Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10972-015-9429-0
Introduction
The way we view the work of teaching fundamentally shifted when Shulman (1986)
suggested that effective teachers are not only masters of their content but also of
specialized knowledge unique to and essential for teaching. Shulman argued that
123
394 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
teachers need to deeply know their subject matter and they also need to be able to
interpret that subject matter in ways that best facilitate learning, a domain he
identified as pedagogical content knowledge. Knowing theories of physics is
crucial, but a physics teacher must also be able to make that knowledge accessible to
her students. In practice, effective teachers expand content expertise into content
knowledge for teaching expertise (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Shulman, 1986).
How to best support novice teachers in developing and refining their content
knowledge for teaching is a crucial and ongoing question for preservice teacher
educators.
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 395
mitosis (common content knowledge), but they would also need to know what
understandings of cell structure and function lay the foundation for students to be
ready to learn about mitosis (horizon content knowledge).
Additionally, Ball et al. (2008) unpacked pedagogical content knowledge further
to include knowledge of content and students, knowledge of content and teaching,
and knowledge of content and curriculum. Continuing with the example above,
biology teachers need to recognize that students often think that mitosis results in
one daughter cell and one original parent cell (knowledge of content and students).
To address this idea (and others that students might have), teachers need to select
appropriate representations to convey the cell cycle and the phases of mitosis
(knowledge of content and teaching).
Just as effective math teachers do, science teachers need to be able to draw on
their content knowledge for teaching while they plan, elicit and respond to student
thinking during instruction, and assess student learning in response to their learning
objectives. While the framework of content knowledge for teaching was developed
based on math education research, we believe the knowledge subdomains are a
useful framework to explore what preservice teachers know about teaching science,
what knowledge they still need to develop, and what knowledge they are ready to
develop at this stage in their professional trajectory. In this paper, we use science
knowledge for teaching to refer to the subdomains of this framework.
123
396 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
One possible venue for supporting the development of content knowledge for
teaching is through video clubs. In a video club, a small group of participants
(around 46) videotape their own teaching and then meet together to view and
discuss this video. In contrast to lesson study (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999), the video
clips are not necessarily around the same lesson or even the same content objectives.
The larger goal of video club is for participants to attend to and make sense of the
events in their own classrooms (Sherin & Linsenmeier, 2011). Video club invites
others into classrooms they may not get the chance to observe and allows for
multiple perspectives to discuss and analyze the events of the clip.
In a preservice context, preservice teachers and instructors acknowledge they are
still learning to teach. They acknowledge that at this stage, in their professional
trajectory they are engaged in real practice versus the ultimate goal of best teaching
practice. Preservice teachers are still learning to negotiate learning objectives,
student needs, pedagogical strategies, and assessment practices. A video club format
allows preservice teachers to observe the realities of practice and to notice nuances
of teaching strategies and student behavior that probably went unnoticed in the
moment of teaching. They can reflect on their own practice, observe other models of
practice, and collaboratively discuss topics relevant to effective teaching and
learning. Sherin and Han (2004) suggest that, Video clubs offer teachers the
opportunity to examine teaching and learning in new ways and have the potential to
foster the learning called for by reform (p. 163). Through their work and others
(e.g., Roth et al., 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008), video clubs have shown that over
time, teachers can shift their focus toward students and student thinking, and less on
the teacher and pedagogical issues detached from student thinking. Though most of
the research on video clubs has focused on inservice math teachers, studies of video
case analysis in general have shown similar findings with preservice teachers across
multiple disciplines, including science and math (Barnhart & van Es, 2015; Star &
Strickland, 2007). These studies have recommended that teacher educators explore
the potential for implementing video clubs in preservice contexts.
Video clubs have the potential to create effective learning opportunities for
preservice teachers because they bring authentic K-12 classroom discourse into the
discourse of teacher education. Discourse helps unveil the black box of individual
thinking and can be used to trace trajectories of collective learning (Cazden, 2001;
Saxe et al., 2009). From a reform perspective, such learning involves apprenticeship
into disciplinary distinct discursive practices (Ford & Forman, 2006; Forman,
2003). A preservice science teacher must therefore learn to be fluent in the discourse
of education, the discourse of science, and the specialized discourse of science
education. This discourse can be quite complex. In science classrooms, specific
multimodal relationships between speech, gesture, and inscriptions are used to
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 397
Research Question
We were interested in how preservice teachers might use video club to initiate
discourse that challenges themselves and each other on developing their content
knowledge and content knowledge for teaching. Thus, we used the research
question How do preservice teachers use video club to develop their science
knowledge for teaching? to frame the development of this study. In particular, we
wanted to know when and how preservice teachers (a) discuss their own
understanding of science content and (b) connect this discussion of content to
other dimensions of teaching.
