A Study on the Connection between Educators' Orientations towards Science Teaching, Teaching Concerns, Levels of Request Based Guidelines, and their Classroom Exercises

A model of effective teaching practice could illuminate educators' expert improvement (PD) programs. The improvement of such models can be accomplished via precisely examining and investigating the act of in-service educators (Barnett and Hodson, 2001; NRC, 1997). In this proposition we explored the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced in-service science Teachers in an expert advancement context. In this particular context we followed in-service educators who planned and encouraged exercises to enhance their teaching. We could examine how in service Teachers drew upon their pedagogical content knowledge to plan and lead their exercises. In this program Teachers utilized an activity inquire about way to deal with enhance their educating. With the utilization of this approach, we were additionally ready to research how their PCK created because of partaking in a PD program that expected to enhance their educating. Examining what the PCK is that educators draw upon and how this PCK creates could assist us with understanding how this specific type of knowledge is really utilized as a part of classroom contexts. Understanding the idea of educator pedagogical content knowledge and how its segments are drawn upon when teaching can be expert through an examination of in-service Teachers (Berliner, 1986; Shulman, 1986). In this proposal, we explored how PCK segments were utilized and created as in-service educators took part in the expert improvement program went for enhancing classroom teaching. Researching in-service educators' pedagogical content knowledge enabled us to develop our comprehension of what 'great science teaching' is and how it might really happen in a classroom context. Our examinations likewise educated us how we could create look into on teacher knowledge all the more energetically.

The utilization of request based instructional strategies in the science classroom has been generally upheld in the previous decade from an assortment of sources, including the American Relationship for the Headway of Science (AAAS, 1993) and the National Research Board (NRC, 1996). Request based knowledge tends not

teacher's point of view, it is vital to know how science can be educated through request, and how students learn science when it is shown that way (NSTA, 2000). With request based knowledge, students take part in logical examinations and critical thinking. Notwithstanding broad issues, for example, time imperatives, restricted classroom offices, and complex class plans, the execution of request exercises is likewise impacted by different critical elements (Roehrig and Luft, 2004). These incorporate the educators' comprehension of science ideas (Hashweh, 1987), the mind boggling procedures of teaching and knowledge and the idea of science (Duschl, 1988), and Teachers' convictions about science educating and knowledge (Pajares, 1992). Magnusson et al. (1999) contended that Teachers' Orientations towards science encouraging channel educators' choices about executing request in their classrooms (Magnusson et al., 1999). A few investigations have connected Teachers' convictions to their request exercises (Crawford, 2007), yet so far none have concentrated on educators' Orientations towards science educating and their request exercises. To see how, and why, science Teachers develop request exercises in their teaching, we researched experienced science educators' Orientations towards science educating in connection to their methods for executing request teaching. Since in-service Teachers consider their experience from earlier long stretches of educating, we likewise explored their worries, and the potential obstructions they saw while executing request educating. The point of this Research was to pick up a more profound comprehension of science Teachers' request exercises and how their Orientations towards science educating interfaced with their classroom choices. For this reason, we concentrated on a group of science educators who arranged and led request based exercises in their classrooms with regards to an expert improvement program.

In a few examinations, Crawford and others have investigated the unpredictable idea of teaching science request in schools (Crawford, 1999; 2000; 2007; Crawford, Zembal-Saul, Munford, and Friedrichsen, 2005). Crawford (1999) found that learner Teachers are excessively unpracticed, making it impossible to make request based guidelines because of their absence of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. She noticed that 'there is a lack of research on the best way to plan instructional situations to advance students' comprehension of science request' in intellectual procedures utilized by researchers, when making inquiries, making speculations, outlining examinations, thinking about knowledge, drawing inductions, updating examinations, and constructing and returning to hypotheses' (p. 934). In a later report, Crawford (2007) recognized that in spite of an expert advancement school context planning to show science as request, imminent Teachers working on teaching procedures that went from conventional educating to full-request ventures. Regardless of whether educators take part in request based teaching, not all request exercises are equal (Chime et al., 2005). Request based exercises can extend from profoundly teacher coordinated to exceedingly student arranged. Chime et al. (2005) proposed a four-level model of request (see Figure 5.1). Level 1 is called 'affirmation request' where the teacher gives an Research question to which the students know the appropriate response ahead of time. Students are in this manner affirming what is as of now known. In level 2, organized request, the Research question is likewise given, butthe stem^. However, the students aatpuovrded withaseaofureacsibed arocedures. InCevel 3, guided request, it is the educator, once more, who suggests an Research conversation starter, however the students devise their own techniques to answer this examination question. Level 4 is called open I nquiry, where the students are in charge of making their own examination question and their Research plan for noting this inquiry.

