Educating Prospective Science Teacher Educators: An Innovative Doctoral Seminar

Transcription

1 Educating Prospective Science Teacher Educators: An Innovative Doctoral Seminar Deborah Hanuscin Heather Worsham, Eun Lee, Tiffany Hill, Ya Wen Cheng, Nilay Muslu, Somnath Sinha University of Missouri Science education doctoral programs help students build a knowledge base and learn to do research in their discipline; however, doctoral preparation often lacks an explicit emphasis on learning about science teacher education. In addition to developing skills and a knowledge base for research, doctoral students must be given the opportunity to observe, practice, and reflect on the pedagogical knowledge necessary to instruct prospective science teachers. In this paper, we describe an innovative doctoral seminar, framed using the concept of PCK, to support the development of students knowledge for teaching teachers. Through illustrative vignettes written by students in the seminar, we argue that the graduate preparation of teacher educators should mirror the preparation of teachers, engaging them in central tasks of learning to teach (Feinman Nemser, 2001). Doctoral students need opportunities to critically examine their beliefs about teaching and orientations to teaching teachers; deepen their understanding of prospective teachers and teacher learning; develop a beginning repertoire of instructional strategies for teaching teachers; and develop tools and dispositions to study their own teaching. Becoming a teacher educator is not merely a byproduct of earning a PhD; rather, we argue it involves developing a pedagogy of teacher education, just as prospective teachers develop a pedagogy of science teaching.

2 1 Educating Prospective Science Teacher Educators: An Innovative Doctoral Seminar Science education doctoral programs help students build a knowledge base and learn to do research in their discipline; however, doctoral preparation often lacks an explicit emphasis on learning about science teacher education. One indication of this is the coursework required of doctoral students. In a national survey of doctoral programs, Jablon (2002) found that most programs required coursework in research methods, nature of science, and science education curriculum, among others. Yet, within a list of 13 science education topics typically found in doctoral courses, the topic of science teacher education did not appear. Furthermore, according to Jablon: Even though 100% of the doctoral program heads expected their graduates to be able to teach methods courses and supervise student teaching (96% expected proficiency at inservice workshops), only 34% required their graduates to be involved in a mentored teaching of a methods course, student teaching, or inservice workshops. Forty two percent said the students could do this as an elective and 24% said their graduates had no opportunity to be mentored in any of these skills (p. 17). Researchers have argued that science education doctoral programs are missing a critical piece (Abell 1997; Abell et al., 2009) the explicit attention to the preparation of future science teacher educators. In addition to developing skills and a knowledge base for research, doctoral students must be given the opportunity to observe, practice, and reflect on the pedagogical knowledge necessary to instruct prospective science teachers. While a growing body of research has been devoted to the construct of PCK and how teachers expertise develops, there is currently a lack of studies regarding teacher educators expertise on how to prepare science teachers to teach subject matter (Berry & van Driel, 2010). Little is known about the process through which teacher educators develop their PCK, and more specifically, how doctoral programs can support prospective teacher educators in this regard. This is particularly important, as emerging research suggests that it is teacher educators personal backgrounds, rather than their graduate education, that seem to play a primary role in shaping their pedagogy of teacher education (Berry & van Driel, 2010). In this paper, we describe an innovative graduate course designed to support the development of prospective teacher educators knowledge for teaching teachers. Theoretical Framework Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), according to Shulman (1986), is what makes possible the transformation of disciplinary content into forms that are accessible and attainable by students. This includes knowledge of how particular subject matter topics, problems, and issues can be organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners and presented for instruction (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Abell and colleagues (2008) put forth the notion that science teacher educators possess a specialized form of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching teachers. In their view, the subject matter knowledge that a science teacher educator needs includes both science content and knowledge for teaching science. A science teacher educator s PCK includes his/her knowledge about curriculum, instruction, and assessment for teaching science methods courses and supervising field experiences, as well as his/her knowledge about preservice teachers and orientations to teaching science. For example, science teacher educators should understand the points of resistance that prospective teachers might experience when learning about science teaching, and

3 2 know strategies for helping future teachers confront their naïve conceptions of science teaching and learning (Abell et al. 1998). Science teacher educators PCK is filtered through their orientations to teaching science teachers (Abell and Bryan 1997; Russell and Martin 2007). Abell and colleagues (2009) recommend that science education graduate programs should attend explicitly to the foundational knowledge that comprises PCK for teaching teachers as well as provide opportunities for doctoral students to draw upon their PCK to make instructional decisions. In their model, Abell and colleagues suggest an ideal pathway or trajectory through which graduate students might develop this PCK by progressing through learner roles of observer, apprentice, partner, and independent instructor. Such a learning pathway spans graduate students doctoral education, and encompasses mentored internships and other experiences outside of formal coursework. Yet, coursework can be an important source of PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999). It is unclear, however, how graduate coursework might best be designed to support the development of PCK for teaching teachers graduate courses do not typically have the same structure and affordances as undergraduate teacher education courses, such as a field experience component, through which students can observe models of good instruction and gain relevant teaching experience. The purpose of our paper is to describe an innovative course designed to support the development of prospective teacher educators PCK for teaching teachers. Through our discussion of the implementation of this course, we consider (from the perspective of students in the course) the potential of the various course components as sources of PCK for teaching teachers. Our intent in presenting this discussion is to stimulate both the theory and practice of science teacher educator preparation. Design of the Course The course was implemented at a Midwestern public university (research intensive) that has a relatively large science education graduate program (30 PhD students). The course was offered as an elective, and was open to students at all stages of their degree program. Seven students enrolled for credit, while five students who were at the dissertation stage opted to audit the class without credit. PCK served as the overarching framework for the design of the course. Designing and Teaching the Elementary Science Methods Course (Abell, Appleton, & Hanuscin, 2010), which utilizes PCK as its organizing framework, served as the main text; however, supplemental readings and resources were utilized to accommodate students specific teaching interests (preparing elementary, middle/secondary, or college science teachers). Through completing the course, students were expected to achieve five goals: Broaden [their] awareness of the literature related to teacher education Deepen [their] knowledge for teaching teachers Be able to design a syllabus for a methods course Build a repertoire of activities that work in the methods course Be able to conceptualize a research study in the context of teaching teachers Doctoral students engaged in a parallel form of what Feinman Nemser (2001) identified as the central tasks of learning to teach for preservice teachers; examining their beliefs critically in relation to their vision of effective teaching; developing subject matter knowledge for teaching; developing an understanding of learners, learning, and issues of diversity; developing a beginning repertoire; and developing the tools and dispositions to study teaching. Four major course components facilitated students engagement in these tasks. They include 1) seminars with outstanding science teacher

4 3 educators via Skype; 2) an individually designed field experience ; 3) development of a course syllabus; and 4) development of a research concept paper. Each of these is described in detail in the sections that follow. Skype Conversations with Outstanding Science Teacher Educators Rather than confining the perspective of the course to that of the instructor, seminar activities were intended to expose students to multiple and diverse perspectives on teaching teachers. Alumni of our PhD program and recipients of the ASTE Outstanding Science Teacher Educator awards were extended an invitation via to engage in conversations via Skype with seminar participants. These were structured somewhat informally, and took place during the first hour of class each week. During some weeks, guest Skypers provided advanced readings, copies of syllabi, or other materials, while in other weeks interactions were based more on emerging questions and answers. In these conversations, our guests described their own professional journeys in becoming teacher educators, gave illustrative examples of their pedagogy of teacher education, and in doing so communicated a particular orientation toward teaching science teachers. Furthermore, they discussed topics including how research and teaching were related in their work, and how the two served to inform each other. Field Experience The doctoral students participating in the seminar did not all have prior experience in a methods course as a prospective teacher, either because of differences between teacher preparation in the US and their home countries, or due to their focus on college science teaching and having come from an undergraduate preparation in science. Thus, in becoming teacher educators, doctoral students could benefit from broadening their awareness of different course designs and modes of instruction. Just as undergraduate science methods courses typically have an accompanying field experience in real classrooms, the seminar was designed to include a field experience in a methods course or other context of students choosing. The intent of this assignment was to help students address specific gaps in their PCK for teaching teachers, and as such, they were asked to develop an individualized plan to address self identified areas of need. Students choices of course context varied among the group. International students or students coming from a preparation in the sciences opted for methods courses as settings for their field experiences; others who were familiar with and who had worked with undergraduate methods courses prior opted to gain experience in the field experience seminars prospective teachers concurrently attend in conjunction with their methods courses. One student who had extensive experience with secondary science teacher preparation and was a former high school science teacher opted to complete her field experience in an elementary science methods course, in anticipation of the possibility of teaching this level in her future faculty position. During the field experiences, students primarily took the role of observer, but also sometimes participated in class activities along with students. Following the field experience, doctoral students conferenced with the faculty members whom they had observed. A written reflection was then submitted to the seminar instructor, outlining what they gained from the experience and how they had progressed in their knowledge for teaching teachers. Syllabus Design Project At the university, faculty members are provided with a certain degree of autonomy and academic freedom in designing courses and planning curricula within the overall program of study, and in alignment with various standards for teacher preparation. As an outline of a course, the syllabus may be

5 4 considered a contract between instructor and student, a description of content and skills to be learned, and an articulation of instructors goals and expectations, among other things. The syllabus design project was intended to help students synthesize and apply what they learned in the course. For this assignment, students conceptualized and designed a methods course for the level of their choice (elementary, middle/secondary/college). They were not limited to a traditional stand alone course, but could choose, for example, to design a content specific methods course or one in a series of methods courses. Students were also free to envision the surrounding program context in terms of the field experience component, prerequisite coursework, etc. The project included both a syllabus (either in text, web, or course management system format such as blackboard) and a rationale that justified their design decisions regarding the course. The design rationale linked the course to the broader policy and program contexts, and explained how the course activities and design elements reflected the students orientations toward teaching teachers and exemplified their PCK for teaching teachers. An interactive multimedia poster session (via SMARTboards) was held at the end of the semester as an opportunity for students to share their course designs with one another. Research Concept Paper Science education faculty members are commonly charged with balancing dual roles as both teacher educators and researchers. Successful faculty find ways to combine their roles synergistically to both inform their own practice and the larger field. The purpose of this assignment was to help students conceptualize a research study that could be conducted within their methods course to help them fulfill their future roles as a faculty member. As reiterated by our Skype guest speakers, small studies conducted within the context of a single course can have value not only in terms of informing one s teaching, but also can be designed to contribute to the broader knowledge in the field and to lay groundwork for larger more extensive studies. Through its focus on the scholarship of teaching, this assignment helped deepen the connection of students course design to the extant research literature, but also helped students envision how their work might address gaps within the literature. This necessarily involved engaging in the scholarly literature in students area of interest. Student Perspectives The intent of the seminar, as described above, was to support the development of doctoral students PCK for teaching teachers. Below, we describe, through students own perspectives, how the seminar and major course components contributed to this. Orientations to Teaching Teachers A science teacher educators orientation to teaching science teachers takes into account his/her view of science teaching and learning, as well as teacher learning, and acts as a lens for their PCK. One s orientation shapes the purposes and goals an instructor has for the methods course, and influences what gets emphasized and subsequently what is learned. Common orientations toward teaching teachers include a topics orientation, activity driven orientation, teacher inquiry orientation, pedagogydriven orientation, and reflective orientation (Abell et al., 2010). In the seminar, we made our tacit orientations explicit through the use of a card sort task (see Abell et al., 2010) in which we identified the kinds of learning experiences we would prefer to use in our method course and articulated our underlying reasoning for our choices. We brought this awareness to our Skype conversations with guest speakers, to our interactions with instructors during our field

6 5 experience, and to the completion of our syllabus design project and research concept paper. For example I (Somnath) realized through the card sort task that I held a reflection orientation. This aided me in formulating questions for our Skype speakers, inquiring as to how they incorporated reflection into their methods courses and how that informed their teaching, thus building my repertoire of instructional strategies. Similarly, it helped target my choice of sessions to observe in my field experience, to learn more about teacher reflection in practice. Additionally, it helped me focus my efforts in designing my syllabus; I selected particular assessment tasks and instructional strategies consistent with my orientation, and ensured that I had a coherent course design (see Table 1). My reflective orientation provided inclusion/exclusion criteria for course activities, helping me avoid trying to cram too much into the course, which was something our Skype speakers cautioned against. For the research concept paper, it allowed me to explore the knowledge base in this research area (teacher reflection), which further informed my course design, and allowed me to formulate research questions that could both inform my own practice and understanding of reflection in teacher education. In contrast I (Nilay) did not have a firm idea of my orientation following the card sort activity. This awareness helped me critically consider the various orientations to which I was exposed during seminar through the Skype conversations with Outstanding Science Teacher Educators. For example, the Skype conversation with a new faculty member who had graduated from our program really resonated with me; she described the challenges of teaching teachers to adopt new pedagogies, such as inquiry, and described immersing them in inquiry based experiences as learners. From this, I realized that in order to bring the new ideas about science teaching that I was learning here in the U.S. back to my country (Turkey), I would need to do the same. I found that an activity driven orientation best fit my ideas about teaching teachers. I believed that preservice teachers, who may not have been taught this way, could benefit from experiencing new pedagogies as learners. In this manner they can understand how different instructional strategies support them in learning science, and therefore how these strategies can help support their students in learning science. My syllabus design reflects this orientation, and also includes a variety of assessments through which I can determine whether my approach is actually helping students in the way I intend. As a teacher educator, I want to be a model for my students, through implementing activities in my course that reflect how I believe science should be taught. Knowledge of Prospective Teachers as Learners Science teacher educators PCK for learners includes knowledge about student development, misconceptions held by prospective teachers about teaching and learning science, difficulties (both affective and cognitive) encountered by students as they learn how to teach science, and characteristics specific to particular groups of methods students (such as elementary education majors, careerchangers in alternative certification programs, etc.). At the beginning of our seminar course, Dr. Hanuscin presented the Field Experience Assignment as an opportunity to address the specific gaps we each had in our PCK for teaching teachers. After giving the matter much thought, I realized that up to that point in my career, all of my experiences with prospective teachers had been with secondary or middle level teachers: I was a high school science teacher for five years and had had multiple experiences in secondary methods courses, both as a student and as an intern and co instructor. In contrast, I knew next to nothing about elementary education majors and teachers! Because several colleagues in my doctoral program were teaching elementary education methods courses (either as part of their program or in their first jobs), I knew that I should prepare for this possibility myself.

7 6 Therefore, I chose as my field experience to observe prospective teachers in three different elementary methods courses in two different colleges. After attending multiple classes, conferencing with the instructors, and combing through course websites and resources, I know that I learned much about elementary education majors (and also that I still have much to learn). The elementary education methods students differed (in general) from the secondary methods students in attitudes, aptitudes for science, points of resistance, and background experiences. Over the course of my classroom observations and discussions with the instructors, I eased my anxiety about teaching an elementary science methods course. I also created a binder of sample syllabi/schedules, readings, assignments and handouts to use as a starting point in case I ever am assigned to teach such a course. In addition to the field experience, I learned a lot about prospective teachers by listening to the guest lecturers in our Skype conversations, several of whom taught preservice elementary education students. While acknowledging that science is often an elementary education major s weakest subject, none of the speakers viewed these future teachers from a deficit perspective. Instead, they all focused on using method students strengths as starting points for meaningful instruction. In conclusion, the seminar course was extremely beneficial to me as a future science teacher educator. In my opinion, a similar course should be a MUST for anyone in a PhD program contemplating a career that might include teaching methods courses. Knowledge of Instructional Strategies for Teacher Education Methods courses are unique in nature in comparison with other college courses. For example, while science courses focus on developing content knowledge, science methods courses aim to support the development of content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge (Abell et al., 2010). Moreover, an elementary methods course should include strategies for teaching science content, how to plan, and how to assess (Abell et al.). As a former elementary teacher, I (Eun) used to teach science content to my elementary students, assess my students learning, and plan my lessons, but teaching all these components to preservice teachers sounded like a very challenging task to me. At the beginning of the semester, I decided to put more effort into developing my understanding of instructional strategies for teaching preservice teachers through the seminar. Three major assignments of the seminar (i.e., field experience, syllabus project, and research concept paper) and Skype interview with the ASTE outstanding teacher educators provided a tremendous foundation for me to develop my knowledge of instructional strategies as a teacher educator. Skyping with guest speakers provided opportunities for me to have indirect experiences with various instructional strategies each different guest speaker was using in alignment with each person s teaching orientation. I learned that teaching general pedagogy such as inquiry could take various forms in science methods courses. The field experience was an eye opening moment for me. I purposefully observed three sessions teaching the 5E learning cycle. As I was observing three sessions of the 5E learning cycle with each different science content topic, I was able to figure out how to use the 5E learning cycle as a subjectspecific pedagogy to teach various topics in science and at the same time, how to integrate topic specific pedagogy and other pedagogies such as using tradebooks. I learned that reflection was crucial for preservice teacher s understanding of the 5E learning cycle. Preservice teachers were exposed to the 5E learning cycle first and then they had an opportunity to reflect on what they had done. Through reflection, they changed their understandings. Since formative assessment was seamlessly integrated into each phase of the 5E learning cycle (Abell and Volkman, 2006), the 5E learning cycle was itself a very effective pedagogy to teach how to teach and how to assess at the same time. For topic specific

