Closing the gap between beliefs and practice: Change of pre-service chemistry teachers' orientations during a PCK-based NOS course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to investigate how pre-service chemistry teachers' science teaching orientations change during a two-semester intervention designed to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching the nature of science (NOS). Moreover, the way that pre-service chemistry teachers translated their change in orientation into both their instructional planning and their PCK was examined. Thirty pre-service chemistry teachers enrolled in a Research in Science Education course participated in the study. Responses to an open-ended instrument, interviews, observations, and documents such as lesson plans and reflection papers were used as qualitative data sources. Through in-depth analysis of explicit PCK and further deductive analysis, we identified the influence of the intervention on participants' orientation and how participants translated their orientation into their planning and PCK. Analysis of data revealed that most of the pre-service teachers' naïve and transitional views about NOS changed into informed ideas after explicit-reflective NOS instruction. Participants revised their science teaching orientations by including more reform-based orientations at the end of the course ( i.e. , teaching NOS-related orientations). Their plans included at least one NOS aspect as an objective, which indicates that all of the participants designed their lesson plans with more informed views about at least one NOS aspect. In terms of aligning their reform-based orientations with other PCK components, pre-service chemistry teachers were more able to align their orientation with knowledge of instructional strategy and assessment than with knowledge of the learner. Implications for science teacher education and research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".