Professional Knowledge for Teaching in Student Teachers’ Conversations about Field Experiences

ABSTRACT

Professional knowledge for science teaching develops over time and interplays with professional experiences in field. In the present study, we explore student teachers’ reflective conversation upon teaching experiences, with pedagogical content knowledge, PCK, as an analytical lens. The empirical data is based on nine meetings, with groups of 3–6 student teachers with an academic degree, at three different periods during their one-year short-track teacher education program. The findings show how student teachers focus on the PCK component instructional strategies in their discussion. A difference between the different sets of meetings is the increased presence of discussions regarding assessment of student learning. The findings also elicit different ways of relating components of PCK in varying contexts. The shift over time from a focus on teachers’ instructional strategies to also including students’ understanding indicates a development toward becoming a teacher. Even though a structured discussion with theoretically grounded didactic questions is established, it is challenging to deepen the discussion when the student teachers’ varying teaching experiences are present at the same time. Nevertheless, the study shows the possibilities of structured group discussions about field experiences in a collegial setting in a short-track teacher education program, regarding student teachers’ development as “becoming teachers.”

KEYWORDS:

• Group conversations
• PCK
• pre-service science teacher education
• field experiences
• professional knowledge for teaching

Introduction

Professional knowledge for science teaching develops over time and interplays with professional experiences in the field (Nilsson & Loughran, 2012; Schneider & Plasman, 2011). Planning of teaching with careful consideration regarding teaching for student learning is a complex process. In addition, it is challenging, even for an experienced teacher, to be explicit about tacit knowledge of practice and to verbalize teaching experiences. Scholars therefore argue that there is a need for rich opportunities for student teachers to take part in professional discussions about teaching experiences during initial teacher education (cf. Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). At the same time, such discussions may also contribute to preparation for future collaborative work as a teacher, for instance, in professional learning communities, PLC (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). Reflections upon and verbalization of teaching experiences may offer opportunities to bridge the gap between theoretical perspectives on teaching and learning and teaching practice. Loughran (2014) emphasizes the importance of student teachers’ opportunities to learn from teaching experiences instead of just having experiences. This is also in line with designing teacher education to promote student teachers’ learning in and from practice (Bullough & Smith, 2016; Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). Reflective group conversations could therefore be an important way to learn from field experiences. According to scholars emphasizing how professional knowledge for science teaching develops over time and interplays with professional experiences in the field (Nilsson & Loughran, 2012; Schneider & Plasman, 2011), a short-track science teacher education, with limited time for developing in the science teacher profession, is of particular interest. The present study explores professional knowledge for science teaching displayed in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) student teachers’ group conversations about field experiences, in order to elicit possibilities to learn from teaching in a collective setting.

Theoretical background

According to the focus of the study, the theoretical background includes both professional knowledge for science teaching from an individual and from a collective perspective, and pedagogical content knowledge in relation to pre-service teacher education.

Professional knowledge for science teaching

Professional knowledge for science teaching concerns teachers’ knowledge and actions regarding teaching and student learning of science subject matter. In educational research, in particular in the field of science education, pedagogical content knowledge, PCK (Shulman, 1986, 1987), is a well-established way of conceptualizing the specific professional knowledge needed for teaching. The specific knowledge for teaching is related in the literature to teachers as individuals, personal knowledge (e.g. Loughran, Berry, & Mulhall, 2012; Shulman, 1987), and to teaching and teachers’ actions, as enacted knowledge (e.g. Gess-Newsome, 2015). In addition to personal knowledge and enacted knowledge in the classroom, Carlson and Daehler (2019) also include a collective level, collective PCK, which they describe as: “a specialised knowledge base for science teaching that has been articulated and is shared among a group of professionals” (p. 88). Collective PCK is also described in the literature as canonical PCK. Smith and Banilower (2015) consider PCK to be personal, but also canonical. They define canonical PCK as “PCK that is widely agreed upon and formed through research and/or collective expert wisdom of practice” (Smith & Banilower, 2015, p. 90). They also discuss the relation between personal PCK and canonical PCK. By shifting focus from viewing PCK as individual knowledge to viewing it as shared knowledge about teaching and student learning, Cooper, Loughran, and Berry (2015) express shared key features of knowledge about teaching a specific topic as a collective PCK. According to Carlson and Daehler (2019), canonical PCK often builds on knowledge from research, whereas collective PCK is a “continuum of knowledge held by the group that extends beyond what is in the literature” (p. 89). In addition, they emphasize the development of this particular knowledge within local professional groups of science teachers, working collaboratively, which they call local collective PCK (Carlson & Daehler, 2019).

PCK is a useful tool for promoting and developing an understanding of teachers’ professional teaching practice (Kind, 2009). In addition, it may support the verbalizing of teachers’ tacit knowledge (Nilsson, 2008, p. 40). Carlson and Daehler (2019) argue for how individual science teacher “through conversations and sharing” (p. 82) of teaching experiences can contribute to the collective level of PCK.

PCK and teacher education

Even though scholars agree that there are advantages with using PCK to conceptualize the specific knowledge needed for teaching, there is an ongoing debate about how to define PCK. However, according to Shulman (2015), who introduced the concept of PCK in 1986/1987, the process of defining PCK is more important than the definition in itself. A broad definition of PCK, with a focus on the character of PCK, is given by Loughran et al. (2012) in the following way: “the knowledge that teachers develop over time, and through experience, about how to teach particular content in particular ways in order to lead to enhanced student understanding” (p. 7). Shulman (2015) concludes that different models and ways of conceptualizing PCK may offer a focus on different factors depending on specific educational contexts. Gunstone (2015) distinguishes between models for studying PCK and PCK per se. Schneider (2015) discusses how PCK might be useful in the context of science teacher education. Based on the tension between theoretical perspectives and classroom practice with varying topics, she argues for the teacher educators’ need for “a description of PCK that is between general pedagogical ideas and specific content ideas” (p. 167).

Early models of PCK (e.g. Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999) have been criticized for being cognitively oriented with the risk of staying “lost in thought” (Shulman, 2015, p. 10) and ignoring the actions taken with students in classrooms. Recent models of PCK include knowledge and skills regarding planning, enacting and evaluating teaching (e.g. Gess-Newsome, 2015, p. 30). Gess-Newsome (2015) emphasizes: “Unique to this model, PCK is defined as both a knowledge base used in planning for and the delivery of topic-specific instruction in a very specific classroom context, and as a skill when involved in the act of teaching” (pp. 30–31). There is a difference between being aware of concerns related to teaching and enacting this knowledge in classroom practice. In addition, as described earlier, there is also an ongoing discussion about a collective level of PCK (Carlson & Daehler, 2019). The concept of PCK is complex, and scholars (e.g. Abell, 2008; Magnusson et al., 1999) argue for an understanding of knowledge for teaching both from the perspective of single components of PCK, and from how different components interact and influence classroom practice. In a similar way, Schneider and Plasman (2011) highlight the importance of opportunities for teachers “to think about, experience, and reflect on how to think about each component of PCK (e.g., assessment) in relationship to students and science” (p. 559). However, according to Abell (2008), the concept of PCK is more than the sum of its parts.

In the present study, we use a model of PCK for science teaching. The model is based on Magnusson et al. (1999) and was further developed by Schneider and Plasman (2011) with the purpose of investigating PCK progression from teacher education and throughout the teacher’s career. The PCK construct includes a set of five components: orientations to teaching science, student thinking about science, instructional strategies in science, science curriculum and assessment of students’ science learning. In addition, Schneider and Plasman (2011) argue that PCK may be used as a lens to identify changes in teachers’ ideas about science teaching (p. 556). Components of PCK may also be related to each other and in different ways, according to Henze, van Driel, and Verloop (2008). In their three-year study of experienced science teachers, they found qualitative differences in how teachers related the components of PCK to each other. They conclude that changes in different components of PCK were mutually related (Henze et al., 2008). Park and Chen (2012) also map the integration of components of PCK in a study of high school biology teachers. Their findings indicate a central role for the two PCK components knowledge of student understanding and knowledge of instructional strategies and representations in how the components are integrated (p. 932). In intervention studies of student teachers’ planning of teaching (Juhler, 2016) and post-reflections (Juhler, 2018) upon teaching a physics lesson, the PCK component instructional strategies (in science) dominates the discussion among the student teachers in both the intervention and the control group. Further, the PCK component assessment of students’ (science) learning for physics is second most frequent and 5 times more common in the intervention group (Juhler, 2018). Instructional strategies also dominated in another study of primary science student teachers’ PCK in discussions on field practices (Timostsuk, 2015).

Student teachers need rich and meaningful field experiences as a base for discussion and development of professional knowledge for teaching (Schneider & Plasman, 2011). The particular interest in the present study is to explore how professional knowledge for teaching, in terms of PCK, is displayed in student teachers’ reflective group conversations about teaching experiences. The student teachers follow a short-track one-year education program, specially designed for individuals with an academic background in either science, technology or mathematics. Students who enter the program often have experiences from professions of various kinds. In their theoretical framework to a study of student teachers in a similar short-track teacher education program in Sweden, Molander and Hamza (2018) suggest that this group of student teachers might have a view of science teaching in line with the instruction they have experienced themselves as secondary students. They might also perceive teaching as a rather “straightforward activity” (Molander & Hamza, 2018, p. 506), unaware of the teacher’s work behind the teaching they took part in. This is in line with findings about how prospective secondary biology teachers entering teacher education view “teaching as telling” (p. 152, in Brown, Friedrichsen, & Abell, 2013). Molander and Hamza (2018) also argue that for this group of students, going through teacher education, means “a transformation from one professional identity to another” (p. 507). Therefore, they continue, short-track education programs are not unproblematic and these students need to get opportunities to see and talk about this, to them, new practice. The authors conclude that in particular the relationship between theoretical courses and practice needs to be considered.

Aim and research questions

In several studies, professional knowledge for teaching is described in terms of PCK, both regarding teachers and student teachers. Our study concerns professional knowledge for teaching displayed in the collective setting of student teachers’ conversations about field experiences.

The aim of the study is to explore STEM student teachers’ reflective conversations on teaching experiences, in terms of PCK, during a one-year teacher education program.

The specific guiding research questions are:

1. What is the distribution of PCK components in student teachers’ conversations about field experiences as a teacher? What are the discernable differences over time?

2. What are the relationships between components of PCK in student teachers’ conversations about field experiences and in what ways do they interact?

Research design

Given the aim of the study, the research design focused on the arrangement of reflective group discussions for student teachers to share teaching experiences, and the establishment of recurrent occasions for such discussions. The empirical study was implemented during a one-year short-track teacher education program for student teachers with an academic degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM), in which the students study at university in parallel with their vocational education. Because of the student teachers’ ongoing field-based teaching experiences in schools, this context was of particular interest in relation to the teachers’ reflections upon their teaching experience. The empirical material was collected from non-compulsory additional meetings, which were organized and led by the first author with the aim of providing an arena for conversation among the students in which they could share and reflect on their field experience as a teacher. The purposive research design, the character of the generated data and the analytical approach are clarified in the following section.

Context of the study—the didaktik tradition in pre-service science teacher education

The professional knowledge for science teaching and student learning is encapsulated in the academic discipline didaktik, which is specific to teacher education and the teaching profession (Wickman, 2014; Wickman, Hamza, & Lundegård, 2018). In the didaktik tradition, the specific questions of interest with regard to content-specific teaching for particular students’ learning are: what (content to learn), how (to teach and learn the content), and why (this content and this particular way) for the particular group of students? (Sjøberg, 2010; Wickman, 2014). Therefore, these questions may be viewed as didactic questions. In a Swedish teacher education context these questions and the didaktik tradition are well established in courses about teaching particular science subject matter.

Setting

The empirical focus was to generate data that reflected teacher knowledge and teaching concerns in focus for the student teachers in reflective discussions on field experiences. The student teachers were asked to prepare the meetings by selecting a specific teaching experience to draw on for reflection and discussion. The first author, referred to as the researcher below, actively led the meetings, which can be characterized as semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014) but in a group setting. The conversation guide was carefully considered with the aim of promoting a discussion with a focus on the relationship between teaching and student learning of a specific subject matter. The guide was theoretically grounded in literature about subject didactic knowledge, but also experience-based, due to the authors’ profession as researchers and teacher educators. The questions used in the meetings concerned student teachers’ experiences of: a) teaching related to aims and learning goals for the students; b) evaluation of students’ individual learning, regarding both what to assess and assessment practice; c) suggestions for possible changes in teaching practice, based on the current discussion and teaching experiences. The questions therefore have similarities to a framework proposed for student teachers’ analysis of teaching (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007). (See Appendix for the specific questions used). The setting for the meetings, including the conversation guide, was piloted in a similar student teacher group. Piloting resulted in minor revisions of the final set of questions, as well as adjustments to ways of prompting questions. In the meetings, each student teacher was initially given a few minutes for individual descriptions and short comments on their selected field experience. In the subsequent conversation, the student teachers were encouraged to identify and discuss differences and similarities between the varying field experiences brought into the discussion. The researcher handled both social and content aspects as a facilitator of the conversation, aiming to keep the discussion on track and provide equivalent opportunities for all of the student teachers to talk. Through the purposive research design with a researcher as the meeting leader, the risk of double roles is reduced, i.e. the meeting leader is not involved in teaching and/or assessing the participating student teachers’ knowledge, which otherwise might influence student teachers’ risk-taking during discussions in the meetings (Eriksson, 2017).

Empirical data

Each meeting was 70–90 minutes and the conversations were audio-recorded. In total, 18 student teachers with varying backgrounds within the STEM disciplines volunteered to be involved in the study. Each student teacher took part in one, two or three of the sets of meetings during the one-year program. The total number of meetings was nine. Every meeting included 3–6 student teachers, and varied regarding which student teachers participated. The student teachers chose a time for meeting by writing their names on a schedule suggested by the researcher. Student teachers with field placement at the same school mostly participated in the same meeting group. For an overview of participants and meetings, see Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of participating student teachers and meetings during their one-year teacher education program.

Set of meetings	1st set of meetings (Feb)				2nd set of meetings (May)			3rd set of meetings (Oct/Nov)
Meeting	1:1	1:2	1:3	1:4	2:1	2:2	2:3	3:1	3:2
Student teachers (N)	6	5	4	3	3	3	4	5	4

The present study is empirically based on the student teachers’ group conversations as described above. The audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim. The readability was taken into consideration by means of the exclusion of repetitions and small common words in the spoken language.