Different researchers have contended that orientations towards encouraging science ought to be viewed as knowledge and convictions that guide instructional choices in the classroom (Borko &Putnam, 1996; Magnusson et al., 1999). Specifically, science Teachers' convictions impact the request exercises they use in their science exercises (Crawford, 2000, 2007). No examination, be that as it may, has demonstrated confirmation how these Orientations really manage the arranging and leading of classroom directions. Magnusson et

most part typed by the accentuation of the guideline, from absolutely process or content to those that underline both and fit the national standard of being request based.' (p. 97). These researchers proposed nine distinct Orientations running from a procedure Orientation (process) to content (scholastic thoroughness, pedagogical, theoretical change), to both (movement driven, revelation, venture based science, request, guided request) (see Table 2.1). Magnuson et al. (1999) explained that these teaching Orientations depend on educators' motivations and objectives for teaching science. Friedrichsen and Dana (2005) contemplated these Orientations experimentally and presumed that science Teachers hold science-particular Orientations and also broad Orientations. In their investigation they confirm that science Teachers have both focal and fringe educating objectives. They inferred that Orientations comprise of three noteworthy objectives: (1) full of feeling area objectives; (2) general tutoring objectives; and (3) topic objectives. They noticed that notwithstanding the educators' Orientations, earlier work encounter gave off an impression of being a vital factor impacting arrangement for teaching. Tsur and Crawford (2001) likewise noticed that educators held in excess of one Orientation with maybe a couple essential Orientations. Analyzing these Orientations nearly, we found that they incorporate the reasons for science educating (Magnusson et al., 1999). Friedrichsen et al. (2011) rethought the science teaching Orientations and reasoned that this idea is tricky in light of the fact that (an) Orientations are utilized as a part of various or vague courses; (b) there is a missing or indistinct connection between the teaching Orientations and the other PCK segments; (c) educators can't just be relegated to one of the nine classifications of Magnusson et al. (1999) Orientations; and (d) the larger capacity of this part is overlooked in the writing. They propose characterizing science teaching Orientations as an arrangement of convictions utilizing the accompanying measurements: objectives and motivations behind science teaching, perspectives of science, and convictions about science educating and knowledge.

Teachers' knowledge assumes an essential part in the planning, implementation and assessment of exercises. Familiarity with snags in knowledge is additionally part of the educators' knowledge which they mull over when arranging and directing science exercises. De Jong and Van Driel (1999) found that as Teachers educate, they take in more about the snags of teaching. Prior examinations on Teachers' worries have demonstrated that forthcoming educators have different worries than in-service experienced Teachers educators have concerns and Orientations that are firmly identified with their earlier work encounters (Friedrichsen and Dana, 2005). De Jong and Van Driel (1999) announced that imminent educators have three distinctive pedagogical content concerns (PCC): self PCC, errand PCC, and student PCC (cf. Fuller and Darker, 1975), where one PCC might be prevailing over the others (De Jong, 2000). Berry et al. (2008) asked in-service science educators to begin from their own particular science teaching concerns when they explored Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). They found that educators were worried about students' realizing when they arranged their exercises. In this investigation we likewise centered around the Teachers' worries when they arranged their request based exercises.

The present investigation was directed with regards to an expert improvement program called the arithmetic and science organization program in the year 2006-2007. One of the objectives of the MSP was to expand educators' execution when teaching arithmetic or science. A particular point of the MSP program was to build educators' knowledge of teaching science and arithmetic through request. In this examination we just explored the science Teachers who took part in the MSP program of 2006-2007 in the South West district of Illinois. The educators were requested to direct request exercises in their class. As a component of the MSP, Teachers were requested to utilize an activity examine way to deal with create and direct their request based exercises. Along these lines they could efficiently screen their own advance. Applying this approach, the Teachers were required to design their exercises, lead their exercises, gather knowledge for their activity investigate, type an advance report, and keep a diary of their appearance. To begin the program, a fourteen day Summer Establishment was sorted out amid which the science educators were presented to logical request. In the principal seven day stretch of the Mid-year Establishment, college staff showed them about logical request, clarifying the distinctive strides of logical request. The college staff represented an issue on environment and the science educators needed to make their own particular inquiries. Discussions were utilized to assist the educators with focusing on these inquiries on biological connections. Next, the college staff encouraged the educators in an open air action where the Teachers could configuration how to gather knowledge on various plants and spineless creatures in the area. They at that point needed to break down their knowledge and clarify the biological relations in light of investigations of the knowledge gathered. Each group needed to show their

request based teaching. They could examine and share their discoveries with different educators, and the college staff went about as tutors for inside and out inquiries on request based knowledge. After the Mid-year Organization the Teachers made exercise designs utilizing logical request as the reason for exercises without anyone else decision. All through the whole year, every teacher chipped away at an advance report, which was a piece of their activity look into. Every one of the Teachers kept an electronic diary to consider their exercises.

Aim and look into questions Our point was to pick up a superior comprehension of how and why Teachers direct request based exercises. Specifically, we were occupied with how educators' Orientations, their worries and different factors, for example, long stretches of teaching knowledge and grade level, were connected to their request based teaching with regards to a PD program (i.e., the MSP). We explored educators' Orientations towards science teaching and their teaching worries in connection to how they arranged and led their request based exercises. The principle question which guided this examination was: What is the connection between Teachers' worries, their Orientations towards science educating, and the instructional levels of request when they plan and direct exercises? This principle question comprised of the accompanying particular sub-questions: 1. What level of request do science educators utilize when arranging request based exercises? 2. How are the Teachers' worries and their Orientations towards science teaching identified with their levels of request?

Twenty four in-service science educators took an interest in the MSP program of 2006-2007 and were incorporated into this examination. All through the whole year these Teachers recorded the advance of their activity explore. A pre-designed record was utilized to ensure that the Teachers archived all the diverse strides of their activity look into in the advance report, in which they needed to give a rich depiction regarding why the educating of this point had been an issue in earlier years. The educators incorporated their motivations and objectives for teaching this point as a request exercise in the report. Every one of the reports were gathered toward the finish of the year. To consider the Teachers' arranged exercises, we gathered the Teachers' intelligent diaries. We requested that the Teachers record their appearance in an electronic diary amid the year. Three unique knowledge sources were in this manner utilized for this investigation: the Teachers advance reports, their intelligent diaries, and their exercise designs.

To defend the objectivity of the knowledge investigations, coding was completed autonomously by two scientists and an examination colleague over the entire examination process. We read the knowledge a few times to get comfortable with the different knowledge sources and their content. We at that point chose what knowledge to use from every one of the knowledge sources. 1. From the educators' advance reports we chose general data, for example, long periods of teaching knowledge, students' review level, number of students in the class and science subject taught. From these reports we additionally chose articulations Teachers had made with respect to their worries and their Orientations towards educating. Articulations in regards to the educators concerns for the most part began with: 'My students experienced issues with...', or 'My students don't have any experience in...' or 'A year ago I experienced serious difficulties to...'. To code the Teachers' worries, knowledge examination went for recognizing codes rising up out of the knowledge utilizing a grounded hypothesis approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). To decide the educators' Orientations, we utilized explanations from the advance report beginning with: 'My objective for this undertaking is to...'or 'I need my students to ...'. To consider the science Teachers' Orientations we coded the announcements utilizing the nine Orientations of Magnusson et al. (1999). From the knowledge we discovered a few explanations that did not mirror the Orientations of Magnusson et al. All things considered we utilized extra codes for the teaching Orientations that rose up out of our knowledge. 2. From the educators' exercise designs we figured out what level of request was utilized after the model of Chime et al. (2005). At the point when an teacher wanted to utilize request to affirm what was addressed or exhibited in the classroom, this was marked as level 1:confirmation. An teacher's request

