 preservice and 12 expert science teachers to elicit and approximate their noticing processes, including perception, interpretation, and proposed instructional responses to atypical student thinking. The quantitative analysis revealed that experts more often evaluated teacher pedagogy and classroom activities, interpreted student thinking and referenced science content in their comments. They also more readily proposed content-specific next instructional moves linked to students' content-specific thinking. The qualitative analysis showed that novices relied mainly on their CK to evaluate student thinking, while experts' CK and PCK supported their more nuanced analysis of student thinking. Moreover, while novices' limited PCK hindered their ability to evaluate teacher pedagogy and classroom activities, as well as to propose subsequent instructional moves, experts' deeper CK and PCK enabled more content-specific evaluations and proposals for instructional moves. Novices tended to emulate the teacher's approaches in the videos, while some experts engaged in knowledge-building, proposing new instructional strategies after noticing the limitations of the teacher's strategies for conveying specific scientific ideas. We conclude that experts, unlike novices, notice teaching interactions as a dynamic interplay among teachers, students, and science content, rather than simply focusing on teacher actions. We discuss the implications of these findings for science teacher education.

探讨内容知识与教学内容知识在教师注意中的作用:专家—新手比较研究
本探索性研究通过比较专家科学教师和新手科学教师的注意过程,检验了理论假设但实证未充分探索的教师注意与专业知识之间的相互关系。它研究了他们的领域特定知识(内容知识[CK]和教学内容知识[PCK])如何影响这些过程。对15名职前科学教师和12名专业科学教师进行了基于视频的访谈,以引出和近似他们的注意过程,包括对非典型学生思维的感知、解释和建议的教学反应。定量分析显示,专家们更多地评价教师的教学方法和课堂活动,解释学生的思维,并在评论中引用科学内容。他们也更容易提出与学生的特定内容思维相关的特定内容的下一步教学行动。定性分析表明,新手主要依靠他们的CK来评估学生的思维,而专家的CK和PCK支持他们对学生思维的更细致的分析。此外,新手有限的PCK阻碍了他们评估教师教学法和课堂活动以及提出后续教学动作的能力,而专家更深入的CK和PCK使他们能够对教学动作进行更具体的评估和建议。新手倾向于在视频中模仿教师的方法,而一些专家则从事知识建设,在注意到教师在传达特定科学思想方面的策略的局限性后,提出新的教学策略。我们得出的结论是,与新手不同,专家将教学互动视为教师、学生和科学内容之间的动态相互作用,而不是简单地关注教师的行为。我们讨论了这些发现对科学教师教育的意义。
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
Science & Education
Science & Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
14.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice. In addition to original articles, the journal features the following special sections: -Learning : consisting of theoretical and empirical research studies on learning of science. We invite manuscripts that investigate learning and its change and growth from various lenses, including psychological, social, cognitive, sociohistorical, and affective. Studies examining the relationship of learning to teaching, the science knowledge and practices, the learners themselves, and the contexts (social, political, physical, ideological, institutional, epistemological, and cultural) are similarly welcome. -Issues and Trends : consisting primarily of analytical, interpretive, or persuasive essays on current educational, social, or philosophical issues and trends relevant to the teaching of science. This special section particularly seeks to promote informed dialogues about current issues in science education, and carefully reasoned papers representing disparate viewpoints are welcomed. Manuscripts submitted for this section may be in the form of a position paper, a polemical piece, or a creative commentary. -Science Learning in Everyday Life : consisting of analytical, interpretative, or philosophical papers regarding learning science outside of the formal classroom. Papers should investigate experiences in settings such as community, home, the Internet, after school settings, museums, and other opportunities that develop science interest, knowledge or practices across the life span. Attention to issues and factors relating to equity in science learning are especially encouraged.. -Science Teacher Education [...]
×
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
小红书