Improving preservice chemistry teachers’ content knowledge through intervention activities

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 1238-1261

  Wheeldon, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chemistry education; intervention; teacher knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020492208     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1333655     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Abell, S. K., (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K., Abell, & N. G., Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1150). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T., (2007). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter:A 17-year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221–251. doi:10.1002/sce.20239
3. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M., (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems came out on top. London:McKinsey and Company.
4. Chi, M. T. H., (1992). ‘Conceptual change within and across ontological categories:Examples from learning and discovery in science’. In R. N., Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models in science (vol. XV, pp. 129–186). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
5. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:L. Erlbaum Associates.
6. Coll, R., & Treagust, D., (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464–486. doi:10.1002/tea.10085
7. Crown. (2011). Teachers’ Standards. Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Teachers__Standards.pdf
8. Deng, Z., (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503–535. doi:10.1080/00220270701305362
9. Dole, J. A., (2000). ‘Readers, texts and conceptual change learning’. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 99–118. doi:10.1080/105735600277980
10. Driver, R., & Erickson, G., (1983). ‘Theories-in-action:Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science’. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60. doi:10.1080/03057268308559904
11. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V., (1994). Making sense of secondary science:Research into children’s ideas. London:Routledge.
12. Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D., (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome:A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 467–479. doi:10.1002/tea.3660200509
13. Duit, R. H., & Treagust, D. F., (2012). Conceptual change:Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science instruction. In K. C. D., Tan, & K., Mijung (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 43–54). New York:Springer.
14. Evagorou, M., Dillon, J., Viiri, J., & Albe, V., (2015). Preservice science teacher preparation in Europe:Comparing preservice teacher preparation programs in England, France, Finland and Cyprus. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 99–115. doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9421-8
15. Fan, X., (2001). Statistical significance and effect size in education research:Two sides of a coin. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 275–282. doi:10.1080/00220670109598763
16. Gentner, D., (1983). Structure-mapping:A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
17. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M., (1983). ‘Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions:Changing perspectives in science education’. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98. doi:10.1080/03057268308559905
18. Goodwin, A. L., (2012). Teaching as a profession:Are we there yet? In C., Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 44–56). Abingdon:Taylor & Francis.
19. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C., (1991). Understanding models and their use in science:Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799–822. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280907
20. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F., (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. doi:10.1080/095006900416884
21. Hashweh, M. Z., (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(87)90012-6
22. IBM. (2013) IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 22.0.0.0) [Computer program]
23. Kapon, S., & diSessa, A. A., (2012). Reasoning through instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 261–310. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.689385
24. Khan, K. S., Davies, D. A., & Gupta, J. K., (2001). Formative self-assessment using multiple true-false questions on the Internet:Feedback according to confidence about correct knowledge. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 158–163. doi:10.1080/01421590031075
25. Kind, V., & Kind, P. M., (2011). Beginning to teach chemistry:How personal and academic characteristics of preservice science teachers compare with their understandings of basic chemical ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2123–2158. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.542498
26. Kind, V., (2009). A conflict in your head:An exploration of trainee science teachers’ subject matter knowledge development and its impact on teacher self-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1529–1562. doi:10.1080/09500690802226062
27. Kind, V., (2014). A degree is not enough:A quantitative study of aspects of preservice science teachers’ chemistry content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1313–1345. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.860497
28. Käpylä, M., Heikkinen, J-P, & Asunta, T., (2009). Influence of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge:The case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1395–1415. doi:10.1080/09500690802082168
29. Millar, R., (2013). Assessing beginning teachers’ subject knowledge:How reliable is self-audit? Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Nicosia.
30. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M., (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London:McKinsey and Company.
31. Muijs, D., (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London:SAGE.
32. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D., (2012). Understanding needs embodiment:A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877. doi:10.1002/sce.21026
33. NSTA. (2004). Position statement:Science teacher preparation. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://www.nsta.org/docs/PositionStatement_TeacherPrep.pdf
34. Park, E. J., & Light, G., (2009). ‘Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept:Student mental models and troublesomeness’. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233–258. doi:10.1080/09500690701675880
35. Potvin, P., (2017). The coexistence claim and its possible implications for success in teaching for conceptual “change”. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 55–66.
36. Promethean. (2008). Promethean Activ software Expression edition (Version 1.0.4522) [Computer program].
37. Rohrer, T., (2005). Image schemata in the brain. In B., Hampe, & J., Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning:Images schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165–196). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D., (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723–736. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300710
39. Schraw, G., (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In D. J., Hacker, J., Dunlosky, & A. C., Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 415–429). New York, NY:Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
40. SCORE. (2015). Principles for routes into teaching the sciences at secondary level. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://www.score-education.org/media/16294/final20score20ite20position20paper20-20designed.pdf
41. Shulman, L. S., (1986). Those who understand:Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
42. Taber, K. S., (1998). The sharing-out of nuclear attraction:Or I can’t think about Physics in Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 101–1001. doi:10.1080/0950069980200807
43. Taber, K. S., (2002). Chemical misconceptions—prevention, diagnosis and cure, volume II:Classroom resources. London:RSC.
44. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D., (2007). Exploring learners’ conceptual resources:Singapore A level students’ explanations in the topic of ionisation energy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 375–392. doi:10.1007/s10763-006-9044-9
45. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D., (2011). The insidious nature of ‘hard-core’ alternative conceptions:Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students’ and pre-service teachers’ thinking about ionisation energy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 259–297. doi:10.1080/09500691003709880
46. Tan, K.-C. D., Taber, K. S., Goh, N.-K., & Chia, L.-S., (2005). The ionisation energy diagnostic instrument:A two-tier multiple choice instrument to determine high school students’ understanding of ionisation energy. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 6(4), 180–197. doi:10.1039/B5RP90009C
47. Tan, K.-C. D., & Taber, K. S., (2009). Ionization energy:Implications of preservice teachers’ conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(5), 623–629. doi:10.1021/ed086p623
48. Tan, K. C. D., Taber, K. S., Liu, X., Coll, R. K., Lorenzo, M., Li, J., … Chia, L. S., (2008). Students’ conceptions of ionisation energy:A cross cultural study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 263–283. doi:10.1080/09500690701385258
49. Taylor, A. K., & Kowalski, P., (2004). Naive psychological science:The prevalence, strength and sources of misconceptions. The Psychological Record, 54, 15–25. doi:10.1007/BF03395459
50. Trumper, R., (2001). ‘A cross-college age study of science and nonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for high-school teachers’. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 189–195. doi:10.1023/A:1009477316035
51. TSO. (2010). The importance of teaching–The Schools White Paper 2010. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM-7980.pdf
52. Wakabayashi, T., & Guskin, K., (2010). The effect of an ‘‘unsure’’ option on early childhood professionals’ Pre- and post-training knowledge assessments. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(4), 486–498. doi:10.1177/1098214010371818
53. Wallace, J., (2005). Reading accounts:Central themes in science teachers’ descriptions of exemplary teaching practice, Ch.8. In S., Alsop, L., Bencze, & E., Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching (pp. 171–182). Maidenhead:Open University Press.
54. Wayne, A., & Youngs, P., (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains:A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122. doi:10.3102/00346543073001089
55. Wheeldon, R., Akinson, R., Dawes, A., & Levinson, R., (2012). Do high school chemistry examinations inhibit deeper level understanding of dynamic reversible chemical reactions? Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(2), 107–130. doi:10.1080/02635143.2012.692362
56. Wheeldon, R., (2012). Examining preservice teachers’ Use of atomic models in explaining subsequent ionisation energy values. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 403–422. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9333-0
57. Wilbers, J., & Duit, R., (2006). Post-festum and heuristic analogies. In P. J., Aubusson, A. G., Harrison, & S. M., Richie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 37–49). Dordrecht, NL:Springer.