when the educator gave an examination question and gave students the methods to direct request. We named an announcement as level 3 (guided request) when an educator offered the examination conversation starter yet had their students think of their own technique for request. The educator needed to ensure that the students' request design would lead them to exploring and noting their examination questions. Level 4 (open request) was coded when we found that the educator just introduced the science subject, and the students needed to concoct their own examination inquiries and plan and lead their own request. Subsequent to ordering the announcements with the distinctive codes, we assembled the Teachers as per the diverse levels of request, that were doled out to them (see above). We at that point portrayed each group by investigating the relations between the educators' worries and their Orientations. We utilized a cross-case correlation with recognize likenesses and contrasts between the Teachers. Yin (1994) noticed that different contextual analyses give the scientist more prominent chances to investigate examples and subjects inside the knowledge, so we chose to regard every teacher as an individual case. 'Understanding one of a kind cases can be developed by similar investigation's (Patton, 2002, p. 56). The way toward contrasting educators' worries and their Orientations and a similar level of request over the case profiles enabled us to pick up a more profound comprehension of the knowledge.

We initially made a spreadsheet with the codes utilized for explanations found in the diverse knowledge sources (see Addendum B). In view of this spreadsheet we made Table 5.2 with a diagram of the outcomes, where the educators are gathered by their level of request. We discovered eight Teachers who occupied with affirmation request, eight science educators at the level of organized request, six Teachers at the level of guided request, and two Teachers at the level of open request. In spite of the fact that we found that all Teachers were situated towards teaching content, diverse examples happened at each level of request. All educators were likewise situated towards teaching aptitudes, with the exception of the individuals who occupied with affirmation request. To investigate the connections between the Teachers' worries, their teaching Orientations and the level of request, we depict each group clarifying the level of request, the educators' Orientations, and their worries. We show knowledge.

From breaking down the educators' exercise designs, we distinguished a group of 8 Teachers who were utilizing request to affirm what was at that point known. In their exercise designs we found that the Teachers ordinarily took after the arrangement: clarify

The science idea, at that point clarify the logical technique, at that point give an examination question. Next, they chose an action that expected to help the students to discover answers to the Research question. The customary 'cookbook' strategy was regularly used to design the exercises. In our investigation of the knowledge we found that the educators in this group were either worried about the students' low evaluations or their absence of knowledge of a specific theme. This absence of knowledge was once in a while gathered from low evaluations in earlier years. While investigating their Orientations to educating, we found that these Orientations were centered around knowledge; educators planned to utilize essentially pedagogical and hands-on approaches. In their advance reports, the Teachers' motivations in connecting with students in request concentrated on the utilization of hands-on exercises. In any case, when we investigated the advance reports and their intelligent diaries, we found that the educators regularly occupied with addressing and clarifying certain science ideas before connecting with students in hands-on exercises. Here is a case of how we connected an educator's Orientation and his worries to his request exercises: Ben, a fifth grade science teacher needed his exercise to be more student

request based approach. One of the units shrouded in our science pedagogical modules needs to do with environment. I have never felt certain with the exercise since I never had a decent movement to run with the exercise. I am planning to acquire request based exercises to use in this unit. I feel that on the off chance that I utilize more 'active, personalities on'activities and require the students to utilize science vocabulary words in discussions, the students will recall and clarify how living beings connect with each other and their environment.'(from Ben's intelligent diary). Ben improved his exercises on request and began to disclose to his students about biological aggravations, previously really presenting his class to a request movement. This movement was particularly in view of 'cook-book' guidelines, where the students needed to only take after the directions to find to the solutions: 'I drew and clarified the biological community inside a control region and unsettling influence region. I read books about sorts and similarity of fish and plants and disclosed this to my students, I at that point made a sea-going living space with different amphibian plants and creatures thus my students could watch and clarify the minor aggravations in that ecosystem....'(from Ben's advance report). Ben's Orientations towards science teaching was centered around the science content and in light of didactics and hands-on exercises. As should be obvious from this illustration, he utilized the affirmation level to teach his exercises on general nature. He utilized the sea-going natural surroundings as an action, so the students could clarify through this movement what aggravations are, thus that he could affirm that the students comprehended what he had clarified in class.

