Professional learning and development of two groups of pre-service teachers with different scientific knowledge bases and different teaching training in the course of their studies

Ronit Rozenszajn, Zohar Snapir, Yossy Machluf

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

This research study evaluated the professional development of two groups of pre-service biology teachers during a year-long biology didactics course in two different academic institutions. Verbal and qualitative analyses of lesson transcripts were employed to characterize explicit knowledge, while content and cluster analyses of the repertory grid technique were employed to characterize tacit knowledge. The group of pre-service teachers with lower content knowledge (CK) and more teaching experience during their training was concerned with student- and teacher-centered practices. The group with higher CK and less teaching experience was concerned with high-order thinking skills and the knowledge gap between themselves and their students. Therefore, we recommend: (1) engaging pre-service teachers with low CK in inquiry experiences, which may foster high-order thinking skills in their practice; (2) all pre-service teachers, regardless of their CK, should practice substantial teaching while studying, which may bridge the knowledge gap between themselves and their students.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)123-137
Number of pages15
JournalStudies in Educational Evaluation
Volume61
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2019
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Content knowledge
  • Pedagogical content knowledge
  • Professional development
  • Student-centered strategy
  • Teacher-centered strategy
  • Thinking skills

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Professional learning and development of two groups of pre-service teachers with different scientific knowledge bases and different teaching training in the course of their studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this