Methods
Video club took place as part of a required weekly seminar that accompanied
preservice secondary science teachers student teaching placements at a mid-sized
university in the south. We analyzed the discourse around content knowledge for
teaching within these club sessions to answer our research question.
Participants
The weekly video clubs included the entire secondary science cohort: five
preservice teachers, all undergraduate- or graduate-level science and secondary
education dual majors. Table 1 displays the science focus and education level of
123
398 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
each teacher. In their science major, they take intensive coursework along with
other science majors in the university to develop expertise in their field. Their
education coursework builds throughout their studies, becoming more prevalent in
the final year of their program and ending with a semester of student teaching. In
addition to the preservice teachers, club sessions included the seminar instructor and
university field supervisor (authors), and a teaching assistant (TA) who videotaped
and occasionally participated in each club session. All participants except for the
TA had worked together in previous methods and practicum courses, which were
taught by the same instructor. In addition, the university supervisor was working
weekly with the preservice teachers in their student teaching placements. However,
this was the participants first collective experience with video club.
It is important to note that in the school of education, preservice teachers engage
in practicum experiences and methods courses that help them develop the
pedagogical knowledge they need for teaching. However, while they develop
expertise in their science specialty through their coursework in their majors, they
have little exposure to the other areas of science after their first undergraduate year.
Developing specialized expertise is important for conceptually understanding
science at a sophisticated level. However, this specialized expertise is not consistent
with science teacher certification for grades 712, which covers a range of content
areas. It is not unusual for a chemistry major in our program to find herself teaching
genetics or the rock cycle, requiring that she relearn a significant amount of content.
Their content expertise also becomes problematic when they have to break down
their content knowledge for teachinga practice they do not face until they stand in
front of a middle school or high school classroom.
Context
Video clubs were a component of the weekly seminar that supported the preservice
teachers full-time student teaching. During the first class, we modeled the process
of video club, with the instructor assuming the presenters role described below,
while viewing a TIMSS video on polymers. Although we did not provide scaffolds
for viewing or discussion, we encouraged preservice teachers to take an interpretive,
rather than an evaluative, stance (van Es & Sherin, 2008). An interpretive stance
focuses on using evidence from the clip to understand student thinking and its
relation to instruction and not on explicitly critiquing the teacher.
Following this modeling, the preservice teachers took turns presenting a 5- to
10-min video clip of their own teaching. The directive was to provide a clip that
represented typical practice and included student talk. Each presented three times
throughout the semester for a total of 15 video club sessions. Depending on the time
available for discussion that week, an individual session would last from 12 to
25 min. During club, the presenting teacher introduced the clip, and if time allowed,
the club watched it in full without commentary. The clip was then replayed, paused,
and rewound for commentary and questions. Anyone in the clubthe presenting
preservice teacher, other preservice teachers, and even the instructor or university
supervisorcould pause the clip at moments that were interesting. Interesting
moments were defined as anything participants wanted to talk aboutthis could be
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 399
about the learning environment, the learners, the representations being used, the
pedagogical choices the instructor used, or a request for clarification. This study
explores the moments during this discussion in which the preservice teachers
focused on the development of science content knowledge for teaching. Though we
noted the grade level and general content area of each clip, we did not analyze the
details of the clips themselves. Rather, we chose to analyze what was said in the
video clubs about the clips.
Data Analysis
We focused our analysis on the discourse during the part of each video club in
which the presenting preservice teacher or other participants would pause the video
to discuss events in the clip. We segmented each of the 15 video club sessions into
episodes of pedagogical reasoning as outlined by Horn and Little (2010). An
episode of pedagogical reasoning would start when someone paused the video to
assert a question, statement, or problem about student learning or teaching practice
they wanted to discuss. It would continue as other participants picked up the issue to
expand upon or extend their thinking through turns of talk. And it would finally
conclude when the group came to a solution about the problem, initiated a topical
shift, or moved on to watch a different segment of video. Sometimes a participant
would pause the video and make a bid for an episode of pedagogical reasoning, but
no other participant would join in. We considered this to be an initiation of an
episode that failed to be picked up by other members. Clarifying questions due to
difficulties seeing or hearing events in the clip were not considered to be episodes of
pedagogical reasoning.
We then looked at each episode of pedagogical reasoning to see whether it was
initiated around a problem of practice related to general pedagogy, such as
management, or whether it was initiated by a problem of practice centered on
content. We adapted Ball et al.s (2008) framework of mathematical knowledge for
teaching to code the different ways in which preservice teachers focused on science
content in problems of practice. These a priori codes were reflexively refined
through our coding process. We collapsed Ball et al.s six subdomains into four
codes and used these to identify and describe problems of practice centered on
content (Table 2): understanding content, interpreting student thinking, analyzing
instructional resources and pedagogical moves, and integrating horizon content
knowledge. We noted whether these four codes initiated an episode around a
content-focused problem of practice and/or whether they were included in the
discussion to help resolve the issue that was initially introduced.
