Discovering the dimensions of teaching the subject of subatomic particles in the tenth grade chemistry course, based on the PCK theory, with the Delphi method

Subject Areas : Research in Curriculum Planning

Mahshid Torkaman asadi ¹ , Mostafa Ghaderi ² , mahbobeh khosravi ³ , Bahram Saleh Sedkgpour ⁴ , Alireza Karami Gazafi ⁵

1 - Phd student of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor in Department of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Associate Professor in Department of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Associate professor in Department of Educational Science, Faculty of Human sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.
5 - Assistant professor in Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Received: 2023-10-17 Accepted : 2024-01-09 Published : 2024-01-21

Keywords: PCK, Delphi method, subatomic particles, Teaching chemistry, misunderstanding,

Abstract :

The present article examines and identifies the dimensions of teaching in the subject of subatomic particles in the chemistry book, 10th grade, based on the pedagogical content knowledge model (PCK) of Magnuson, Krajcic and Burko (1999). In this research, two components "Knowledge of educational strategies" and "Knowledge of students' understanding of science" were selected and investigated. The research approach of this study based on mixed-methods sequential exploratory design is carried out using Delphi method in three rounds. The group of research participants is consisted of 33 chemistry teachers selected through “theoretical sampling” and then “Snowball sampling”. The first step involved semi-structured interview (round 1) and the acquired results of interview analyzed by “Open Coding” and “Axial Coding”. In the second round, a closed-answer questionnaire was designed according to the results obtained from the first round’s coding. Then the designed is provided for experts and the answers were investigated by means of Q factor analysis. In the third round, with the elimination of redundant questions, the edited questionnaire was assigned to the experts for the second time. Finally using the Q factor analysis, the following 8 dimensions were achieved: “Image symbolization"; "Learning activities"; "Practice of mathematical skills"; "Interactive-expository strategies of teaching"; "The origin of misunderstandings"; "Misunderstandings of the nature & stability"; "Resolving misunderstandings " and "prerequisites".

References:

Ahmadabadi, Z. (2020). Study of Misunderstandings of Chemical Bonds Based on Johnston's Triangle Multilevel Thought Model. Research in Chemistery Education, 2(1), 40-45.

Asdaghjahromi, M. (2023). Pathology of the teaching process of 10th grade chemistry. Research in Chemistery Education, 4(3), 82-95.

Asghari Lalami, N., & Amani, V. (2021). Factors Influencing High School and University Students' Misconceptions about Chemical Bonding. Research in Chemistry Education, 3(2), 19-36.

Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.

Allen, M. (2014). Misconceptions in primary science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.

Akin, F. N., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2018). The nature of the interplay among components of pedagogical content knowledge in reaction rate and chemical equilibrium topics of novice and experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 80-105.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Bayram-Jacobs, D.; Henze, I.; Evagorou, M.; Shwartz, Y.; Aschim, E.L.; Alcaraz-Dominguez, S.; Barajas, M.; Dagan, E (2019). Science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development during enactment of socioscientific curriculum materials. J. Res. Sci. Teach, 56, 1207–1233.

Barenthien, J.; Fiebranz, A.; Todorova, M.; Möller, K. (2023). Development of professional vision and pedagogical content knowledge during initial teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research.119, 102-186.

Bazargan, A., Sarmad, Z., Hejazi, A. (2023). research methods in behavioral sciences. Tehran: Agah.

Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J., Chan, K. K. H., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume, A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., Park, S., Rollnick, M., Sickel, A., Schneider, R. M., Suh, J. K., van Driel, J., & Wilson, C. D. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. (EdBorowski Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77-94). Springer Nature.

Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 3-76). Springer Nature.

Fardanesh, H. (2005). Theoretical Foundations of Instructional Technology. Tehran: Samt.

Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): some useful models and implications for teachers' training. Problems of Education in the Twenty First Century, 60, 79-100.

Fink-Hafner, D., Dagen, T., Doušak, M., Novak, M., & Hafner-Fink, M. (2019). Delphi method. Advances in Methodology and Statistics.

Friedrichsen, P., & Berry, A. (2015). Science teacher PCK learning progressions: Promises and challenges. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. (pp. 214-228). Routledge.

Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.

