Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

An exploration and reflection on pedagogical content knowledge and its importance when planning
online vocabulary training for practising early-career teachers.

Introduction

If we are to improve teaching and learning, we need to explore what and how teachers
themselves learn and know (Even 2008, in Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2016). Yet the
range of knowledges required by teachers are broad and complex (Shulman, 1986, 1987).
Thus, Shulman sought to provide clarity on what constitutes teacher knowledge by
suggesting different domains of teacher knowhow. Within these domains, there is a particular
focus on “pedagogical content knowledge” (1987 : 8), which can be considered a
combination of the “what is to be learned and how it is to be taught” (1987 : 7).
Consequently, if the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of teaching is important for classroom practitioners, it
should be useful for those who design and deliver training for teachers, especially as
continuing professional development (CPD) that intends to support teachers in developing
their knowledge of learning rarely draws upon effective approaches (Clarke and
Hollingsworth, 2002).

As a teaching and learning consultant for a local authority, I prepare and facilitate CPD
programmes. This year, my work has been affected by the global pandemic, which has led to
training moving online, and a significant proportion of teaching in schools taking place
remotely. As such, considerations of teacher knowledge have become especially important as
the context of teaching and learning has changed for many. Therefore, it is timely to explore
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), how this differs for teachers and the trainers of
teachers, and how it fits within an online learning context.

This essay begins by exploring the concept of PCK as defined by Shulman, and a further
interpretation: “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (TPCK) as defined by
Mishra and Koehler (2006 : 1027). Then, I will explore how PCK for teacher-educators may
differ to that for teachers. Thereafter, I will describe a specific learning event: an online
training session for newly qualified teachers focussing on vocabulary teaching, before
evaluating the approaches taken and their perceived impact on teaching and learning. The
essay concludes by considering the implications for my future practice.
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

(Re)Defining Pedagogical Content Knowledge

In an effort to counter dismissive opinions of teacher’s skills and knowledge (Shulman 1986),
Shulman identified a “missing paradigm” (1986 : 6), namely the “absence of focus on subject
matter” (1986 : 6) and how it is that teachers “transform their knowledge” (1986 : 8) into
forms that will support pupils’ understanding. Consequently, he proposed a model that
identifies distinct areas of knowledge required by teachers (Shulman, 1987), as illustrated in
Figure 1:

Figure 1: Shulman's Professional Knowledge Domains as shown by Neumann, Kind and

Harms (2019).

Within these areas, the distinction between pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and
PCK is important. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is perhaps the simplest to define as a general
understanding of teaching approaches (Shulman, 1987). Content knowledge (CK) focusses on
what is known by the teacher and how it is arranged into “substantive and syntactic
structures” (Shulman, 1986 : 9) to include considerations of the “validity” (1986 : 9) of
knowledge, thereby moving beyond lists of subject specific facts (Shulman, 1986). PCK,
according to Shulman, is a fusion of content and pedagogical knowledge that is “unique”
(1987 : 8) to teachers, and is often depicted as an intersection of the different domains, as
shown in Figure 2 (Boyd, Hymner and Lockney, 2015; see also: Settlage, 2013; Kind, 2009):
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Figure 2: PCK diagram taken from Boyd, Hymer and Lockney (2015)

However, rather than simply being an co-incidence of pedagogical and content knowledge,
PCK considers how knowledge is “organised, represented and adapted” (Shulman, 1987 : 8)
and how teachers select the best “analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and
demonstrations” (Shulman, 1986 : 9) to support learners, with a particular emphasis on those
that that will address misconceptions. Thus, through a process of “transformations”
(Shulman, 1987 :16), teachers take complex subject knowledge and present it in ways that
will benefit the learners in their class.

Yet, whilst Shulman offers a definition of PCK, he does not provide advice on the what the
best methods or examples may be. Hence, PCK has been described as “elusive” (Kind, 2009 :
170) and “relatively barren” (Settlage, 2013 : 8). Consequently, many researchers have
attempted to provide a more concrete definition and, whilst these cannot be described in full
here, key themes are apparent. Firstly, there are those who are aligned with Shulman’s
original transformative model, where PCK is something new derived from the process of
changing subject knowledge through the process of teaching (see, for example, Kind 2009;
Neumann, Kind and Harms, 2019), whereas others adopt an integrative perspective (see, for
example, Depaepe, Verschaffel and Kelchtermans, 2013; Neumann, Kind and Harms, 2019),
with the latter viewing PCK as something that transcends different domains of teaching
(Gess-Newsome, 1999, in Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans, 2013, and in Kind 2009).
Furthermore, whether PCK comprises one domain, or many, is also a subject of debate. Some
posit PCK as fundamentally linked to and “inseparable” (Escudero and Sanchez, 2007 in
Depaepe, Verschaffel and Kelchtermans, 2013 : 17) from content knowledge (see, for
example, Huillet, 2009, in Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans, 2013; McEwan and
Bull, 1991, in Cochran, DeRuiter, and King, 1993); by contrast, others have sought to
subdivide PCK into smaller categories of knowledge, including Grossman (1990, in Kind
2009), who places emphasis teacher’s aims and their effect on pedagogical choices, and
Marks, who includes “knowledge of media for instruction” (1990, in Depaepe, Verschaffel,
and Kelchtermans, 2013 : 13). These differing views highlight the complexity and potential
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

breadth of PCK, which poses challenges for practitioners as there is a “lack of consensus”
(Barnett 2003 : 616) around its composition and subsequent enaction. Additionally, the
approaches are occasionally contradictory, which is problematic for those seeking to support
its development unless the practitioner formulates a clear view of PCK (Depaepe, Verschaffel
and Kelchtermans, 2013).

The differing interpretations of PCK extend to its links to the classroom. Whilst Shulman
refers to context in his original model for professional knowledge (1987), it is a separate
domain rather than integrated. Consequently, PCK is identified by some as “static” (Depaepe,
Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans, 2013 : 13), or a fixed body of knowledge, that can be
acquired without specific consideration of the classroom environment (Cochran, DeRuiter,
and King, 1993, in Kind 2009; Depaepe, Verschaffel and Kelchtermanns 2013). However,
others suggest PCK is “dynamic” and requires classroom experience (Blanco 2004, in
Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans, 2013 : 15). This interpretation is furthered by
Cochran, DeRuiter, and King who describe a constructivist approach, “Pedagogical Content
Knowing” (1993 : 266), that places equal emphasis on contexts, subject knowledge and
pedagogy. This is a promising view for those supporting teacher development, as it
acknowledges that teachers do not come fully formed and that PCK may develop over years
(Kind, 2009), gradually synthesising new experiences and knowledge into their
understanding about teaching (Cochran, DeRuiter, and King, 1993). Additionally, as context
is acknowledged as a “pervasive and potent force” (Tessmer and Richey 1997 : 85), it
appears counterintuitive to disregard this in discussions of PCK, as teachers must
acknowledge their situation to the select the models that will remedy students’
misunderstandings. As learning “does not exist in a vacuum” (Boyd, Hymer and Lockney,
2015 : 4) and is specifically located within a teacher’s classroom (Munby, Russell and
Martin, 2001), I believe that PCK can only be developed and applied effectively if contexts
are acknowledged.

Whilst there are many interpretations of Shulman’s original definition of PCK, most include
or combine other elements of his model of teacher knowledge (Kind, 2009). This suggests
that the concepts underpinning PCK are shared, albeit with different emphases and in myriad
combinations. Indeed, Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans (2013) posit that repeated
attempts to define PCK suggest it remains an important concept in teaching and can
potentially lead to positive outcomes in classroom practice. In order to make the most
effective use of their pedagogical and content knowledge, practitioners need to decide what
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

PCK means to them as an individual (Banks, Leach and Moon, 2015 in Kind, 2009). Indeed,
the lack of concrete examples provided by Shulman could even be viewed as liberating in
that PCK can develop differently for everyone, according to their needs, contexts and
strengths.

PCK for the remote teaching and learning: why is TCPK important?

The recent shift to remote learning brought about the global pandemic has highlighted the
role of technology in teaching. However, prior to this, the impact of digital technology on
teachers’ knowledge was already being explored. Drawing upon the “special amalgam”
(Shulman, 1987 : 8) between pedagogy and content knowledge, Mishra and Koehler
introduced a third dimension, “technology knowledge” (2006 : 1024), with the intersection of
the these resulting in “technological pedagogical content knowledge” (2006 : 1027). TPCK
(which is also referred to as TPCAK) requires a “multi-faceted” (2006 : 1017) understanding
of how ideas can be represented via technology, how pedagogy can be enhanced through
technology and how technology can be used to overcome student misconceptions (Mishra
and Koehler, 2006). Although this was not a new concept (Voogt, Fisser, Preja Roblin et al.,
2012), it was felt to be missing from Shulman’s original model (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).
Additionally, TPCK could counter unproductive “technocentric” approaches (Papert, 1987 in
Harris, Mishra and Koehler, 2014 : 395) by increasing opportunities for “transformative uses
of educational technologies” (Harris, Mishra and Koehler, 2014 : 394). As such, in contrast to
Shulman, Mishra and Koehler suggest how teachers might be able to develop TPCK,
including through “learning technology by design” (2006 : 1034) alongside a range of
“content-driven pedagogical strategies” (Harris, Mishra and Koehler. 2014 : 407) that can be
selected by teachers according to the contexts of learning.