We chose to collapse some subdomains of Ball et al.s (2008) framework as they
were difficult to distinguish in preservice teachers discourse. We merged common
content knowledge and specialized content knowledge into a single code,
understanding content. As the original distinction highlights what teachers need to
know about a subject above and beyond typical content knowledge, it is a more
useful and evident construct in research contexts that juxtapose teachers and
disciplinary professionals. For a similar reason, we combined knowledge of
content and teaching and knowledge of content and curriculum into a single
123
400 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
Table 2 Ways in which preservice teachers focused on content during video club discourse
Code Description Example
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 401
which they talk about local moments of student thinking or use of instructional
resources. This code attempts to capture that distinction.
Twenty percent of the video club sessions were independently coded by both
authors. Inter-rater reliability for these sessions was 87 %. Disagreement was
resolved by consensus and used to refine the original codes (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). The remaining 80 % of sessions were coded by a single author with
consultation from the other.
We identified a total of 94 episodes of pedagogical reasoning across all video
club sessions. The number of episodes per session ranged from two to eleven, with a
median of six. Nine episodes were initiated by a question or comment focused on
general pedagogy, while 85 episodes were initiated by a content-focused problem of
practice. Seventy-eight percent of both the initiated pedagogy episodes and the
initiated content-focused episodes were picked up for discussion by participants.
While preservice teachers do need to spend time discussing general pedagogical
concerns (Lederman et al., 1994), for this paper we wanted to explore whether and
how video club could be a productive context for supporting preservice teachers
science knowledge for teaching. Therefore, our results and discussion concentrate
on the content-focused episodes that were initiated and picked up for discussion.
In addition to the analysis described above, we also conducted a case study of one
video club session to illustrate how preservice teachers collectively introduced,
discussed, and resolved problems of practice. This case study explores two content-
focused episodes of pedagogical reasoning from a video club session about the
stages of mitosis. We selected this session because of its clarity in exemplifying
typical video club discourse. Although this was the first session facilitated by the
preservice teachers, the interactions within this session were consistent with those of
later sessions. We use this case to illustrate how episodes of pedagogical reasoning
are collaboratively constructed through participants discourse (Dyson, 2005). The
analysis follows macro-level topical shifts in this discourse, as indexed by the four
codes described above, and draws upon characteristics of the speakers in
interpretation (Cazden, 2001; Gee, 2011).
123
402 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
about the stages of mitosis. After discussing this case, we then present a summary of
our analysis of all video club sessions to illustrate patterns within and across club
discourse.
For her first video club session, Caitlyn chose to present a video clip from her
middle school student teaching placement. In this clip, Caitlyn led a whole class
discussion in which she facilitated student progress toward the learning objective of
identifying the stages of mitosis. During this discussion, Caitlyn noticed that her
students were struggling to identify the stages in the images in her PowerPoint
presentation, so she interrupted this identification activity to review what her
students knew about mitosis using hand motions the mentor teacher had previously
introduced.
In this case study, we detail how the preservice teachers structured their discourse
around content-related problems of practice, specifically issues related to under-
standing the stages of mitosis, while responding to Caitlyns clip. We begin as
Caitlyn introduces a problem that is not picked up by the groupshe is concerned
about the instructional representations she had available to use for the lesson.
Shortly thereafter, another participant introduces another problem of practice when
she notices students seem to be stumbling through responses without really
understanding what they were saying. The club took up this problem, and the case
study follows this first episode of pedagogical reasoning through the analysis and
solution provided by the participants. Following this, another participant reintro-
duces Caitlyns concern about the instructional representations. Here, we show how
participants are now ready, after their in-depth discussion about their own and
student understanding of the content, to engage with this problem of practice
through a second episode of pedagogical reasoning.
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 403
While watching this activity, Jessica asks to stop the clip and asserts a new problem
of practice focused on interpreting student thinking. This problem initiates an
episode of pedagogical reasoning as participants work to make sense of what the
students do and do not seem to understand about mitosis.
Jessica Ok, this might just be me and them talking all at the same time but it kind
of sounds like towards the end of those things, they dont really know
what theyre saying except that it has phase at the end. Like it sounds
like
Lily phase.
Jessica Like they are saying, nnn-phase Its hard with the hand motions but it
kind of sounds like
Lily I agree.
Jessica And then later, in this thing, one of them can tell you which one it is but
cant say the word for what it is.
Caitlyn Yeah. She goes, Metaphase, and then she goes, No, this one (moves
hands together).
123
404 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
In this exchange, Jessica uses the lack of clarity in student responses, or nnn-
phase, to question the extent to which students understand the phases of mitosis.
She is not seeing evidence of student understanding of the stages of mitosis as they
move their hands, and she uses this to challenge the effectiveness of the hand
motions. Lily immediately picks up this problem and explicitly agrees with this
assessment, and Caitlyn provides corroborating evidence by highlighting an
example from the video in which a students talk and their hand motions do not
conceptually align. At this point, the problem of student understanding has been
established and accepted by the video club community as a worthwhile problem to
pursue, and the discussion moves toward analyzing this problem in more depth.
Here, the preservice teachers debate the instructional decision to represent mitosis
using specific hand motions in light of what they have noticed about student
understanding.
Jessica So, I think the process was really cool, teachable moment, but I think that
its only effective if they actually understand it. I dont know. Its just
interesting that
Lily The vocabulary is not there but the concept is?
Jessica Yeah. Its cool that they can still have the concept and then figure out what
it is.
Caitlyn Theres a earlier in the lesson we did it three times in a row and the first
time it was like, nnn-phase, but by the third time it was a lot better. And
this was a lot better than the first or second time they did it in the period.
So, I think it helped to
Lily I think like having lyrics though. Im not saying its a song, but having a
picture of it, then the hand motion, then what a picture of what the action
would say, or the picture, the word, and the hand motion. Like have it in
that order could help.
In the first round of analysis, Jessica, Lily, and Caitlyn agree that the hand motions
seem useful, but that more support is needed around them to help students understand
what is conceptually going on in the process of mitosis. Caitlyn suggests that
repetition has seemed to help. Lily believes additional graphics or text to support the
gestures in the introductory stages would be helpful. Both of these contributions offer
initial potential solutions to the problem that Jessica had posed. However, at this stage
the instructor redirects the group back to an observation that Caitlyn had made about a
student in the video clip, which prompts a new direction in the analysis as participants
begin to question their understanding of the hand motions.
Instructor So, back to the video clip, I didnt see this girl, she answered your
question, you said, What phase is this? She has her hands one way
and says something else?
Caitlyn She says, Metaphase, and I said, Metaphase? And she goes, No,
um, this one.
Instructor Ok.
Caitlyn And then
Instructor This (gestures with hands) matches the picture?
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 405
123
406 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
to mitosis. Lily and Jessica break out and have a side conversation figuring out the
motions, while Jonathan works to connect the motions to specific phases. It is at this
stage that the preservice teachers examine each others content knowledge as they
connect what they understand about the hand motions to what they understand about
the movement of chromosomes during mitosis. Bringing the hands together
represents metaphase, because the hands represent the chromosomes and in
metaphase the chromosomes line up in the middle.
The difference between what the preservice teachers are doing here in understanding
the stages of mitosis and what they had previously been doing while moving through the
hand motions is subtle, but important. Though they continue to investigate the hand
motions, they also begin to more explicitly analyze what is happening during mitosis,
such as the chromosomes forming. For some, this invites them to revisit science
content they have not worked with in a while. When Jonathan puts his hands together
and mislabels it as anaphase, it suggests that even after the prior practice with these hand
motions, he is likely still struggling with what is happening during each stage. This is
not surprising for a chemistry major who may not have studied mitosis since his
freshman year of high school. Caitlyns response addresses not just the labeling of the
representation (metaphase) but also the content of what is happening during that
particular stage of mitosis (chromosomes are lining up the middle).
The preservice teachers have to use what they know (or come to know) about
mitosis to analyze the representation used to support student understanding of the
content. Through this process, the preservice teachers have to restructure their
knowledge of mitosis into knowledge needed to teach mitosis. The analysis of the
problem in this way leads Melanie to propose a solution about how to potentially
improve student understanding by revising the hand motions to better conceptually
represent mitosis.
Melanie It would be really easy to fix that. You could just do that (crosses
fingers). This, this, then this (moving through gestures, other students
mimic her actions). And use your fingers the whole time. Instead of
doing this (crosses arms).
Caitlyn Yeah. Thats true.
Instructor But, thats a really good point though in terms of student understanding.
Melanie Yeah, because if they are thinking these are the cells instead of the
chromosomes.
Caitlyn The cells are never
Melanie Never criss-crossing.
Caitlyn accepts Melanies suggested solution, and the club supports this decision.
Melanie was the sole biology expert in the group. It is possible that her expertise
allowed her to find an effective solution more quickly than the others or that her
expertise made her solution more acceptable to the club. It is also possible that the
time spent analyzing the instructional representation for this particular content
allowed the club to see how Melanies solution could remedy the key problem of
student understanding. This solution is qualitatively different than those initially
proposed by Caitlyn and Lily, which did not question the structure of the hand
motions but merely offered ways to supplement their use. While Melanies solution
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 407
does not fully address the nnn-phase problem, it does offer an improvement to a
representation that could have contributed to student confusion around the stages of
mitosis. The representational analysis taken up by the video club participants was
more of a subset of the larger nnn-phase problem identified by Jessica.
Figure 2 summarizes the overall progression participants took through this one
episode of pedagogical reasoning around a content-focused problem of practice.
Jessica introduced a problem concerning student talk and whether students actually
understood what they were doing and saying. Her intent behind initiating this problem
was to interpret student thinking through student talk. The group picked up this
problem and quickly focused on the hand motion representation that was being used
to convey the phases of mitosis. Much time was spent working through the nuances of
this representation, which led participants to revisit their own understanding of
mitosis content. Through this analysis, they reorganized their understanding of
mitosis into an improved understanding of how to teach mitosis to middle school
students. Before they explored the content, their suggestions for teaching focused on
vocabulary using repetition to reinforce the representation. After they discussed what
happens during the stages of mitosis, their suggestions for teaching focused on the
efficacy of the representation in making that content meaningful. Melanies solution
concluded this episode, providing a modified hand motion to help make the
representation more consistent throughout the different phases.
123
408 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
important to the presenter, Caitlyn, but that other participants had previously
glossed over.
Sage So you mentioned that you struggled using this slide. Is there any benefit of
having experienced that, especially after metaphase, prophase, which is it? Is
there a good takeaway from having that experience?
After this prompt, Caitlyn and the other participants pick up this problem of
practice as one they are ready to discuss. Immediately, Caitlyn proposes a solution
to reframe the identification task to include a new learning goalunderstanding
mitosis as a progression, which Lily supports. The instructor then jumps in with an
elaboration of the problem that reinforces this new goal. Perhaps it is not just a
problem with students perception of the images, but also a problem in their
perception of mitosis. If they do not know mitosis is a progression in which cells
transition from one phase to another, this could make the images difficult to
interpret, even if they had different framing.
Caitlyn I think this is their first time identifying and so I think later on, after
theyve mastered identifying this is clearly this, this, this, they may be
able to identify which stages it is between. If I framed it, Heres a
picture between two phases, which one, which two is it in transition, or
which is it transitioning from? Or which is it transitioning to? I think
then it might be helpful. (a) It proves they know it well enough to do
that and (b) that it is like a progression. But I think as a first time
identifying it, framing it as identify this phase, it was confusing.
Lily I think its kind of good because then they see right off the bat that its
not (inaudible). Its not like they learn that this is prophase but you see
how it goes into like, they learn it as a progression. Like maybe
having it in order first would help or something.
Instructor But, do they actually know its a progression? Have they just seen the
static images of each of the phases or have they seen it?
Caitlyn They were supposed to watch a video but the website was down that
like some periods it would work and some periods it didnt work that
day. So, this class missed the video of the progression so, no, I guess
not. They may think of it more as separate.
In Caitlyns analysis of what students came into her lesson knowing, she touches
locally on horizon content knowledge by referencing students prior experiences
with mitosis and how she had expected to develop their understandings further. In
reflecting with the club, she realizes that she may have made some assumptions
about those prior experiences that may have influenced students difficulties with
the slide images. This seems to be an illuminating experience for Caitlyn and the
other participants. For science experts, mitosis implies a progression through
phases. But, in thinking about how to teach this content, it is not always obvious
how the use of static images for a dynamic process will be interpreted by students.
This was an important moment for the participants as they had to consider the
gap between their understanding of the mitosis content and compare that to what the
students knew about mitosis. Lilys participation provides evidence that she likely
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 409
sees and values the science content in this clip in a different way than she did at the
start of this video club session. When Lily first joined in on discussing the nnn-
phase problem, she primarily focused on students use of vocabulary as they
attempted to identify each phase. Now in this episode, she instead emphasized
students understanding of mitosis as a progression. This shift in how Lily talked
about mitosis coupled with how participants previously had to break down the
process of mitosis to analyze the nnn-phase problem suggests that video club can
create a need for participants to develop new content knowledge as they engage
with problems of practice.
Figure 3 shows a representation of how participants moved through this brief
PowerPoint images problem of practice. What is most interesting about this
episode of pedagogical reasoning is the shift in how the preservice teachers talk
about mitosis. As they unpack students resources for interpreting the images of
mitosis, they begin to value a conceptual understanding of mitosis as a process over
a simple phase description and identification task. Because of this, supporting
students in connecting the dynamic process of mitosis to the static images becomes
a potential new learning goal. This episode concludes with pedagogical suggestions
for reframing the task in ways that could attend to this gap in student knowledge. As
seen previously, the participation of the university mentor and instructor helps
create and sustain this opportunity for growth. After participants constructed a
deeper knowledge of mitosis by discussing the hand motion problem, the university
mentor sees an opening to reintroduce the original problem of practice of
identifying images. When Caitlyn and Lily take up this problem, the instructor
supports their reframing of the identification problem as fundamentally a problem
about learning to see mitosis as a progression.
The case study of Caitlyns video club showed how participants identified a content-
centered problem of practice, analyzed components of the problem, and concluded
123
410 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
with a solution or new understanding they had not had before. In the first episode,
the initial problem involved interpreting student thinking. In analyzing that problem,
the participants explored the instructional representation the teacher was using
(hand motions), unpacked their own understanding of the content, and interpreted
student thinking through student talk in the video. In the second episode, the
problem of practice was initiated by the instructional representation (PowerPoint
images). In analyzing this problem, the participants locally explored students
horizon content knowledge (what experiences they had prior to this lesson) and the
misalignment between the objectives and the images on the slides.
Such patterns were not unusual in the overall landscape of the remaining video
clubs. From our analysis, we observed episodes concerning problems of practice
that included content-focused discourse in all 15 video club sessions. Table 3
provides an overview of the episodes along with the coded discourse patterns for
each club session. The table illustrates how participants leveraged different
categories of their science knowledge for teaching to initiate a problem of practice
or to include while analyzing a problem of practice. Three noteworthy findings
emerge from these global patterns.
First, Table 3 shows there were a high number of episodes that initiated problems
of practice around interpreting student ideas (52 % of episodes) and instructional
resources and pedagogical moves (47 % of episodes). Even more of the episodes
included discourse that explored student thinking (77 % of episodes) and
instructional resources (92 % of episodes). In examining these episodes, the
preservice teachers spent a great deal of time interpreting what student talk revealed
about student thinking and uncovering what representations convey and their
affordances for supporting student learning. Different types of video clips seemed to
offer different entry points for discourse. In particular, video of laboratories seemed
to privilege initial discussion of instructional resources while video of whole class
discussion seemed to privilege initial discussion of student thinking. In the five
video clubs where preservice teachers presented clips of laboratories (sessions 3, 7,
8, 9, and 14), 74 % of episodes were initiated around analyzing instructional
resources and pedagogical moves, while only 26 % of episodes were initiated
around interpreting student ideas. This pattern was reversed in the ten video clubs
where preservice teachers presented clips of whole class discussions as 65 % of
episodes in these sessions were initiated around student thinking, while only 33 %
of episodes were initiated around problems of practice involving instructional
resources.
Second, while preservice teachers initiated discussions around student thinking
and instructional resources, they never put their content knowledge on the table to
initiate a content-focused problem of practice. However, in all but two sessions they
included discussions of content knowledge (39 % of episodes; 87 % of sessions). In
other words, preservice teachers never started an episode by pausing the video clip
and saying, I need help understanding mitosis. Rather, they uncovered and
developed their content understanding as it was needed to interpret an instructional
resource or a student idea. We observed this in Caitlyns first episode as the
preservice teachers reviewed their mitosis knowledge when they needed that
knowledge to make sense of the hand motions, an instructional representation used
123
Table 3 Analysis of content-focused episodes in each video club session
Club Preservice Summary Number of Focus of episode related to content
session teacher of session content-
facilitator focused Understanding Interpreting Analyzing Integrating horizon
episodes content student instructional content knowledge
picked up thinking resources and
pedagogical moves
1 Caitlyn MS mitosis 3 0 2 2 3 1 3 0 2
2 Lily HS chemical equations 3 0 1 2 3 1 3 0 2
3 Jonathan HS hydrate laboratory 4 0 2 0 1 4 4 0 1
4 Jessica MS significant figures 4 0 1 0 2 3 4 1 3
5 Melanie MS inheritance 3 0 2 3 3 0 3 0 3
6 Lily HS atomic trends 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2
7 Caitlyn HS metal salt laboratory 5 0 1 2 5 3 5 0 2
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science
123
412 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
in the video clip. In other video club sessions, preservice teachers discussed the
characteristics of sound waves and debated the difference between genes,
chromosomes, and alleles as they worked to interpret student ideas.
Finally, while preservice teachers did not often initiate problems of practice
around horizon content knowledge (1 % of episodes), they frequently drew on
horizon content knowledge as they analyzed other problems of practice (39 % of
episodes). It helped them interpret student talk and understand why an instructional
representation was not as effective as they thought it should be, such as in Caitlyns
reflection that her students lack of exposure to mitosis as a progression may have
contributed to their current confusion around the slide images. As this discourse
pattern differed from how preservice teachers talked about student understanding or
instructional resources, this suggests that horizon content knowledge is likely a
subdomain of teacher knowledge that is distinct from these other elements of
pedagogy and might be most closely aligned with other elements of subject matter
knowledge, as Ball et al. (2008) proposed. In all of our examples of horizon content
knowledge, preservice teachers discussed how the content of the current lesson built
on previous experiences. However, they did not readily project that trajectory into
the future. For example, in another video club session preservice teachers connected
students current struggles interpreting laboratory results of flame tests to prior
experiences with states of matter, and they debated how explorations of energy
levels might be effectively sequenced in that unit. However, they did not discuss
how the ideas about excited energy levels and the emission of photons emphasized
in the laboratory set the foundation for future content.
Preservice teacher education often includes field experiences that involve many
hours of classroom observation. These experiences are based on the belief that
preservice teachers can use observations of other teachers to improve their own
practice. However, Star, Lynch, and Perova (2011) found that while preservice
teachers do pay attention to overall classroom activity during observations, they
have a difficult time distinguishing important learning events from unimportant
ones. In others words, novice teachers need support in learning how to see a
classroom. Structured forms of video analysis such as those implemented in this
study can be a useful means of providing this support, particularly when designed
with an observational purpose (Brophy, 2004) and with facilitated reflective
opportunities (Sherin & van Es, 2005). When teachers analyze video, they can
develop expertise in observing and interpreting important aspects of classroom
practice (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Brophy, 2004; Sherin & van
Es, 2005; Stockero, 2008).
Our findings suggest one important aspect of practice emphasized when
preservice secondary science teachers engage in video analysis is their understand-
ing of content. Preservice secondary science teachers may know their content
wellbut this does not guarantee they know their content well for teaching. They
have developed expertise within their specific science domain, but they do not have
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 413
much practice breaking down this expertise to help students construct science
understandings. The preservice teachers in our video club demonstrated a need to
explore their basic understanding of content to advance more sophisticated content
knowledge for teaching. This pattern may generalize to other preservice domains,
such as English or mathematics education. However, we hypothesize that this might
be more pronounced in science, as prospective secondary science teachers tend to
specialize very quickly. A physics majors knowledge of biology may remain inert
from high school until he enters a middle school teaching placement and is required
to teach mitosis. Furthermore, preservice science teachers might even still have
significant misconceptions about topics outside of their major (Kind, 2014).
Because of this, while secondary science teachers feel prepared to teach within the
content of their major, if they are assigned to teach science content outside of their
specialty, they often report feeling less prepared and are less likely to implement
reform-oriented objectiveseven if they are licensed to teach that content and even
if it is only at the middle school level (Smith, Banilower, Nelson, & Smith, 2013).
Thus, secondary preservice science teachers in particular need opportunities to
activate this inert knowledge prior to stepping into classrooms the first time. Such
opportunities are not only helpful if preservice teachers find themselves teaching
general middle school science, but they also help teachers draw connections across
science disciplines, further enhancing their science expertise. Similar opportunities
to unpack science content might also support elementary preservice teachers in
feeling prepared to create successful inquiry-based learning environments for their
students. As elementary preservice teachers often have limited exposure to science
content during their university training, they typically feel less prepared to teach
science than literacy or mathematics (Trygstad, 2013). Like their secondary
counterparts, video analysis could provide a means by which preservice elementary
science teachers could authentically explore science content knowledge for
teaching.
We argue that opportunities to develop and transform content knowledge into
content knowledge for teaching are best rooted in contexts that preservice teachers
find meaningful to their development as teachers. In other words, it is not helpful for
preservice teachers to sit through more lectures about science content. Video, on the
other hand, can provide a useful tool for analyzing important aspects of science
content situated within practice. By pairing our video club with preservice teachers
practical experiences, we provided opportunities for preservice teachers to reflect on
their own (and their peers) practice and a forum to discuss issues that were relevant
to where they were in their professional teaching trajectory. On the surface, it may
have looked like preservice teachers were merely discussing different ways to
represent chromosomes, an issue of pedagogy. But the discussion was also
supporting their understanding of what actually happens to chromosomes during
each phase, an issue of content knowledge. Video club was a safe place for them
to explore and question each other on contentto admit they have forgotten it or
need help understanding itand our preservice teachers showed a particular
readiness and eagerness to discuss issues of knowledge and practice as they relate to
student understanding and trajectories of student learning. As attention to content
knowledge naturally emerged during club sessions and was not forced by the
123
414 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
instructor, our findings suggest that content knowledge is an area that preservice
teachers are still developing and have a readiness to examine at this point in their
professional trajectory.
Our findings also drew attention to the construct of horizon content knowledge.
In this club, preservice teachers did not initiate discourse around this category,
although it became an important resource to draw on when making sense of the
events they observed in the video. Yet even when they drew on horizon content
knowledge, they tended to trace a trajectory across the past and the present, but only
rarely projected to future content. Berliner et al. (1988) reported that novice teachers
tend to view a lesson as an isolated, disconnected event while more experienced
teachers would situate a lesson within a chronological sequence of learning events.
Because of this, we wondered if discourse involving horizon content knowledge
would look different for teachers with more experience. Perhaps trajectories of
student learning would be a place expert teachers would start to analyze when
watching a video. Exploring how horizon content knowledge emerges in teacher
discourse along a noviceexpert continuum could be useful in clarifying whether it
is a unique type of teacher knowledge or whether it spans several categories, a
question Ball et al. (2008) raised when they proposed their framework on
mathematical knowledge for teaching.
Though we did not explicitly focus on the role of the facilitator in this paper, their
actions can be pivotal in setting the conditions that enable participants to advance
their own knowledge. In the episodes presented in the analysis, both the instructor
and the university mentor played a critical role in stalling the rush to a solution and
helping preservice teachers tie their discourse to the events from the video clip.
These facilitator moves are subtle but extremely important and point to the
significance of the facilitator in video clubs. Future work is needed to explore the
role of facilitators more deeply and detail what kinds of facilitator moves lead to
productive discourse around various video club objectives.
Conclusion
During our video club, preservice teachers frequently attended to the content-
pedagogy connection we had hoped to support. As they made sense of classroom
events and moments of student thinking, they realized that they needed to have
nuanced understandings of the science content in play. In the case study, preservice
teachers worked to understand what happens during each phase of mitosis and how
mitosis fundamentally implies a progression. This content knowledge supported
them in working through problems of practice involving student thinking and
instructional representations. Across all video club discussions, preservice teachers
frequently asked content-focused questions in ways that pressed others to engage
more deeply with the contenteven if it was out of their subject matter specialty.
Once armed with the necessary science knowledge, they used this to develop other
pedagogical aspects of their science knowledge for teaching.
Novice teachers are faced with high expectations for performance but often run
into challenges as they interpret their content knowledge for teaching to respond to
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 415
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?
Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389407.
Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). Learning to analyze teaching: Developing pre-service science
teachers abilities to notice, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 45, 8393.
Berliner, D. C., Stein, P., Sabers, D. S., Clarridge, P. B., Cushing, K. S., & Pinnegar, S. (1988).
Implications of research on pedagogical expertise and experience in mathematics teaching. In D.
A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp.
6795). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive
discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,
417436.
Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice
biology teachers classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 471481.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Childs, A., & McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject content knowledge and
pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom discourse. International Journal of Science
Education, 29, 16291653.
Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613642.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 607616.
Dyson, A. H. (2005). On the case. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 10131055.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of
Research in Education, 30, 130.
Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing
mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A
research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 333352). Reaston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers pedagogical content knowledge and its
influence on physics teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 215225.
123
416 H. J. Johnson, M. E. Cotterman
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal,
47, 181217.
Kapyla, M., Heikkinen, J.-P., & Asunta, T. (2009). Influence of content knowledge on pedagogical
content knowledge: The case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth. International Journal of
Science Education, 31, 13951415.
Kind, V. (2014). A degree is not enough: A quantitative study of aspects of pre-service science teachers
chemistry content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 13131345.
Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about misconceptions: Preservice secondary science teachers
views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96, 927995.
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice
science teachers conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31, 129146.
Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers discourse in modeling
the water cycle. Science Education, 90, 202226.
Park, S., Jang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary
for reformed science teaching? Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education,
42, 245260.
Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. (2011). Videobased
lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 48, 117148.
Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers knowledge base when
teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 30, 723736.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., Young, A. (2009).
A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom
communities. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge
through learning and interaction (pp. 201223). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20, 163183.
Sherin, M. G., & Linsenmeier, K. (2011). Pause, rewind, reflect: Video clubs throw open the classroom
doors. Journal of Staff Development, 32(5), 3841.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers ability to interpret classroom
interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 475491.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 414.
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,
930954.
Smith, A. A., Banilower, E. R., Nelson, M. M., & Smith, P. S. (2013). The status of secondary science
education in the United States: Factors that predict practice. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research
Inc.
Star, J. R., Lynch, K., & Perova, N. (2011). Using video to improve mathematics teachers abilities to
attend to classroom features: A replication study. In M. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.),
Mathematics teachers noticing: Seeing through teachers eyes (pp. 117133). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2007). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice
mathematics teachers ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 107125.
Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert
& M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107149).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Stockero, S. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective
mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 373394.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
123
Developing Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Science 417
Trygstad, P. J. (2013). 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of elementary
school science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.
van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2008). Mathematics teachers learning to notice in the context of a video club.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244270.
Wyckoff, S. (2001). Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching: Shifting from lecture to
interactive engagement and scientific reasoning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(5),
306312.
123