Research in Science Education 31: 267288, 2001.

2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

A Complete Circuit is a Complete Circle:

Exploring the Potential of Case Materials and Methods to Develop Teachers
Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Science
Kirsten R. Daehler1 and Mayumi Shinohara2
1 WestEd-San Francisco, California
2 WestEd-Oakland, California
Abstract
This study explores the potential of science teaching cases to deepen teachers content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge. Discussions of a single case were facilitated with three separate
groups of elementary teachers (18 total). Transcriptions of these discussions were analysed according
to what each group talked about, the depth of their discussions, and how and when they explored the
meaning of challenging science concepts and related this understanding to their pedagogical reasoning. While many teachers began the discussion without a clear understanding of certain key concepts,
after a two-hour case discussion and brief hands-on activities they collaboratively developed a deeper
understanding of the content. At the same time teachers refined their pedagogical content knowledge
around what makes this content hard or easy for Year 4 students and analysed instructional strategies
to help students comprehend these tough concepts. Furthermore, the sequence of topics discussed
appeared to influence the depth and richness of the groups pedagogical discourse.
Key Words: science cases, teacher education and pedagogical content knowledge

Many elementary teachers are eager to have a better understanding of the physical
science they are required to teach their students. Yet knowing the science alone is not
enough. Teachers also want to learn effective ways of making the science comprehensible to their young students. Our project, Science Cases for Teacher Learning, aims
to meet these essential teacher needs by developing powerful professional development tools science teaching cases. We facilitate discussions of these science cases
and related hands-on activities with groups of elementary teachers (first through fifth
year) who come together once a month for an entire year. One elementary teacher
talks about his experience:
This has been a really terrific experience . . . its the first teacher opportunity for learning that has gone to
the conceptual level. You know where you are looking at the higher-order thinking. Youre looking at a
case and something happened, but youre really looking at the [science] concepts. Youre looking at what
are the children thinking? What is the teacher thinking? What is the teacher doing? . . . Youre doing an
in-depth analysis and that is the most valuable part, the thing thats really necessary and that we dont
often get a chance to do.

This teacher describes the kind of professional development experience that many
of us strive to achieve. We are thrilled to hear such words, yet for researchers these

268

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

comments engender a restlessness that begs us to ask other important questions about
the experience. For example, what aspects of the experience contribute to this kind
of rich opportunity for teacher learning? How do we ensure that teachers can simultaneously explore the meaning of challenging science content, focus on how children
think about that science, and critically analyse instruction to better understand what
does and does not work? And, in the words of Shulman (1986, p. 9), how do we help
teachers go beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject
matter knowledge for teaching?
In this paper, we look at what leads us to believe that science cases are a powerful and uniquely integrated approach to teacher learning. By integrated we mean
a curriculum or carefully sequenced collection of cases that interweaves teachers
learning of two types of knowledge: content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK). Our cases acknowledge that teaching is an inherently complex art
requiring teachers to make decisions that simultaneously draw on their knowledge
of the learner, the subject matter, instruction, and pedagogical content knowledge.
For example, our cases do not teach electricity and magnetism concepts separate
from the context of elementary science classrooms and young learners needs. Instead, the curriculum presents a real-life teaching dilemma that interweaves multiple
components, yet focuses on content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.
In this study, by examining three separate discussions of the same case one
specifically designed to deepen teachers science content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge we explore the following questions:
1. How much (and what kind of) content knowledge do teachers need in order to
have a rich discussion about hard pedagogical content questions such as: what
makes this particular science easy or hard for students to learn? and what are
successful ways of making challenging science ideas comprehensible to young
learners?
2. To what extent does an integrated teaching case contribute to the content and richness of teachers discussions? To what extent does an integrated case influence
how teachers talk about science and the pedagogical decisions related to teaching
that science?
To gain insight into these questions, we facilitated discussions of the same science
case with three separate groups of elementary teachers. Two of the groups were composed of teachers who had previously participated in year-long discussion groups
and were thus experienced in this type of professional development. The third group
consisted of teachers who had little or no experience with cases. We then analysed
what each group talked about, the depth of their discussions, and how and when they
explored the meaning of challenging science concepts and related this understanding
to their pedagogical reasoning.
Given that teacher knowledge and, more specifically, pedagogical content knowledge is a complicated and inherently ambiguous notion that is open to a myriad of interpretations, we chose a framework for this study that draws on Shulmans and others (Grossman, 1990; Marks, 1990; Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; FernndezBalboa & Stiehl, 1995; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998) research around teacher

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

269

knowledge. More specifically, when we analysed what teachers talked about in case
discussions, we looked at three generally agreed upon foundational types of teacher
knowledge (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998): content knowledge (CK); knowledge of learners (KL); and knowledge of instructional strategies and materials (KI).
We took content knowledge (CK) to mean portions of a discussion that centred
around teachers own understandings of specific science concepts (for example, what
is a complete electrical circuit). When teachers spoke about the ways elementary students think and learn in general (for example, 10-year-old students make judgements
based on concrete observations), we characterised this as knowledge of learners
(KL). And teachers identification and description of instructional strategies and/or
materials we characterised as KI (for example, guided inquiry using batteries, wires
and bulbs).
We further analysed what teachers talked about in terms of Shulmans two types of
pedagogical content knowledge: (PCK1) an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult for students; and (PCK2) knowledge of ways of
representing and formulating subject matter to make it comprehensible to learners.
When we looked at teachers understanding of what makes a topic easy or difficult
to learn, we characterised conversations as PCK1 if they were very context-specific
and incorporated what teachers knew about the content (CK) and the learner (KL).
For example, a predominantly PCK1 discussion might be about Year 4 students
confusion with short circuits and the relationship between complete circuits and short
circuits. In contrast, as teachers explored ways to make a specific science concept
comprehensible, to certain students in a given context, such as using the metaphor of
a circle to help Year 4 students better understand complete circuits, we characterised
these conversations as predominantly PCK2. While these PCK2 discussions incorporated elements of CK, KL and KI, they were context-specific and characterised by
pedagogical reasoning and analysis rather than being merely descriptive in nature.
While each of the five types of teacher knowledge described above may in theory
appear independent and unique, in practice we found the relationship among and
between categories complex. However, employing this framework allowed us to explore how the types of knowledge serve as a foundation to teachers discussions and
their ultimate understanding of pedagogical content issues. Furthermore, this framework adds clarity to our understanding of what makes for a successfully integrated
curriculum that fosters important teacher learning.

Background
Purpose and Design of PCK Cases
This research was conducted as part of a project to develop cases that deepen
teachers content and pedagogical content knowledge of science. Over the past three
years, we have been developing sequenced collections of physical science cases for
elementary teachers. Most recently we are developing cases to promote investigation

270

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

of a narrowly defined domain electricity and magnetism concepts typically taught

in the elementary years. Our focus on teachers content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge addresses an area of great need for elementary teachers. For example, in the United States of America, more than 85 percent of elementary teachers
believe their preparation in physical science is inadequate (Weiss, 1994) and many
K-6 teachers have never taken a college-level science course. Furthermore, research
shows that children, and all too often their teachers, hold firmly to incorrect notions
of key science concepts (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Stavy, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1993). The result is that many teachers do not feel confident
or competent in science content and how to teach science to their students. Given this
reality, our integrated cases focus on science content, the ambiguities and contradictions of that content, and how teachers can help make this science comprehensible to
their students. Sequenced collections of cases are designed to help teachers:
1. build a deeper and more flexible understanding of physical science;
2. consider the ways in which children are inclined to think about and sometimes
misunderstand science concepts; and,
3. use instructional strategies, materials and explanations to more effectively illustrate and communicate the meaning of science concepts.
While the term teaching case has been broadly applied to a range of media, such
as written, video, and web-based cases, our cases are brief, highly focused, written
narratives that capture a real classroom dilemma, one that any teacher might face.
Each case is carefully crafted to bring content questions to the surface and reveal
pitfalls frequently encountered by students learning that content. They also incorporate authentic student work and highlight commonly used instructional strategies,
activities, materials, and explanations. Teachers grapple with these cases in analytic,
reflective, give-and-take discussions, with the intent of developing a complex and
highly interconnected understanding of specific concepts, the ways in which students think about and sometimes misunderstand those concepts, and the tradeoffs of
different instructional approaches.

Synopsis of a Sample PCK Case

The case featured in this paper, A Complete Circuit is a Complete Circle, presents a
real-life dilemma encountered by a fourth year teacher who taught a series of lessons
on electric circuits. The case begins with the teacher asking students to find a way
to light a small flashlight bulb using a D-cell battery and two wires. To get them
started, the teacher offers a hint, What you want to do is create a circuit, a path for
electricity to flow through. The word circuit actually means circle, a complete circle
from one end of the battery to the other end of the battery. As students complete
the task, she introduces new challenges and information. She asks, How could you
light the bulb using only one wire? Interspersed with these hands-on activities and
direct instruction, students used science journals to draw circuits and write about
their thinking.

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

271

As the fifth lesson draws to an end, the teacher decides to gauge their progress
with the following journal assignment:

Look at diagram above. Do You think the bulb will light? Why or why not?

Figure 1: Journal assignment drawn from sample PCK case.

Much to her surprise, 28 of the 32 students mistakenly answer that the bulb will
light. Thinking that students may not be looking closely at the diagram, she introduces a second diagram, and changes the question as follows:

Which of these circuits will make the bulb light? A, B or both?

Figure 2: Second journal assignment drawn from sample PCK case.

Although the addition of circuit B prompts many children to change their answers,
roughly half remain convinced that circuit A will light. Students written explanations reveal confusion around what they observed, their ideas about a circuit being a
circle, and how they think about the flow of electricity in circuits.
The case ends with the teachers own reflections and ideas regarding what to do
next. As she says in the case:
I wanted my students to understand the notion of a complete circuit, that its a closed path that begins at
one end of the battery and ends at the other end of the battery. I also wanted them to develop simple ideas
about electrical current: how it needs a closed path to flow in a circuit; that a light shining indicates that
electricity is flowing, etc. And when I began teaching the unit, I thought short circuits were a great way of
getting at those ideas.

