You are on page 1of 8

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Shulman (1986) advanced thinking about teacher knowledge by introducing the idea of pedagogical

content knowledge. He claimed that the emphases on teachers' subject knowledge and pedagogy were being treated as mutually exclusive domains in research concerned with these domains (1987, p. 6). The practical consequence of such exclusion was production of teacher education programs in which a focus on either subject matter or pedagogy dominated. To address this dichotomy, he proposed to consider the necessary relationship between the two by introducing the notion of PCK. This knowledge includes knowing what teaching approaches fit the content, and likewise, knowing how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. This knowledge is different from the knowledge of a disciplinary expert and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. PCK is concerned with the representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students¶ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology. It also involves knowledge of teaching strategies that incorporate appropriate conceptual representations, to address learner difficulties and misconceptions and foster meaningful understanding. It also includes knowledge of what the students bring to the learning situation, knowledge that might be either facilitative or dysfunctional for the particular learning task at hand. This knowledge of students includes their strategies, prior conceptions (both "naïve" and instructionally produced); misconceptions students are likely to have about a particular domain and potential misapplications of prior knowledge. PCK exists at the intersection of content and pedagogy. Thus it does not refer to a simple consideration of both content and pedagogy, together but in isolation; but rather to an amalgam of content and pedagogy thus enabling transformation of content into pedagogically powerful forms. PCK represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction. Shulman argued that having knowledge of subject matter and general pedagogical strategies, though necessary, were not sufficient for capturing the knowledge of good teachers. To characterize the complex ways in which teachers think about how particular content should be taught, he argued for "pedagogical content knowledge" as the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process, including "the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others" (p. 9). If teachers were to be successful they would have to confront both issues (of content and pedagogy) simultaneously, by embodying "the aspects of content most germane to its teachability" (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). At the heart of PCK is the manner in which subject matter is transformed for teaching. This occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter, finding different ways to represent it and make it accessible to learners. The notion of PCK has been extended (and critiqued) by scholars after Shulman (for instance see Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos, 1998). In fact, Shulman¶s initial description of teacher knowledge included many more categories (such as curriculum knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, etc.). Matters are further complicated by the fact that Shulman has himself proposed multiple lists in different publications, that lack, in his own words, "great cross-article consistency" (Shulman, 1986; p. 8). Our emphasis on PCK is based on

the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others" (Shulman. the most useful forms of representation of those ideas. and jointly as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). illustrations. PCK has become a widely useful and used notion. problems. Ma. since its introduction in 1987. and presented for instruction" (p. the intent is to now bring explicit attention to these issues by considering how technology interacts with pedagogy as Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). 2004). 1993. In Shulman¶s words. For instance in the area of science education scholars such as Anderson and Mitchner (1994). or issues are organized. our emphasis on PCK is consistent with the work of many other scholars and recent educational reform documents. and professional organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA. 1986. It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics. referred by Segall. this intersection contains within it. Hewson and Hewson (1988). Ball. 1990. 8).Shulman¶s acknowledgment that "pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest because it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. we do not believe that these issues were considered unimportant. 1999) and National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE. Shulman. and DeRuiter (1993). Hume and Berry (2010). Cochran. & Richert. and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners. 1987). so that their intersection represents Pedagogical Content Knowledge as the interplay between pedagogy and content. the most powerful analogies. Rather. 1996. examples. An analysis of "Teacher Educator¶s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers" (Murray.in a word. 1997) have all emphasized the value of PCK for teacher preparation and teacher professional development. Grossman. explanations. Wilson. Current academic writers on the subject . Diagrammatically. 9). has permeated the scholarship that deals with teacher education in general and the subject matter education in particular (See for example. King. we can represent Shulman¶s contribution to the scholarship of teacher knowledge by connecting the two circles. Moreover. King & DeRuiter. "the most regularly taught topics in one¶s subject area. with content as Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). 1987. 1996) shows Shulman as the fourth most cited author of the close to 1500 authors in the book¶s author index with an overwhelming majority of those references made to this concept of PCK (Murray. 1996. Although Shulman did not discuss technology and its relationship to pedagogy and content. Since its introduction in 1987. p. represented. Shulman. and demonstrations . The notion of PCK. It is valued as an epistemological concept that usefully blends together the traditionally separated knowledge bases of content and pedagogy. 1999. Cochran.

then it can be useful to have such standards to examine the assumptions. This model will allow us to begin to ask important questions of the model and of PCK as related to science teacher education. it is important to remember that these are the criteria based on the current paradigm. If we concede that standards are sets of criteria that reflect the current dominant views of a community. the role of PCK as part of learning to teach science. The NSTA Standards for science teacher education proposes a linear model.g. a new. "How does such a model help us think differently about science teacher education?" . values. learning and teacher education. Benchmarks for Science Literacy) and similar documents describe the role of the teacher (e. "Should we consider PCK when generating a framework of standards?" We think that a nonlinear. Considering the consequences of this overlap invites us to consider an alternate conception of the standards. In order to make this clear. learning. This is an argument for a more connected and contextualized thinking about the preparation of teachers. see figure 1. Based on this paradigm we can generate criteria to define and assess teaching. However. However. The National Science Education Standards). and science teacher education. A model is proposed here. Recently a number of organizations joined efforts to produce a similar set of criteria for science teacher education. which joins content and pedagogy into an essential tenet of the document. the structure of the standards may lead to this conclusion. as the current paradigm that dominates our thinking about best practices for teaching. We can ask. we can look at this proposal and what it potentially offers science teacher education. Just as paradigms have shifted in scientific thinking (Kuhn. it will be helpful to look at each of these areas as described in the NSTA Standards. The links between standards invite us to think about how the linear model could restructured into a less linear model. we feel that the connections between content and pedagogy. Finally. as an essential tenet in the current thinking about science teacher education.g. Defining something like teaching is no simple task. Standard One addresses content knowledge understandings and Standard Five addresses the pedagogy of science teaching. Through this examination we will ask. Certain documents define the content students should learn (e. and beliefs of science teaching. However. Science education is no exception. Further. this discussion will look at two of those standards. 1996) so have paradigms of teaching. Therefore. To illustrate how it is problematic. These "draft" standards will be the focus of this discussion. The intent will be to show how the standards are inextricably linked when taken in context. which does not accurately reflect the views of the entire science education community. Some (Veal and MaKinster. One might think of the task. It is our position that Content and Pedagogy should not be treated as mutually exclusive. 1999) feel that there has been explicit mention of the importance of pedagogical content knolwedge (PCK) in the Standards. Examination of Standards One and Five shows an overlap across standards. namely the inclusion of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). instead of a static action that can be universally defined. PCK inclusive model better reflects the challenges and consequences involved in science teaching. it will introduce what we feel is a missing piece of this document. should be made more explicit in both the text and the organization of the document.Introduction The field of education has been challenged to define teaching and teacher education. less linear model of standards will be proposed.

Content refers to: -> Concepts and principles understood through science. use of analogy and metaphor. -> Processes of investigation in a science discipline. there is a lot to cover in these four brief statements. -> Concepts and relationships unifying science domains. They state: "The program [teacher education] prepares candidates to structure and interpret the concepts. All science teacher candidates should be provided with a carefully designed. Further the authors recognize that people in content disciplines teach many content specific courses. balanced content curriculum leading to a demonstrated knowledge of the concepts and relationships they are preparing to teach." (National Science Teachers Association." (National Science Teachers Association. "The content knowledge of the prospective science teacher is developed primarily in science courses taught by science faculty. Assigning the development of the skills and knowledge required by this standard to one or even several science methods courses is unlikely to produce the depth of understanding needed for effective teaching practice.The Standards: Content and Pedagogy Standard 1: Content What is meant by content? From our reading. abstract or didactic teaching methods. We all hope that new teachers will possess sufficient content understandings to teach science. Quote in context However. 1998) It is hard to find fault in these standards. -> Applications of mathematics in science research. In this regard. content refers to the science knowledge a teacher should possess. easily understandable set of standards for science teacher education. ideas and relationships in science that are needed to advance student learning in the area of licensure as defined by state and national standards developed by the science education community. 1998) . the authors thoroughly address and consider major theories of learning and some research that have taken place in the science education community. Specifically they state. and others (National Science Teachers Association. the authors of the NSTA Standards have effectively woven together a complex set of ideas into a neat. conceptual understanding. Among teaching and learning theories related to science education they address constructivism. This shows the recognition the authors had that content understanding relies on much more than the rote memorization of facts. 1998). To resolve this.

to make sense out of science and to want to do more science. This is in the spirit of the NSES. trying to make sense of the world. This presents the intersection in the learning how to teach the process of inquiry. This statement involves multiple pedagogical tasks including: addressing all students' needs. providing for diverse learner needs.While this is realistic and practical. While the Pedagogy section sought to help students learn about scientific problems. 1998) These familiar notions were clearly described in Borko and Putnam's (1996) review of literature on learning to teach. The Content section expected that teachers would be able to make connections and see relationships between concepts. planning activities that allow and encourage students to learn and reason about problems. and instilling in students the desire to learn more science. organization of classroom experiences. and transformation of ideas into understandable pieces. Content Pedagogy Considering PCK as an essential tenet in Science Teacher Education . evaluation and implementation of learner's prior notions. Teaching is left to Standard Five. which deals with pedagogy. Quote in context Standard 5: Pedagogy The NSTA Standards authors define a model of pedagogy familiar to teachers and teacher educators. while the Pedagogy section expects teachers to plan experiences for their students to make inquires. The treatment in NSTA Standards look exclusively at literature related to science teaching. The tenor of these standards is reflective of teaching standards found in The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (1996). The Content section expects science teachers to learn and teach about the process of inquiry. Making connections requires an understanding of the problems faced in science learning. Pedagogy The National Science Education Standards The NSTA Standards (1998) suggest that teachers of science should be able to provide all students the opportunity to learn from science instruction. (National Science Teachers Association. This model includes: actions and strategies of teaching. Making similar connections relies on a facile understanding of both the content students are learning and how students learn. (National Research Council. 1996) Pedagogy The National Science Education Standards Summary of the Standards Looking back at Content and Pedagogy there were some important themes that overlapped in the document. it says little about teaching. but no simple task.

Verloop. There is a connection between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in science teaching. and de Vos (1998) reviews this literature and finds both support and change in teachers as a result of developing pedagogical content knowledge. Ironically it is only mentioned to explain that the content standard would be looking at the content specific aspect of this construct. This important addition to thinking about teaching is recognized in the content section of the NSTA Standards. "in many traditionally taught courses the emphasis is on learning large amounts of information at a rapid pace". which is implicit in many of the statements of the NSTA Standards. science teachers must have content preparation. They . fields and subfields" that "may contain the development of linkages among concepts across fields" (National Science Teachers Association. However to design such "organizations" requires a deep understanding of content.Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Something not sufficiently addressed Why do we consider PCK an essential part of science teacher education? There are many explanations for this. the science education community and the roles that PCK plays in this community. For example the pedagogy standard suggests that teachers know about "organization of classroom experiences" (National Science Teachers Association. Careful reading reveals connections in the two domains that cannot be neglected. 1996. The authors state: [There is] "a poor match between learner needs and teaching methodology". This separation. for convenience into disciplines. The NSTA Standards accurately identify major problems with respect to this point. These studies examine the value of attempting to teach this principle to prospective teachers. Content Quote in context In this case. A recent study by van Driel. while understanding of teaching comes from the field of education. 15). & de Vos. Such separation leads students of teaching to have bifurcated understandings of science education. Such learning of content presents problems for pre-service teachers and science teacher educators. and "division of knowledge. Research has shown science teachers approach scientific problems differently than scientists due to their understanding of the pedagogical implications of learning science (Borko & Putnam. And finally we can begin to examine the assumptions of science. Lee Shulman (1987) developed the construct of "pedagogical content knowledge" (PCK) in response to some of the problems of teaching and teacher education. Verloop. van Driel. reinforces a model of scientific disciplines that is dissimilar from models of teaching and learning science. 1998). Several studies have examined the practical connections of PCK to science teaching. This is what Shulman (1987) is talking about when stating. In the following paragraphs and in a subsequent section we will begin to explore PCK as a construct. This allows us to move on to consider the problems students of teaching face by the bifurcation of content and pedagogy implicit in the standards and explicit in university practices. "the key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy" (pg. revealed in the problems outlined above. 1998). 1998). which usually takes place outside of colleges of education. Quote in context Most science teacher content knowledge comes from disciplinary fields.

