Thank you for watching our video!  In ASSET, we’re trying to make pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) available to elementary teachers by weaving it into instructional materials.  In our video, we make three claims.

1. First, we believe all teachers have PCK, but we also believe PCK exists outside of teachers, much like knowledge about the natural world exists in books. We and others call this kind of PCK “canonical PCK,” and we’re curious what you think of that idea.  Does canonical PCK exist?  If so, do you have examples?
2. Second, we claim that teachers’ access to canonical PCK is limited because (1) much of it is in research journals and (2) no one has organized the knowledge in a way that teachers can easily use it. Do you agree that teachers have limited access to canonical PCK?  If so, what do you think of our reasons?  If not, how have you seen teachers access and use canonical PCK?
3. Finally, we claim that weaving canonical PCK into instructional materials is a good way to give teachers access. What do you think?  Have you seen more effective ways of making canonical PCK accessible to teachers?  (You can explore our resources for the Small Particle Model of Matter and Interdependence.)

 

Please respond to any or all of our claims.  We look forward to your thoughts!

 

The ASSET Team

You are very welcome, ASSET Team--the video was very engaging, and your intervention seemed to me to be an elegant solution for how to give teachers access to PCK. I am wondering--have you observed any variations in the implementation of these materials that suggest that they are more compatible with certain types of teachers, topics, or instructional strategies?

 Hi Patrick, Agree that PCK exists inside and outside but that teachers benefit from having access to a synthesis of research findings. Also, agree that weaving PCK into classroom activities is an effective strategy. My hunch is that the closer to the classroom activities, the more helpful the information and some examples of where the stumbling blocks are likely to appear.

I'll respond to your third question: The Inquiry Project is a 3 year curricular sequence that drives toward an understanding of the particle model of matter. It's important that teachers know what non-canonical "typical" ideas about matter that are likely to appear "Don't be surprised if ..." We embedded some of the research findings throughout the Teacher Guide and also included paired essays The Scientist and the Child written for teachers to describe typical gaps. For example, evidence for matter being composed of particles with space (what, there's NOTHING between the particles?) is more accessible and convincing in the context of the behavior of gases. But what if students don't thing air is matter? Given experience with the properties of matter, they collect evidence air is indeed matter, and go on to work with a particle model to explain behavior. 

I look forward to hearing of the feedback from teachers trying out your materials. Making relevant research findings more accessible to teachers is work well-done.

Sally

 

Nice presentation.  I agree with Sally that this is good work to do, and am interested in the teachers' comments.  It seems to me that the big shift really entails teachers' growing capacity to listen to and think about students' ideas, and the research literature can help — as it does (in the best cases) for researchers themselves!  Three other thoughts:

• How do you make sure that this fundamental point is not overwhelmed by the idea that a teacher has to learn another whole body of content (the canonical material) -- sort of analogous to teachers learning about inquiry rather than being able to enact it?

• the sample materials look useful and appealing, and I like the approach you're taking of  producing small, individual pieces, which can act as windows into a way of thinking for the teachers.

• (You don't need to reply to  this one!!) I have never been convinced that PCK is a separate kind or body of knowledge. It's analogous to saying that a fly-fisherman has angling content knowledge, which is not about methods, or about fish, or about rivers, or mayflies.   It's all those things, in an enactment in the moment, with certain characteristics of attention and judgment.  

I really appreciate the seamless integration of PCK into materials.  I am a classroom teacher and finding the time to build units that are based on what we know about how people learn, are engaging, meaningful, etc is a huge challenge. That is why teachers spend so much time hunting and cobbling together what they can find online.  This is a less than ideal situation but it is what teachers have time for when they are trying to address curricular needs.  I am excited to know there are projects like yours out there.  I am not sure all teachers really understand PCK.  There is such variation in teacher prep programs.  I am curious to know what is the entry point for teachers into your "portal"?  In other words is there some sort of online training/ tutorials that support what makes ASSET materials different with embedded PCK?  How publicly will these resources be or is the plan to make them commercially available?    

I was thinking about how you are measuring impact. As I understand it, you are collecting (and analyzing) responses to prompts in the materials you are testing. Is this the case? How big a sample have you been able to work with?

Sally