272

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

By the end, the teacher questions her introduction of short circuits and wonders
how short circuits might have contributed to students confusion about complete
circuits or revealed their already incorrect underlying notions about circuits.
Methods
To explore the research questions posed in the introduction to this paper, we facilitated a discussion of the same science teaching case with three separate groups of
elementary science teachers and analysed the resulting discourse. These discussions
yielded rich data in the form of audiotapes, facilitator field notes, and discussion
artefacts. Discussion artefacts were generated when teachers wrote or drew on chart
paper to explain their thinking and when facilitators maintained a public record of
the discussion. They included items such as diagrams, interpretations of student
thinking, analyses of teaching strategies, and illustrations of activities and materials. Descriptions of the discussion format, participants, and methods of analyses are
included below.

Discussion Format
To begin each two-and-a-half hour case discussion, teachers first read the case and
then participate in brief warm-up activities to focus their attention on key elements of
the case and gain coherence as a group. Warm-up activities include: short, hands-on
investigations drawn from the case; a review of the facts in the case to turn teachers
attention to details about the content, instruction and student thinking; and work in
pairs where teachers articulate questions generated by the case. After completing
the warm-up activities, participants prioritise areas of interest and identify a discussion starting point based on the questions that they themselves generate. The
facilitator, who is often a science educator, lead teacher or science resource teacher,
helps focus the discussion, promotes a deep level of thinking, encourages teachers
to build on each others ideas, ensures equitable participation, and helps the group
respect differences in ideas. The facilitator guides the discussion, asking participants
to make sense of patterns and evidence from their hands-on investigation and connect
those findings to students responses and interpretations in the case. In addition, the
facilitator encourages the group to consider the tradeoffs of instructional strategies,
activities, materials, and explanations.

Participants
Three groups of teachers (six teachers per group) participated in a discussion of the
case. The first two groups (Experienced Groups 1 & 2) were composed of teachers
who were quite familiar with science teaching cases and had participated extensively
in project activities, either as case discussants in year-long study groups, case writers,

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

273

or both. The Novice Group was composed of teachers who had little or no experience
with cases. Nearly all of the 18 teachers taught in different schools that are part of
the same urban school district in Northern California. This district serves a large
population of low-income and immigrant students who collectively speak more than
40 different home languages.
Experienced Group 1 consisted of six elementary teachers (first through fifth year)
from different schools who knew each other through project activities. Several of
these participants had previously written cases for the project and were considered
exceptional science teachers with considerable professional development experience.
Of the six teachers, three had more than 10 years of teaching experience and no
teacher had fewer than five years of experience.
Experienced Group 2 consisted of six kindergarten through third year teachers.
Like the teachers in the first group, these teachers had all been involved in year-long
case discussion groups; however, they did not know each other because they had
participated in different study groups throughout the year. Of the six teachers, two
had more than 10 years of teaching experience and none had fewer than five years of
experience.
Novice Group consisted of six elementary (first through fifth year)teachers. Unlike
the two experienced groups, these teachers were all from the same school and had
not previously participated in the project. Their science backgrounds and teaching
experiences varied widely. One teacher, for example, was completing his first year
of teaching, while two others each had more than 10 years of teaching experience.
Further, two of the teachers had more than five years of teaching experience along
with a significant amount of science content knowledge. These same two participated
in a great number of professional development opportunities and led training for
other science teachers.

Analyses
We analysed transcripts from the three discussions of the same case and identified
what types of knowledge each group talked about and then looked more closely
at the depth of teachers conversations. By using depth of group talk as a measure
of teachers level of understanding, we wanted to see the degree to which teachers
simultaneously made progress toward a more robust understanding of both content
knowledge and PCK. More specifically we wanted to know: In what ways would the
case discussion benefit teachers own learning? Could teachers simultaneously learn
challenging science concepts and quickly apply this to their understanding of how to
represent this knowledge to elementary students?
To help us to better understand the ways in which an integrated case also affects
the processes of teachers discussions, we also scrutinised when and how teachers
talked about science concepts and pedagogical issues. Our intent was to explore the
sequence of topics in these conversations. In other words, do teachers talk about
topics in a given order? Are some topic sequences more fruitful than others? How

274

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

much and what type of content knowledge do teachers need in order to have a rich
discussion about hard pedagogical questions, particularly: what makes this science
easy or challenging for students to learn? and what are successful ways of making
challenging science ideas comprehensible to young learners? Do teachers experience and subject matter knowledge serve as prerequisites for the development of
higher levels of PCK, as other research suggests (Smith & Neale, 1989; Clermont,
Krajcik, & Borko, 1993; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994)?

Analysis of What Teachers Talk About and the Depth of their Discussions
When writing the case, we identified topics that we anticipated teachers would
discuss. These topics, or target features, are based on the framework of teacher
knowledge described in the introduction to this paper. They relate directly to the three
foundational types of teacher knowledge (that is, content knowledge, knowledge of
learners, and knowledge of instructional strategies and materials), along with Shulmans two types of pedagogical content knowledge (that is, an understanding of what
makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult for students; and knowledge of
ways of representing and formulating subject matter to make it comprehensible to
learners). Several examples of target features specific to this case are described in
detail in Table 1.
In our analysis of the discussion transcripts we used this construct of target features and a four-point rubric that describes evidence of the progress a group makes
toward a rich discussion of each feature. Each of the authors of this paper coded
the discussion transcripts according to each intended feature. Individual scores were
then compared and when differences existed, raters discussed evidence from the data
and reached consensus on a final rating. Next, we determined a single holistic value
to represent the relative depth of discussion for each intended feature. As one way to
indicate the impact of the discussions, we used the depth of group talk as a measure
of teachers level of understanding (or learning). From this analysis we are not able
to know what individual teachers understand, nor can we say that everything the
group talked about they learned from the discussion. Furthermore, the discussion
transcripts are biased in their representation of the teachers who talked the most.
Given all of this, using depth of teachers talk is a window into what teachers can
gain from a case discussion and their level of comfort with the science content and
pedagogical issues.