However, the need for the separate domain of TPCK is debated. Whilst Harris, Mishra and
Koehler (2014) emphasise that TPCK is not a generic skillset, but one linked to the
pedagogical and subject content knowledge in any one discipline, Hammond and Manfra
(2009, in Voogt, Fisser, Preja Roblin et al., 2012) posit that considerations of technology
should only come after teachers have decided their teaching approach. Similarly, Cox and
Graham (2009; and in Voogt, Fisser, Preja Roblin et al., 2012) suggest TPCK can be
subsumed by PCK and does not require a separate knowledge domain: as such, technology
becomes one of a choice of representations available for teachers. So, whilst TPCK appears a
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

useful extension of thought for teachers, the degree to which it warrants its own classification
remains undecided and it is useful to explore whether its importance has been overstated.

What knowledge do those who teach teachers need?

If teachers require PCK to maximise learning, it could be extrapolated that those “teach
teachers” (Lanier and Little, 1986, in Livingston, 2014 : 218) also require specific types of
knowledge. Surprisingly, the concept of knowledge for teacher educators is relatively
underexplored (Goodwin et al., 2014; Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2016), especially in the
context of online learning (Kraglund-Gauthier et al. 2010). Indeed, there is a (mis)perception
that particular knowledge is not required as teacher educators offer “simple” training (Hoban,
2004, in Goodwin et al. 2014 : 296) that “look[s] easy” (Labaree, 2005, in Loughran, 2014 :
273) . These bleak beginnings might suggest that the knowledge of teachers would, therefore,
be sufficient for those involved in teacher education. Yet, whilst teacher educators need to
know what occurs in classroom situations (Loo, 2020), prior success as a teacher does not
necessarily equate to successful education of teachers (Korthagen et al., 2005, in Goodwin et
al. 2014 : 285). As such, Berry suggests knowledge and experience cannot simply be
“transferred” (2009, in Loo, 2020 : 53) from the teacher educator to the teacher learner, with
Loughran emphasising that using the “tips and tricks of classroom teaching” (2014 : 272) in
teacher training is unsatisfactory and does not fully consider the intricate nature of teaching.
Thus, whilst it is evident that the professional knowledge for those involved in teacher
education must involve some additionality to that required by school teachers, it is still
described as “nebulous” (Loo 2020 : 52), which poses challenges for those attempting to use
and evaluate PCK and its role in teaching teachers.

However, research attempts to provide some clarity on what might constitute “teacher
educator knowledge” (Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2014 : 438). Both Selmer, Bernstein
and Bolyard, (2014) and Goodwin and Kosnick (2012) incorporate PCK within their
definitions, with the latter emphasising that it “transcends the doing of teaching” (2012 :
341). This interpretation is furthered by Goodwin et al., who suggest that those who teach
teachers should hold “a deep understanding of what it means to teach teaching” (2014 : 285)
and Loughran posits they must make “the tacit nature of practice explicit [and] articulate
principles of practice” (2014 : 275). As such, it is apparent that teacher educators must
synthesise and transform pedagogical and content knowledges, exploring the “what, why and
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

how” of teaching (Loughran 2009, in Loo 2020 : 53) that is clearly aligned with Shulman’s
original model for professional knowledge.

Furthermore, Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard (2016) observe that knowledge domains for
teacher educators operate on two levels and through consideration of two different groups of
learners: students in the classroom and teachers as students. Therefore, in addition to
knowing the pedagogies appropriate for (school) student learning, Ping, Schellings and
Beijaard propose there is a specific knowledge related to the “pedagogy of teacher education”
(2018 : 102), namely specialist subject knowledge and how to teach teaching (Ping,
Schellings and Beijaard, 2018). Moreover, teacher educators must address different types of
views held by teacher-learners: those that reflect the misconceptions of students in class
(Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2016) and those about the teaching generally, which are
often strongly developed in student teachers (Lanier and Little, 1986, in Loughran 2014).
Thus, if Shulman (1986) classifies PCK as the knowledge and selection of appropriate
strategies and an understanding of learners, we can see it is a pertinent concept, albeit more
complex, for those whose learners are teachers.

Yet, does teacher educator PCK apply to me? Teacher educators are commonly viewed as
those delivering university-based teacher training courses (see, for example, Murray,
Czerniawski and Barber, 2011; Loughran 2014) and Fransson, van Lakerveld, and Rohtma
note that, whilst teacher educators support student teachers, “in-service educators” (2009 :
76) or “facilitators” (2009 : 77) work with established teachers. Although different, both
groups are arguably involved in “teacher educating” (Goodwin et al. 2014 : 285) and are
likely to require common elements of professional knowledge. Hence, PCK for teacher
educators is a source of inspiration for those on the periphery of the field, including
consultants like me, especially when evaluating a learning episode for teachers.

Wonderful Words: A vocabulary training session for teachers

Having identified that there is specific knowledge required by those educating teachers, it is
helpful to describe the CPD session that will form the basis for further reflection on PCK and
its impact on teacher learning.

In 2018, I designed CPD programme on vocabulary instruction for literacy subject leaders in
primary schools, which was informed by research and best practice (including Beck, Kucan
and McKeown, 2013; Marzano, 2009; McKeown et al. 1983 and McKeown et al. 1985).
These sessions were adapted for online delivery during 2020, with adjustments to support
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

remote learning. When asked to deliver a training session for new and recently qualified
teachers on teaching vocabulary, I returned to the original materials as a source rather than
designing a new session. As this session was significantly shorter than the initial programme,
the content was reduced, comprising ‘highlights’ of theories that underpin successful
vocabulary instruction alongside practical strategies that would form a ‘toolkit’ for teachers.

The session was divided into three sections. The first provided a brief background to the
teaching of vocabulary, drawing on the research used in the original course and a report from
the Millennium Cohort Project (Sullivan, Moulton and Fitzsimons, 2017). This section was
primarily instructive and supported via illustrations in an onscreen presentation. From my
own experiences of attending online classes, I was mindful of the challenges posed by
extended periods of listening, so this section was designed to last no longer than ten minutes.

The second section introduced tiered vocabulary (Beck, Kucan and McKeown, 2013) in
extracts of children’s literature and explored morphology through explorations of word
families and word games. This involved some direct instruction but was interspersed with
opportunities for teachers to contribute. Interestingly, the teachers tended to participate via
the chat, rather than via live discussion, which was perhaps more efficient as it allowed
multiple people to ‘speak’ at once.

The final section invited teachers to try vocabulary learning activities drawn from the original
training and selected as they could, in my opinion, be most successfully transferred to a
remote learning context. The activities included a vocabulary learning process based on the
work of Marzano (2009), where learners engage in low-stakes activities that apply a new
word in different contexts; exploring nuances by placing synonyms on a continuum;
discerning the meaning of a word in different contexts; and examples of direct vocabulary
instruction, taken from Beck, Kucan and McKeown. (2013).

Each activity commenced with an explanation of the rationale for the approach before
activities were modelled, using the teachers as a ‘class’. Teachers were given time to consider
how they could apply the learning activity in their classroom and invited to share their ideas,
with most choosing to contribute via the live discussion at this point, which allowed for
extended answers.

At the end of the session, teachers explained which activity they would try in their lessons
that week. This checked whether learning had occurred: if the teachers could explain how to
use one of the activities in a forthcoming lesson, I could interpret this as demonstrating
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

understanding of the technique. That said, although I would meet with the teachers again later
in the term, the topic of vocabulary was not revisited, which leads me to question whether the
session successfully developed PCK.

What was the significance of PCK to my learning episode?

When exploring PCK for teacher educators, Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard (2016) note the
importance of context when designing learning opportunities and it was an influential factor
in my chosen episode. As the context of the training changed between its inception and this
delivery, where the audience moved from experienced teachers to NQTs, I made significant
cuts to the coverage of theories underpinning vocabulary instruction. Whilst this was partially
because of time constraints, it was influenced by my assumption that NQTs may not require
the same depth of theory as middle leaders and would prefer to explore learning activities that
could be applied directly in lessons. By focussing on practical strategies, it could be argued
that I was following Shulman’s recommendation that teachers must know the “most useful
forms of representation” (1986 : 9) for their subject. However, my preoccupation with the
relative inexperience of the teachers led me to overlook the importance of providing a sound
theoretical base to inform pedagogical choices (Timperley, 2008) and the role of “formal
educational scholarship” (Shulman, 1987 : 10) in developing teachers’ knowledge. As such,
reducing this element could have resulted in the teachers developing only “superficial”
understanding (Timperley, 2008 : 11) which may have affected the teachers’ ability to make
informed choices about the approaches that would best suit learners and how these strategies
could be adapted, both fundamental elements of PCK.

