components of scientific literacy (Sadler, 2004), enables learners to realize the connection of science and their lives and to make informed decisions about SSI.
The development of an instrument for assessing pedagogical content knowledge for socioscientific knowledge (PCK-SSI) Introduction To be scientifically literate, individuals need the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and the ability to use this knowledge for decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs and economic productivity (NRC, 1996). The definition means that students know not only conceptual knowledge of subject matter and scientific processes but also know about socioscientfic issues (SSI) and how to use this knowledge for making decisions about complex societal issues with conceptual, procedural and/or technological associations (Sadler, 2004). Addressing SSI in the classroom provides a point for focusing on several components of scientific literacy (Sadler, 2004), enables learners to realize the connection of science and their lives and to make informed decisions about SSI. Informed decision making would require citizens to play a more active role in society and would increase citizens’ awareness of their personal choices (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). Several researchers advocate that SSI can be used as an effective context for learning science knowledge and skills in the classroom. SSI can serve as a basis for understanding science content (Klosterman & Sadler, 2010; Wongsri & Nuangchalerm, 2010) and nature of science (Khisfe & Lederman, 2006). SSI instruction can also promote an increase in students’ interests and motivation towards science (Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu, 2003) and their development of argumentation practices (Venville & Dawson, 2010; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Even though there is a growing body of empirically-based research which provides evidence of how effective SSI instruction can impact different types of knowledge and skills, the field has significant challenges in terms of transferring SSI into the science classroom. Some researchers have developed a framework for teaching SSI (Eilks, 2010; Zeidler, Applebaum &Sadler, 2011). But these studies have not focused on what teachers need to know or be able to do in order to effectively teach SSI in their classroom. In other words, this research hasn’t focused on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) for SSI. PCK is a domain of knowledge that embraces the ability to transform what he or she knows into a form that is readily accessible to all learners (Shulman, 1986; 1987) Quality SSI instruction requires teachers to be able to effectively teach SSI in their classroom and this situation gives rise to important questions: “What does effective SSI instruction mean?”, “What is the teacher’s understanding of SSI?”, “Do teachers have competencies for teaching SSI?”, “What competencies should teachers have to teach SSI?”, and “What is teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for SSI?”. In response to these questions, we have developed a valid and reliable open-ended instrument to assess pedagogical content knowledge for socio scientific issues (PCK-SSI). The purpose of this paper is to describe the framework on which PCK-SSI is based, the development of the instrument, and a description of the administration and analysis procedure. Design/Procedure
Development of the instrument We needed to develop an open ended instrument to examine teachers’ understanding of SSI and PCK-SSI, because previous research primarily focused on students’ decision making on SSI, benefits of SSI, and relationships between argumentation and SSI. But very few studies have examined teachers’ understanding of SSI and competencies to teach SSI in their classroom through the view of pedagogical content knowledge. We preferred the open ended format of PCK-SSI because this format best serves the overarching intent of the instrument, which is to create profiles of teacher understanding of SSI teaching and to get deeper insight how teachers may vary in nature of their understandings. The instrument was developed to assess science teachers’ PCK for SSI. Items in the instrument were developed based on Shulman’s PCK model (Shulman, 1986; 1987) and results of previous research about SSI instruction. The items were first reviewed by a science educator who had a strong background in both PCK and SSI. Then, the items were examined and validated by five science educators who had experience and expertise with in-service science teacher education. Five science educators checked the content of the PCK-SSI instrument against the purpose of each questions. There were two cycles of review and discussion among the five science educators before there was 100% agreement that each of the items covered the content that the study intended to measure. The instrument (PCK-SSI) consisted of three different parts. The first part of questionnaire collected data on the teachers’ demographics, the second part focused on teachers’ understanding of SSI, and the third part focused on teachers’ understanding of teaching SSI. The third part of questionnaire contained four different scenarios about diet and obesity, vaccination, genetic engineering, and gene therapy. This was followed by open-ended questions related to each scenario. The questions were grouped into the following six domains of knowledge: curriculum, pedagogy, subject matter, student, school, and pedagogical content knowledge. The third part of the instrument contained 20 items for each scenario and targeted the domains of knowledge for SSI. It should be noted that the six domains of knowledge contribute to PCK for SSI. Once establishing validity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted with 4 science teachers who had experience in teaching biology. The teachers responded to all of items covered in the three parts of the instrument. As we expected, responding to all of items took a long time due to the open-ended and detailed nature of the questions. When it is administrated to a study sample, the first and second part of the instrument is required. However, the third part of the instrument that includes four SSI scenarios and followed by questions can be selected. That means teachers will be able to choose appropriate scenarios to respond to the subject area they have experience in and they do not have to complete all four sets. It should be noted that teachers must select at least two scenarios. The pilot study results showed that minor revisions were necessary before administering the PCK-SSI. Also, the administration provided insight into how respondents understand and interpret the questions and what possible misunderstandings might emerge. To establish
reliability or consistency among the scoring of responses to the questions, we developed a rubric for scoring the instrument. Multiple raters analyzed the surveys and agreement was reached on 75% of the questions scored. Administration Administering the survey is preferred in a controlled setting without any resources and communication with others. Approximately 45-60 minutes are needed to complete the instrument when the respondent chooses two scenarios. Ideally, all respondents are interviewed using their statements. But for a large group, a random selection of 20% is sufficient to establish confidence in reliability of the data interpretation. Analysis/Findings The items presented in Table 1 were administrated to four teachers who had teaching experience in high school biology as a part of process of instrument development. We developed the rubric by assessing their responses. Although the rubric is provided to them, respondents might prefer to present their understanding in different ways. So, considering their responses as a whole instead of isolation from each other might be useful. Especially, examining questions of each domain of PCK-SSI together would provide a clear picture about the teachers’ understanding of the domain. Table 1. Questions for assessing PCK for SSI following the Diet and Obesity scenario Domains of PCK-SSI Curriculum
Pedagogy
Subject Matter
Student
School
Questions In what units could diet and obesity be included? What science concept(s) would be taught using the scenario within the curriculum? Are diet and obesity and/or related topics important to include in the curriculum? (If Yes, why? If No, why?) What learning objectives in the curriculum are related to diet and obesity? How would you use this scenario instructionally in the classroom? What is the advantage of using these strategies? How would you assess students’ understanding of SSI regarding the scenario? How do you address students’ misunderstandings of the SSI topics? Please give an example What kind of teaching approaches should you use to avoid creating misconceptions? What kind of teaching approaches should you use to help alleviate students’ misconceptions? How confident do you feel about your understanding and knowledge related to diet and obesity? If you had more information about diet and obesity, would it change your response to our questions? Why or Why not? What is obesity? What is the relationship between diet and obesity? What are the causes of obesity? What is energy balance? What is happening at the cellular and molecular level when gaining or losing weight? If you taught diet and obesity what were your students’ weakness and difficulties? If not, what you anticipate would be there? What might be some of your students’ misconceptions about diet, obesity and topics related to each? Is SSI instruction contextually related to the school and community environment? (If yes, why? If no, why)
Do you feel free to express your opinion or belief about diet and obesity in your school? (If yes, why? If no, why)
When assessing the questions associated with each of the domains in the instrument, responses were categorized differently (see Table 2). The domain of curriculum, content and student were categorized as informed, eclectic and naïve and pedagogy was categorized as non-research based, middle ground and research-based. The school domain was categorized as unsupported to strong-supported. This scoring system provides a more insightful and detailed view compared to other grading systems to determine teachers’ strengths and weaknesses with SSI instruction and what teachers need to know to effectively teach SSI. Table 2. Exemplary response in different categories from rubric PCK Domain Curriculum
Pedagogy
School
Exemplary Question Are diet and obesity and/or related topics important to include in the curriculum? (If Yes, why? If No, why?) How would you use this scenario instructionally in the classroom?
Is SSI instruction contextually related to the school and community environment? (If yes, why? If no, why)
Categories Informed“Absolutely, it must be added somewhere in the curriculum consistently, look at the obesity problem in the U.S. because a food package says “healthy” does not mean the product is in fact healthy.” Research-based “I would ask the students to watch the show and identify statements that support a number of diet assumptions or decisions. Then they chose one of these statements and develop a brief research in order to find out the theoretical support of the idea.” Strong-supported “It would be difficult for a teacher to include SSI if a school is focused solely on standard test topic”
Eclectic“Because obesity is a children [sic] issue and school should be responsible to give true and confident information” Middle-ground “I would create a debate using the scenario”
Unsupported“It should be related”
Discussion/Implications Reform documents such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; Achieve, Inc., 2013) call for SSI teaching. These standards suggest that, as educators, we are responsible for not only providing an academic education, but an education that prepares students to later become voters informed on ethical, economic and political topics that affect contemporary society. These standards imply that SSI instruction needs to be included in science classroom within content knowledge. In this regard, it is assumed that science teachers are able to effectibly teach SSI in their classrooms. To realize SSI instruction in science classrooms, science teachers need to have some skills and understanding about SSI teaching. So, the PCK-
SSI is one of the first instruments that will allow researchers to measure what teachers know about SSI teaching and what domains of teaching should be supported to effectively teach SSI in their classroom. More information about teachers’ understanding of teaching SSI will help inform professional developers who support teachers to develop their understanding and knowledge about SSI teaching. Overall, the development of PCK-SSI is just the first step. The instrument will most likely need further revision as it is used with more teachers. References Achieve, Inc., on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS (2013). Next Generation Science Standarts. Retrieved June 25, 2015 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies-Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87 (767-793). Eilks, I. (2010, September). Making chemistry teaching relevant and promoting scientific literacy by focusing on authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues. Presentation at the annual meeting of the society for didactics in chemistry and physics, Potsdam, Germany. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418. Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level Assessment of Scientific Content Knowledge Gains Associated with Socioscientific Issues‐based Instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science eductaion standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship. Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 513-536. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 4-14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. Wongsri, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning Outcomes between Socioscientific Issues-Based Learning and Conventional Learning Activities. Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 240-243. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In Troy D. Sadler (Eds), Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 277-305). Springer Netherlands. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