Analysis of When and How Teachers Talk About the Target Features
In the second stage of discourse analysis, we separated each groups conversation into episodes of natural discussion and identified the target feature(s) the group
talked about in each episode. Then we marked one target feature as the primary focus
of the episode. Lastly, simple diagrams were constructed to represent the sequence

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

275

Table 1
Description of Target Features for the Case.
Target features

Description of the target feature

Content Knowledge
(CK) exploring the
meaning of circuits

One purpose of this case is to spark discussions of science that help teachers clarify their own understanding
of circuits. Embedded in the case are details that help
teachers collaboratively explore questions such as: What
are circuits, complete circuits, and short circuits? What
is the observable evidence of a complete circuit? What
is the observable evidence of a short circuit? How can
you describe the flow of electricity in each of these types
of circuits? How are these circuits different (and the
same)?

Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK1)
challenging ideas

Equally important, the case is meant to help teachers

develop a better understanding of what is challenging
or difficult for students to understand about circuits and
why. What is particularly tricky about this idea is that
children (and adults) can think about complete, incomplete, and short circuits from two distinctly different
perspectives. For example, when children think about circuits and focus on whether a light bulb in the circuit
is on or off, they typically categorise short circuits as a
kind of incomplete circuit, because in both situations the
light is off. Lets call this World View 1 (illustrated in
Figure 3). However, when people think about complete
circuits in terms of the flow of electricity, short circuits
are seen as an example of a complete circuit, because in
both of these situations electricity is flowing. Well call
this World View 2. Understanding the complexity of
this shifting relationship can help teachers make better
decisions about when and how to introduce short circuits
and more effectively help their students think in terms of
the flow of electricity.

and flow of episodes in each discussion. These diagrams, referred to as discussion

flow charts, were compared for patterns within and across the three groups to characterise fundamental processes involved in each groups collaborative construction
of pedagogical content knowledge of science (Figure 5). In this study, we defined
episodes as contiguous portions of a discussion in which the teachers exchanges
share a common topic. A new episode is marked by a shift in the conversation to a
different topic.

276

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

Table 1
(Continued.)
Target features

Description of the target feature

Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK2)
instructional representations

An ultimate goal of this case is to provide a context for

teachers to critically analyse instructional practices and
evaluate what strategies or representations make circuits
most comprehensible to fourth year students. To introduce the notion of complete circuits, the teacher in this
case says that a circuit is like a circle. Students in the
case quickly grasp what is at the heart of her metaphor
and successfully use it to jump start their circuit investigations. However, they soon run into problems as
they over-apply the metaphor and fail to understand its
limitations. Teachers who discuss this case may identify benefits and limitations of the metaphor, consider
ways of adapting it, or experiment with alternative solutions.

Figure 3: Relationships among key concepts two world views.

Results
In this section, we examine the patterns, trends, and surprises that emerged from
our analysis of the case discussions. First we look specifically at the content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) targeted features for each
of the three groups and compare the depth of their discussions according to these
features. We further illustrate the nature of teachers case discussions by sharing
excerpts from discussion transcripts. Then, we delve deeper into the patterns of
sequence and flow that emerged when we looked at when and how teachers talk
about these target features.

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

277

What did teachers talk about? What was the depth of their discussions?
All three Groups talked about the intended features that relate directly to the three
foundational types of teacher knowledge (CK, KL and KI). However, differences
between the two experienced groups and the novice groups were more pronounced
when comparing their conversations around the target features that focus on deepening teachers content knowledge and pedagogical reasoning. Both Experienced
Groups reached rich levels of discussion around CK and both PCK features. However the Novice Group made only limited progress toward their own understanding
of circuits (CK), along with articulating what makes circuits hard for elementary
students to learn (PCK1). In addition, the Novice Group did not critically analyse
instruction to consider how to make circuits more comprehensible to elementary
students (PCK2) (Table 2).
Content knowledge: Exploring science meanings While all three groups worked to
make sense of the science content, the Novice Group did not make as much progress
in their exploration of circuits. Conversely, teachers in both Experienced Groups
quickly gravitated to questions of content during their discussions. For example, what
are complete, incomplete, and short circuits? How are they related to one another?
What are their observable characteristics? And how does electricity flow in each type
of circuit? These questions formed a common thread of inquiry in each discussion
as teachers explored the meaning of science concepts being taught in the case. To
address them, teachers used facts embedded in the narrative, observations from their
hands-on work, and experiences from their own classrooms and professional development. For example, in discussions teachers continually returned to the definition
of a complete circuit provided in the case a pathway for electricity to flow from one
end of the battery to the other and reminded each other that a short circuit is when
your fingers get hot.
Both Experienced Groups reached a rich level of discussion, meaning they collaboratively defined complete, incomplete, and short circuits. These two groups
could also collectively articulate and/or demonstrate the observable evidence of each
different type of circuit. The extent and depth of their talk demonstrates a high level
of sense-making about the subject matter.
To further explore the nature of these discussions, the remainder of this section
describes and illustrates the kinds of content discussions we observed using excerpts
and quotes from the discussion transcripts. The excerpt below is drawn from the
fifth episode found in Experienced Group 2s transcript. As you read, notice how
the discussion provides fertile ground for teachers to learn science from each other
and generate new understandings, and how the discussion provides rich evidence of
progress toward this goal. Finally, note that while the discussion squarely focuses
on exploring science meaning, it also has elements of pedagogical reasoning around
what makes the science hard for students.
Excerpt from Experienced Group 2 Prior to this point in the transcript, several teachers in the group had expressed a desire to start with the science. After a brief

278

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

Table 2
Depth of Discussions About Science by Group and Target Feature.
Target features of discussion

Depth of actual discussions

Experienced Experienced Novice
Group 1
Group 2
Group

Content Knowledge (CK) exploring the xxx

meaning of circuits:
What are circuits, complete circuits, and
short circuits? What is the observable evidence of a complete circuit? What is the
observable evidence of a short circuit?

xxx

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK1) xxx

challenging ideas:
What makes circuits hard for elementary
students to learn? How are the different
types of circuits interrelated? How do students think about complete circuits? How
do students think about the flow of electricity? How do they think about words like
circle and short?
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK2) xxx
instructional representations:
What are the benefits and limitations of
the circuit is like a circle metaphor?
What instructional strategies and materials
would help make circuits comprehensible
to students?

xxx

xxx

Notes: indicates little or no evidence of discussion of intended feature; x indicates

limited evidence of progress toward goal; xx indicates adequate/some evidence of
progress toward goal; xxx indicates significant/rich evidence of progress toward
goal.

discussion of complete and incomplete circuits, one teacher raised the question of
short circuits. (Note: T = teacher and F = facilitator)
T5: What I really dont get is short circuits. Are they complete or not?
T2: I need to go back to the definition. The teacher [in the case] says that a complete
circuit is a complete circle from one end of the battery to the other end of the
battery. And we know that thats right. And that allows the electricity to flow.

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

279

F: So if thats our definition of a complete circuit, then is a short circuit a complete

circuit?
T3: Yes. [holding up a battery and a wire] The wire goes from one end to the other.
T4: Yeah, I guess. But the teacher also tells kids that their job is to make the bulbs
light. Shes saying that if the light bulb lights, its a complete circuit.
T2: I agree. And I think that thats a point of confusion for kids, because a short
circuit is a complete circuit, but no light bulb lights.
T5: So a short circuit is a complete circuit even though the bulb doesnt light. Its
complete because it satisfies the teachers definition: its a complete circle from
one end of the battery to the other.
T4: And because electricity is flowing in the wire.
F: And we know that because . . ..
T4: Theres heat. Its like Monica says in her journal. Your fingers get hot.
This excerpt is a good example of the richness that can be achieved in a conversation about challenging science concepts. In the first line, T5 poses a question to the
group shifting their conversation from understanding concepts to understanding the
relationship among them. The group responds by pooling information from the case
and their hands-on experiences. T2 reminds the group of the definition presented by
the teacher in the case, while T4 adds observations described in one students journal.
T2 clarifies for the group why short circuits are hard for students to understand, thus
weaving a PCK issue into the content discussion.
At the end of the above episode, the facilitator spots an opportunity to clarify
a common conceptual snag and pushes the group to articulate the inherent ambiguities and contradictions of the science. She says to the teachers, Focus on the
relationships among complete, incomplete and short circuits. Try drawing a diagram,
concept map, or outline that shows your thinking about these relationships.
Given this suggestion one teacher shared the following diagram (Figure 4), which
surprised several members of his group.

Figure 4: Diagram drawn by a teacher discussant from Experienced Group 2.

His diagram organises concepts in terms of the flow of electricity and correctly
classifies short circuits as a subset of complete circuits. What some teachers in the
discussion found surprising was that the diagram revealed that there was a discrepancy between definitions presented in the case: (1) circuits are complete when the

280

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

light is on; and (2), circuits are complete when electricity is flowing. Both of these
definitions cannot be applied simultaneously when talking about short circuits. As
one teacher said in the discussion, Its like she (the teacher in the case) is saying
two different things, and the things just dont work together.
By contrast, the Novice Group makes only limited progress in their understanding of circuits. In their conversation, they restate the facts about complete, incomplete
and short circuits drawn from the case, but they do not examine the relationship
between the different types of circuits. Their comments appear disconnected and
rarely build on each others findings. On several occasions, when they are on the
brink of exploring the most challenging ideas, one group member or another will
turn the conversation to a different topic. For example, when trying to understand
short circuits one teacher suggests an instructional approach, Maybe we should just
tell the kids (what a short circuit is), because they would not pick up this idea Im
having trouble with it.
Pedagogical content knowledge 1: Challenging ideas For many teachers, their first
inclination is to solve the problem in the case (for example, why 28 out of 32 students got the wrong answer). This motivates them to talk about the students in general
and more specifically to analyse students work presented in the case. Based on their
analysis, they find good evidence that students understand a lot about circuits. So,
exactly where did they get confused? What caused nearly all of the students to guess
wrong? Was their something valid in these students ideas about complete circuits? If
they got the second assessment correct, what did this reveal about their understanding
of circuits?
The excerpt below is drawn from the eighth episode of the Experienced Group
1s transcript. Notice how the group speculates about various reasons for why these
fourth year students got the wrong answer. For example, they consider what the
students might be thinking when they hear the teacher say, a circuit is like a circle.
The depth of this discussion is characterised by the group going beyond the simple
categorisation of student responses as right or wrong. They consider valid, yet incorrect responses and the potential rationale for students thoughts. For example, T3
says, It really goes back to their misconceived notion that if theres a circuit, the
bulb will light. What they dont know is that there are two kinds of circuits and only
one will light the bulb. Finally, notice how the discussion represents an integrated
process that often dances between students thinking and an analysis of the teachers
practice.
Excerpt from Experienced Group 1 Prior to this excerpt, teachers talked about how
students could successfully build complete circuits, describe the flow of electricity,
correctly observe that short circuits would make your fingers get hot, and recognise
a complete circuit by seeing if the bulb lit. After identifying what these students
could do, the teachers discussion returns to talking about the first assessment that
most students got wrong.

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

281

T4: I think it is really important to decide whether the assessment is especially

good because so many kids got it wrong. . . . Did she really find out something
important by so many of the kids getting it wrong?
T2: What it says to me is that theres a major disconnect between all this work that
theyve done and looking at this diagram.
T4: Do you think its the picture or do you think its their understanding?
T3: I think its their understanding. They think A and B would both work. They are
circles, and circles are circuits.
T4: Mmm.
T3: The implication here is that circuits will light a bulb. It really goes back to their
misconceived notion that if theres a circuit, the bulb will light. What they dont
know is that there are two kinds of circuits.
T6: Actually that makes perfect sense. . . . So its all about making the bulb light,
and the teacher doesnt bring in the idea of the short circuit until near the end.
Pedagogical content knowledge 2: Instructional representation After this episode,
Experienced Group 1 talks for a short time about why the teacher presents short
circuits if this only serves to confuse students. Then they turn to a second discussion that focuses on students thinking that happens alongside analysis of the circle
metaphor.
T4: I think it [the circle metaphor] adds to the students confusion, because a circle,
you think of it as a cycle. That its going through. Or maybe you dont. It could
be a static circle. A circle doesnt imply movement.
T1: Its just a figure, a shape. Thats all.
F: So then what about circuits A and B in the case. What happens when we apply
the circle notion to those circuits?
T4: Theyre both circles, visually. I think students in year four look at those [diagrams] literally and see circles. And thats why so many of them think the
circuits must be complete.
T1: Yeah, theyre focusing on shape.
F: And whats wrong with focusing on shape?
T2: Shape gives you the wrong answer. Circuit A doesnt actually light, even though
its shaped like a circle.
T3: What matters is the flow of electricity.
F: T4 was wondering if the teachers metaphor implied movement.other people
think about that idea?
T1: I think her idea of the circle as static is right on.
T3: I was thinking that it makes it sound like the electricity goes right through the
battery and out the other end. That it just keeps going around and around and
around like a cycle. But thats not right.
Experienced Group 2s discussion showed a similar focus on students thinking
related to the assessment and the metaphor. In both of the Experienced Groups
discussions their comments are highly contextualised and relate directly to the students and the teacher in the case. The Novice Group makes only limited progress in

282

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

Figure 5: Discussion flow charts for each group.

figuring out why the science is hard for students. They can say, for example, the short
circuit is hard because students of this age think only in terms of what they observe.
If the light is off in a short circuit, then students will say it is not a complete circuit.
However, the Novice Group does not talk about the flow of electricity nor do they
talk about how the different types of circuits are interrelated.
When and how did teachers talk about each target feature?
As we look at the sequence of topics in each discussion, distinct personalities
emerge for each group. Yet clear patterns across groups are also seen. Discussion
flow charts, shown in Figure 5, illustrate these patterns and differences. For example, both experienced groups follow a science first pattern where they either talk
about content prior to turning to PCK topics, as with Experienced Group 2, or they
interweave content and PCK discussions together, as with Experienced Group 1.
These discussions of PCK issues, which were preceded by (or simultaneous with)
discussions about science concepts and student thinking, yielded rich conversations
that were complex, detailed, and both student-centred and content-centred.
In contrast, the Novice Group talked generally about how students learn (KL)
and different kinds of instruction and materials (KI). Then they turned briefly to the
science (CK) and made limited progress on their understanding of circuits. Lastly,
they explored what makes these concepts challenging for students (PCK), but only
made limited progress. In summary, the Novice Groups discussion of PCK topics
lacked depth and detail, and was not anchored in the context of specific students and
content.

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

283

How each group talked about each topic appeared to be strongly influenced by
individual group dynamics and levels of experience. For example, all teachers in
Experienced Group 1 have discussed between four and 12 cases. Collectively they
brought a strong understanding of electricity concepts to the discussion, and nearly
all of the teachers have previously taught electricity to elementary students. The
first teacher in the discussion to speak focuses on instructional representations. She
explains:
It seems like students might be very focused on the whole idea that if there is some kind of circle, then
there is this circuit. It seems like Circuit A is like, Yes there is a circle. And the light bulb is touching
the circle. They dont seem to understand that the light bulb needs to be a part of the circle in order for
there to be a circuit where the light bulb is going to light.