N. the linear model in the presentation fails to carry the message of changing conceptions of the complexity of science teaching. Without this connection teachers are likely to continue to focus on coverage of material in place of deep conceptual understanding. Lederman. PCK provides a useful lens for teachers to begin to help students see the assumptions of science. Students of science need to understand the implicit value scientists place on this kind of knowledge. J & others. D. To have a set of standards that implies that pedagogy takes precedent over content or vise versa seems to ignore this research. that there might be value to having prospective teachers study subject matter from a teaching perspective. 1991. through empirical study. 1994. 1995) . 1992. we must begin to look for ways to reveal the assumptions and beliefs shared by the scientific community. and the linguistic turn outlined by Rorty (1987).found. This begins to resemble another attempt at "tinkering toward utopia" (Tyack & Cuban. However. it must start with science teaching. & Chang. Making a case for a new model In response to the need for PCK. it is more likely in the nonlinear proposal. Smith D. The current paradigm of learning to teach is reified in the linear model of standards.C. In the example cited above a teacher can help students see the value of evidence in making a scientific claim. which supports existing bifurcation and does not force teachers and students to examine the embedded texts of science knowledge. This seems contradictory to some. in which content and pedagogy are joined. Conclusion The work done in the NSTA Standards for science teacher education lays an excellent foundation for working toward improvement in science teacher preparation. 1996. Teachers of science need to be prepared to help students uncover the embedded texts of scientific ideas. & Neale. & others. it has been argued that the coverage of content is less important than depth of understanding (Valverde & Schmidt. A Nation at Risk If we are to change science learning. & others. If we accept the shortcomings of empiricism described by Quine (1953). Glick. namely PCK. Finally. forming a leading edge in a less linear model of standards. While this may be possible in the linear proposal. especially science teaching. this requires more than knowing content and how to teach. Rigor results from deeper understanding rather than increased coverage.. H. This and other studies (e. However. Further these students need to be able to understand the consequences of these ideas and beliefs. The report "A Nation at Risk" (1983) called for increased academic requirements and increased rigor. we must think carefully about the scientific ideas and concepts that we would like students to learn. For example much scientific knowledge is built on evidence. J..g. This requires a shift of paradigms in the structure of teacher education. C. we propose a model. 1998). Sowdre. Gee.C.. shown here in Figure 1. It requires an understanding of how to teach the content. The bifurcated model does not help students of teaching make connections between content understandings and what it takes to teach that content. 1989) have also shown the importance of PCK in teaching. However.

1989). as an essential tenet to making improvements in this problem. Such a shift is found in a model of standards built around PCK.that will leave us short of the goal of Science For All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren. We must make a Kuhnian paradigm shift (Kuhn. While this may be no panacea. . it provides opportunities for improvement. 1996) to resolve this problem.