Page 94 - Getting the Picture Modeling and Simulation in Secondary Computer Science Education

92
Chapter 4
Our analysis revealed, however, that the knowledge of students’ understanding (M2) and instructional strategies (M3) varies within each of these four groups, so the above differential features do not give rise to a typification of the teachers’ overall PCK that would allow to match each teacher’s individual PCK to a distinct type of PCK.
4.4 Conclusion
In answering the first research question — How can the teachers’ PCK be portrayed in terms of the four components of PCK? — we portrayed each of these components:
Concerning teachers’ knowledge about goals of objectives on teaching modeling, we charted teachers’ content knowledge and described learning objectives in terms of conceptual, and motivational and practical objectives.
Concerning the knowledge about students’ understanding, the teachers reported on the prerequisite knowledge, attitudes, skills, abilities and various approaches students have to learning, in line with Magnusson et al. (1999). However, when talking about the difficulties, they mentioned problems due to the abstract nature of modeling and inefficient students’ strategies, but no teacher mentioned misconceptions.
Concerning the knowledge about instructional strategies, we see an agreement about subject-specific strategies (Magnusson et al., 1999) — scaffolding learning with a final project which serves both to give students the opportunity to learn how to develop a model from scratch and as assessment.
Concerning knowledge of assessment, there is an agreement about a suitable form — a large practical assignment. Teachers mentioned a range of assessment criteria focused on the quality of students’ products and teachers’ impressions of the students work process. In contrast to the uniformity regarding the form of assessment, there is a great variation in granularity and depth of their description of assessment criteria. We saw similar diversity regarding the knowledge of dimension to assess (Magnusson et al., 1999), i.e. the aspects of modeling process.
In answering the second research question — What differential features of PCK can be used to identify patters of individual PCK in terms of the four components of PCK? — we found two characteristics that distinguish among teachers: their