Analysis

The analysis was carried out in line with each of the specific research questions. This implies two different analytical focuses: firstly, on how components of PCK are distributed in the conversation, and secondly on relationships between different components of PCK.

Analysis of distributions of components of PCK in student teachers’ conversations (RQ1)

The transcribed conversations were coded in terms of PCK, using Schneider and Plasman’s (2011) set of PCK components as a starting point. It suited our purpose of mapping knowledge for teaching in student teachers’ conversations, even if it has been criticized regarding its cognitive focus (e.g. Gess-Newsome, 2015). The following components of PCK were therefore used: Orientations to teaching science (OTS), Student thinking about science (ST), Instructional strategies in science (IS), Science curriculum (SC) and Assessment of students’ science learning (AL). All sentences in the empirical data were analyzed and coded one by one, in the light of the teaching context. In total, 158 pages were coded.

An iterative coding process: the use and adjustments of a PCK model

The transcribed student teachers’ talk about planning of teaching, observations in the classroom, accomplished teaching, and assessment of student learning were included in the analysis. The categories for each component of PCK were used in an initial deductive analysis. The analysis unfolded as an iterative process. Based on the empirical data in the present study, we refined and adjusted the description (definition) of the components of PCK used for our analysis. Didactic questions (see for example Wickman, 2014) were helpful to distinguish the components. In line with our purposes, two specific components of PCK in the construct (Schneider & Plasman, 2011) were adjusted in the following ways. First, the component orientations to teaching science, OTS, in our analytical tool includes aims for teaching and learning on the level of the school subject from a long-term perspective (goals for education). In contrast, when the student teachers expressed goals and objectives for a specific lesson, a short-term perspective, it was coded as instructional strategies, IS. The second adjustment of the PCK construct relates to the component assessment of student learning, AL. Based on our data, we defined AL to include talk about structured assessment activities. In contrast, we coded spontaneous ways of observing and identifying student knowledge as the component student thinking (about science), ST. The PCK model, which was thus unfolded through the iterative analysis, is described in Table 2.

Table 2. The PCK model used in the analysis based on and developed from Schneider and Plasman (2011).

Component of PCK	Description of the component of PCK Teachers’ ideas about …
Orientations to teaching science, OTS	purposes and goals for teaching a specific (school) subject, i.e. science or mathematics; the nature of science; the nature of teaching and learning science for students, and students’ interest in the school subject and the need to stimulate and motivate them. (why teach the subject)
Student thinking about science, ST	students’ pre-knowledge and pre-experiences regarding particular content; how students express science ideas; appropriate level of science understanding; student thinking from a general perspective and for the specific group of students; informal and spontaneous ways of observing, identifying and responding to student knowledge in classroom activities.
Instructional strategies, IS	both content-specific strategies (e.g. demonstrations, use of representations and models) and instructional strategies in general, i.e. classroom management and strategies concerning students’ interest and motivation; inquiry and discourse strategies including dialogic patterns in the classroom. (how to teach the content)
Science curriculum, SC	scope of science (importance of science topics and what science is worth knowing or teaching); sequence of science (organizing science content for learning); curricular resources available for science; using standards to guide planning and teaching science. (what to teach)
Assessment of students’ learning, AL	structured strategies for assessing student thinking—with both formative and summative aims; how or when to use assessments.

The reliability was guaranteed by an initial coding of part of the empirical data by each author separately, and these codes were then compared and discussed until consensus was reached. The adjusted description of the PCK concepts was formulated by the first author and then used for checking the coded material in its entirety for consistency. After the coding was finalized, a rough quantification was created by counting lines of each PCK component in the transcriptions.

Qualitative differences in terms of relationships between components of PCK (RQ2)

To identify relationships between different components of PCK in the conversations, a supplementary analysis was required. Based on the coded PCK components in the transcriptions, an analysis was carried out regarding qualitative differences in how the components are related to each other. For this purpose, episodes of student teacher joint discussion about science teaching and student learning were identified in the transcribed conversations. Episodes of joint discussions implies here either a discussion with a deeper engagement in a particular science teaching experience, or a broader discussion with comparisons of differences or similarities in several science teaching experiences. Therefore, episodes of individual articulations of science teaching experiences with no further negotiation of meaning in the group discussions were excluded. The way of identifying sequences for the analysis in our study has similarities with the analytical approach of identifying episodes as units for analysis in another study of student teachers’ post-rehearsal discussions (Benedict-Chambers, 2016). The identified sequences were used in order to explore the relationships between the components of PCK in the joint discussions. The analysis considers both different ways of relating components of PCK, and the particular teaching situation to which the components are related. In order to differentiate between the teaching contexts, three levels are used, namely: teaching in general, teaching science (subject specific) and teaching a specific science topic. This is of particular interest considering the setting of bringing teaching experiences of varying topics to the discussion. The levels of teaching contexts have similarities with the sub-components in the PCK component instructional strategies as described by Magnusson et al. (1999). In total, the analytical procedure offers a deepened understanding of (possible) differences regarding related PCK components in student teachers’ joint discussions about varying field experiences.

