A Grand Rubric for Measuring Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

  • Kennedy Kam Ho ChanEmail author
  • Marissa Rollnick
  • Julie Gess-Newsome


Rubrics are increasingly used to differentiate the quality of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), both qualitatively and quantitatively. Well-designed PCK rubrics can guide the judgement of PCK quality for valid assessment. This chapter considers the possibility of a “grand rubric” that allows measurement of different variants of PCK as depicted in the Refined Consensus Model (RCM). To achieve this goal, the chapter first reviews the characteristics of rubrics in current use in the science education field. It examines the critical considerations in the construction of a grand rubric through an analysis of an expert discussion group. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes a grand rubric and describes its layout and characteristics. The grand rubric is generic in nature and can be customised for use with different science content topics as well as for measurement of specific variants of PCK in the RCM, including individual science teachers’ personal or enacted PCK (pPCK and ePCK) and the collective PCK (cPCK) of a group of science teachers.


  1. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 347–386). Singapore: Springer Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davidowitz, B., & Potgieter, M. (2016). Use of the Rasch measurement model to explore the relationship between content knowledge and topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for organic chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1483–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Gardner, A. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2011). A PCK rubric to measure teachers’ knowledge of inquiry-based instruction using three data sources. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  10. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 1–20.Google Scholar
  12. Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin, H., Shin, H., Johnson, M. E., Kim, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Developing learning progression-based teacher knowledge measures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(9), 1269–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirschner, S., Taylor, J. A., Rollnick, M., Borowski, A., & Mavhunga, E. (2015). Gathering evidence for the validity of PCK measures: Connecting ideas to analytic approaches. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 229–241). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 1–7.Google Scholar
  22. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Park, S., & Suh, J. (2015). From portraying toward assessing PCK. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The Influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, S. P., & Banilower, E. R. (2015). Assessing PCK: A new application of the uncertainty principle. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kennedy Kam Ho Chan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marissa Rollnick
    • 2
  • Julie Gess-Newsome
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.University of WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.Oregon State University-CascadesBendUSA

Personalised recommendations