Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussing Paths Trodden by PCK: an Invitation to Reflection

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

Abstract

Some researchers have investigated teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) concerning scientific practices. However, from a review of the literature on the PCK construct and its use for characterising teachers’ knowledge of scientific practices, as well as from a discussion of possible interpretations that emerge from the derived construct PCK of scientific practices, this paper discusses the current complexity of PCK from an analysis of the paths that have been taken in the last few decades. From this, we (i) raise some points and questions aiming at fostering reflections on the use of the PCK construct to characterise teachers’ knowledge related to scientific practices and (ii) emphasise the need to think about alternative models for this purpose. Thus, one of the contributions of this paper is to emphasise the need for further studies aiming at characterising teaching knowledge in domains of scientific practices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The processes of production, expression, testing, reformulation, evaluation, and communication of models (Gilbert and Justi 2016).

  2. Following Jiménez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2008), we assume that argumentation refers to a social process that involves discussion and evaluation of statements based on evidence, whilst argument relates to the product generated in this argumentative process. In science, arguments may be represented by scientific statements (claims supported by evidence and justified from a theoretical framework), and argumentation is involved in the production, dissemination, and evaluation of such statements.

  3. The reflection-in-action is related to the knowledge implicit in the action which supports the reflection triggered during the performance of the pedagogical action (Schön, 1983).

  4. The reflection-on-action occurs at a later moment in regard to the pedagogical action and it refers to the reflection on both: the action itself and the knowledge implicit in it (Schön, 1983).

  5. Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) is another name for content knowledge.

  6. At this event, researchers were invited to present a synthesis of their research, in order to make the nature of PCK in the models they used explicit, as well as the relationship of PCK with other teaching knowledge. For further details, see Berry et al. (2015).

  7. As far as we know, this revised version of the PCK Consensus Model is being revised. Despite this, we opted for discussing some of its elements and characteristics because (i) by now, this is the most recent model available in the literature, and (ii) such elements and characteristics are important in our further discussions.

  8. According to Osborne (2016), content knowledge involves knowledge of scientific facts, theories, and concepts (p. 229).

References

  • Berry, A., Loughran, J., & van Driel, J. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1271–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (teaching and learning in science series). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A., Nilsson, P., Van Driel, J., & Carlson, J. (2017). Analysing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: a report on the second PCK summit. Paper presented at the 12nd Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Dublin,

  • Bullough, R. V. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge circa 1907 and 1987: a study in the history of an idea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 655–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). Model of teacher professional knowledge. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Basel: Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teacher College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teacher of substance: subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23–36). New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henze, I., van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: an exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2016). Teachers' Knowledge in Argumentation: Contributions from an explicit teaching in an initial teacher preparation programme. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1996-2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221546.

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education - Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave: competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2015). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), New directions in mathematics and science education (pp. 69–80). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2006). The role of analog models in the understanding of the nature of models in chemistry. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers' knowledge on models and modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teacher professional growth for understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 437–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2014). Science teachers’ content knowledge. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, J. Loughran, & M. Askew (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: windows into teacher thinking (pp. 27–43). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2015). On the beauty of knowing then not knowing: pinning down the elusive qualities of PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 178–195). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Do subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge constitute the ideal gas law of science teaching? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(1), 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge - the construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavhunga, E. (2014). Improving PCK and CK in preservice teachers. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, J. Loughran, & M. Askew (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: windows into teacher thinking (pp. 45–64). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 113–125.https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rmse20/current

  • McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the 'model of modelling' diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41, 479–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. M., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ evaluations of elementary students’ scientific models: an aspect of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1931–1959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: learning how to learn in school science. In K. T. B. J. Fraser & C. J. Mc Robbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 24, pp. 933–949). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2016). Defining a knowledge base for reasoning in science: the role of procedural and epistemic knowledge. In R. A. Duschl & A. S. Bismarck (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM education: the central role of practice (pp. 215–231). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works: what is the nature of scientific reasoning and what do we know about students' understanding? In J. Osborne, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good Practice in Science Teaching: what research has to say (pp. 20–46, Vol. Second edition). New York: Openup.

  • Park, S., & Chen, Y. (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 

  • Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Suh, K. (2015). From portraying toward assessing PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner - How professionals think in action. London: Ashgate.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3–13). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M., Fazio, C., & Tarantino, G. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: a case study. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 235–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 848–870). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Buck, G. A. (2016). Understanding a high school physics teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 577–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank CNPq and CAPES, Brazil, for their personal grants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Química, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, 70910-900, Brazil

    Stefannie de Sá Ibraim

  2. Departamento de Química, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos 6627, Belo Horizonte, 31270-901, Brazil

    Rosária Justi

Authors
  1. Stefannie de Sá Ibraim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosária Justi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosária Justi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Sá Ibraim, S., Justi, R. Discussing Paths Trodden by PCK: an Invitation to Reflection. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 2), 699–724 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09867-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09867-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation