CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Science Education and PedagogyEvolution and Science EducationMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science

Open access
Hanuscin, Deborah L., Lee, Michele H., Akerson, Valarie L.·2011·Science Education
DOI 10.1002/sce.20404
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Although teacher educators have achieved some success in improving teachers' understanding of the nature of science (NOS), helping teachers teach NOS has proved a much greater challenge. Currently, there are few examples in the literature of teachers who effectively teach NOS, and fewer still that rely on student outcomes as a measure of teachers' effectiveness. Much remains to be understood regarding the sources, nature, and development of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in regard to NOS. Using S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko's (1999) framework, we examined the PCK for NOS of three elementary teachers who have been successful in improving their students' understanding of NOS. We relied on interviews, questionnaires, classroom observations, and classroom artifacts collected over a 3‐year period to characterize their PCK for NOS. Although each had robust knowledge of instructional strategies for teaching NOS, teachers lacked the requisite knowledge of assessment that would provide a feedback loop to support continued development of their knowledge of learners and lead to improvement in their teaching of NOS. Our findings highlight a need for professional development that focuses on developing aspects of PCK for NOS such as teachers' knowledge of assessment as well as educative curriculum materials to support continued development of teachers' PCK for NOS in practice. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95: 145–167, 2011

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.20404

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The student's enthusiasm for using web-based learning methods determines the efficiency of the teaching methodologies.

    “The student's enthusiasm for using such web-based learning methods determines the efficiency of the teaching methodologies [48].”

    From Digital Learning and Digital Institution in Higher Education (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Hanuscin, Deborah L.
ORCID
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-08
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
145-167
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
DOI
10.1002/sce.20404
OpenAlex
W2034746755
Cited by
194
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
39.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Science Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
pedagogical content knowledge, nature of science, elementary science teachers, assessment knowledge, teacher professional development, educative curriculum materials, teaching methods, teacher knowledge development, student understanding of science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review