This initial comment sets the tone and rigor that remains throughout their discussion. For this group, nearly the entire conversation is centred on Shulmans two types
of PCK. Midway through the discussion, the group momentarily clarifies their own
content understanding of a short circuit, then they apply this to their discussion of
what makes the content challenging for students and analysis of instructional strategies and representation. This groups conversation is highly integrated from the beginning. Their PCK conversations consistently draw on teachers content knowledge,
knowledge of the learner, and knowledge of instruction and materials. Frequently the
group interweaves three or more types of knowledge in any given episode. And while
they talk simultaneously on a number of different levels, their conversation is highly
contextualised yet not sporadic or disconnected.
Experienced Group 2 began at a different place, yet they achieve a remarkably
similar level of richness in their discussions of what makes specific science concepts
challenging to students and how to make these hard concepts comprehensible to
students. One teacher expresses a desire to start with the science and the group
jumps into the hard task of making sense of their own understanding of the flow of
electricity in complete, incomplete, and short circuits. After six episodes they have
made good progress on their own understanding and are willing to be redirected to
grapple with PCK issues. The facilitator asks, Why is flow (of electricity) hard for
kids? and later, And how does the teachers definition of circuits being circles help
them (the students) and how might it add to the confusion? In the second half the
discussion becomes highly integrated as the group builds on their freshly articulated
content knowledge to consider instructional choices.
The discussion flow for the Novice Group was quite different. This is their very
first case discussion and many of the teachers do not teach students in year four. With
a few exceptions, these teachers acknowledge having a minimal understanding of
electricity concepts. They start the discussion in a safe place by talking about their
own first-hand knowledge of students and instruction. For example, in episode one, a
teacher describes his experience by saying, I think especially at our school, that Ive
seen, some kids are so limited writing and language-wise that they just dont have
the words to explain so many things. By the fifth episode, group members bravely
acknowledge their own confusion and work to make sense of challenging science

284

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

ideas. Lastly, they move to talking about what makes the science challenging for
students. This turn of events begins with a push from the facilitator who says, So
lets then look at if you did want your kids to look at the flow of electricity, what
does that mean? What are you asking them to negotiate?
In contrast with Experienced Groups 1 and 2, the Novice Groups conversation is
far less integrated. For a great majority of their discussion, the Novice Groups conversations focused exclusively on knowledge of the learner (KL) and knowledge of
instruction and materials (KI), with little overlap between topics. However in the last
two episodes, when the group begins to think about PCK issues, their conversation
also becomes more integrated.
In summary, when looking at when and how teachers talk about different topics
in conjunction with the depth of teachers PCK conversations, two interesting patterns appear. First, sequence and/or teachers level of content knowledge appear to
correlate with the depth of a groups PCK conversations. This seems true even when
teachers develop and refine their content knowledge during the case discussion. Second, groups experienced in the case discussion format seemed better able to discuss
several topics simultaneously and in an interconnected, interwoven manner. Case
discussion experience also seems to contribute to each groups success in achieving
a rich analysis of what makes a concept challenging to students and how to make
such concepts comprehensible to learners.

Discussion and Implications for the Design and Use of Science Cases
Many elementary teachers are eager, and sometime desperate, to have a better
understanding of the physical science they are required to teach their students. Yet
knowing the science alone is not enough. Teachers also want to learn effective ways
of making the science comprehensible to their students. What are these teachers
choices for learning sophisticated content and pedagogy? While a myriad of opportunities exist (for example, a university science course or a methods class) a great many
of these options represent segregated, rather than integrated, learning experiences. In
other words, teachers may learn the subject matter from an expert or scientist and
later learn strategies for teaching general science to elementary students. We believe
that our science cases are a unique and powerful approach to teacher learning. Our
integrated cases are unique in the way they provide opportunities for teachers to
simultaneously develop two of the most important, yet challenging, types of knowledge content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. More specifically,
our cases interweave science content with an understanding of what makes that particular science easy or hard for students, along with successful instructional strategies
and representations for making these same challenging science ideas comprehensible
to elementary students.
While far from conclusive, our work illustrates that this integrated case approach
can result in learning experiences where teachers collaboratively make sense of challenging science concepts, such as the relationship between complete, incomplete and

