Advertisement

Developing Research on PCK as a Community

  • Rebecca CooperEmail author
  • Jan van Driel
Chapter

Abstract

After its introduction, a group of scholars, led by Lee Shulman, performed several studies on PCK in a range of disciplines. Since the 1990s, PCK studies have become a prominent strand in science education research. Initially, most of these studies were done in the USA, but once PCK was picked up by science education researchers in other continents, a proliferation of conceptions and models of PCK, and instruments to study it, became apparent. This chapter describes the ways in which scholars in science education have communicated with each other, through books, articles, presentations at conferences and, significantly, the PCK Summits to continue the conversation around PCK. The chapter will focus on the process of developing a consensus model of PCK among the scholars that participated in the two PCK Summits, how they communicated with each other during and after the Summits, and with the broader community of researchers with an interest in PCK. The chapter includes personal reflective narratives to exemplify key features of the PCK Summit processes and outcomes and looks to offer insights into the impact and possible next steps post the Second (2nd) PCK Summit.

References

  1. Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 347–386). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. J. (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. New York, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, A., Loughran, J. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1271–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, J., Stokes, L., Helms, J., Gess-Newsome, J., & Gardner, A. (2015). The PCK summit: A process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 14–27). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations