The PCK Map Approach to Capturing the Complexity of Enacted PCK (ePCK) and Pedagogical Reasoning in Science Teaching

  • Soonhye ParkEmail author
  • Jee Kyung Suh


This chapter focuses on how the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK for teaching science provides a useful conceptual framework for informing a methodological approach to PCK research called “PCK mapping”. The PCK map approach, as it is known, was originally designed to identify and illustrate interactions among PCK constituent components through visualisation and quantification. In this chapter, we first describe and discuss aspects of the PCK map approach as they relate to the RCM. These aspects include (1) the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions of the approach, (2) step-by-step procedures of the approach, (3) its applications and usefulness to PCK research, and (4) contributions of the approach to advancing research on PCK. We also illustrate how repositioning the PCK map approach within the RCM enabled us to critique methodologies in two previous science education studies where we utilised the PCK map approach in different ways, while identifying and addressing methodological issues. Finally, we highlight the potential of the PCK map approach as a methodological tool to capture the essence of science teachers’ enacted PCK (ePCK) throughout the pedagogical cycle of planning, enactment, and reflection, and the knowledge exchanges occurring between the realms of pPCK and ePCK.


  1. Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: A case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedrichsen, P., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). The 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers:‘Ozone layer depletion’as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & 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: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Padilla, K., & Van Driel, J. (2011). The relationships between PCK components: The case of quantum chemistry professors. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching photosynthesis and heredity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Park, S., & Oliver, J. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Suh, J., & Park, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Driel, J. H., Jong, O. D., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of STEM EducationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Curriculum and InstructionThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations