Comparison of Pedagogical Content Knowledge between Expert and Novice Lecturers in Teaching

and Learning Process

Nor Hasniza Ibrahim Edu. Sciences, Maths & Creative Multimedia Department

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Malaysia

p-norhaniza@utm.my

Abdul Halim Abdullah Edu. Sciences, Maths & Creative Multimedia Department

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Malaysia p-halim@utm.my

Johari Surif Edu. Sciences, Maths & Creative Multimedia Department

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Malaysia

johari_surif@utm.my

Nur Amira Syafillin Sabtu Edu. Sciences, Maths & Creative Multimedia Department

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Malaysia

nurnizz_03@yahoo.com

Abstract—This study was conducted to study the differences in the practice level of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) between expert and novice lecturers in their teaching and learning process based on five components in PCK. The components are knowledge of 1) content, 2) importance of subject, 3) students’ difficulty, 4) pedagogy, and 5) evaluation techniques. Eight lecturers were chosen in this study, consisting of four expert lecturers and four novice lecturers from the Faculty of Science in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The data were collected through interviews and teaching observation. The interviews were audio recorded, while the lesson observations were conducted using video recording and note taking. The data obtained were analyzed using the content analysis technique. The study found that there are differences between experts and novices lecturers in their knowledge concerning students’ difficulties, importance of subject and pedagogy while the expert lecturers are masters in respect of students’ difficulties and pedagogy but not concerning the importance of the subject. The results also showed that both expert and novice science lecturers are masters of knowledge concerning content and evaluation techniques.

Keywords—pedagogical content knowledge, expert and novice lecturer

I. INTRODUCTION The role of educators is not only acting as a medium of

knowledge transfer, but also to ensure that the knowledge received by the protégé is easy to understand and thus can be applied in the next field. The knowledge also needs to be innovated into a form that can be leveraged by all [1]. In Malaysia, the active teaching and learning process is highly emphasized [2], especially in learning sciences knowledge (including chemistry, biology and physics). The developer of science curriculum has promoted a variety of strategies that are student-oriented teaching approaches in the syllabus provided [2]. However, the studies conducted found that most

educators still adopt the conventional approach to teaching, which is the teacher-oriented approach known as chalk and talk and lecture [3;4]. The educators believe that by using these approaches, they are able to finish the syllabus and provide opportunities for students to do their revision and pass their examination successfully without realizing that students who obtain good results, often fail in higher-order thinking and lack creativity and innovative skills [5]. This significant drawback requires a drastic transformation of teaching practices among educators. The educators should implement self-reflection on the teaching undertaken and identify the weaknesses and deficiencies in teaching practice [6]. According to [7], the role of educators has to shift from merely delivering learning content to teaching students with an in-depth understanding of learning. He also suggested that, as passionate science educators, they needed to develop pedagogical content knowledge, which includes the essential components in the science teaching process, to improve the potential of attracting students, and, consequently, successfully enhancing students' intellectual capacity. Therefore, this study tries to identify the understanding concerning the PCK of educators consisting of science lecturers and compare the implementation of PCK between the expert science lecturers and novice science lecturers.

II. PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) was introduced by [1]. He defined PCK as a form of beneficial teaching that is represented by analogies, illustrations, examples or explanations of one teaching subject that is understandable by all level of students. [8] emphasized that it was insufficient for a teacher to only know the general pedagogy for a subject, but he/she should know a particular pedagogy to teach the subject.

2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering

978-1-4799-3592-5/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.53

240

According to [9], PCK has four main components: 1) knowledge of the subject content, 2) knowledge of the students’ early idea, 3) knowledge of the curriculum, and 4) knowledge of the teaching strategies. [10] stated that PCK components in science subjects cover five crucial components: 1) orientation in teaching, 2) knowledge concerning science curriculum, 3) knowledge concerning students’ understanding of science, 4) knowledge concerning assessment in science, and 5) knowledge of strategies in science. While [7] proposed that PCK consists of two components: CoRe (content representation) and PaP-eRs (Pedagogical Professional-experience Repertoires). CoRe is the overall picture concerning how teachers conceptualized the contents of the science teaching topic, while PaP-eRs is a description of the implementation of PCK in teaching. Despite the various components outlined to define PCK, most educational researchers strongly agreed that through PCK, an educator will be able to transform the teaching contents in a powerful form. In addition, it is regarded as one of the main criteria to produce effective teaching [11]. In this research, the main components of applied PCK are: 1) knowledge of the contents of the presented subject, 2) knowledge of the importance of the subject in everyday life, (3) knowledge of the students’ difficulties in the presented subjects, (4) knowledge of teaching strategies that are specific to a given subject, and (5) knowledge of the assessment techniques of the subject. The five components of PCK are also used as a framework for the conducted analysis process. The question is, do educators know about the pedagogical content knowledge? How do they implement it? Hence, this study was performed to determine the understanding of educators, especially science lecturers concerning the pedagogical content knowledge and compare the PCK practices among them, either expert or novice.

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY To study the implementation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) among expert and novice lecturers in respect of the following:

A. To identify lecturer’s understanding of PCK.

B. To compare PCK practices among expert and novice lecturers concerning:

i. mastery of the subject content; ii. mastery of the importance of the subject and its

application in life; iii. mastery of students’ difficulties; iv. mastery of a specific pedagogy in teaching the

subject; and v. mastery of evaluation techniques.

IV. METHODOLOGY To achieve the objectives of the study, the researcher chose to perform a qualitative study to identify the lecturers’ understanding of PCK and to compare the implementation practices among expert and novice lecturers. According to [12], the qualitative approach has the potential to investigate the thinking patterns, perception and practice of each individual involved. The qualitative approach also upholds the principle that every individual is confronted by different issues and processes that occur in real-life situations [13].

A total of eight lecturers were randomly selected to be involved in this study, consisting of four expert lecturers and four novice lecturers. Expert lecturers are defined as lecturers who have higher positions and more than 20 years of teaching experience. While novice lecturers are younger lecturers with teaching experience of less than five years [14]. Execution of the comparison between novice and expert lecturers is based on [15], who emphasized that an expert/experienced lecturer is usually able to detect a significant pattern in their teaching and make an effort to fix it. They are also flexible in using various perspectives that are appropriate for the circumstances or situations faced, and seek the cause and consequences of one occurrence and plan for the best solutions. In contrast to the expert lecturer, a novice lecturer is considered to have a cognitive force that still needs to be expanded, and their pedagogical skills are still lacking and difficult to find compared to the expert educators. All the selected lecturers are Science lecturers at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The data for this study were obtained from observation of the teaching and learning processes of the expert and novice lecturers as well as interviews. The researcher recorded the teaching and learning processes performed by the lecturer using a video recorder and taking notes during the recording sessions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted as soon as the lecturers completed the process of teaching and learning. All data obtained from video recordings were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis techniques. Based on the technique of content analysis, the data transcribed were read and checked repeatedly and coded openly. Next, the codes obtained were linked to each other to form axial coding. Finally, the identified relationship was categorized according to the PCK components used in this study.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results are discussed based on the research objectives, which concerns the understanding of the lecturers regarding the implementation of PCK and the comparison of the PCK practices between expert and novice lecturers.

A. Lecturer’s Understanding concerning Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

241

The results obtained from the interviews with expert lecturers showed that fifty percent of them know and are able to share their knowledge on PCK practices very well. However, there were also expert lecturers who had no idea about the use of PCK in their teaching. Here are extracts of the interview transcripts:

"Emm... What is it... I think I have heard of it, maybe, but I didn’t acknowledge it... My responsibility is only teaching and depends on myself how to teach... I don’t need to apply complex pedagogies like these..."

(Lecturer 1, Expert: 23-25)

On the other hand, for novice lecturers, the study found that only twenty-five percent of lecturers knew about PCK, while most had never heard of the PCK concept since they started work as a lecturer.

"No… What is that? I have never heard about pedagogical content knowledge..."

(Lecturer 6, Novice: 2-3) "No… Pedagogical content practices? What is that? Can you explain to us a bit about it..."

(Lecturer 7, Novice: 15-16)

Overall, it was found that the majority of the expert lecturers understood the basic concept of PCK and acknowledged the importance of the PCK application in the teaching and learning process. For novice lecturers, the majority were not aware of the PCK concept in teaching and learning. These findings are consistent with the research conducted by [16], who found that novice lecturers have incomplete and superficial knowledge of PCK in teaching and learning. This is most likely because expert lecturers are more experienced than novice lecturers, which influences their maturity in dealing with any problems arising in the process of teaching and learning.

B. Comparison of PCK Practices among Expert and Novice Lecturers PCK practices among expert and novice lecturers were analyzed based on the PCK component of [8]. Table 1 below shows the summary of the comparison between expert and novice lecturers Table 1: Summary of the PCK Practices Comparison

Main Components of PCK

Expert Science Lecturers

Novice Science Lecturers

Mastery of the subject content

Able to master the subject contents very well

Able to master the subject contents very well

Mastery of the importance of the subject and its

Able to relate the importance of the subject to everyday life. There are a few expert lecturers who

Able to relate the importance of the subject to everyday life.

application in daily life

do not associate it with life.

Mastery of students’ difficulties

Not taking into account the difficulties of students before teaching and learning process of the subject. Only realized after performing quiz.

Not taking into account the difficulties of students before teaching and learning process of the subject. Not even aware of the the basis for students’ misconceptions.

Mastery of specific pedagogy in teaching the subject

Using lectures and discussions method/approach.

More lecture method

Mastery of evaluation technique

Using summative assessment. The assessment only performed after the class ends

Use final exam, test and group assignment for assessment

1) Mastery of the Subject Content The results from the study conducted on the extent of lecturers’ knowledge regarding subjects they taught, showed that the majority of them were competent in all subject contents regardless of whether they were an expert or novice lecturer. This was proven based on the results from interviews with the lecturers.

Some of the interviews associated with the proficiency concerning the subject content taught by lecturers are as follows:

"As a lecturer who has more than 20 years’ experience of teaching the same subject... I think everyone will say it’s already hundred percent in your head ..." (Lecturer 1, Expert: 35-37) "Yes... Of course... To teach students, I need to have an in-depth knowledge on the particular subject... If I do not have enough knowledge, then how will the students believe what I conveyed... " (Lecturer 5, Novice: 14-18)

The outcomes from the interviews conducted were further strengthened by the results of the observations made by the researcher during the lecturers’ teaching and learning session. In the observation conducted, it was found that the majority of lecturers were able to deliver the contents of the subject competently. They were also perceived as being confident in teaching a topic.

The lecturer continued their teaching and learning. He seemed very confident in presenting the contents of the topics discussed. During the process of teaching and learning, the students often asked questions to enhance their understanding of what was being taught by the lecturer. Most of the questions raised by students were answered quickly and accurately without uncertainty.

242

(Observation, Lecturer 2, Expert) Overall, all chemistry lecturers had a very broad and in-depth knowledge concerning the content of the subjects they were teaching. These results were not in parallel with the research done by [17] concerning new and experienced teachers. His research found that experienced teachers had greater competency and understanding of the concepts compared to new teachers. This was probably because each lecturer involved held a PhD and possessed extensive and in-depth knowledge in their respective fields.

2) Mastery of the Importance of the Subject and its Application in Life

• Expert Lecturers It was found that only 75% of expert science lecturers were able to relate the importance of the subject taught with applications in daily life. Most of them stated that linking the teaching with the life of the students could help students to understand the concept more easily. Here are some transcripts of the interviews:

"Okay... for environmental chemistry subject, it is highly associated with everyday life... For example, the contamination happening around us. For instance, water pollution... In my class, students are able to understand the causes that lead to the occurrence of river pollution..." (Lecturer 2, Expert: 61-67)

There was also an expert lecturer who did not associate it with daily life applications:

"erm ...I’m not really sure because this subject is mostly related to the experiments in the laboratory...so, nothing can be related...” (Lecturer 1, Expert: 80-81)

This occurred because the science expert lecturer said that the concepts taught in chemistry are very complex and are not suitable for association with life, as they only involve chemical laboratory experiments that may not be reflected in the life of the students without doing experiments.

• Novice Lecturers Studies conducted on novice chemistry lecturers found that the respondents were able to relate their teaching contents with applications to everyday life. Here are some transcripts of the interviews with novice lecturers concerning the importance of the subjects and its application in life:

"Yes... I connected the theory with students’ daily applications.... I teach organic biomolecules; hence, there are many modules that involve functional groups... Therefore, I will show some examples of functional groups to facilitate the students’ application, such as citrus, which is found

in oranges... Application is important since I want the students to know both theoretically as well as the applications..."