8 7 instructional strategies, when teaching magnetism through 5E learning cycle, I learned it is very useful to use a formative assessment probe eliciting prior misconceptions. When teaching about the life cycle of mealworms, using a digital microscope as a way of integrating multiple representations was very effective. My field experience led me to develop my research topic for the concept paper and also to frame my syllabus project. I chose the 5E learning cycle as my research topic for the concept paper and investigated more of empirical literature about the 5E learning cycle. I learned that a lesson plan assignment using the 5E learning cycle was an effective way of teaching how to plan from research literature about the 5E learning cycle. For the syllabus project, I included four different science content topics. All the topics were designed to teach through the 5E learning cycle. Each 5E learning cycle was combined to other instructional strategies such as questioning, using tradebooks, or seamless assessment. I also included a reflection session after finishing each 5E learning cycle to improve preservice teachers understanding. A lesson plan assignment was incorporated to introduce how to plan a lesson to preservice teachers. Knowledge of Curriculum for Teacher Education A science teacher educators knowledge of curriculum refers to their understanding of the curricular goals and objectives that are appropriate for the methods course, and an awareness of the materials and resources that will support preservice teachers in achieving these goals (Abell et al., 2010). In addition, a teacher educators knowledge of curriculum refers to their broader understanding of the teacher education program curriculum, including an awareness of how the methods course fits within their students experiences before, during, and after the methods course. In seminar, our knowledge of curriculum was informed by multiple course components. First, our knowledge of curriculum was informed in the first weeks of the course as we were exposed to and became more familiar with national, state, and program goals that would ultimately influence the goals we adopted in our future methods courses, and be documented our Syllabus Design Project. As the course progressed, our knowledge deepened as we explored the curricular goals outlined by the Outstanding Teacher Educators we spoke with via Skype, revealing how they designed their courses around the goals that were recommended and mandated to them. A comparison of the syllabi of multiple teacher educators, including some of those who we spoke with via Skype, allowed us to draw on similarities and differences in the curricular goals put forth, and make judgments about the goals of the methods coursework in light of our orientation and beliefs about elementary science teacher education. Similarly, the seminar allowed us to explore those curricular materials and resources that would support preservice teachers in achieving the goals we had set for them. Initially, our knowledge of curricular resources stemmed from our Skype discussion, through which the Outstanding Teacher Educators were frequently asked to share those resources of value to them, including texts, online resources, and other curricular materials (Abell et al., 2010, p. 4). Both in and out of class, we were given opportunities to explore those resources that were recommended by the Outstanding Teacher Educators, and a seminar was devoted to exploring prominent texts used in the methods courses we planned to teach. Ultimately, our learning about curricular resources and materials was demonstrated in our decisions regarding what resources and materials to include in the methods course we conceptualized for our Syllabus Design Project, and our justification for using those resources as explained in our Rationale.

