Advertisement

Vignettes Illustrating Practitioners’ and Researchers’ Applications of the Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

  • Janet CarlsonEmail author
  • Rebecca Cooper
  • Kirsten R. Daehler
  • Patricia J. Friedrichsen
  • Joan I. Heller
  • Sophie Kirschner
  • Nicole Lusiani Elliott
  • Karen Marangio
  • Nicole Wong
Chapter

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to provide examples of how the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in science teacher education research moves from an abstract visualisation to a tool used by researchers and educators alike. The chapter offers a collection of short vignettes from a variety of settings and perspectives, each of which brings the RCM to life, either by illustrating ways the model is being used in science teacher education or by situating studies and PCK instruments within the layers of the model. The first and second vignettes provide a pre-service perspective, yet from distinctly different learning contexts and science teacher educator experiences in Australia and the USA. The third vignette shares insights into the use of the RCM during a teacher professional learning course presented to teachers in Russia, while the fourth and fifth vignettes offer a researcher lens with examples from large-scale science PCK studies conducted in Germany and the USA. Each vignette follows a similar structure and includes these three parts:
  • Context: A description of the setting (e.g., pre-service, professional learning, research), participants, and goals of the research or the teacher education programme

  • Connections to the model: A description of how the RCM informed(s) the work or the application

  • Reflections: A discussion of the implications of the model for the work and/or how the model was received and/or how it may shape future work.

As with any model, the true test of its power lies in its utility. Only by employing the RCM in a host of settings—to situate research questions, plan and conduct studies, develop explanations about findings, design education programmes, explore the mechanisms of PCK development, and reflect on teaching and learning—will we come to understand the benefits and limitations of the model. We look forward to learning from each other as we put this RCM of PCK to the test.

References

  1. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, J., Stokes, L., Helms, J., Gess-Newsome, J., & Gardner, A. (2015). The PCK summit: A process and structure for challenging current ideas, provoking future work, and considering new directions. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 14–27). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cauet, E., Liepertz, S., Borowski, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2015). Does it matter what we measure? Domain-specific professional knowledge of physics teachers. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 37(3), 463–480.Google Scholar
  4. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Keeley, P., & Eberle, F. (2005). Uncovering student ideas in science: Another 25 formative assessment probes (Vol. 3). NSTA press.Google Scholar
  6. Kirschner, S., Borowski, A., Fischer, H. E., Gess-Newsome, J., & Aufschnaiter, C. V. (2016). Developing and evaluating a paper-and-pencil test to assess components of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 1343–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kruse, S., Louis, K. S., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Corwin: Long Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. In H. Schweingruber, T. Keller & H. Quinn (Eds.). National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tepner, O., Borowski, A., Dollny, S., Fischer, H. E., Jüttner, M., Kirschner, S.…Wirth, J. (2012). Modell zur Entwicklung von Testitems zur Erfassung des Professionswissens von Lehrkräften in den Naturwissenschaften [Item development model for assessing professional knowledge of science teachers]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 18, 7–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Carlson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca Cooper
    • 2
  • Kirsten R. Daehler
    • 3
  • Patricia J. Friedrichsen
    • 4
  • Joan I. Heller
    • 5
  • Sophie Kirschner
    • 6
  • Nicole Lusiani Elliott
    • 1
  • Karen Marangio
    • 2
  • Nicole Wong
    • 5
  1. 1.Center to Support Excellence in Teaching, Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.WestEdSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  5. 5.Heller Research AssociatesOaklandUSA
  6. 6.Justus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations