Skip to main content


Welcome, the Hub connects all projects

Ask the Community


All Topics for this Forum

Topic: "PCK Measures for Secondary Math and Science Teachers"

Topic Posts

Topic started by: Sherryl Browne Graves on 8/6/14

The Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Residency (MASTER) project is interested in learning about PCK measures or assessment strategies for secondary
math and science pre-service and in-service teachers.

This archived topic is open to the public.

restart conversation
This topic has 26 posts, showing: 1-20
1   2   Next

PCK Measures for Secondary Math and Science Teachers

posted by: Sherryl Browne Graves on 8/6/2014 10:04 pm

Does your project focus on PCK at the secondary level? What measures or assessment strategies have you used? Please share your experiences.

post moderated on 8/6/2014

Measure for secondary math

posted by: Patrick Thompson on 8/7/2014 10:25 pm

Sherryl,

Over the past three years, my RETA project developed a diagnostic instrument for use in secondary mathematics professional development. It is called Mathematical Meanings for Teaching secondary mathematics. I can send several papers that describe its philosophy, development, and results. Two state-level MSPs are using it as their evaluation instrument. I would be glad to speak with you about it if you decide you are interested.

My email address is pat@pat-thompson.net.

Pat Thompson

post updated by the author 9/13/2014

Measure for secondary math and science teachers

posted by: Kedmon Hungwe on 8/8/2014 7:37 am

Please send me additional information on the measures for math that you have developed.

Thank you

Kedmon Hungwe
khungwe@mtu.edu

Please send

posted by: Jackie Coomes on 8/8/2014 9:14 am

Hi Pat,
Our project also seeks to support secondary math teachers' development of PCK, so I would be interested in seeing the documents that you described. Thank you, Jackie Coomes jcoomes@ewu.edu

2ndary Math CK Test

posted by: Sara Silver on 8/8/2014 10:33 am

Patrick, I'm very interested in this CK tool. Please let's correspond.

PCK Measures for Secondary Math and Science Teachers

posted by: Glenn Nyre on 8/9/2014 11:44 am

Very interested in this, Pat. Please send me the materials you have.

Diagnostic instrument

posted by: Ken Newbury on 8/10/2014 9:42 am

Dear Patrick,
I would be very interested in your diagnostic instrument for use with pre-service teachers. Thanks!

Mathematical Meanings for Teaching

posted by: Sherryl Browne Graves on 8/11/2014 9:52 am

Pat,
This sounds really exciting. It would be so helpful if you would be willing to share information about your mathematics assessment.
Let me know how to move this conversation forward.

Sherryl Graves

PCK assessment measures for Math and Science Teachers

posted by: Rob Siegel on 8/11/2014 1:19 pm

We are very interested in learning about your tools, especially those that track and document changes in pedagogical practice in the classroom that move thinking like a "sage on the stage" to a "guide on the side" operating principle.
Thanks, Robert Siegel, Coordinator STEM Initiatives in SW Washington state.
rob.siegel@esd112.org

post updated by the author 8/11/2014

Measures for secondary math

posted by: Michelle Tomlin on 9/12/2014 10:34 am

Pat,
I would be very interested in seeing this work.

Very interested in PCK Measures

posted by: Tamara E Smith on 8/8/2014 4:16 pm

Pat,
I have worked on a couple of MSP projects that focused on PCK and have had difficulty measuring this. I would be very interested in your materials.

Tamara Smith
Regional Math Coordinator OESD
tsmith@oesd.wednet.edu

Thompsons measures of PCK

posted by: John Baldwin on 8/9/2014 8:57 am

Patrick,

I would appreciate the papers you mention.
Thanks

copies

posted by: John Baldwin on 8/9/2014 8:58 am

Sorry, I didn't realize my email wouldn't be posted. jbaldwin@uic.edu

Mathematical Meanings for Teaching Secondary mathematics

posted by: Patrick Thompson on 8/9/2014 12:05 pm

I tried to reply to the first few requests and then saw that it would be much more efficient to post a general reply.

I've created a dropbox folder containing three articles. It is at http://bit.ly/X8TGcM. The articles are:

1. In the absence of meaning. This lays out the problem that the MMTsm was designed to address.

2. Research mathematical meanings for teaching. This handbook chapter explains the philosophy and method by which we constructed the MMTsm and gives examples of the kinds of items we've produced.

3. Teachers' structure sense. This (submitted) article exemplifies the structure items in the MMTsm and the kinds of insights it can give.

If you are still interested in the MMTsm after you've read the articles, please contact me at pat@pat-thompson.net. We can talk more about the training workshop and agreements to share blinded data that we require.

All my best,

Pat Thompson

Thanks

posted by: Margaret Foss on 8/22/2014 10:38 am

I really appreciat you sharing these resources

dropbox articles

posted by: Roberta Trachtman on 9/10/2014 11:04 am

Hi Patrick: I am very interested in reading the articles but haven't been able to access the dropbox. Might you have any suggestions? Thanks so much. Roberta

Articles

posted by: Patrick Thompson on 9/11/2014 1:52 pm

Hi Roberta. Please contact me by email. pat@pat-thompson.net.

-Pat

post updated by the author 9/13/2014

PCK measures for science/engineering in ISEP (Buffalo, NY)

posted by: Joseph Gardella on 8/11/2014 9:56 am

In our project, the University at Buffalo/Buffalo Public Schools Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Partnership (ISEP) (http://isep.buffalo.edu/), we use a combination of standardized tools and procedures to measure participating teachers development of science inquiry and interdisciplinary science inquiry PCK by following the elements of PCK as identified by Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko (1999) as follows:
(1) Observations. An observation protocol was developed consisting of the following three parts: a pre-observation written interview that is adapted from CoRe: Content Representation Tool (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2012); a field observation form that is adapted from Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada & Piburn, 2000); and a post-observation rating form that includes components of the ISI summer weekly log sheet and the Inquiry into Science Instruction Observation Protocol (ISIOP) (Minner & DeLisi, 2012).
(2) Interviews. Semi-structured interviews questions were adapted from CoRe: Content Representation Tool (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2012).
(3) PCK assessment. The PCK assessment consisted of 2 components: a standardized PCK assessment of the teachers knowledge of their practice and subject matter and an assessment of ISI, both knowledge and practice.
The content knowledge and pedagogy assessments were in chemistry, biology, earth science, physics, middle school science, and elementary school science. The high school assessments are from Horizon Research, Inc. (i.e., ATLAST, AM). The middle school science assessment consisted of items from POSTT Thinking About Science Teaching (Schuster & Cobern, n.d.) that related to teaching science to grades 5 through 8. The elementary school science assessment consisted of items from POSTT Thinking About Science Teaching (Schuster & Cobern, n.d.) that related to teaching science to grades K through 4.
The ISI assessment portion, which is currently being pilot tested, begins with a research statement on a topic of current research and development in science and/or engineering. Three two-tiered multiple choice questions ask teachers to identify the core concept, science and engineering practice, and crosscutting concept most relevant to that statement. Two open-ended response questions complete the section. The first question asks teachers to explain how they would incorporate the research statement into their science curriculum. The second relates to how they would incorporate Common Core State Standards for ELA (literacy) within the framework of implementing the research statement into their instruction.

References
Loughran, J., Berry, A., Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing science
teachers pedagogical content knowledge, 2nd ed. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
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 (Eds.). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Minner, D., & DeLisi, J. (2012). Inquiring into science instruction observation protocol (ISIOP): Data collection instrument. Retrieved from http://isiop.edc.org.
Sawada, D., & Piburn, M. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP).
(ACEPT Technical Report No. IN001). Tempe , AZ : Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
Schuster, D., & Cobern, W. (n.d.). The Pedagogy of Science Teaching Test (POSTT).
Retrieved June 6, 2013, from Western Michigan University Mallison Institute for Science Education: http://www.wmich.edu/science/inquiry-items/index.html

AIM/ATLAST teacher assessments

posted by: Sean Smith on 8/12/2014 10:11 am

As developers of the ATLAST and AIM measures, were pleased to see the assessments being used. We created these tools to measure teachers disciplinary content knowledge. The questions are situated in instructional contexts, but our opinion is that they measure only science content knowledge. Each assessment is accompanied by a user manual that describes the content assessed. The AIM and ATLAST user manuals are located at http://www.horizon-research.com/aim/instruments/#tassess and http://www.horizon-research.com/atlast/?page_id=111, respectively. Please contact us if you have questions about the assessments.
Sean Smith, ATLAST (ssmith62@horizon-research.com)
Eric Banilower, AIM (erb@horizon-research.com)

Constructs underlying your definition of PCK

posted by: Brian Drayton on 8/12/2014 11:26 am

Joseph, this post is an interesting one, among many in this thread. I'd be interested in hearing how you characterize PCK do you see it as a measurable, bounded body of knowledge (such that one can say that TeacherA does or does not have the same PCK as TeacherB), or as an overlap of several kinds of knowledge, deployed in a context-dependent manner?