Findings

As described earlier, all meetings in the present study were structured and organized in a similar way. The guiding questions used by the researcher focused on student teachers’ planning of teaching, what they expected the pupils to learn, and pupils’ learning outcomes. However, in spite of the similarity in this context, the student teachers’ conversations, in terms of components of PCK, differ in their constitution both within meetings and over time. The first section concerns the characteristics and the distribution of PCK components in the conversations. The second section presents empirical examples showing different ways of relating components of PCK in varying teaching contexts in the student teachers’ conversations.

Distribution and characteristics of PCK components in the conversations (RQ1)

The result of our analysis of the student teachers’ conversations showed that PCK components, according to our adapted PCK model, were to some extent present in all sets of meetings. However, our findings show both similarities and differences between meetings within each set of meetings and over time, i.e. between sets of meetings, regarding the presence of and distributions of components of PCK. Examples of how the statements in the conversations were coded are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Empirical examples of the characteristics of knowledge for teaching, in terms of components of PCK, in the student teachers’ discussions about field experiences.

Component of PCK	Empirical example	Analytical specification
Orientations to teaching science, OTS	It is very important, both in chemistry and biology [education], to point out that this [chemical] reaction isn´t well known. It is still being researched … To show it is unexplored. You seldom do this in the mathematics course, and say this is unexplored./ … /This is something to aim at. (Benjamin, meeting 1:2, 1:00:29)	The nature of science and teaching science.
Student thinking about science, ST	They [the students] split the solution into small parts, which made it messy for them when they put the parts together. I had never thought about that as a possible way to handle it. That make me realize how some student think/ … /I just knew one fruitful way of handling it. This gave me another picture, by facing their way of thinking and handling it. (Elias, meeting 2:1, 29:18)	How student express their understanding.
Instructional strategies in science, IS	Ex.1: I drew the electric symbols for the different component. I asked [the students] for additional components, because I wanted them to tell me instead of me telling them about their work. Although, I already knew. But I didn’t want to go ahead of them. (Carl, meeting 1:3, 12:14)	How to use questions to engage students in the current classroom activity.
	Ex. 2. I have worked with Grade 8 a little on heart and lungs. The students were supposed to search for information—text, figures, movies etc.—on their own, and put it together on a pad-let. Next, they had to sort out what is important out of all the information they have collected and prepare for a [written] test including heart, lungs and circulation. (Fanny, meeting 2:2, 35:52)	General instructional strategies.
Science curriculum, SC	For eight lessons, I intend to teach about genetics, evolution and the creation of life./ … /The curriculum is very general and just briefly includes genetic and evolution. But nothing about the content specifically./ … /	Curricular resources available and using standards to guide planning.
	The students have to understand quite complicated relationships [in science] in order to grasp the whole./ … /to understand the scale level you are at. And then go down to the molecular level. For example, you have the nitrogen bases and their coding of protein. How the DNA is structured and codes for varying protein. In addition, a critical aspect is to understand that each cell in the body contains of the same set of genes. (Ida, meeting 3:2, 28:52)	Scope of science and sequence of science.
Assessment of students’ learning, AL	I didn’t really know how much pre-knowledge/background knowledge the students had in this area. That was why I did a diagnostic test at the beginning of the lesson, which they didn’t get very long to do, because I thought it was mostly repetition. I gave them 15 minutes/ … /They were supposed to answer in short. The test was anonymous, not for assessment of each student, rather for the teachers planning [of teaching]. To let me know on what level to begin. (Helena, meeting 3:1, 3:31)	Formative purposes for teaching (planning). How and when to use assessment.

A rough quantification was made by counting lines of each PCK component in the transcriptions and the result of this quantification is presented as the mean distribution of components of PCK in each set of meetings in the figures above (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The distribution of components of PCK in the sets of meetings. (IS=instructional strategies, SC=science curriculum, ST=student thinking, AL=assessment of student learning, and OTS=orientation to teaching science).

The quantification shows that the student teachers mainly focus on the actions they took in the classroom and the organization of student activities. Instructional strategies (IS) is therefore most frequent in all meetings with little variation over time. Approximately half of the analyzed conversations in each meeting concern IS. In contrast, and probably due to the progression during their teacher education program regarding shifting focus from just teachers’ teaching to students’ understanding as well, the component Assessment of students’ (science) learning (AL) clearly differs over time. In the first set of meetings, the student teachers do not talk about structured strategies for assessing students’ understanding at all or just very briefly. In the second and the third set of meetings, AL is present, and becomes increasingly common in the conversations.

In sum, the findings so far show the distribution of components of PCK in the conversation. But even though the mean distribution of components of PCK is quite similar between meetings, an additional focus on the relationships between different components within the discussion may allow a deeper understanding of how student teachers discuss their field experiences in a collective setting. The following section presents three examples of different relationships between components of PCK displayed in the discussion.

Relationship between components of PCK in varying contexts (RQ2)

The conditions and the structuring questions for the discussion are similar in all the meetings, as was emphasized above. Nevertheless, the findings show differences in how the student teachers’ conversation shifts between components of PCK both within and across varying contexts, for example teaching specific content, a specific school subject or teaching in general. The results of the analysis regarding relationships between different components of PCK in the conversations are presented in the following section. The identified episodes from the student teachers’ joint discussions about science teaching and learning, as described earlier, were analyzed regarding the relationships between the components of PCK displayed. The presented examples below originate from the first and second set of meetings in which the student teachers jointly discussed teaching and learning from different field experiences. The examples are selected in order to illustrate different ways of relating components of PCK in the conversations. This implies a focus on how the components of PCK relate to each other both within and between different teaching situations.

In the first example, from the first set of meetings, the student teachers’ joint discussion concerns teaching in general and in terms of instructional strategies.

Example one: one component of PCK in one teaching situation

This example is from the first set of meetings. In the beginning, the student teacher Dennis states that he asks oral questions in the classroom to find out if the students have learned what was intended. Specific teaching content, viruses attacking cells, is at the forefront in his articulation and he expresses several components of PCK (here instructional strategies, science curriculum and student thinking). After this individual introductory part of the conversation, the joint discussion is dominated by the PCK component instructional strategies, IS, and in a context of teaching in general without specified topic(s). Daniel continues to pose problematizing questions within the component IS regarding the approach Dennis has just described. The questions concern the students’ social situation in the classroom, when it comes to confidence in showing possible knowledge shortcomings to their classmates. The following dialogue takes place between Dennis, David and Daniel:

[31:00], [Line 1] Dennis: No, but I had already done that for about 10 minutes. Then: “I don´t follow”. And then, I went back. I went back two, three slides …

[31:11], [Line 2] David: But, I don´t think you need an explicit answer to the question about whether or not they follow the lesson. When you ask that question, you get a feeling, if they sit there with blank faces. So, even if they don’t say something, you still have a feeling that probably they didn’t follow: I figure I have to repeat.

[31:27], [Line 3] Daniel: But that, I realize, is also the hard part here. I also often said, you say “them”. As though the class is one single unit.

[31:26], [Line 4] David: Yes, there is probably always somebody who has followed.

[31:38], [Line 5] Daniel: Yes. And the fact that there are so many parts, like these groups; Those who are sitting over there and those in the front. This, I feel is hard. To feel, that maybe not everyone is with you. You know that, but still you can hope they are. But, just to try, I do not know, to keep up a sufficient pace to also engage those who are interested … and still not leave behind those who don’t really follow. To not make them feel totally left behind and just feel: “I’ll see what’s happening on Facebook instead.” This is difficult.

The student teachers continue to talk about teaching strategies (IS) in general, independent of a specific topic. They reason about the importance as a teacher of making eye contact and being aware of the students’ attention. At the end of the episode, they still talk about teaching in general but with a tendency to shift to teaching a specific school subject in terms of “concepts.” Daniel says that he cannot “determine where a certain student’s thoughts are, even if they look at me.” He continues to reason about the possibilities of asking questions to get information about how students understand the instructions and says that “there are questions that you know that, this should only be a quick response. Sometimes they have to think a bit to come up with an explanation of a concept.”

As shown in the first example above, the student teachers focus on students and whether students follow the instructions in a general way, encapsulated in instructional strategies. In the following example from the second set of meetings, the student teachers also focus on student learning and understanding, and regarding a specific content (topic). The orientation to a subject-specific teaching context opens the way for other opportunities in the discussion, as is shown in Example two.

Example two: Several related components of PCK, in a subject-specific teaching situation

In Example two, four student teachers talk about Gunnar’s physics teaching experience. Several components of PCK in relation to the specific teaching situation are present in the following example. In the beginning, instructional strategies (IS) are in focus in the conversation. Gunnar talks about his revision lesson before a test about sound and light. He describes how, quite early in the lesson, his students began to ask questions. He felt that their questions took over and he lost the control of the lesson. Two other student teachers in the group conversation, Gabriel and Gunilla, relate to Gunnar’s teaching experience and integrate two more components of PCK. First, Gabriel asks several follow-up questions, which include the PCK components science curriculum (SC) and instructional strategies (IS) in relation to each other. Gabriel asks: “Did they [the students] ask questions irrelevant to the current topic and the content on the test?” [SC]. Gunilla then continues with the PCK component science curriculum (SC) by asking follow-up questions about the current content for teaching and the up-coming test. Gunnar adds the PCK component student thinking about science (ST) and relates it to the PCK component science curriculum (SC) in the present teaching context. He has noticed that his students have problems understanding refraction. He says: “Refraction in lenses. It is problematic. You could keep talking about it forever.” [ST] Gunilla continues with follow-up questions to Gunnar involving the PCK components instructional strategies (IS) and science curriculum (SC), by asking about how he handles students’ questions about irrelevant content. She says: “How do you respond without putting off their question and without integrating overly complex content that makes the others confused?” [IS, SC]. This is a starting point for a further discussion between Gunilla and Gunnar which includes the three PCK components instructional strategies (IS), science curriculum (SC), and student thinking (ST), both regarding Gunnar’s teaching context (optics) and teaching in general. Gunnar ends this episode by saying: “It is always possible to explain [it] in some way, if you start from the beginning, so to speak. You add the fundamental parts of it.” [IS]. He continues within the PCK component instructional strategies by talking about the students’ questions, and suggests that the problem is not the questions as such, but the fact that he loses control and spends too much time on one specific question.

The integration of PCK components is constituted by both Gunnar’s way of discussing his teaching experience and the others way of posing well-reasoned questions. The sequence above from the second set of meetings shows as a whole how the student teachers integrate several components of PCK, while still focusing the discussion on one particular teaching context, here optics. The following example, the third, starts in the shift from one particular subject-specific context of teaching, to teaching in a general context. In contrast to Example Two, the following empirical example shows a discussion that implies shifts both within and between varying teaching contexts and varying components of PCK.

Example three: Student teachers’ joint discussion about field experiences including several components of PCK, and several teaching contexts

The student teachers also have joint discussions involving several related PCK components and several teaching contexts. In the following example, Gabriel initially synthesizes the content of the discussion so far by integrating the components science curriculum (SC) and instructional strategies (IS) in the specific teaching context of optics. Then, the joint discussion shifts to the context of teaching in general. This implies keeping the focus of the discussion within the PCK components science curriculum (SC) and instructional strategies (IS), but shifting and using the specific teaching context as an example to reason about teaching in general. Gabriel says:

”I know what to assess in the written test/ … /what topic. In some way, there is an ‘enclosure’. Within this area, there is a number of tasks about sound and light. Maybe it is not about light quanta, but something else./ … /and when the pupils ask questions, you know if that [the content of the question] is outside [the topic], even if it is interesting. You want them to stay inside the topic.” (29:42)

Gabriel thereby confirms the earlier addressed teaching challenge about formulating short and concise explanations. He continues by relating knowledge about student thinking (ST) to consequences for subsequent instructional strategies (IS). Gabriel says: “If it is not the case that you notice that a lot of the students wonder about the same thing. If so, I may spend some more time [on it].” The entire utterance thereby contains the PCK components science curriculum (SC), instructional strategies (IS) and student thinking (ST). Instructional strategies seem to function as a bridge between the specific teaching context of optics and teaching in general. This generalization within instructional strategies, IS, (about students’ questions) is later followed up by Gustav, first in a general context of teaching, and then within a specific context for teaching (genetics and the human body). He continues with a comparison with more specific contexts (chemical equilibrium and evolution), but still regarding the PCK component instructional strategies (IS). Gunilla continues with a focus on the PCK component science curriculum (SC), by talking about the relevance of students’ questions in relation to the current teaching topic (here: bacteriology). She follows up by also integrating the PCK components student thinking (ST) and instructional strategies (IS).

See Table 4 below for an overview of the empirical examples regarding components of PCK displayed and the contexts in each example.

Table 4. Overview of three empirical examples showing different relationships between components of PCK in the student teachers’ conversations in relation to the teaching context.

Empirical example (Meeting and time)	Relationship between displayed PCK and context(s) in the empirical example	Components of PCK	Context of teaching
Example 1 1.4 28:22–35:26	One component of PCK, in one teaching context	Instructional strategies	Teaching in general
Example 2 2.3 23:50–28:45	Several related components of PCK, in one teaching context	Instructional strategies, Science curriculum, Student thinking	Teaching a specific content (optics)
Example 3 2.3 28:46–35:41	Several related components of PCK, in several teaching contexts	Instructional strategies, Science curriculum, Student thinking	Teaching a specific content (4 examples), and Teaching a specific school subject, and Teaching in general

In sum, our findings show how student teachers’ discussion about field experiences of teaching focus on the PCK component instructional strategies. This pattern is present in all the meetings and sets of meetings during the one-year study. A difference between the sets of meetings is the increased presence of assessment of student learning, between the first and the second set of meetings. In addition to the distribution of components of PCK in the discussions, we also identify different ways of relating components of PCK and in varying teaching contexts. These examples show possibilities for how field experiences may be discussed in the collegial setting.

Discussion

In our study, we aimed to explore STEM student teachers’ reflective conversations upon teaching experiences during a one-year teacher education program. The professional knowledge for teaching science, mathematics or technology is understood in our study in a collective setting within student teachers’ group discussions about field experiences in terms of PCK. Our findings show the occurrence, distribution and characteristics of PCK in the specific collegial setting.

Our findings show that in all meetings, the student teachers’ discussions are dominated by the PCK component Instructional strategies. This result indicates a student-teacher focus on how to carry out teaching in the classroom throughout their one-year teacher education. However, the PCK-component Assessment of students’ learning increases over time. In the first set of meetings, the student teachers do not (or just briefly) talk about assessment of student learning, whereas in the second and the third sets of meetings, it becomes increasingly common. Although these changes might be influenced by the campus course about assessment, which took place after the first set of meetings, this change nevertheless indicates a development as student teachers, by shifting focus in the discussion from teacher action to also including students’ understanding. The importance of this shift has previously been emphasized in the literature about student teachers’ development during teacher education. Schneider and Plasman (2011) argue, in line with the example, that focusing on student learning is a fruitful starting point for learning to teach science. In a study of physics student teachers’ discussions, Juhler (2018, p. 32) concludes that there is a direct relationship between the student teachers’ focus on assessment of student learning and knowledge about student thinking. However, this is not obvious in our study. This might be explained by the fact that in Juhler’s study (Juhler, 2018), the student teachers’ discussions focus on a specific teaching content in physics, whereas in the present study the student teachers’ discussions are based on different field experiences with varying teaching content. Because of the varying field experiences in focus for the individuals, the collegial setting in our study implies particular prerequisites for establishing a joint discussion about teaching and learning.

There is a need for further research about how student teachers in group discussions relate different components of PCK to each other (e.g. Henze & van Driel, 2015; Park & Chen, 2012). The interrelation between the PCK component instructional strategies and the component(s) student thinking and/or science curriculum is of particular interest in our study, especially in relation to the interdependency of the specific teaching contexts for those components of PCK. Example Two elucidates this particular relation in the teaching context of optics, and also how student teachers pose questions about each other’s teaching experiences by integrating components of PCK. Our analysis regarding the relationships between different components of PCK in the group discussions shows that even if the occurrence of PCK components seem to some extent to be similar in the overviews of the meetings, there are different ways of relating different components of PCK to each other—and this is especially explicit when it comes to discussions across the varying teaching experiences.

The occurrence of components of PCK in our study can possibly be seen as a result of the design of the group discussions in our study; the student teachers were asked, based on their experiences during their vocational training, to reason about their planning and evaluation of teaching (for future teaching)—with the same questions used in all the meetings. Looking at professional teacher knowledge in terms of the components of PCK which we distinguished in the student teachers’ discussion, together with the changes over time, is therefore in line with the suggestion by Schneider and Plasman (2011) to use the PCK model as a lens to identify changes in teachers’ ideas about science teaching. As previously mentioned, these researchers highlight the importance of opportunities for teachers “to think about, experience, and reflect on how to think about each component of PCK (e.g., assessment) in relationship to students and science.” (p. 559).

Based on our findings and the arguments put forward above, we conclude that the way of structuring the group discussion in our study—with theoretically grounded didactical questions—could have implications for teacher education by providing a model for student teachers’ learning about teaching, or specifically teacher educators’ teaching from student teachers’ discussion about teaching experiences. However, it is common in teacher education for student teachers to bring different teaching experiences into discussions about field experiences, and therefore it is challenging to deepen discussions of this kind. Despite this, our examples of how the components of PCK are interrelated in varying contexts show the potential these kinds of group discussions can have. This particular group of student teachers, with an academic degree in one or several STEM subjects, have a quite short time—one year—to develop knowledge for teaching their school subject(s). Therefore, we argue on the basis of our study, there is a need for rich opportunities for the student teachers during their teacher education to jointly reflect upon and discuss experiences from their vocational training with a focus on the interrelation of teaching and student learning, as a contribution to the development of their professional knowledge for science teaching. In addition, our study contributes to earlier presented arguments for teacher education concerning student teachers’ learning from field experiences (Bullough & Smith, 2016; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Loughran, 2014), by eliciting how teacher knowledge in terms of PCK could be displayed in a collective setting. The knowledge shared by individuals in the discussions both changes within the discussion and evolves over time during our study in the one-year teacher education program. The student teachers’ conversation about field experience might therefore be understood as a part of an initial development of collective PCK (Carlson & Daehler, 2019).

Limitations of the study

The qualitative character of the study with restricted possibilities for transferring the findings to wider communities of student teachers could be considered as a limitation of the study. However, this small-scale study has made it possible to make an in-depth analysis of conversations within these specific student teacher groups.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the student teachers, who gave their consent to participate, as well as Professor Åke Ingerman and Dr. Ann Zetterqvist, Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, University of Gothenburg, for valuable discussions regarding the manuscript. Our sincere thanks also to Dr. Catherine Machale Gunnarsson for her thorough check of the language. We also appreciate the comments made by the anonymous reviewers of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

AppendixThe specific guiding Questions in the Meetings

1. How did you reason when planning teaching?

2. What did you expect the pupil to learn? Why?

3. What do you know about the pupils’ learning regarding the intended learning (goals)? Why/why not? How can you find out what the pupils learned?

4. Has this conversation led to some new thoughts?

5. If you could do the teaching again, is there something you want to change/develop? What? How? Why?