Педагогикалық мазмұндық білімді бағалау және өлшеу

ПЕДАГОГИКАЛЫҚ МАЗМҰНДЫҚ БІЛІМДІ БАҒАЛАУ ЖӘНЕ ӨЛШЕУ

Орындаған: Әбдісадық Лаура

Мамандығы: Қазақ тілі мен әдебиеті

Топ: 302

Курс: 3

Алматы, 2021 жыл

JULIET A. BAXTER AND NORMAN G. LEDERMAN

ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

During the past decade pedagogical content knowledge has been embraced by a wide variety of researchers and educators. Both preservice and in service teacher educators have begun to evaluate their success at enriching teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, while researchers in various disciplines have studied the impact of pedagogical content knowledge on teachers’ beliefs, classroom in practice and students’ understanding. It is clear that teacher educators and researchers have identified pedagogical content knowledge as a critical component of the knowledge needed to teach. To study pedagogical content knowledge, researchers and teacher educators have developed an array of methodologies and techniques, such as paper and pencil tests (in particular, multiple-choice exams), concept maps, pictorial representations, interviews and multi-method evaluations. These techniques have been used to pursue goals such as teacher evaluation, staff development, and program development. The purpose of this chapter is to review methodologies and techniques that have been used to assess teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge or its related components. The primary emphasis will be on studies of pedagogical content knowledge that focus on the teaching of science; however, we also refer to studies from other disciplines that might prove useful in thinking about how pedagogical content knowledge can inform teaching in science.

Challenges to study in pedagogical content

Thus, pedagogical content knowledge differs from both content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge. Content knowledge is the knowledge held by a content expert, what the research chemist understands about the discipline of chemistry. General pedagogical knowledge is the knowledge of experienced teachers, such as knowledge of how to organize a classroom and manage students during instruction.

Kagan (1990) identified a number of challenges to assessing teacher cognition; many of her concerns apply to the study of pedagogical content knowledge. First, pedagogical content knowledge cannot be observed directly. By definition. pedagogical content knowledge is partly an internal construct; it is a teacher’s understanding of content-specific examples that best represent specific topics, and knowledge of common student difficulties with specific topics. When attempting to study a teacher’s knowledge of “best examples,” we cannot rely exclusively on observational data as a teacher may use only a small portion of his/her accumulated store of examples during a particular teaching episode. We, as observers, would never see the examples that the teacher decided not to use. In addition, an observation would not reveal why the teacher chose to use some examples while avoiding others. Observations provide only a limited view of pedagogical content knowledge; we must ask teachers to articulate their knowledge. We will discuss a variety of techniques used to help teachers articulate their knowledge. These techniques range from open-ended prompts to structured interviews, and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Kagan (1990) also notes that even when techniques to elicit teacher cognition are well designed and carefully administered, teachers’ cognition6 while includes pedagogical content knowledge, is often held unconsciously. Teachers do not always possess the language to express their thoughts and beliefs, or they may refrain from expressing unpopular beliefs. Another difficulty with the pedagogical content knowledge methodologies is that they are generally time-consuming to develop, administer, and analyze. Most assessments of pedagogical content knowledge are qualitative in nature, relying on cognitive techniques, such as interviews that generate lengthy transcripts to be analyzed, and concept mapping that requires the interpretation of involved coding systems. The paper and pencil instruments that have been developed require significant effort to complete and often considerable time and energy to analyze: no one has developed a 20-item paper and pencil instrument that captures pedagogical content knowledge. When a relatively brief instrument is used, it is typically one of many techniques used to develop a complete picture of an individual’s pedagogical content knowledge.

As we have stated, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a highly complex construct that is not easily assessed. By definition, PCK is both an external and internal construct, as it is constituted by what a teacher knows, what a teacher does, and the reasons for the teacher’s actions. The challenge for researchers is to design studies that examine all three aspects of PCK. Research that focuses on what a teacher knows can only inform us about teacher understanding of subject matter and pedagogy and how that understanding may be organized. This limited view of PCK results regardless of assessment approach when the focus is solely on knowledge.

The translation of teachers’ knowledge into classroom practice is clearly a critical aspect of PCK and obligates us to observe actual teaching segments. Indeed, many believe that teachers’ actions are a more accurate representation of teachers’ knowledge than the usual array of self-report measures, whether convergent or divergent. However, research that relies primarily on teachers’ actions to assess knowledge is also problematic. The low correlations of the process-product research on teaching suggest that myriad factors influence classroom instruction and student understanding (Brophy & Good, 1986). Consequently, the level of consistency between teacher’s observed behavior and their knowledge and beliefs is highly variable. Just as a narrow focus on knowledge limits our understanding of PCK, an overemphasis on classroom practice may well present a distorted view of teachers’ knowledge.

Teachers’ decision-making, the third aspect of PCK, is a complex and slippery construct to study. Simply by asking a teacher to state reasons for a particular teaching action, we risk changing the teacher’s decision-making process. As Kagan (1990) has suggested that many teachers have highly personalized perceptions of teaching that may be extremely difficult to communicate to an educational researcher. When teachers try to articulate the reasoning behind their instructional decisions, they may well tend to construct reasons that will sound “right” or logical to the researcher. The assessment of PCK is difficult and fraught with hazards, as it requires a combination of approaches so that information can be gathered about what teachers know, what they believe, and the reasons for their actions. Assessment of any component of PCK in isolation of the other two incurs a significant risk of distorted meaning and interpretation. The situation is analogous to ecologists’ reductionistic assessment of environmental factors prior to the popularity of systems thinking.

The empirical literature related to PCK is extensive and continues to grow. In the sciences the focus has been on assessments of knowledge structures and the relationships of knowledge structures to classroom practice: the critical relationship between PCK and student understanding has not been studied. In contrast, mathematics researchers have studied the impact of teachers’ knowledge and instruction on student. The mathematics research has been aided by two important developments: clearly articulated national standards and carefully designed assessments that reflect the national standards. Both goals and assessments are critical to research on PCK that seeks to incorporate student understanding.

The science education community has recently produced national standards that will substantially support efforts to design and implement studies of PCK and student understanding. The publication of national standards offers a clearly defined set of goals for teachers and students of science. These goals for science education create a common language for teachers, researchers, and students. In addition, psychometricians are developing assessments in science that go well beyond paper and pencil tests in reliably and validly measuring student understanding. Shavelson and his colleagues have designed performance assessments that are closely linked to national standards and benchmarks. In addition, they have translated their findings into manuals for teachers and administrators who are trying to use assessments that reflect the new science standards and benchmarks. The PALS website offers performance assessment tasks for many science concepts. By incorporating these types of assessments into studies of PCK researchers can begin to trace how PCK affects student understanding.

Most likely relationships exist between knowledge structures, classroom practice and student achievement; however, the exact nature of these relationships in the sciences has not yet been investigated. For the PCK line of research to have a significant impact on classroom practice and teacher education the relationships of PCK to student understanding must be better understood. At this point in time, a focus on student achievement in science has been conspicuous in its absence.

Ссылка: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_6.pdf

ЖУЛИЕТ А.БАКСТЕР ЖӘНЕ НОРМАН Г.ЛИДЕРМАН

ПЕДАГОГИКАЛЫҚ МАЗМҰНДЫҚ БІЛІМДІ БАҒАЛАУ ЖӘНЕ ӨЛШЕУ

Соңғы онжылдықта педагогикалық мазмұндық білімді көптеген зерттеушілер мен тәрбиешілер қабылдай бастады. Педагогикалық даярлықтан кейінгі мұғалімдер де, педагог-оқытушылар да мұғалімдердің педагогикалық мазмұн туралы білімдерін толықтырудағы табыстарын жиі бағалай бастады. Сонымен қатар, әр түрлі пәндердегі зерттеушілер педагогикалық мазмұндық білімнің мұғалімдердің сенімдеріне, сыныптық тәжірибе мен оқушылардың түсінігіне әсерін зерттеді. Педагогтар мен зерттеушілер педагогикалық мазмұндық білімді мұғалімге қажетті білімнің маңызды компоненті ретінде анықтағаны анық.

Педагогикалық мазмұндық білімді оқу үшін зерттеушілер мен педагог-оқытушылар қағаз бен қарындаш сынақтары (атап айтқанда, бірнеше таңдаулы, тест түріндегі емтихандар), тұжырымдамалық карталар, суретті бейнелеу, сұхбат және көп әдістерді бағалау сияқты көптеген әдістер мен техникаларды әзірледі. Бұл әдістер мұғалімдерді бағалау, қызметкерлерді дамыту және бағдарламаны әзірлеу сияқты мақсаттарға жету үшін қолданылды. Бұл жазбаның мақсаты - мұғалімдердің педагогикалық мазмұндық білімді өлшеу және бағалау туралы білімін немесе онымен байланысты бағалау үшін қолданылған әдістер мен техникаларды қарастыру болып табылады. Негізгі назар ғылымды оқытуға бағытталған педагогикалық мазмұнды білуге бағытталатын болады; алайда, біз, педагогикалық мазмұнды білімнің ғылымда қалай оқытуға болатыны туралы ойлауда пайдалы болуы мүмкін деген сеніммен, басқа да пәндердің зерттеулеріне сілтеме жасайтын боламыз.