Dancing with Maggots and Saints: Visions for Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teacher Education Reform

Abstract

IntroductionAre you not mad, my friend? What time o’ the’ moon is’t? Have not youmaggots in your brain? (Fletcher, 1620)Historically, having maggots in your brain was an appealing notion. Fancifuldance tunes of the 1700’s by such titles as “Cary’s Maggots” and “Barker’s Maggots”celebrated whimsical, footloose, and fancy-free characters. The phrase, “When themaggot bites” quite literally suggested one who was swept away with capriciousand fickle thoughts. Folklore suggested that if the maggot’s bite was hexagonal,then poetry would consume that person; if circular – then eloquence; if conical –politics. But an academic distinction exists between being a visionary and simplyhaving visions, just as there is a fine line between being whimsical or imaginativeand being “mad as a hatter” — the absence of level-headed thinking. It is of historicalinterest to note that during this same time period, mercurous nitrate was used tomake felt for hats, and its poisonous effects produced a dance of an unstable rhythm—Saint Vitus’ Dance.One can only speculate that the shape of the maggot’s bite for educationalreform is probably triangular, albeit ragged around the edges. I suggest this onlybecause a centerpiece of educational reform (at least within the circles of scienceteacher education) has been largely a tripartite structure with the anchoring pointsbeing teachers’ subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The idea of a tripartite structure thatseems to capture the fundamental attributes of an entity is certainly not new. One isreminded of Plato’s three parts of the soul (reason, appetites, and spirit [ thumos]) orFreud’s notion of personality (id, ego, and superego). Still, Shulman (1986a; 1986b;1987; Shulman & Sparks, 1992) was certainly an instrumental visionary inadvancing the importance and distinction among SMK, PK, and PCK. Shulmanviewed these domains of knowledge as separate but interacting. While Shulman(1987) advanced other categories or “domains” for teacher knowledge (e.g. curricularknowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledgeof philosophical and historical aims of education), SMK, PK, and PCK remained atthe forefront of what is essential to effective science teaching. Assuming that manyteacher educators would assent to the claim that this tripartite structure constitutesa large share of the attributes behind being a(n) “exemplary,” “model,” or “effective