Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Exploring its Usefulness for Science Lecturers in Higher Education

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past 30 years, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) frameworks have become important constructs in educational research undertaken in the school education system and a focus for research for curriculum and teacher education researchers. As regards science, PCK research has been plentiful, but thus far, the concept of PCK (significantly enhanced since its proposal) has only been validated in the school context (Kindergarten to Grade 12). Within this environment, however, it has proven to be a very useful construct for understanding teacher practice and contributing to the improvement of teacher education courses. Knowledge about whether PCK is useful as a conceptual framework for science lecturers (teachers) working in higher education is as yet unknown and represents a gap in the research literature; the research outlined here is a first step in exploring its usefulness in this context. This paper provides an analysis of data obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with nine Australian science university lecturers from various disciplines and levels of seniority and experience of tertiary teaching, as well as an academic developer skilled in facilitating science academics’ understanding of pedagogy in higher education. The research aimed to investigate the extent to which one version of a school-based science PCK framework resonated with the pedagogical thinking of university science lecturers and the ways in which it could influence their teaching practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Includes engagement with the literature around science pedagogy and learning from and contribution to SoTL and the advancement of scholarly science teaching through DBER.

  2. Incorporates content based on/in research: learning about other’s research through incorporating current research into the content that is taught.

  3. Incorporates enquiry-based learning into the teaching context.

  4. Incorporates teaching strategies and learning experiences which help students understand research methods and what it means to undertake research in science.

References

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education. ACER research monograph No 63. Victoria: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barmby, P., Kind, P., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason: living with ideology in the university. Buckingham: Open University/SRHE.

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.

  • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucat, R. (2004). Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward: applied research in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, S. D., Pelaez, N. J., Rudd, J. A., Stevens, M. T., Tanner, K. D., & Williams, K. S. (2011). Investigation of science faculty with education specialties within the largest university system in the United States. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 25–42.

  • Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary-school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferndandez-Balboa, J.-M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge amoung college professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. A., & Hackerman, N. (Eds.). (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington: National Academies.

  • Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H. & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358--376.

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Explaining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3--17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College.

  • Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of ‘dumbing down’. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.

  • Healey, M. (2005a). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, M. (2005b). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching. (pp. 67–78). McGraw Hill: Open University.

  • Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S.-Y., Guan, S.-Y., & Hsieh, H.-F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, A., Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (2003). Re-shaping higher education: linking teaching and research. London: SEDA / Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 33(1), 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: focus on science instructors. Higher Education, 50(2), 323–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2003). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: from a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.

  • McMillan, J. (2005). Course change and attrition from higher education. LSAY Research Reports. Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report; n.39. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/43

  • Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning—theory and practice ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

  • Middlehurst, R., & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and management in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 17(3), 251–265.

  • Murray, F. B. (1994). “Meno” and the teaching of teachers to teach excellently. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 379–390.

  • Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: a framework for analysis. Higher Education, 23(2), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, Z. (2009). The essential guide to doing research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, A. (2008). Staying the course: retention and attrition in Australian Universities. Paper presented at the Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum. Retrieved from http://www.spre.com.au/download/AUIDFRetentionResultsFindings.pdf

  • Olszewski, J., Neumann, K & Fischer, H. E. (2009). Measuring physics teachers’ declarative and procedural PCK. Paper presented at ESERA Conference. Retrieved from http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/floolo/files/2011/10/Book1_CSER_Teaching.pdf#page=101

  • Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, K., & van Driel, J. (2011). The relationships between PCK components: the case of quantum chemistry professors. Chemistry Education Resource and Practice, 12, 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, K., Ponce-de-León, A. M., Rembado, F. M., & Garritz, A. (2008). Undergraduate professors’ pedagogical content knowledge: the case of ‘amount of substance’. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1389–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86, 79–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–26). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986b). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

  • Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different countries relate to science and technology? (Results and perspectives from the project ROSE). Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1–17.

  • Sullivan, D. F. (1991). What works: building natural science communities, Vol II. Washington: Project Kaleidoscope.

  • Sunal, D. W., Wright, E. L., & Day, J. B. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century. Greenwich: IAP Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Changing approaches to teaching: a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell: ACER.

  • van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vardi, I. (2011). The changing relationship between the scholarship of teaching (and learning) and universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(1), 1--7.

  • Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1307, Launceston, TAS, 7250, Australia

    Sharon P. Fraser

Authors
  1. Sharon P. Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon P. Fraser.

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule

Interview Schedule

Part A: Experience of Teaching Their Discipline

  1. 1.

    What science discipline would you say that you mostly align with?

  2. 2.

    What science subjects do you teach?

    1. a.

      Do they directly relate to your discipline area?

  3. 3.

    Do you and/or how long have you been teaching in your discipline at university level?

  4. 4.

    What is your experience of teaching in universities, for example, have you been a tutor as well as a lecturer, and have you been solely responsible for the development of your own units of study?

  5. 5.

    Can you describe for me your beliefs about teaching? For example,

    1. a.

      What do you aim to do in your teaching?

    2. b.

      Does your subject matter affect your beliefs about teaching or learning?

  6. 6.

    Can you describe for me your approach to teaching or how you teach, perhaps providing some examples for clarification?

  7. 7.

    Are there any particular conceptual frameworks that you have drawn upon to assist you in thinking about your curriculum development and teaching practice, or do you find any particularly influential as regards your pedagogical thinking and why?

Part B: The PCK Framework

  1. 8.

    To what extent and/or in what ways does the school-based science PCK framework resonate with you as a university science lecturer?

  2. 9.

    To what extent and/or in what ways do you think that the school-based science PCK framework might influence the teaching practice of university science lecturers?

  3. 10.

    Do you have any suggestions for how the framework might be enhanced to increase its relevance for university science lecturers?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fraser, S.P. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Exploring its Usefulness for Science Lecturers in Higher Education. Res Sci Educ 46, 141–161 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9459-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9459-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation