Abstract
Documenting teacher professional knowledge is the subject of numerous studies because teacher professional knowledge is assumed to have an effect on teaching (Crahay, Wanlin, Issaieva, & Laduron, 2011; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). The analysis of teachers’ discourse about their practice gives insights into their knowledge (Fernández-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Padilla & Van Driel, 2011) but sometimes does not always match their actions in the classroom (Farré & Lorenzo, 2009; Simmons et al., 1999).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacherstudent interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1211–1239.
Barak, M., & Shakhman, L. (2008). Reform-based science teaching: Teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 11–20.
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471–485.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
Corrigan, D. (2009). Chemistry teacher education to promote understanding of learning through effective reflective practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 121–131.
Crahay, M., Wanlin, P., Issaieva, É., & Laduron, I. (2011). Fonctions, structuration et évolution des croyances (et connaissances) des enseignants. Revue française de pédagogie, 172(3), 85–129.
Cross, D. (2010). Action conjointe et connaissances professionnelles de l’enseignant. Éducation et didactique, 4(3), 39–60.
Farré, A. S., & Lorenzo, M. G. (2009). Another piece of the puzzle: The relationship between beliefs and practice in higher education organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 176–184.
Fernández-Balboa, J.-M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 293–306.
Friedrichsen, P., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357–383.
Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218–244.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2013). The PCK summit consensus model and definition of pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at ESERA2013 conference, Nicosia, Cyprus, Europe.
Kermen, I., & Barroso, M. T. (2013). Activité ordinaire d’une enseignante de chimie en classe de terminale. Recherches en didactique des sciences et des technologies, 8, 91–114.
Kermen, I., & Méheut, M. (2011). Grade 12 French students’ use of a thermodynamic model for predicting the direction of incomplete chemical changes. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1745–1773.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W. H., & Hsieh, F. J. (2011). General pedagogical knowledge of future middle school teachers: On the complex ecology of teacher education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 188–201.
Laius, A., Kask, K., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). Comparing outcomes from two case studies on chemistry teachers’ readiness to change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 142–153.
Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 289–307.
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 (Éds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). The Netherlands: Springer.
Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Éds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). The Netherlands: Springer.
Nilsson, P. (2014). When teaching makes a difference: Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1794–1814.
Padilla, K., & van Driel, J. (2011). The relationships between PCK components: The case of quantum chemistry professors. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 367–378.
Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.
Rix-Lièvre, G., & Lièvre, P. (2012). La dimension «tacite» des connaissances expérientielles individuelles: une mise en perspective théorique et méthodologique. Management International, 16, 21–28.
Robert, A. (2008). La double approche didactique et ergonomique pour l’analyse des pratiques d’enseignants de mathématiques. In F. Vandebrouck (Éd.), La classe de mathématiques: activités des élèves et pratiques des enseignants (pp. 59–68). Toulouse, France: Octarès Editions.
Robert, A., & Rogalski, J. (2002). Le système complexe et cohérent des pratiques des enseignants de mathématiques: Une double approche. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(4), 505–528.
Robert, A., & Vivier, L. (2013). Analyser des vidéos sur les pratiques des enseignants du second degré en mathématiques: des utilisations contrastées en recherche en didactique et en formation de formateursquelle transposition? Éducation et didactique, 7(2), 115–144.
Rogalski, J. (2003). Y a-t-il un pilote dans la classe? Une analyse de l’activité de l’enseignant comme gestion d’un environnement dynamique ouvert. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 23(3), 343–388.
Rogalski, J. (2013). Theory of activity and developmental frameworks for an analysis of teachers’ practices and students’ learning. In F. Vandebrouck (Éd.), Mathematics classrooms: Students’ activities and teachers’ practices (pp. 3–22). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387.
Schön, D. A. (1996). A la recherche d’une nouvelle épistémologie de la pratique et de ce qu’elle implique pour les adultes. In J. M. Barbier (Éd.), Savoirs théoriques et savoirs d’action (pp. 201–222). Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., … Labuda, K. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930–954.
Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (2000). Représentations et conceptions des élèves grecs par rapport au concept d’équilibre chimique. Didaskalia, 16, 107–134.
Sweeney, A. E., Bula, O. A., & Cornett, J. W. (2001). The role of personal practice theories in the professional development of a beginning high school chemistry teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 408–441.
Tyson, L., Treagust, D. F., & Bucat, R. B. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554.
Vandebrouck, F. (Ed.). (2013). Mathematics classrooms. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
Venturini, P., & Tiberghien, A. (2013). La démarche d’investigation dans le cadre des nouveaux programmes de sciences physiques et chimiques: étude de cas au collège. Revue française de pédagogie, 180(3), 95–120.
Venturini, P., Calmettes, B., Amade-Escot, C., & Terrisse, A. (2007). Analyse didactique des pratiques d’enseignement de la physique d’une professeure expérimentée. Aster, 45, 211–234.
Wanlin, P., & Crahay, M. (2012). La pensée des enseignants pendant l’interaction en classe. Une revue de la littérature anglophone. Education & Didactique, 6(1), 9–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kermen, I. (2015). Studying the Activity of Two French Chemistry Teachers to Infer their Pedagogical Content Knowledge and their Pedagogical Knowledge. In: Grangeat, M. (eds) Understanding Science Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Growth. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-313-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-313-1_6
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-313-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)