At this level, the Teachers (n=8) began their exercises by disclosing the logical technique to their students. Next, they presented the subject and offered an examination conversation starter. The students were given clear directions on the best way to answer the examination questions. Sometimes, they submitted their answer sheets and in different cases they were requested to share their discoveries in a group Orientation. As to educators' worries, we found that, similar to the past group, the Teachers were likewise worried about students' low evaluations or absence of content knowledge. In any case, with this group, we found moreover that the educators were additionally worried about the students' absence of request aptitudes or their absence of knowledge of the logical technique. Concerning their teaching Orientations, we found that these were equipped towards pedagogical and hands-on approaches, which were like the instructional methodologies of level 1. The arranged exercises were a succession of address, exhibition, clarification of the logical technique, trailed by hands- examination question. The accompanying is a case from Kathy, an eighth grade science teacher, who thought about her exercise designs: 'My students should have the capacity to comprehend the procedure of logical request, so as to examine questions, direct examinations, take care of issues and comprehend central ideas, standards and interconnections of life sciences... I have intended to take students out into the field and acquaint them with the idea of request based approach by giving them their flexibility to research/investigate the prairie arrive behind our school for a preset measure of time and when they return clarify the 5E strategy for request. From that strategy they will ideally start to acknowledge they have some control over what they will realize not exactly what I will teach them to do.'(from Kathy's intelligent diary). Kathy needed her students to discover what the dirt of a particular prairie biome would contain for the field to develop. From her examination report we found that she organized her exercises to guarantee that her students got occupied with request based knowledge: 'I completed a prologue to the dirts situated in a prairie biome... Students were permitted to think about the unit of soil and were placed in little groups... At that point I disclosed the right technique to gather a dirt example... Apparatuses (hand trowel, sack for soil) were disseminated to each group and each group of students was combined with an educator. I enabled students to pick the zone to assemble soil tests... Students took photos as they gathered their dirt examples... They gathered soil tests per collection knowledge guideline sheet... They were requested to reflect and foresee what their examples would contain... They at that point occupied with a dialog of soil shading, particles, natural issue, soil animals, and surface. Students at that point finished their dirt surface investigation.' (from Kathy's Research report). Kathy's Orientation was aptitude driven, intending to give the students a chance to increase some involvement in request. Kathy utilized the organized request approach in her exercises: She presented the idea and gave them the assignments. She demonstrated to them the technique for completing a request by encouraging the students how to gather and break down soil tests.

Educators at the guided request level (n=6), organized their exercise designs with the goal that they represented the issue and expressed the inquiry in view of their science theme. They requested that their students discover an answer for this issue. We found that these Teachers' worries were centered around students' restricted pedagogical encounters: absence of genuine request involvement, absence of

to this present reality. Looking at their Orientations, we observed them to be centered around the procedure of request knowledge. Both revelation knowledge and venture work were two noteworthy topics in their Orientations towards science educating. These educators tended to offer an issue and conversation starters to be replied. The students at that point started to chip away at an arrangement on the most Professional method to answer these inquiries. The Teachers had the part of administering or encouraging the students. The exercises were request based intending to get the students to explore the issue. We give the accompanying case of Bertha, a fifth grade science educator. Her motivation in these exercises was to get her students to participate in more request related knowledge: 'I might want for students to take part in request based exercises to enable them to find out about biological communities.' (from Bertha's examination report). Bertha began her exercises by posturing issues about biological communities and gave an inquiry; 'I started my exercise by asking my students for what good reason we don't have natural life living space in our general vicinity... at that point I gave them inquiries regarding living spaces in the region... I let my students choose how they needed to answer the inquiries... One of the groups needed to go on the web to investigate living spaces in the region thus I let them go on the web for 45 minutes every day, ensuring that they discussioned about their discoveries after every session' (from the intelligent diary). Bertha likewise let different groups choose about their approach. When one group chose to go to the zoo, Bertha proposed a field trek to the zoo to her students: 'my students chose to watch angle in an aquarium to explore oceanic natural surroundings in the zoo, so they traveled to the zoo.' (from Bertha's advance report) . Bertha gave students time to gather and investigate their knowledge about amphibian environments. To assess their tasks, Bertha requested that her students share their outcomes: 'Upon come back from the field trip, students were enabled time to work in their groups to make little Orientations about their environment discoveries. They chose to make diagrams or blurbs about their discoveries. A few students utilized pictures from the web, while others utilized photographs they had taken at the zoo. The Orientations were assessed by me, in view of Orientation of environment materials and general support in the group (from Bertha's intelligent diary). Bertha's Orientation toward teaching was content and request driven utilizing a task based approach. Her level of request was guided. Despite the fact that she expected her students to do request, she gave them 'guided' inquiries to investigate. She animated the utilization of request exercises to have her students pick up a bona fide request involvement in the field. We discovered just two Teachers who intended to utilize an open request approach in their exercise designs. These educators connected comparable request exercises in their exercise designs as level 3 Teachers. In any case, the distinction with the past groups is that these Teachers did not suggest inquire about conversation starters to the students. In the two cases, the Teachers presented the point and urged the students to think of inquiries for investigate. After the students offered a few conversation starters, the educator had a classroom discussion on what questions merited examining and the students were partitioned into groups to begin taking a shot at an examination design. Illustrations: 'Students ask their own 'genuine' inquiries, they took proprietorship in their venture and were propelled to learn' (from Lila's advance report). 'Since request based knowledge is student started, I took my students to the lake behind the school and let them discussion about with each other what they needed to explore and why.' (from Brenda's advance report). The two Teachers planned to consolidate request knowledge into the lives of their students. Brenda needed the students to investigate their own particular characteristic environment, while Lila needed them to join investigation into their lives. Lila thought about her student's capacity to make explore questions: 'A few students experienced issues considering what things to ask. I don't know whether the errand allocated was troublesome or that the real composition of the inquiry was troublesome. I imagine that later on I have to invest more energy in specialized written work and spotlight on the utilization of dialect.' (Lila's intelligent diary) The two Teachers chose that task based science would assist them with reaching their objective. We found that these educators had comparable Orientations to the level 3 group. The Orientations towards science teaching included task based science, and request knowledge: 'I have been passing up a major opportunity for a considerable measure of incredible things that are going on in the realm of request based knowledge. I have been utilizing hands-on exercises for a long time, however I haven't enabled my students to develop the knowledge. I am on edge to perceive how my students react when given the chance to design their very own portion tracks for knowledge. This year I need to have them outline their own particular undertakings as opposed to doing little hands-on exercises in class.' (Brenda's intelligent diary) In the succession of the arranged classroom exercises, these educators let students choose how they needed to answer their Research questions. In such manner the educators encouraged their plans. 'In October I put the students in groups of four. Each group picked an environment that was not found in our general vicinity. The groups looked into their own

handle work. Every one of the groups exhibited their discoveries and made a visual show for the class.' (Brenda's advance report) The two educators utilized open request to encourage their students in their undertakings. We found that both of these educators were content and request arranged utilizing venture based knowledge and request figuring out how to achieve their objective.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V KoeWer (Ed.), The educator's handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84-111). New York: Longman. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., Wubbels, T., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). The professional development of teachers. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 261-274). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1-14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan. Furio, C., Vilches, A., Guisasola, J., & Romo, V. (2002). Spanish teachers‘ views of the goals of science education in secondary education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, pp. 936-960. Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 84, pp. 6-12. Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C. (2000). Assessing teachers‘ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, pp. 275-292. Lyons, L., Freitag, P. K., & Hewson, P. W. (1997). Dichotomy in thinking, dilemma in actions: Researcher and teacher perspectives on a chemistry teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), pp. 239-254. N.G. Lederman (Eds.) Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-120). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for Understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10). pp. 1281-1299. Sanger, M. J. (2008). How does inquiry-based instruction affect teaching major‘s views about teaching and learning science? Journal of Chemical Education, 85(2), pp. 297-302. Tsui, C. Y. & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students‘ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), pp. 1073-1098.s Van der Rijst, R. M. (2009). The research-teaching nexus in the sciences: Scientific research dispositions and teaching practice. Doctoral dissertation. Leiden University. Viiri, J. (2003). Engineering teachers‘ pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Engineering Education, 28(3), pp. 353-359. Wallace, J. (2003). Introduction: Learning about teacher learning: reflections of a science educator. In J. Wallace and J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge Falmer. Zwart, R. C. (2007). Teacher learning in a context of reciprocal peer coaching. Doctoral dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen. Zwart, 13(2), pp. 165-187.

Research Scholar, Swami Vivekanand University, Sagar, MP