Differences between planning and practicing process of a science teacher's pedagogical content knowledge. International

Çaylak B., Çakıroğlu J.

International Congresses on Education (ERPA 2018) , İstanbul, Turkey, 28 June - 01 July 2018, pp.198

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Summary Text
  • City: İstanbul
  • Country: Turkey
  • Page Numbers: pp.198


The aim of this study was to examine a science teacher’s PCK while planning and practicing of force and movement unit. Magnusson, Klajcik, and Borko’s (1999) PCK model was utilized to determine the teacher’s PCK and its components; (1) science teacher orientation (STO), (2) knowledge of curriculum (KoC), (3) knowledge of learner (KoL), (4) knowledge of instructional strategies (KoIS), and (5) knowledge of assessment (KoA). This study also included “a single case study” and the data collection tools included content presentation as lesson plans, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations. All data were coded Magnusson et al.’s (1999) PCK model deductively and teacher’s interaction maps were constructed both planning and practicing process after data analyzing. According to the data results, the teacher’s PCK differed between planning and practicing process on three ways (1) the number of interactions of components, (2) the role of the components, and (3) complexity of the interactions. Keywords: Planning and practicing, pedagogical content knowledge, interaction PCK components