Nevertheless, the reduction of theory may not have completely prevented the development of
PCK. Indeed, Shulman suggests that teachers “must have at hand a veritable armamentarium”
(1986 : 9) of strategies and models to facilitate effective learning and my session presented a
wide range of approaches, selected for their basis in research. As one must resist providing
“teaching tips” (Russell, 2007, in Loughran 2014 : 279) when educating teachers, as sharing
strategies does not equate to them being understood, when introducing each approach, I
explained what the strategy involved, including its link to theory, and how it could be used in
a classroom context. This included how each one could be adapted for different year groups,
which is an important contextual consideration of PCK (Cochran, DeRuiter, and King, 1993).
In doing so, I acted as a “role model” (Loo, 2020 : 68) demonstrating the thinking process
used in PCK hoping that such an approach, as suggested by Smith (2005, in Loo, 2020),
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

would exemplify what otherwise appears reliant on “intuitions” (Settlage, 2013 : 3) and
“wisdom of practice” (Shulman, 1986 : 9). However, whilst I modelled the rationale for each
activity, opportunities for teachers to articulate their own thinking and reflect on teaching
choices were underused in the training session. This was likely compounded by the “one-
shot” (Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002 : 948) nature of the session which did not allow for the
“modifying or re-affirming” of knowledge (Blanco, 2004, in Depaepe, Verschaffel, and
Kelchtermans, 2013 : 15) nor did it not acknowledge the time required for learning to transfer
to the classroom. In hindsight, when adapting the session, I did not consider the extent to
which “learning is cyclical” (Timperley 2008 : 15) and the teachers were not afforded enough
opportunity for learning to be revisited despite this being good practice (Clarke and
Hollingsworth, 2002). Consequently, without an opportunity to reflect on the approaches in
action, Blanco (2004, in Depaepe, Verschaffel, and Kelchtermans, 2013) would argue that
PCK could not have been fully developed by those attending. That said, I take some solace
from Even’s suggestion that, despite its brevity, the training session still had potential to
support the development of PCK (1993, in Depaepe, Verschaffel and Klechtermans 2013).

When using PCK, it is important to consider the potential misconceptions for learners and
how these can be overcome through the chosen teaching approaches (Shulman, 1986). Yet,
Meredith (1995) suggests that newly qualified teachers may struggle to identify the origin of
misconceptions in student learning. As the session explicitly visited areas of vocabulary that
can be misunderstood, e.g. the use of synonyms, polysemous words, I feel that it had the
potential to support the development of PCK as it would prompt teachers to consider similar
misconceptions when selecting the activity for their lesson. Additionally, addressing the
misconception of learners can also support teachers in becoming aware of their own
misunderstanding (Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2016). The sections on tiered vocabulary
and morphology were chosen in consideration of pupil misconceptions but also aimed to
provide “a sense of security” (Kind, 2009 : 191) by improving teacher’s content knowledge.
As it is recognised that newly qualified teachers may be concerned about PCK (Cochran,
DeRuiter, and King, 1993), I believe my session will have provided some reassurance for
those attending by addressing both pedagogical and content knowledge.

The shift to remote (online) learning is another factor pertinent to a discussion of PCK.
Whilst Mishra and Koehler (2006) emphasise that TPCK is not simply adding technology to a
lesson or moving a course online, when adapting the training, I focussed on the time
constraints rather than the way technology could be used to support teaching. Additionally,
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

although I used a meeting platform that allowed for interaction via breakout rooms, I did not
incorporate small group discussion into the session and missed an opportunity for the
teachers to co-construct their understanding of the vocabulary approaches. This suggests that
I may not have allowed myself sufficient reflection time consider the challenges posed by the
transition to remote learning (Dalziel, 2008, in Kraglund-Gautier et al. 2010). Furthermore, I
followed a common pattern by placing greater emphasis on presentation than collaboration
(Harris, Mishra and Koehler, 2009) as, whilst in face-to-face training the use of PowerPoint
to display the activities can helpful, it was not an effective medium in the remote training
session, especially as it was no longer accompanied by interactive discussion. Thus, it
appears that the chosen technologies did not enhance the learning, nor did they show the
strengths of the technologies themselves (Harris, Mishra and Koehler, 2009). Consequently,
the training session disproved my initial assumption that the role of TPCK has been
overstated, particularly in the current context of online learning, as without the “thoughtful
interweaving” (Mishra and Kohler 2006 : 1029) of the components of TPCK, teaching online
is far less likely to be successful.

