This article presents a study that examined an innovative short‐term program (two sessions of 3 hr each) for the professional development of teachers. The program design is based on the technique of probing acceptance, which is aimed at investigating student learning processes. It relies on students' evaluation, paraphrasing, and adaptation of information presented during a one‐on‐one interview with defined student‐centered interview phases. During the professional development program, teachers were introduced to a novel learning unit that focuses on the subatomic structure of matter. In addition, the teachers were instructed in how to use the technique of probing acceptance during one‐on‐one interviews to evaluate the concepts of the unit. The rationale of the professional development program is that the preparation and execution of, and reflection on the one‐on‐one interviews based on the technique of probing acceptance should have an impact on dimensions of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Four teachers from one Austrian high school participated in this exploratory study, and each teacher conducted two one‐on‐one interviews with two different grade‐6 students.

• Questioning In Teaching
• The Importance Of Asking Questions In Science

Postintervention interviews were conducted with all the teachers to document the potential influences on the teachers' PCK. The interviews were transcribed word for word, and a category‐based content analysis was applied to the transcripts.

Questioning In Teaching

Our results indicate that during the professional development program, all the teachers revisited their existing knowledge about the subatomic structure of matter and left with an enhanced PCK, especially regarding their knowledge of learners and of instructional strategies. Overall, we show the technique of probing acceptance to be a promising tool for short‐term professional development programs, and we suggest that our findings have implications for both professional development designers and educators. 1 INTRODUCTIONOver the past 50 years, the concept of teacher knowledge has received ever‐increasing attention from education researchers, and it is widely agreed that teachers are central to educational processes (Wallace & Loughran, ). However, the ways in which we view teacher knowledge and its development have changed profoundly. In the 1960s, teacher knowledge, much like a qualification or competency, was considered a static component of teacher characteristics. The initial studies compared these variables with teacher practice (Bruce,; Smith & Cooper, ) or student outcomes (Northfield & Fraser,; Rothman, Welch, & Walberg, ) and thus tried to evaluate the “formal knowledge” that was needed for teaching.

In general, this formal knowledge overlapped greatly with teachers' subject matter knowledge. In the 1980s, however, research on teachers shifted toward a more dynamic orientation. Indeed, Shulman introduced PCK alongside the following six distinct knowledge bases to organize teachers' knowledge: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. By and large, PCK refers to the knowledge that is developed by teachers to help others learn. According to Abell ( ), this developmental process is grounded mainly in three other knowledge bases: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context. By means of their PCK, teachers transform subject matter knowledge into useful educational instruction, which is delivered to their students in a meaningful way based on the pedagogical knowledge of the teacher.

This instruction is situated in the teachers' knowledge of context, which includes knowledge of communities, schools, and students' backgrounds (Grossman, ).Since its introduction, Shulman's model has received much attention and has been explicated, revised, and extended many times (Cochran, DeRuiter, & King,; Grossman,; Loughran, Berry, & Mulhall,; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,; Tamir, ). Starting from the original conceptualization, different aspects of PCK have been identified and rearranged that now represent a more detailed view of the knowledge base. However, even 20 years ago, van Driel, Verloop, and de Vos ( ) stated that “there is no universally accepted conceptualization of PCK” (p. Park and Oliver ( ) later extended the work of van Driel and colleagues by giving an extensive overview of different conceptualizations.

The Importance Of Asking Questions In Science

They placed PCK in between content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context and gave the following working definition of PCK:PCK is teachers' understanding and enactment of how to help a group of students understand specific subject matter using multiple instructional strategies, representations, and assessments while working within the contextual, cultural, and social limitations in the learning environment (Park & Oliver, 2007, p. Quest for the code asthma. In addition, after reviewing and analyzing the literature on PCK, they identified the following five distinctive dimensions in a working conceptualization of PCK. Orientation toward teaching science. Knowledge of curriculum.

Knowledge of learners. Knowledge of instructional strategies. Knowledge of assessmentIndeed, these dimensions illustrate a broad cross‐section of all major knowledge bases in today's literature on PCK and thus we chose to use this conceptualization as the foundation of our theoretical framework. Specifically, orientation toward teaching science refers to teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the aims and goals of teaching science to a certain age level that guide their instructional decisions. Knowledge of curriculum refers to knowledge of mandated goals and objectives as well as of specific curricular programs and materials.

Grade 6 to Grade 8 Science Lesson Plans. Food as Batteries - Anytime food is involved in an experiment, students pay attention. In this lesson students will use various fruits to try to create enough energy to light a light bulb. Growing Bacteria - Bacteria grow all around us. Learning about it can be fun and fascinating. Middle School Science Teachers provide instruction to students aged 11 to 14 on a variety of science topics. Essential job duties listed on a Middle School Science Teacher resume example are planning lessons, working with smaller groups, assessing student abilities, reporting to parents, enforcing classroom rules, motivating students, and preparing them for standardized tests.

Originally, Shulman and colleagues considered this to be a separate knowledge base (Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, ), but it was later included by Magnusson and colleagues in their conceptualization of PCK because this knowledge unambiguously distinguishes pedagogues from content specialists and thus acts as a defining feature of PCK (Magnusson et al., ). Knowledge of learners includes knowledge of students' conceptions and of areas in science that students find difficult. From a constructivist viewpoint, this knowledge base involves emphasizing the importance of the learner and acknowledging that students' preexisting cognitive structures actively influence their learning outcomes (Duit & Treagust, ). Knowledge of instructional strategies combines knowledge of broadly applicable subject‐specific strategies and of much narrower topic‐specific strategies.

From a teacher's point of view, this knowledge includes representations, activities, and methods that work in a classroom. Knowledge of assessment refers to knowledge of important science domains to assess and knowledge of how to assess students. 1.1 PCK and professional development for teachersThe model of PCK is widely recognized, and, as mentioned above, there is widespread agreement among scholars about its applicability and importance for teachers.

However, there is also considerable discussion of how teachers develop PCK (Wallace & Loughran, ). Grossman ( ) stated that “teachers have a variety of sources from which to construct their knowledge of teaching a specific subject” (p.

Among those sources, she identified the time spent as a student (apprenticeship of observation), subject matter preparation (disciplinary background), taking part in subject‐specific methods courses (professional coursework), and actual classroom practice (learning from experience). The last source, learning from experience, is supported by previous research suggesting that classroom practice plays a significant role in the development of PCK (Baxter & Lederman,; Magnusson et al.,; van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, ). For instance, Hashweh ( ) argued that PCK can be seen as a repertoire of pedagogical tools that teachers acquire over time through repeatedly teaching a certain topic. From this repertoire, an experienced teacher is able to choose the right instruction that is effective for any group of students on any given day. However, the complex nature of PCK, considered by education researchers to be knowledge that is person‐, topic‐, and situation‐specific (van Driel & Berry, ), leaves room for various interpretations regarding its development.

For example, Bindernagel and Eilks ( ) chose a definition of PCK as a highly personal domain of knowledge and focused on the influence of recommendations from trusted colleagues. Their rationale was that PCK is built on beliefs that are difficult to capture but that can be isolated and examined when teachers share their experiences with colleagues by discussing teaching strategies. This approach is supported by the work of Schneider and Plasman ( ), who conducted a broad literature review of research articles on the development of PCK.

They arrived at the same conclusion: it is necessary to provide teachers with clear opportunities to experience and reflect on how to think about each aspect of PCK. In addition, their findings indicated the relevance of curriculum materials that support teachers in developing their own teaching strategies.While the different interpretations concerning the development of PCK provide a broad theoretical framework for conceptualizing it, the challenge remains of how best to implement such strategies in professional development programs for teachers. This is a prominent question because there is an increasing need for higher‐quality and more effective professional development opportunities aimed at teachers' development of PCK (Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner, ). When considering PCK as the organizing force, professional development programs can no longer be limited to supplying teachers only with input, such as examples of expert teaching of subject matter. Instead, supported by specific input, teachers should be enabled to enact innovative instructional strategies through programs that are closely aligned with their professional practice (van Driel & Berry, ). Furthermore, research suggests that to be effective, such programs should focus on students' learning (Borko et al., ) and include opportunities for teachers to reflect, individually and collectively, on their experiences (Park & Oliver, ).Given this increased interest, empirical research findings on features of effective professional development programs are key. Indeed, several meta‐analyses identified common characteristics of effective teacher training (Kennedy,; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung,; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, ).

These features include the combination of input, practice, and reflection phases; taking into account the research on teaching effectiveness; focusing on students' domain‐specific processes of learning and understanding; allowing teachers to experience the impact of their pedagogical actions; providing feedback to teachers (Lipowsky & Rzejak, ).For instance, Van den Bergh and colleagues conducted a 4‐month teacher training program with 16 primary school teachers in the Netherlands. The teachers were introduced to theories about providing students with feedback during active learning. These input phases also included the presentation of video clips, which featured teachers who applied these theories. At the end of each input phase, the teachers were asked to write down how best to implement their newly acquired knowledge in the classroom. Next, the teachers applied their teaching strategies in the classroom, and each session was filmed.

Finally, selected sequences of their teaching were used to discuss and reflect with colleagues and researchers. This combination of input, practice, and reflection was repeated four times during the professional development program. After the program, the teachers' feedback behavior was assessed to be more goal‐oriented than before the training (Van den Bergh, Ros, & Beijaard, ).Another prominent example for taking the research on teaching effectiveness into account is the following study from the 1980s, which was conducted in Venezuela with 18 mathematics teachers. It covered a time span of 10 weeks and focused on constructive feedback culture as a multidisciplinary characteristic of effective teaching. The classes of the participating teachers were divided into two groups: one group received detailed feedback on their homework and the teachers also pointed out possible reasons for mistakes and highlighted areas of improvement. In contrast, the second group of students was only informed about how many tasks they had completed correctly. All students filled out questionnaires before and after the teacher training program to assess and analyze their progress.

The results of the first group, which received the elaborate feedback, showed a significantly better learning progress compared to the students who had received basic feedback only (Elawar & Corno, ).However, when it comes to short‐term professional development programs, their effectiveness has been considered to be questionable (Smith & Gillespie, ). Indeed, teaching practices which have been developed over a long period are quite stable. Furthermore, long‐term professional development programs have the advantage of not only providing teachers with new ideas, but also enabling them to reflect on their subject knowledge and teaching practice (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, ).

Nonetheless, Lipowsky & Rzejak (2014) state that “what happens in a teacher training (e.g. The kind of activities, the deepness of processing and the intensity of using the learning opportunities) is more important than how much time the participants spend.” (p.

Thus, rather than focusing on a minimum program duration it is favorable to take the rationale and goals of a professional development program into account. 2.1 Study designTo investigate the research question, we designed a study based on our previous work (Wiener et al., ). Teachers were invited to take part in education research by conducting two one‐on‐one interviews with grade‐6 students to evaluate the developed learning unit on the subatomic structure of matter. This time, however, the focus of our research was on the development of the teachers' PCK during the study. Their one‐on‐one interviews were videotaped, transcribed word for word, and evaluated based on the coding manual from our previous studies to ensure comparability. Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with each teacher immediately after the intervention to document the effect of the study on different dimensions of their PCK.The study was implemented in a professional development program for teachers that contained two parts: a briefing session and the intervention (Figure ).

The aim of the briefing session, which occurred the day before the intervention and lasted about 3 hr, was to instruct the teachers about the novel learning unit and to help them prepare for the intervention. The first part of the briefing was a presentation on the novel learning unit that explained its development; gave an overview of students' documented conceptions of the structure of matter; and highlighted the unit's main concepts: conveying the central role of models in physics, focusing on linguistic accuracy, and using novel typographic illustrations. Furthermore, the key ideas of the unit (Table ), which act as elementary steps for the topic, were presented and discussed. Our previous publications provide a detailed description of the learning unit and its development process (Wiener et al., ). This presentation of the learning unit took 1 hr and was followed by the introduction of the research method. #Key ideaIMatter is everything that can be touched, practically or theoretically.IIReality is described through models. For example, the model of particle physics.IIIIn this model, there are atoms, which may combine to form compounds.IVIn this model, atoms are divided into two areas: the nucleus‐space and the orbital‐space.VIn the nucleus‐space, protons and neutrons are located.VIProtons and neutrons are particle systems, which are made of quarks.VIIQuarks are indivisible.

In this model, these are called elementary particles.VIIIIn the orbital‐space, it is possible to find electrons.IXElectrons are indivisible. In this model, these are called elementary particles.XIn this model, apart from particles, there is only empty space. During the next hour, the technique of probing acceptance was explained in detail by presenting representative examples from our previous study, which were then discussed among the teachers. Additionally, each teacher received his or her own research manual, which had been developed during our previous study to enable teachers to conduct the one‐on‐one interviews in accordance with the setting of the study and to ensure comparability. It contained a set of anchor phrases to facilitate conducting the interview (Table ), a list of the 10 key ideas, and the general time frame of the interview. PhaseAnchor phrasesEvaluation. How does this sound to you?.

Was the presented information easy to understand?. Can you recall any details that you could not understand at all?. What is your general impression of this information input?Paraphrasing.

Can you tell me again—in your own words—everything you remember from what I have just presented to you?. How would you explain this to a friend?Transfer example.

How does this example relate to what you just heard?. How do you picture this “in reality”?. Can you think of another, different way of explaining this? For the last hour of the briefing, it was the teachers' task to prepare themselves, individually and collectively, for the intervention by trying out the research manual and practicing specific parts of the one‐on‐one interviews with their colleagues. This part of the briefing session also included time to prepare the information input; the individual adaptation of the material provided was left to the discretion of each teacher. However, while the teachers were asked to prepare their own information input individually, based on the learning unit's key ideas, they were encouraged to discuss their ideas with colleagues. To ensure comparability among the teachers and with the setting of our previous study, a time constraint of 8–10 min was given for the duration of the information input, and teachers were required to mention every key idea at least once during their instruction.The intervention occurred the next day and lasted about 2 hr.

During the intervention, each teacher conducted two one‐on‐one interviews with two different grade‐6 students. The rationale of this approach was to give the teachers the opportunity to learn from the experience gained during the first interview and thus to enable them to adapt their instructional strategies for the second interview. Indeed, this setting allowed for a more detailed analysis of the teachers' experiences during the interviews, while still limiting the entire intervention to a feasible duration.

After the second one‐on‐one interview, we conducted a semistructured interview with each teacher, which enabled us to document both ad hoc feedback and specific statements about the intervention. In addition, the professional development program was concluded by a short feedback and discussion session that enabled all the teachers to collectively reflect on their experiences regarding the preparation and execution of their one‐on‐one interviews. 2.2 Setting of the one‐on‐one interviewMirroring the setting of the original study and in line with the definition of the technique of probing acceptance (Jung, ), the one‐on‐one interviews were designed to comprise four interview phases with a maximum interview duration of 40 min (Figure ). Depending on the definition of “acceptance,” the name of the research method can be misleading. Our understanding of the research method is that it gives insight into the plausibility of an information input in terms of whether it makes sense to students.

Probing acceptance thus means identifying elements of the instruction that students accept as useful and meaningful information and that they can successfully adapt during the one‐on‐one interview. Setting and time frame of the one‐on‐one interviewThe teachers were guided through their one‐on‐one interviews by the research manual. The design of the manual was based on the list of 10 key ideas, which the teachers had to work through. During each interview phase, each key idea was to be addressed and then checked off the list. Only after all the key ideas had been discussed could the next interview phase begin.Each one‐on‐one interview started with the presentation of the information input, which was individually prepared by each teacher. This was followed by the student's first evaluation to document immediate feedback regarding the novel information.

For example, the teacher asked, “What do you think about this topic?” and “Was there anything that you could not understand? Or anything that you really liked?” This evaluation marked the beginning of the second interview phase. The teacher was then prompted by the manual to ask the student to paraphrase the presented information “in their own words.” The student was tasked with recalling as much of the initial information input as possible. The paraphrasing concluded the second interview phase.Next, as a first transfer example, it was the teacher's task to sprinkle some grains of salt across the table and ask the student to apply the new knowledge to this concrete example by solving the problem of whether salt can be identified as matter and to explain what salt is made of. The student was expected to argue from an atomistic point of view, starting with atoms as the building blocks of matter and then moving on to the subatomic structure of matter. This transfer example was followed by the student's second evaluation of the information input, which concluded the third interview phase.For the fourth and final phase of the one‐on‐one interview, it was the teacher's task to guide the student through the second transfer example. Instead of grains of salt, the teacher scattered some droplets of water on the table.

The student was then expected to explain whether water qualifies as matter and to further give a description of what it is made of. While both transfer examples focused on the same question, the rationale of the approach was to document the students' reasoning about the subatomic structure of matter for two different aggregate states, solid (salt), and liquid (water). For the final task, each student was asked to give a third evaluation of the information input, which concluded the fourth interview phase and marked the end of the one‐on‐one interview.