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

285

short circuits. Then, within the same discussion, teachers are also able to articulate
what makes circuits especially hard for students, thus demonstrating a sophisticated
level of pedagogical content knowledge. In two thirds of the discussions, teachers
built on their content knowledge and their understanding of students to critically
analyse practice. In other words, they also refined their pedagogical reasoning by
exploring the tradeoffs of instructional strategies and considering what is useful in
helping students comprehend these tough science concepts.
Based on the evidence from this study, we concur with the work of others whose
conclusions, albeit varied, suggest that teachers development of PCK is contingent
on their subject matter knowledge (Smith & Neale, 1989; Clermont, Krajcik, &
Borko, 1993; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994). Given this conclusion, a
more interesting question is: how much (and what type of) content knowledge do
teachers need in order to have a rich discussion about hard pedagogical content
questions? Based on our experience with case discussions, we hypothesised that
teachers need only a little content knowledge, but it must be very specific to
the teaching context presented in the case. What do we mean by a little and very
specific content knowledge? This is a bit harder to define. Perhaps an example will
help. When teachers discussed the case, A Complete Circuit is a Complete Circle,
they did not need to be experts in the field of electricity nor was it necessary for them
to understand the complex relationship between electricity and magnetism. However,
before they could refine their pedagogical reasoning around teaching year 4 students
about complete circuits and short circuits, they first had to be clear on these little
and very specific pieces of content themselves. This sounds obvious. However, the
beauty of these integrated cases is that many teachers begin the discussion without
clearly understanding such key concepts. Yet through a two-hour discussion and brief
hands-on activities, they collaboratively develop an understanding of this content. At
the same time they also refine their pedagogical content knowledge around what
makes the content hard or easy for students (PCK1) and instructional strategies to
help students comprehend these tough science concepts (PCK2).
One implication from this finding is that cases (and their accompanying handson activities) should focus on a little piece of science content that is fundamentally
important, challenging, and by nature, inherently fraught with complexities and ambiguities (for example, light travels in a straight line). Or the content should represent
a narrow domain of interrelated concepts, such as the relationship between magnets,
non-magnets and magnetic materials. If the content addressed by any single case is
too much for teachers to learn within the parameters of a discussion, they will not
have the foundation necessary to refine their PCK. It is also critical that the content
presented in the case be tightly linked to the PCK questions teachers are asked to
grapple with.
This study also indicates that the sequence in which topics are discussed can
influence the depth of teachers conversations. We found that prior to taking on
hard pedagogical issues, it was important for teachers to be clear on the ambiguities
and complexities of the related science content. Thus a facilitator might want to
encourage a group to explore the science before getting into pedagogical wrangling.

286

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

Or the facilitator may choose to direct a group to first look at the student work as a
strategy for helping teachers clarify their own understandings of the science.
Some critics may ask: how can teachers learn science content through the case
approach? While this study looked at the progress groups made toward developing
an understanding of specific science concepts, our intent was not to address specifically how teachers learn the science. However, analysis of the discussion transcripts
and our other experiences with the development and use of cases provide some insight. When teachers wrestle to understand the science, they employ a collaborative
sense-making process whereby group members pool information they glean from
a variety of sources. These sources include: factual information embedded in the
case; hands-on observations made during the guided exploration; everyday, personal
experiences; interpretation of student work; information from other people outside of
the discussion; occasionally information provided by the facilitator; and other print
and electronic resources. In addition, it appears that the integrated nature of cases and
the resulting interwoven discussions contribute to teachers learning of both content
knowledge and PCK. We hypothesise that when teachers look at science concepts
through many lenses this helps them develop a rich understanding of that science. In
an integrated case curriculum, teachers concurrently explore the meaning of science,
interpret students thinking about that science, and critically analyse practice related
to teaching that science.
What features should case curricula possess? We have identified several characteristics important in case development and use. First, the case must be tightly crafted to
focus on both the science and the teaching of that science. The scope of the science
presented cannot be too big such that the group cannot make progress in clarifying their understanding. And it is helpful if the case provides factual information,
such as definitions of key science terms. Second, we found that highly interwoven
discussions resulted in the richest discussions of PCK. Therefore, cases with a tight
coupling between content and PCK allow for sophisticated, concurrent discussion
of multiple, related topics. Third, the case needs to provide sufficient detail, context
and potential hands-on experience for teachers to be grounded in another teachers
practice. This allows teachers to have PCK discussions that are highly contextualised
and rich. Given these features, we believe teaching cases are a powerful means of
fostering teachers development of content knowledge and PCK in science.

Acknowledgments
Funding for this research was provided through a grant by the Stuart Foundation,
with supplementary funds provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Special
acknowledgment goes to Carne Barnett, Bo De Long-Cotty, Joan Heller and Kathy
Long, the colleagues without whom the conceptualisation of this work could not
have happened. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Brenda
Hamilton, Kristin Hershbell, Deborah Holtzman, Steve Schneider, Pam Tyson,

A COMPLETE CIRCUIT IS A COMPLETE CIRCLE

287

Michele Vierra and John Wallace, whose careful and critical readings of early versions of this article nudged us toward greater clarity. Wil Carson and Jon Rendell
helped with graphics. Finally, we are grateful to the teachers who participated in
this research through the Oakland Unified School District and Bay Area Schools for
Excellence in Education (a collaborative project funded by Hewlett Packard and the
National Science Foundation).
Correspondence: Kirsten R. Daehler, WestEd, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco,
CA 94107-1242, U.S.A.
E-mail: kdaehle@wested.org

References
Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive
in-service workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice
chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 2143.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing:
An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44,
263272.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Childrens ideas in science.
London: Milton Keynes.
Fernndez-Balboa, J. M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical
content knowledge among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education,
11, 293306.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129146.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a
modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 311.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15, 414.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge
in primary science teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 5, 120.
Stavy, R. (1991). Childrens ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics,
91, 240244.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers
pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673695.

288

KIRSTEN R. DAEHLER AND MAYUMI SHINOHARA

Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1993). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching
and learning (pp. 177210). New York: Macmillan.
Weiss, I. R. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United
States: 1993. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.