Whilst it is evident that my TPCK may not have influence the learning as hoped, this is
perhaps unsurprising considering my role as teaching and learning consultant. Goodwin et al.
(2014) note that those involved in teacher educating rarely receive training or guidance on
appropriate pedagogies for their practice and Dalziel (2008, in Kraglund-Gauthier et al. 2010)
notes that this is a particular problem in remote learning, especially if teacher educators are
working in isolation. Whilst I had received some basic training on the functionality of online
learning tools, these were mainly focussed on e-learning platforms rather than the live
delivery of training. Moreover, there was no opportunity to reflect upon my planning with
colleagues, despite this being a recommendation for teacher educators (Livingstone, 2014).
As an experienced teacher, I believe there was an assumption that I could instantly adapt my
practice to a new context without consideration that teacher development is “dynamic”
(Boyd, Hymer and Lockney, 2015) and ongoing throughout a teacher’s career (Livingstone,
2014). Therefore, whilst I have the PCK required for face-to-face teaching, the sudden shift
to online learning brought about by the pandemic demonstrates I am in many ways a
neophyte and have not had time to develop the “accumulated wisdom” (Goodwin et al. 2014 :
297) required for effective PCK in this new context.

Whilst the underdeveloped use of TPCK was one contributing factor towards a lack of
interaction in the session, it was not the only one. A particular criticism of PCK is that it can
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

lead to a narrow range of teaching approaches (Meredith, 1995) and this was evident in my
vocabulary session. Whilst my face-to-face training in the past has tended towards a
collaborative approach, the online session was arguably conducted via the “reception model”
(Watkins, Carnell and Lodge, 2007 : 15), as even when teachers were asked to participate in a
task, this was undertaken alone and the feedback was not discursive. This is perhaps
unsurprising as Settlage identifies that PCK tends towards the “transmission and absorption
of information” (2013 : 7) that limits potential for enaction and leads to “didactic modes of
teaching” (Meredith, 1995 : 176). In this view, the teacher holds the knowledge (in my case,
of how to teach vocabulary), and passes it on through PCK (Settlage, 2013), rather than using
discussion and exploration to gauge learner understanding (Shulman 2000). Therefore, on
reflection, it seems my training has fallen victim to a common pattern in teacher educating,
namely a difference between what is recommended practice for teaching and the approach
selected used to teach about teaching (Goodwin et al., 2014). However, whilst my own
approach was evidently didactic, this may still have been appropriate considering the
audience of inexperienced teachers. Indeed, Hoban (2002, in Kennedy 2014) recognises that
such an approach can be effective when introducing new knowledge. Thus, whilst the mode
of delivery may not have been as interactive as hoped, the training was not without merit and
I believe that the teachers were provided with at least the components that could contribute to
the effective development of PCK.

Reflecting on my learning and looking to the future

One criticism against PCK is that whilst “it sparkles, it offers little substance” (Settlage, 2013
: 1). Yet, through my reflection, I have found much to contradict this view and argue that
PCK is a complex concept, dependent on multiple factors, including subject, contexts, and
personal experiences of the classroom, both as a learner and teacher. Moreover, for those who
are involved in teacher development, it is further complicated because of the need to consider
both pupil and adult learners.

Having explored just some of the many definitions of PCK in relation to my own context, I
find myself aligned with the thinking of Cochran, DeRuiter, and King and have come to
prefer the term “pedagogical content knowing” (1993 : 264) and its conception as a
constructivist approach. As PCK is something that takes time to build (Cochran, DeRuiter,
and King, 1993; Kind 2009), and I would argue is never fully developed because of the
“fluid” nature of contexts (Turner and Meyer, 2000 : 70), I posit that my efforts to develop
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

the PCK of teachers in one episode could be considered naïve. Consequently, when planning
for future CPD, a multi-session approach would be beneficial as it allows for teachers to
adapt and apply the suggested pedagogical approaches in their own contexts, supporting
teacher growth (Clark and Hollingsworth, 2002). Additionally, an extended programme of
CPD would facilitate the use of reflection, which is included in Shulman’s (1987) process of
“pedagogical reasoning and action” and recognised as beneficial for both teachers as learners
and teacher educators (Ping, Schellings and Beijaard 2018).

Furthermore, whilst CPD supports the development of content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge, I do not feel that this would be sufficient to build PCK in and of itself unless it
includes modelling of the thoughtful selection of approaches based on context that supports
teachers in becoming “reflective practitioners” (Schon 1993 in Clarke and Hollingsworth
2002 : 949) who can identify, enact and evaluate changes in practice. This returns to
Shulman’s intentions (drawing on Fenstermacher) for educating teachers: “to reason soundly
about their teaching as well as to perform skilfully” (1987 : 13). Accordingly, whilst I believe
it is important for me to demonstrate teaching approaches, the balance of my CPD sessions
will need to change to incorporate greater time for teachers to explore application of
strategies in their classroom and further opportunities to reflect on the impact these strategies
had on learning.