(Lecturer 5, Novice: 46-52) In conclusion, the novice lecturers tend to associate the contents of the subjects they teach with daily life more than the expert lecturers. [18] stressed the need to relate the learning process with daily life to produce students who have a keen interest in science and innovation so that they can contribute to the development of science. [19] also pointed out that all educators should seek to link the concepts taught with examples in the student’s life so that the teaching and learning process conducted can be more fun and enhance the student’s mind. 3) Mastery of Students’ Difficulties

• Expert Lecturers It was found that none acknowledged their students’ initial misconceptions about a given topic. They only knew about the misconceptions after the class had been conducted through quizzes and tests carried out in the middle of the semester.

"...Haa but usually, if I want to know whether the students understand or otherwise about the chemistry concept I can observe from their quizzes. From there I can see whether the students understand or not...” (Lecturer 1, Expert: 52-54)

• Novice Lecturers The study conducted on novice lecturers showed that none of the lecturers acknowledged their students’ misconceptions concerning the subject they taught. This is reflected in the interviews as per the following quote:

"Misconception?.. I’m not sure" (Lecturer 7, Novice: 38) "...Erm…I’m not yet teaching, therefore how to sort out…" (Lecturer 8, Novice: 23)

In addition, the study also found that fewer novice lecturers emphasized the difficulties faced by the students in understanding the chemistry concepts taught by them. This can be seen through the observation of teaching and learning by novice lecturers. Here is an excerpt from the observation obtained:

Lecturer came to the classroom. Without hesitation, the lecturer continued to write something on the white board. He wrote back the topic learned in the previous teaching and learning session. Students were seen to be engrossed in copying what was written by the lecturer on the white board. The lecturer resumed his teaching by writing all the

243

relevant formulas and also methods to get the particular formulas. Students were whispering among themselves as they misunderstood what was being taught. Then, the lecturer continued to write and explain to the students while facing the board. Rarely would he oppose the students and explain what he wrote. Not once did the lecturer ask whether or not the students understood. Also, the students did not ask any questions and just copied the notes given by the lecturer. After a while, the lecturer gave an example of a question. He asked the students how to answer the question. However, the students just remained silent, as they did not know the answer. The lecturer then explained how to solve the problem. As usual, the students just copied, and whether they understood this situation or not was not ascertained. The first half an hour of the class session was done.

(Lecturer 6, Novice)

Generally, the study found that expert lecturers were more proficient regarding the difficulties faced by their students compared to novice lecturers. This is consistent with the studies performed by [20], in which it was found that less experienced teachers were unable to identify and correct the existing conceptions of students, and that they were incapable of integrating students’ opinions accurately or dealing with problems in the classroom. In addition, [16] insisted that the new teachers were more likely to make pedagogical decisions without assessing their students’ existing knowledge, ability and learning.

4) Mastery of Specific Pedagogy in Teaching the Subject [1] stated that pedagogical knowledge comprises principles and teaching strategies including the management and operation in class. Several important points were outlined in detail by [21]; for instance, about teaching and learning techniques, teaching aids and classroom management. Next, subtopics will be discussed concerning the results of the research concerning teaching and learning strategies, as well as the use of teaching aids for lectures. Based on the interviews and observations made, it can be concluded that several teaching strategies are used by lecturers in teaching and learning. Among the strategies used are lecture, class and group discussion, question and answer, presentations and assignments. Table 2 below shows the percentage of expert and novice lecturers who used such strategies.

• Expert Lecturers By referring to Table 2, it appears that all the expert chemistry lecturers were using lecture and discussion methods in their teaching. This is followed by questionnaires and assignment strategies with seventy-five percent. While only fifty percent of these expert lecturers used group discussions and

presentations in teaching and learning. Below are transcripts from the recorded interviews: Table 2 Percentage of Expert and Novice Lecturers using the Strategies.