9 8 Of great interest to me (Tiffany) in the development of my knowledge of curriculum was a broader understanding of the teacher education program curriculum, and how the science methods course fits within this larger curriculum. To better understand this aspect of curriculum, I explored through my Field Experience the undergraduate level field experience course that ran concurrently with the science methods coursework at the University we attended, and considered the impact and influence of this curriculum on the curriculum in the science methods course. My exploration included attending the fieldwork seminar, interviews with the seminar instructor, and interviews with the preservice teachers enrolled in both courses. These experiences contributed to my awareness that a teacher educators knowledge of curriculum cannot be limited to the science methods curriculum, given this curriculum is influenced by the preservice teachers experiences in the entire teacher education program. Knowledge of Assessment in Teacher Education Knowledge of assessment is an important topic in teacher education. Effective teaching includes understanding learners and being able to identify learning needs, can be achieved by utilizing various assessment strategies. Thus, I (Ya Wen) particularly interested in understanding how learners develop knowledge of assessment and apply assessment strategies for evaluating learning. Through the conversations with the outstanding teacher educators, I learned the assessment strategies they used in teaching pre service teachers. For example, one outstanding teacher educator mentioned the syllabus as an assessment tool to assess and help his pre service teachers to evaluate their learning process. These ideas lead me to design my syllabus with the goals to help pre service teachers to develop assessment literacy. Furthermore, in my field experience, I pay attentions on how the instructor used assessment strategies to guide her teaching. In addition, by interacting with pre service teachers, I also gained in depth understandings on how they develop the knowledge of assessments and the difficulties they have when applying different assessment strategies. All the course activities help me to recognize the needs to understand pre service teachers views on assessment as a tool for teaching and learning. According to Abell et al. (2010) suggest that lack of researches on pre service teacher s knowledge on assessment. Thus, my concept paper is to understand pre service teacher s knowledge about assessment and in what ways their knowledge of assessment influences their teaching practice. In the seminar, course activities provide both theoretical and practical opportunities which allowed me to gain in depth understandings about assessment and reflect on the research needs in teacher education. For example, I prepared questions from reading assignments and shared with the guest speakers. Through the readings and conversations, I learned theoretical perspective of the importance of assessment in assessing and improving learning as well as the implementation of different assessment strategies. When I interact with pre service teachers in the field observation, I was able to use formative assessment strategy to help them assess their learning. All experience I have from this unique course contributes to my theoretical and practical knowledge of teacher education and assessment. Discussion/Implications From the students perspectives above, we develop a much richer understanding of how the various course components facilitated the development of their PCK for teaching teachers. What becomes clear across each of the perspectives is the way in which some of the components (e.g., field experience) allowed students to target those component knowledge bases of PCK about which they had concerns, whereas other course components (e.g., syllabus design project) facilitated integration of these component knowledge bases. For example, the field experience allowed Tiffany to expand her knowledge of curriculum, Heather to deepen her knowledge of learners, Eun and Somnath to broaden their repertoire of instructional strategies, and Ya Wen to develop her knowledge of assessment in the

10 9 methods course. In contrast, the syllabus design project encouraged students to bring these knowledge bases together, aligning their choice of instructional strategies with their orientation toward teaching teachers (Somnath and Nilay), and ensuring overall coherence within the broader curriculum for teacher education (Tiffany). The opportunity to self assess and diagnose weaknesses in their PCK for teaching teachers proved critical in students tailoring the field experience to address their most pressing needs, and served as a lens through which they could have meaningful conversations with exemplary teacher educators, framing questions and reflecting on conversations in ways that foster the deepening of their understanding of teaching teachers. Assignments such as the syllabus design project, which require students to draw on the various component knowledge bases of PCK, fostered the integration of these knowledge bases as students articulate their design rationale and make the coherence and alignment of these knowledge bases explicit. While the seminar was of obvious benefit to students, who (like Heather) recommend it be part of all students doctoral preparation, the viability of institutionalizing such a course remains a question to be answered. We note that this particular seminar was offered as an elective, but nearly half of the students in our PhD program (even some who had completed coursework) opted to participate. This suggests there is both a need and desire for preparation of this sort. We further note that in our doctoral program, we have a specialized emphasis area in college science teaching typically for stuents who envision future careers working within science departments and conducting faculty development rather than k12 teacher preparation. Two students from this emphasis area participated in the seminar, designing methods courses on college science teaching for prospective faculty. Fulfilling this need through regular offering of such a course will no doubt need to be taken into account in terms of faculty teaching loads; however we note that very few specialized resources were required For example, the field experience component of the course did not require the type of coordination with K12 schools of a traditional methods course, as students each arranged these independently visiting nearby universities, arranging virtual visits, or attending methods courses within our own institution. In terms of skype conversations with outstanding teacher educators, one could envision ASTE recognized outstanding teacher educators being bombarded with requests should this type of course become institutionalized in different locations! However, there are many ways in which instructors could tap into the expertise of other colleagues in this manner, and ways in which ASTE might encourage the broader dissemination of award winning teacher educators wisdom of practice such as video or podcast. The value of this experience to students in the seminar is obvious what is less obvious at this point is the overall benefit to our field should all doctoral students receive such a preparation in their doctoral programs. We argue that the graduate preparation of teacher educators should mirror the preparation of teachers, engaging them in central tasks of learning to teach (Feinman Nemser, 2001). Doctoral students need opportunities to critically examine their beliefs about teaching and orientations to teaching teachers; deepen their understanding of prospective teachers and teacher learning; develop a beginning repertoire of instructional strategies for teaching teachers; and develop tools and dispositions to study their own teaching. Becoming a teacher educator is not merely a byproduct of earning a PhD; rather, we argue it involves developing a pedagogy of teacher education, just as prospective teachers develop a pedagogy of science teaching. References Abell, S. K. (1997). The professional development of science teacher educators: Is there a missing piece? Electronic Journal of Science Education [On line], 1(4). Retrieved February 2, 2008 from

11 10 Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. (2010) Designing the elementary science methods course. New York: Routledge. Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. S. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82, Abell, S.K., Park Rogers, M. A., Hanuscin, D.L., Lee, M.H., Gagnon, M.J. (2009). Preparing the next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20: Berry, A. K. & van Driel, J. H. (2010). Teaching about teaching science: What do science teacher educators do and why? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching. Philadelphia, PA. Fieman Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), Jablon, P. C. (2002). The status of science education doctoral programs in the United States: The need for core knowledge and skills. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(1). Retrieved October 5, 2007 from Lin, E., Wang, J., Spalding, E., Klecka, C.L., & Odell, S.J. (2011). Toward strengthening the preparation of teacher educator researchers in doctoral programs and beyond. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp ). Boston: Kluwer. Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 14.

12 11 Table 1. Alignment between selection of course tasks and reflective orientation Major assignment tasks Alignment with Reflective orientation of teaching. Reflective journal (Student teachers are Journal writing is an effective instrument for promotion of reflective thinking (Han, 1995). expected to keep a reflective journal with them during the whole period of the semester. They are evaluated on their Through their reflection I can get a picture of the student teachers experiences and learning (knowledge of learners) and my instructional strategies (knowledge of Instructional strategy). entries, which helps to see their development through the whole process It will also help me to reflect upon my teaching and reconsider the parts of the class which they find frustrating and try to make them interesting. of teaching) The student teachers would be able to reflect upon their development towards becoming professional teachers and may get internal motivation by finding out that they are successfully learning new things and proceeding towards becoming good teachers. Student teachers can reflect upon their own process of learning to teach science. Lesson plans (In this assignment, student teachers are evaluated on preparation of eight lesson plans in alignment to the national and state standards and in context of the chosen grade level.) Field Experience (Student teachers undergo field experience in K 6 science classroom in order to know and get accustomed with the process of teachinglearning in a real classroom. Student teachers write down reflection of their observations, reflect their own and other colleagues science teaching, and reflect on inservice teacher s teaching ) Student analysis of misconception (Student teachers are evaluated upon their finding out of an existing science misconception within an elementary student and prepare a lesson plan to eradicate it.) Students keep track of how their lessons get better as they go from first to the eighth lesson plan which helps them to reflect upon their previous lessons and improve the next one. It also helps them reflect upon the fact that learning to teach is a lifelong process which gets better by learning and building from previous experiences. These reflections would help student teachers to compare their teaching with the teaching of an experienced teacher and evaluate their ones in terms of any shortcomings if present. These reflections collectively, in turn lead them to reflect upon the aspects they need to improve upon and consider modifying their teaching in light of the given suggestions. Analyzing their work helps me to reflect upon whether or not the student teachers are getting the desired experience and eventually improve it by altering a particular school, association with a particular inservice class room teacher, or grade level. Student teachers get a chance to reflect on the misconceptions usually carried by elementary students regard a particular topic and how to eradicate it. This would lead students to reflect upon their subject matter knowledge. By assessing their work, it helps me to reflect upon two aspects whether this method helps student teachers to get a close experience of an elementary student; To what degree this design of eradication of misconception helps the student teacher to strengthen their subject matter knowledge.