Reflecting on my practice has developed my understanding of my own PCK, particularly as

someone who teaching in a school-based context to supporting teacher education through
CPD, and more recently in an online context. Loughran notes that:

“teacher educators carry a heavy responsibility in what they do, how they do it, and the
manner in which they come to know and develop their own professional knowledge and
practice.” (2006, in Selmer, Bernstein and Bolyard, 2016 : 455) .

This quotation resonates as, whilst I actively engage in reading around pedagogy, my
understanding of the teaching approaches suited to supporting teacher learning is still
developing, particularly in terms of TPCK. Consequently, I will continue to build reflection
into my practice and pursue opportunities to develop my PCK so that, moving forwards, I
embody Shulman’s maxim that “those who understand teach” (1986 :14) and, in doing so, I
will be able support others developing the range of knowledges helpful to teachers and
learners.

5143 words
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Bibliography

Barnett, J. (2003). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its
implications for science education. Science Education [online]. 87(4). pp. 615-618. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10098 [Accessed 29th March 2021]

Beck, I.L., Kucan, L. and McKeown, M.G. (2013) Bringing Words to Life, Second Edition
Robust Vocabulary Instruction 2nd ed., New York: Guilford Publications.

Boyd, P., Hymer, B., and Lockney, K. (2015) Learning Teaching: Becoming an Inspirational
Teacher [online]. Northwich: Critical Publishing Ltd. Available via:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UCL/detail.action?docID=4067583 [Accessed 24th
January 2021]

Clarke, D. and Hollingsworth, H. (2002) Elaborating a model of teacher professional

growth. Teaching and teacher education [online]. 18(8), pp.947–967. https://doi-
org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7 [accessed 24th January 2021]

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A. and King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical Content Knowing: An

Integrative Model for Teacher Preparation. Journal of teacher education [online]. 44(4), pp.
263–272. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1177%2F0022487193044004004 [Accessed
31st March 2021]

Cox, S. and Graham, C. R. (2009) Diagramming TPACK in Practice: Using an Elaborated

Model of the TPACK Framework to Analyze and Depict Teacher Knowledge. TechTrends
[online]. 53(5). pp. 60–69. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1
[Accessed 5th April 2021]

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L. and Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge:

A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational
research. Teaching and teacher education [online]. 34. pp.12–25. https://doi-
org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001 [Accessed 24th March 2021]

Fransson, G., van Lakerveld, J. and Rohtma, V. (2009) To Be a Facilitator of In-Service

Learning: Challenges, Roles and Professional Development in Swennen, A. and van der
Klink, M. (2009). Becoming a teacher educator: theory and practice for teacher educators
[online] Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8874-2 [Accessed 7th
April 2021]
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Goodwin, A.L. and Kosnik, C. (2013) Quality teacher educators = quality teachers?
Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher
Development [online]. 17:3. pp. 334-346. DOI: 10.1080/13664530.2013.813766 [Accessed
22nd May 2021]

Goodwin, A.L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R. and
Taveras, L. (2014) What Should Teacher Educators Know and Be Able to Do? Perspectives
From Practicing Teacher Educators. Journal of Teacher Education [online]. 65(4). pp. 284-
302. DOI:10.1177/0022487114535266 [Accessed: 18th February 2021]

Harris, J., Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. (2009) Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge and Learning Activity Types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
[online]. 41:4. pp. 393-416. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536 [Accessed 4th April
2021]

Kennedy, K. (2014) Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for

analysis. Professional Development in Education [online] 40:3. pp. 336-351. DOI:
10.1080/19415257.2014.929293 [Accessed 23rd March 2021]

Kind, V. (2009) Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and

potential for progress. Studies in Science Education [online]. 45:2. pp. 169-
204. DOI: 10.1080/03057260903142285 [Accessed 24th March 2021]

Kraglund-Gauthier, W. L., Chareka, O., Murray Orr, A., and Foran, A. (2010). Teacher
Education in Online Classrooms: An Inquiry into Instructors’ Lived Experiences. The
Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning [online]. 1 (2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.2.4 [Accessed 11th February].

Livingston, K. (2014) Teacher Educators. European Journal of Education [online]. 49: 2. pp.
218-232. Available via: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26609215 [Accessed 18th
February 2021]

Loo, S., (2020) Professional development of teacher educators in further education:

pathways, knowledge, identities and vocationalism [online]. London : Routledge. Available
via: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.4324/9780429056741 [Accessed 1st April 2021]
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Loughran J. (2014) Professionally Developing as a Teacher Educator. Journal of Teacher

Education [online]. 65(4). pp. 271-283. DOI:10.1177/0022487114533386 [Accessed 5th April
2021]

Marzano, R. J. (2009). The Art and Science of Teaching: Six Steps to Better Vocabulary
Instruction. Teaching for the 21st Century [online]. 67:1. pp. 83-84. Available via:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Six-Steps-to-
Better-Vocabulary-Instruction.aspx [Accessed 4th April 2021]

McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C. and Perfetti, C.A. (1983) The Effects of Long-
Term Vocabulary Instruction on Reading Comprehension: A Replication. Journal of Reading
Behavior [online]. 15(1). pp. 3-18. DOI:10.1080/10862968309547474 [Accessed 1st April
2021]

McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., and Pople, M. (1985). Some Effects of the Nature and
Frequency of Vocabulary Instruction on the Knowledge and Use of Words. Reading
Research Quarterly [online]. 20(5). pp. 522-535. DOI: 0.2307/747940 [Accessed 5th April
2021]

Meredith, A. (1995) Terry's Learning: some limitations of Shulman's pedagogical content

knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Education [online]. 25:2 pp. 175-187. DOI:
10.1080/0305764950250205 [Accessed 21st March 2021]

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College record [online]. 108(6). pp. 1017–1054.
[Accessed 21st January 2021]

Murray, J., Czerniawski, G. and Barber, P. (2011) Teacher educators’ identities and work in
England at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century. Journal of
Education for Teaching [online]. 37:3. pp. 261-277. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2011.588014
[Accessed 21st March 2021]

Munby, H., Russell, T. and Martin, A.K. (2001) Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops.
In Richardson, V. (ed) Handbook of research on teaching (4th edition). Washington DC,
AERA.

Neumann, K., Kind, V. and Harms, U. (2019) Probing the amalgam: the relationship between
science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. International
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Journal of Science Education [online]. 41:7. pp. 847-861, DOI:

10.1080/09500693.2018.1497217 [Accessed 23rd March 2021]

Ping, C., Schellings, G. and Beijaard, D. (2018) Teacher educators' professional learning: A
literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education [online]. Volume 75. pp. 93-104.
Available via: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.003. [Accessed 18th February 2021]

Selmer, S., Bernstein, M. and Bolyard, J. (2016) Multilayered knowledge: understanding the
structure and enactment of teacher educators’ specialized knowledge base. Teacher
Development [online]. 20:4. pp. 437-457. DOI: 10.1080/13664530.2016.1173578 [Accessed
18th February 2021]

Settlage, J. (2013). On Acknowledging PCK's Shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher

Education [online]. 24(1). pp. 1-12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43670554 [Accessed March
28th 2021]

Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher [online]. 15(2). pp. 4-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860?seq=1 [Accessed
26th January 2021]

Shulman, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching. Harvard educational review [online]. 57(1).
pp. 1–22. Available via:
https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Accessed 24th
March 2021]

Shulman, L.S. (2000) Teacher Development: Roles of Domain Expertise and Pedagogical
Knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology [online]. 21(1). pp. 129-135.
Available via: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00057-X [Accessed 21st March 2021]

Sullivan, A., Moulton, V., Fitzsimons, E. (2017) The Intergenerational Transmission of

Vocabulary: working paper [online]. Centre for Longitudinal Studies. London: University
College London. Available via: https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/working_papers/page/2/ [Accessed 21st
March 2021]

Tessmer, M. and Richey, R. (1997). The Role of Context in Learning and Instructional
Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115. Retrieved April
10, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221388
 Critical Perspectives on Teaching and Learning CPAS0076

Timperley, H. and International Academy of Education (2008). Teacher professional learning

and development [online] Geneva: International Bureau of Education. Available via:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educational_Practices/
EdPractices_18.pdf [Accessed 6th April 2021]

Turner, J. C. and Meyer, D. K. (2000) Studying and Understanding the Instructional Contexts

of Classrooms: Using our Past to Forge our Future. Educational Psychologist [online]. 35:2.
pp. 69-85, DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3502_2 [Accessed 2nd February 2021]

Voogt, J., Fisser, R., Pareja Robin, N., Tondeur, J and van Brakk, J. (2013) Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning [online]. 29(2), pp.109–121. Available via:
https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x [Accessed 25th January
2021]

Watkins, C., Carnell, E., and Lodge, C. (2007). Effective learning in classrooms [online].
London: Paul Chapman. Available via:
https://www.vlebooks.com/Vleweb/Product/Index/47793?page=0 [Accessed 10th April 2021]