Teaching Strategy

Percentage of Strategy Used (%) Expert Lecturers Novice

Lecturers Lecture 100 100

Discussion 100 75 Question and

Answer 75 75

Group Discussion 50 75 Presentation 50 25 Assignment 75 50

"What kind of strategy erm.. None other than giving a talk in front of the class.. Just lecture.. Erm.. There will seldom be class discussion.. Sometimes, I will give questions and ask them to answer on the whiteboard.. Erm.. That’s the only way I normally use.." (Lecturer 1, Expert: 85-87)

• Novice Lecturers

For novice lecturers, all of them were using the lecture method. The majority (seventy-five percent) of novice chemistry lecturers used discussion, question and answer, and group discussion methods. In addition, some of them also preferred to hold presentations among students. Only twenty-five percent of lecturers carried out assignments in the classroom. Here is a transcript of the interview results obtained:

"To explain the chemical theory, I will use the lecture method but for every few theories I teach, students will be asked to answer my questions... I will also give examples of questions about the topics I teach. To provide a better understanding I will try to relate to things or use an analogy... The questions given will be discussed in class..." (Lecturer 5, Novice: 29-34)

The results from the interviews with novice lecturers was supported by the findings through observation of the teaching and learning taking place while the lecturers were being recorded. Here is a transcript from the observation:

Lecturer started the session with greeting. He went straight to the white board and drew a compound structure. Then, he called out one of the students names to give the IUPAC name for the compound.

244

The student who was called took a few minutes to answer it. Two minutes passed before the student went directly and wrote the IUPAC name for the compound in front. The lecturer asked the whole class whether the answer given by the student was correct or otherwise. He showed a step-by-step workout concerning how to answer the question. For every theory described, he showed some examples to answer and ask students to try it themselves for the remaining questions. He gave time for the students to find answers from the questions given in each group, which had been set at the beginning of the semester. After a few minutes, he called the names of several representatives of each group to answer step-by-step the questions given earlier on the white board. (Lecturer 5, Novice)

The results of the study conducted on the chemistry lecturers showed that the majority of them were only using the lecture method with purely theoretical teaching to students. In addition, expert chemistry lecturers were found to gravitate to use the method of discussion, presentation and assignment in classes, which involved more student participation compared to the novice chemistry lecturers. This is closely related to their own past experience in which they have taught a particular subject for a long time, and, hence, are more aware of which method is more easily accepted and understood by the students. Teaching experience allows a teacher to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of teaching [22; 8; 23]. Although the novice science lecturers have high knowledge concerning the subject contents, their teaching techniques are less effective than the expert science lecturers. The research by [24] showed that the new science educators who just completed their pre-service practical in one year did not face any problems in understanding the subject contents. However, the problem of pedagogical knowledge makes it difficult for them to manage students who have different learning styles. In conclusion, the expert science lecturers were found to use suitable methods for teaching the subject contents compared to novice science lecturers who tended to use the lecture method more. 5) Mastery of Evaluation Technique The last part is related to the evaluation techniques used by chemistry lecturers in teaching and learning. Based on the data obtained from the interviews, it was found that the majority of the lecturers were using summative assessment methods involving quizzes and tests, and also written assignments. In addition, they also assessed the generic skills of the students with the presentation method. This is supported by the transcript of the interviews, which were recorded by the researcher:

"To assess my students... What I did is similar to other lecturers... If you want to test their

understanding, it will be based on quiz and test... From there, we can distinguish the level of students' understanding" (Lecturer 1, Expert, 119-122)

"Erm... We will be holding quizzes in class as usual… Quiz assessments will be held four times for each subject. Besides that, tests will be performed twice... As well as the final exam..." (Lecturer 2, Expert, 102-109)

"There are several quizzes and tests to be done, and group assignments... For the group assignment, I usually ask students to present their assignment in front of the class… From there, I will evaluate their performance in terms of communication, etc… " (Lecturer 6, Novice, 41-44)

"Techniques that have been suggested by UTM... quizzes, tests, group work or assignments..." (Lecturer 7, Novice, 83-84)

Briefly, the majority of lecturers, whether expert or novice, were aware of the methods to evaluate students. The methods used to assess their students include quizzes, tests, final exams and group assignments. According to a study on teachers conducted by [25], it was found that, overall, the participants, regardless of experienced or new teachers, were proficient in the evaluation aspects of students. This is because the assessment of students is very important in ensuring students understanding concerning the subject, as well as the effectiveness of the teaching process itself.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results from the study found that the majority of the lecturers were unfamiliar with Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). There were also expert lecturers who stated that they practiced PCK but were unaware of the term used. In addition, the study found that all the experts and novice lecturers had an in-depth knowledge of the subjects taught. This is because all the lecturers, including novices, had the education level of doctorate in chemistry. Equally, for mastery of the evaluation technique, the study found that most of the lecturers already knew how to assess the understanding of students of subjects using quizzes and exams. However, the assessment techniques were only used to assess the cognitive domain of students and ignored the actual process of learning. The same pattern was found concerning the importance of knowledge in everyday real-life. The majority of lecturers insisted that they had taught the topics with the real life situation. Besides that, in the aspect of knowledge of students’difficulties, the expert lecturers did not acknowledge that the difficulties and misconceptions faced by students

245

pertaining to the topic taught were only identified after conducting a quiz or test. Similarly the novice lecturers were not even clear about the term of student misconceptions. The results from the study showed that the majority of the lecturers focused almost entirely on theoretical teaching to students. Moreover, expert lecturers tended to use the methods of discussion, presentation and assignment in classes, which involved more student participation compared to novice lecturers. All these findings indicate the need for improvements to be implemented to assist the lecturers to have a quality PCK, especially in respect of students’ difficulties and teaching strategies. Exposure to the importance of PCK and intensive guidance is seen as a measurement that is capable of enabling lecturers to modify the process of teaching so that it is significant to students. [1] L.S. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new

reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1987, pp. 1-22. [2] Curiculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002. [3] Nor Hasniza Ibrahim, Reflective Teaching Model Focusing on

Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Science in the field of Chemistry. PhD thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2012.

[4] Inspectorate Report, Issues and problems of teaching science and mathematics in school inspectorate inspection findings. Inspectorate and Quality Assurance, 2010.

[5] A. Zohar, & Y. J. Dori, Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences. 12(2), 2003, pp 145-181.

[6] S. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

[7] J. Loughran, A. Berry. And P. Mulhall, Understanding and Developing Science Teacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Sense Publisher, 2012

[8] L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 1986, pp 4-14.

[9] P. Grossman, The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.

[10] S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and Borko, H., Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. in J. Gess-Newsome,J. dan N. G. Lederman, (Eds.). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: Theconstruct and its implication for science education. London : Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1999.

[11] Lilia Halim, Sharifah Intan Sharina, S. A and T. Subahan Mohd Meerah, Students’ Perceptions of Their Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Journal Science Educational Technology, DOI 10.1007/s10956-013-9484-2, 2013.

[12] J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing amongFive Approaches. (Ed. 2). London: Sage, 2007.

[13] S. B. Merriam, Qualitatitive Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, Jossey- Bass, United States, 2009.

[14] R. Huang and Y. Li, What Matters Most: A Comparison of expert and Novice Teachers’ Noticing of Mathematics Classroom Events, School Science and Mathematics. 2011 112(7), pp420-432.

[15] H. Borko and C. Livingston, Cognition and Improvisation: Differences in Mathematics Instruction by Expert and Novice Teachers. American Educational Research Journal. 1989, 26 pp473-498.

[16] J. A. C. Hattie, Teachers Make Difference: What is The Research Evidence? Keynote presentation at Building Teacher Quality: The ACER Annual Conference, Melbourne. 2003.

[17] E. M. Van Djik, Teachers’ views on understanding evolutionary theory: A PCK-study in the framework of the ERTE-model. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009 25:259–267.

[18] S. Kurt and A. Ayas, Improving Students’ Understanding and Explaining Real Life Problem on Concept of Reaction Rate by Using A

four Step Constructivist Approach, Energy Educational Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies. 2012, 4(2), pp 979-992.

[19] J. P. Kessels dan P. Korthagen, The Relationship Between Theory and Practice: Back to Classics, Educational Researcher. 1996, 25(3).

[20] P. Nilsson, Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education. 30(10), 2008, pp1281-1299.

[21] S. Park, J. Yoon Jang, Y. Chen, and J. Jung, Is pedagogical content knowledge (pck) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research Science Education. 41(2), 2010, pp245-260.

[22] T. Russel, Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice. 6(2), 2005, pp 199-204.

[23] L.Orland-Barak, and H. Yinon, When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23, 2007, pp 957-969.

[24] T. H. Lin, B. Jeng, L. Whang and R. Kaou, A case of pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development, Paper presented in Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, 1995.

[25] M. A. Ruiz-Primo, and E. M. Furtak, Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Technology. 45(4), 2006, 497-523.

246