Vignettes Illustrating Practitioners’ and Researchers’ Applications of the Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Keeley, P., & Eberle, F. (2005). Uncovering student ideas in science: Another 25 formative assessment probes (Vol. 3). NSTA press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 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