Premium
Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations
Author(s) -
Friedrichsen Patrica,
Driel Jan H. Van,
Abell Sandra K.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
science education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.209
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1098-237X
pISSN - 0036-8326
DOI - 10.1002/sce.20428
Subject(s) - construct (python library) , clarity , ambiguity , science education , set (abstract data type) , mathematics education , orientation (vector space) , component (thermodynamics) , psychology , trace (psycholinguistics) , philosophy of science , nature of science , teaching method , epistemology , sociology , computer science , chemistry , mathematics , philosophy , biochemistry , physics , geometry , linguistics , thermodynamics , programming language
In this position paper, we examine the science teaching orientation component of the S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko (1999) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) model for science teaching. We trace the origin of the construct in the literature, identifying multiple definitions that have lead to ambiguity. After examining published studies using the PCK model, we identified the following methodological issues: (a) using orientations in different or unclear ways, (b) unclear or absent relationship between orientations and the other model components, (c) simply assigning teachers to one of nine categories of orientations, and (d) ignoring the overarching orientation component. To bring clarity to the literature, we propose defining science teaching orientations as a set of beliefs with the following dimensions: goals and purposes of science teaching, views of science, and beliefs about science teaching and learning. Consequently, there is a need for new instruments to elicit these dimensions. We conclude by making recommendations to address the four issues identified in the literature. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95: 358–376, 2011