A comparison of preservice and in‐service earth and space science teachers' general mental abilities, content knowledge, and problem‐solving skills

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare in-service and preservice earth and space science teachers on their general mental abilities, their content knowledge or declarative knowledge of earth and space sciences, the Gagnean levels of their content knowledge or declarative knowledge, and the procedural knowledge used in solving earth and space science problems. This study used a contrast-group design to compare in-service (n = 30) and preservice (n = 30) earth and space science teachers. The in-service earth science teachers (a) bring more declarative knowledge to the problem-solving situation, (b) use fewer steps while problem solving, (c) generate more subroutines and alternate hypotheses, and (d) possess different structural knowledge than do preservice earth science teachers. Findings from this study support Norman's theory of learning that experts (in-service teachers) function at the tuning mode of learning, whereas novices (preservice teachers) function in an accreting or structuring mode. In-service earth science teachers exhibited smoothness, automaticity, and decreased mental effort not exhibited by preservice earth and space science teachers.

Primary Science: Past and Future Directions

“…(Ofsted, 1995, p. 6) and that:-'In the upper years of Key Stage 2 (which represents age 7-11 children) shortcomings in teachers' understanding of science are evident in the incorrect use of scientific terminology and an overemphasis on the acquisition of knowledge at the expense of conceptual development.' (Ofsted, 1995, p. 10) Ample evidence that teachers' subject knowledge is generally weak comes from several studies that have been conducted on teachers' understanding of force (Kruger et al, 1990a), energy (Summers, 1992), the earth in space (Barba & Rubba, 1992;Mant, 1995) and on all aspects of science by Harlen, Holroyd & Byrne (1995). All of these studies have shown significant gaps or weaknesses in teachers' conceptual grasp of the subject and have stimulated a renewed debate about the level of subject knowledge necessary for teaching primary science.…”

The Rise and Fall of Constructivism

“…Many researchers have studied primary teachers' misconceptions on scientific matters (eg Barba andRubba 1992, Kruger et al 1990). This is rewarding work since the subjects are articulate and educated, although often scientifically under-informed.…”

Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators

“…Systematic examination of the factors that hinder such professional development is also appropriate. Science education research should build upon the comparative studies as well as the exemplary teacher studies that have already been carried out (e.g., Barba & Rubba, 1992;Garnett & Tobin, 1988;Hauslein, Good, & Cummins, 1992;Tobin & Fraser, 1990) and identify the initial states, sources of influence, and developmental paths taken by experienced/expert science teachers (Wilson, 1990).…”