Ghaderi, M., Nosrati, N., Khosravi, M., (2018). The history of practical discourse in curriculum studies (Schwab's practical perspectives, improving teachers' knowledge and teacher training, implementing and changing the curriculum. Tehran:Avaye Nour.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In: A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York.

Haji Abbasi, M., & Moradi, S. (2023). Examining the weaknesses in understanding the concept of ion and formation of ion bond and providing solutions for educational improvement. Research in Chemistry Education, 5(2), 61-70.

Jeck, D. C. (2010). The relationship between levels of teacher efficacy and variability in instructional strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alexandria, VA: University of Virginia.

Jing-Jing, H. (2014). A critical review of pedagogical content knowledge' components: nature, principle and trend. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(4), 411-424.

Khosravi, R. (2019). The concept, importance and place of the element of learning activities in the curriculum, https://www.daneshnamehicsa.ir/Default.aspx?PageName=fields

Kirschbaum, Melissa. Barnett, Tony. Cross, Merylin. (2019). ‘Q sample construction: a novel approach incorporating a Delphi technique to explore opinions about codeine dependence’. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 19(101). pp.1-12.

Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.

Kulgemeyer, C., & Riese, J. (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: The impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1393–1418.

Leshin, C B. Pollock, J., Reigeluth Ch. M. (2015). Instructional Design Strategies and Tactics. (translated by Hashem Fardanesh). Tehran: Samt.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception.Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (3), 3–11.

Marzano, R. J. Debra. P., & Jane E. P. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. docente (The teaching role). Madrid: Ed. Síntesis, 47-83.

Maleki, H. (2019). Basic teaching skills book. Tehran: Ayez.

Mansourfar, K. (2001). Statistical Methods. Tehran: University of Tehran.

Montero, L. (2001). La construción del conocimiento en la enseñanza. In: Marcelo, C. (Ed.) La función.

Mortazavi, H., Nemat, R., Arshadhi, S., and Armat, M. (2005). The effectiveness of the application of teaching methods and use in educational processes. Iranian Journal of Education in Medical Sciences, 5(14) (Special issue of the 7th Medical Education Conference).

Natghi, F., Yousefi, A., & Yarmohamedian, M. H. (2005). Designing the evaluation model of the Iranian high school chemistry curriculum. Research in curriculum planning, 5(20), 21-48.

Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for Understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre‐service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299.

Oakleaf, M. & Vanscoy, A. (2010). Instructional strategies for digital reference: methods to facilitate student learning. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(4), 380-390.

Rust, Niki A. (2017). ‘Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human– carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise’. Oryx. 51(2). pp.339–346.

Saleh Sedekpour, S. Karmi Ghazafi, A. Zabihi Far. Sh. (2019). Designing, implementing and evaluating the educational game for the subject of the periodic table in the 10th grade chemistry course. Research in Educational Sciences Education and Counseling, 6(13), 158-173.

Seyfi S., Rashidi, A., Amani, V., Oula, E. (2023). The effect of game-based teaching on the learning of the periodic table topic in teaching 10th grade chemistry, Research in Chemistry Education, 4(2), 14-24. magiran.com/p2597989.

Sæleset, J. & Friedrichsen, P. (2021). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Integration of

Students’ Understanding in Science and Instructional Strategies. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10859

Shabani. M, Saberi. S. (2023). Investigation and identification of four common missconceptions in 10th grade chemistry. Research in Chemistry Education, 4(2), 438-445.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530-565.

Tabatabai Bafghi, S. (2015). Investigation of seven common misunderstandings of chemistry lesson in high school students. Iran Chemistry Education Conference. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/844421/fa

Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922-941.

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.

Van Driel, J. H., Jong, O. D., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010

Van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 848-870). Routledge.

Vogelsang, Christoph, Christoph Kulgemeyer, and Josef Riese. (2022). Learning to Plan by Learning to Reflect?—Exploring Relations between Professional Knowledge, Reflection Skills, and Planning Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in a One-Semester Field Experience. Education Sciences 12(7), 479.

Wallis, J. Burns, J. Capdevila, R. (2009). ‘Q Methodology and a Delphi Poll: A Useful Approach to Researching a Narrative Approach to Therapy’. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 6(3).pp. 173-190.