Perspectives on the Future of PCK Research in Science Education and Beyond

  • Christopher D. WilsonEmail author
  • Andreas Borowski
  • Jan van Driel


This book demonstrates that PCK is studied with different intentions, different methodologies, and in different contexts. Nevertheless, the two PCK Summits of researchers in science education have made significant progress in conceptualising PCK, representing it first in a consensus model, and now refining that model in response to the successes and failures from studies that have applied the original model to current research. The Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK  for science teaching consists of a set of related components, allowing researchers to locate their work in specific components of PCK, connect their work across components, and to connect their work with broader issues and policies. Clearly, the RCM and research on PCK are closely intertwined. The intention of this chapter is to use the refined model to help outline some possible strands for future PCK research, particularly with the new PCK researcher in mind. Using the RCM as a framework, we describe possible studies on the structure of PCK, the development of PCK, the measurement of PCK, and the broader impacts of the refined model itself in science education and potentially other domains.


  1. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. New York, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BMBF (Bundesministerium für Forschung und Bildung) [Federal Ministry for Education and Research]. (2017) Rahmenprogramm empirische Bildungsforschung des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung [Framework Programme empirical educational research of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research]
  3. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Friedrichsen, P., & Berry, A. (2015). Science teacher PCK learning progressions: Promises and challenges. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 214–228). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gastaldo, B. C., Castro, P. M., Homen-de Mello, P., & Leal, S. H. (2017). Five years of PCK summit. What has endured? A descending hierarchical classification of the science PCK published papers. X Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en la Didáctica de las Ciencias, Sevilla.Google Scholar
  6. 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. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education.
  8. Kirschner, S., Taylor, J., Rollnick, M., Borowski, A., & Mavhunga, E. (2015). Gathering evidence for the validity of PCK measures: Connecting ideas to analytic approaches. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 229–241). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Klahr, D. (2010). Coming up for air: But is it oxygen or phlogiston? A response to Taber’s review of constructivist instruction: Success or failure. Education Review, 13(13), 1–6.Google Scholar
  10. Liepertz, S., & Borowski, A. (2017). Testing the consensus model: The relationship between physics teachers’ professional knowledge, interconnectedness of content structure and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education (Submitted).Google Scholar
  11. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  12. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2015). Science teachers learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Committee on Strengthening Science Education through a Teacher Learning Continuum. Board on Science Education and Teacher Advisory Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research (R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds.). Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81. Scholar
  16. Roth, K., Bintz, J., Wickler, N., Hvidsten, C., Taylor, J., Beardsley, P., … Wilson, C. D. (2017). Design principles for effective video-based professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 4–31.Google Scholar
  17. Scheiner, T. (2016). Teacher noticing: Enlightening or blinding? ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1–2), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., & Colestock, A. (2011). Accessing mathematics teachers’ in-the-moment noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 79–94). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sickel, A. J., Banilower, E., Carlson, J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2015). Examining PCK research in the context of current policy initiatives. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 199–213). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Slavin, R. E. (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. A. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 848–870). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  23. Van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., Van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479. Scholar
  25. Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher PD affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher D. Wilson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Borowski
    • 2
  • Jan van Driel
    • 3
  1. 1.Biological Sciences Curriculum StudyColorado SpringsUSA
  2. 2.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations